THE General Synod voted on Sunday afternoon in favour of a non-public members’ motion on sanctioning lay officers for bullying (News, 9 February). It was brought by the Archdeacon of Blackburn, the Ven. Mark Ireland (Blackburn), and asks the Synod to recognise “the intense pastoral problems and unfairness that arise while clergy could be subject to penalties for bullying that include prohibition and removal from office but there is no such thing as a technique of disqualifying a churchwarden, PCC member, or other lay officer who’s guilty of bullying from holding office.”
Introducing his motion, Archdeacon Ireland said that clergy were subject to penalties for bullying, but there was no equivalent power to remove from office a churchwarden or other lay officer. Those who experienced bullying were at all times made to think that it was their fault, he said. “A wolf can at all times find in a lamb’s discourse a reason to eat it.” Bullying in a church context was a sin, he said.
The Archdeacon had been “inundated” by stories from victims of bullying since he first raised the difficulty, he said. A recurring theme was when a bully harming other members of the congregation was confronted by a priest, just for the bully to show their fire upon the cleric. Archdeacon Ireland quoted one victim of bullying who had told him that their experience had ruined their life and squashed their faith. “Without a implausible GP, I might not be a vicar today,” the victim had concluded.
Priests were highly visible figures of their communities, and paid an enormous toll in having to fulfill their bullies at every service. Bullying could also affect the remainder of the PCC or a wider benefice, Archdeacon Ireland said. The Synod had been “ducking” the difficulty for years, he suggested, but this was not ok. Codes of conduct were helpful, but they needed the teeth of penalties, he continued. This motion was about levelling the playing field: when clergy bullyed lay people, there was the Clergy Discipline Measure (CDM); but when lay officers bullied, there was nothing to be done. “This situation is unjust, and it should be remedied.”
Some had suggested waiting until the brand new Clergy Conduct Measure was in place before creating an equivalent system for lay officers, but this, Archdeacon Ireland said, amounted to “kicking it into the long grass”. Others feared that a Lay Conduct Measure would delay applicants to already hard-to-fill PCC or churchwarden positions, but this was backwards, he said. More “good people” would come forward in the event that they were confident bullying lay officers were being rooted out.
Angus Goudie (Durham) said that bullying could destroy lives. As a GP, he had seen many whose careers had been seriously harmed by it, too. He had seen head teachers forced off work for greater than a 12 months due to bullying by one other member of staff. He welcomed the motion, but said that it should go even further, as bullying also happened amongst lay individuals who held no office in a church.
Rosemary Wilson (Southwark) said that her mind “boggled” to listen to stories of clergy being bullied in church. She said that she had been shocked at how few people “called out” this bad behaviour, but questioned whether a legislative approach was essential when the biblical guidance in Matthew 8 was a greater approach. She backed the motion in spirit, but was unsure whether laws was smart.
The Revd Joshua Askwith (Chester) said that bullying was prevalent amongst his friends and colleagues. “Moulding” by churchwardens often strayed into bullying, he said. Clergy should feel protected from intimidation, abuse, and harassment in their very own churches; so effective sanctions were essential. Strong disciplinary measures were needed to send a message that bullying wouldn’t be tolerated, he said — but punitive steps alone weren’t enough; more reconciliatory conversations and honest dialogue without fear of reprisal were also needed.
Geoff Crawford/Church TimesThe Archdeacon of London, the Ven. Luke Miller (London)
Canon Lisa Battye (Manchester) was against the motion, despite having being bullied herself. Removing those that had been elected concerned her; she suggested that the clergy already had tools at their disposal to handle the sin of bullying. A code of conduct could be a greater approach, she argued, and provides the bullies a probability to “grow in grace and change into more Christian”.
The Revd Sonia Barron (Lincoln) recalled experiences of lay churchgoers who felt that they “owned the church” and so could openly undermine or intimidate the incumbent. She had clerical friends whose emotional and physical health had been affected by such behaviour. She “wholeheartedly” supported the motion.
The Archdeacon of London, the Ven. Luke Miller (London), said that he was ambivalent concerning the technique of the motion, not the tip, but that it must be carried nevertheless, in order that a discussion could begin on the perfect solution to sanction lay officers for bullying. Archdeacons could use only two tools, he said: charm or menace. Sometimes, neither worked: “Sometimes, you will have to give you the option to say ‘You need to depart the room.’” Codes of practice were a very good idea, but other tools were needed, he suggested, although perhaps ones not as complicated and legalistic as a Laity Discipline Measure.
The Revd Alice Kemp (Bristol) said that sometimes behaviour that was perceived as bullying got here from those with mental-health problems, which stopped them constructing healthy relationships with others, and that this was often a response to trauma. So, alongside processes to guard people being bullied, she suggested that training must also be offered.
The Revd Kevin Goss (St Albans) said that the motion was long overdue. But enabling the removal of bullying officers was not enough; he agreed that more training was also required in parishes.
Carol Bates (Southwark) said that PCCs were purported to cooperate with the minister; but unchallenged, inappropriate behaviour over a few years had entrenched a culture of bullying, through which priests were expected simply to do what the PCC told them to. Effective penalties for lay officers were required to discourage bullying and likewise address it after it happened, she agreed. Without these sanctions, the Church could die out, he said: who desired to worship alongside bullies?
Clive Billenness (Europe) spoke of his experience running an anti-bullying faith network. Victims described their experiences in the identical terms as rape victims did, he said. Legislation was not a blunt instrument, because the Secretary General had argued in his paper, he suggested, but helpful on this case.
Ros Clarke (Lichfield) said that there have been already pastoral routes for coping with “ongoing unrepentant pastoral sin”, reminiscent of examining consciences before holy communion. When someone continued of their sinful behaviour, the biblical and Anglican response was to exclude them from fellowship on the eucharist. That was restorative justice, she argued. “Please can we approach this issue using the means which God has provided.”
Debbie Buggs (London) echoed this argument, quoting from the rubric within the Book of Common Prayer. The diocesan bishop could excommunicate that person with the aim of bringing about “sorrow and repentance”, she said. This was the treatment for coping with bullies. “Bishops, let it not be said you might be spineless or toothless. Use the powers afforded to you.”
The motion was carried by 273-15, with 22 recorded abstentions. It read:
That this Synod, recognising:
(a) that bullying is unacceptable behaviour inside the Church of God, whether by clergy or lay people, and where it exists must be addressed; and
(b) the intense pastoral problems and unfairness that arise while clergy could be subject to penalties for bullying that include prohibition and removal from office but there is no such thing as a technique of disqualifying a churchwarden, PCC member or other lay officer who’s guilty of bullying from holding office;
(c) request the Archbishops’ Council to bring forward legislative proposals which might enable a churchwarden, PCC member or other lay officer who was found to have conducted him- or her-self in such a fashion to be disqualified from holding office.
