Dear Editor,
Re The Learning Review commissioned by The Crowded House (en December).
Requesting and publishing the Learning Review has no doubt been painful for those involved yet a process of healing clearly seems in progress. The criteria of its success cannot be that it satisfies everyone, but that the needs of survivors are met and future abuse minimised. Whatever the faults in the past, credit to The Crowded House for commissioning and publishing the review in full in a timely manner. Publishing the Learning Review is of great value to all churches, exposing dangers and giving food for thought for all of us.
Nonetheless, there is another point I want to make, which concerns the implicit danger of relying on outside bodies. The unrecognised dangers, perhaps uniquely for churches, in the process of external review, need further thought, not least – the danger of final authority over the church in matters that are NOT illegal/ criminal being seen to be vested in trustees or external agencies, even in safeguarding officers, rather than in elders, whom Biblically are deemed to be the overseers.
The following paragraph in the report concerned me:
‘Checks and balances need to be in place to minimise such a misuse of power and the potential for abuse. Part of the role of trustees is to implement good governance practices, and in particular that those who have executive or operational power are held to account. Some trustees of churches conclude that the same individual should not be both chair of trustees and senior minister or overall spiritual leader. The risk of combining these roles is that independent oversight by the trustees is compromised such that there are minimal effective checks on executive power.’ (my italics)
This is but one example of some of the dangers in current spiritual abuse discussions and is also explicit in the definition of spiritual abuse cited in the report taken from the book Escaping the Maze of Spiritual Abuse that was co-authored by the CEO of thirtyone:eight which undertook the review. There is a danger of a definition that is not Biblically rigorous becoming a norm which this report is on the way to establishing. I am not doubting the goodness of any motives, but there is a danger here.
There also surely must be a question mark placed over the burden of recommendations suggested that are required upon a church. My heart sank when I began looking them all up on the Charity Commission website. Firstly, is this realistic for small churches? (Should a turn-around church, say of 12 members including children, therefore be deemed not viable?). Secondly, can anyone realistically see Jesus doing all this paperwork that is required? If not, then doesn’t this suggest, something is not quite right?
Yours sincerely, The Revd Steven Hanna Exeter
