It often seems that people and organisations are letting us down every day. Sometimes that’s true; sometimes the problem is we have misunderstood something, and it is us who needs to accept responsibility; so many times it is complex And when things do go wrong we all struggle to understand how to restore trust.
And sometimes the institution failing us is the church. Or again, it seems so.
I have been a member of the Church of England General Synod, in other words its national governance body, for eleven years now, and so much of that time has been marked by massive loss of trust. Its been particularly evident in the way allegations of sexual abuse have been handled in the church. It has grown around the divisions over sexuality as the Living in Love and Faith (LLF) programme has developed. And it also shows itself when we talk about money and our structures.
I wrote a few days back of the way we deal with division in society, of how as a church we have been dealing with the issues surfacing in the LLF debates, and how I hope we can change. I said I planned to return to the issue of broken trust and how it might be restored. As I now stand to be re-elected to another five years on General Synod I am hopeful that we will make substantial ground in both these areas.
Two summers back synod debated a preliminary report on Trust and Trustworthiness in the the Church of England. The project was led Bishop Martin Seeley, and emerged when, in considering how we might work more effectively, he identified that a lot of the challenge revolved around broken trust. Two key strands have marked the resulting work; it is profoundly grounded in Biblical Theology through the work of Professor David Ford, and in a deep knowledge of organisational structure brought by Professor Veronica Hope Hailey.
I was deeply impressed by the work in that its approach intersected very much with my own work as a civic and community mediator; so much conflict emerges out of broken trust. And after speaking in the debate I was asked to take part in two in-depth interviews, and later organised for Veronica to participate in work with a large group of senior lay leaders, our diocesan lay chairs. The project submitted its final report, Renewing Trust - Addressing the Challenges of Trustworthiness in the Church of England to synod this last summer. The presentation of the report that preceeded the debate features the three key participants and summarises the work very well. (Begins around 2 hours 21 minutes for around 40 minutes).
First, Veronica’s part of the report identifies what trust looks like in both interpersonal relationships and in an organisation. You cannot miss the fact that she considers the structures of the CofE to be deeply problematical; “this place is odd” and use of the word weird were to be found in her descriptions. Frankly I agree, and while one can make it work there must be something simpler! A breakdown of trust makes it impossible. She also identifies a number of key problems. David Ford speaks profound truths to practical issues, first in looking at deeply theological and very real understanding of trust, and then in how trust can be restored.
I use David’s words in the report to sum up some of the problems: “blame culture, conflict in General Synod, use of social media, the weaponisation of trust, lack of accountability, lack of transparency, and retreat into tribal identities.”
I won’t try to sum these up here; the comments from those interviewed need to be heard directly. However I want to use one quote from the report that links aspects Veronica has observed together:
“With an inability to clearly discern where accountability lies, a blame culture has flourished. Few interviewed seem to think they, or their tribe, or their diocese or their parish, were personally doing anything wrong at all. The consequence is that many failed to explain to me how everyone’s own structures, systems, practices or positions, or behaviours, including their own, might need to change. People have a great sense of their own and their tribe’s “rights” but a less well-developed sense of their “obligations” to the greater whole. In the interviews it was always someone else’s fault …
… As one archdeacon summed it up “arrows fly in all directions.” It’s also symptomatic of a “learned helplessness” – if one personally can’t influence the change necessary from one’s position in the hierarchy (whether vicar, diocesan secretary, bishop or lay chair or anyone), then blaming someone else and disassociating from the bigger institution can become a form of protection.Few believe that some members of the most recent Synod have been serving the church well through their bad behaviours. Media reporting on Synod means that poor behaviour by some of its members has only further fuelled the public’s sense of an institution that cannot be trusted.” (report, p 23)
This is all so true and I suggest we must heed this and other observations here. Please consider the investment of time to read the report for more understanding on how we have got here. And perhaps as important as the analysis of what is wrong is David Ford’s work, especially his consideration of “Trust and Trustworthiness, Virtues and Practices.” (beginning p53 of report). I find his piece on “Communal Discernment and Decision Making as practices of Trust” to be deeply inspiring. eg:
“Rebuilding trust therefore requires renewed attention to how communal discernment is practised across the Church’s life, particularly in its most visible decision-making bodies. This includes, but goes beyond, questions of process and standing orders. It entails fostering habits of listening that resist polarisation; clarifying which questions are genuinely open to discernment and which are matters of settled responsibility; creating conditions of psychological safety that enable honest speech without fear of retribution; and strengthening shared theological frameworks that can hold difference without collapsing into either coercion or paralysis. Such practices do not remove conflict, but theycan render disagreement more trustworthy and less divisive.
Seen in this light, communal discernment is neither a technical skill nor a purely spiritual instinct. It is a discipline that must be learned, rehearsed, and sustained within the Church’s common life. Where discernment is practised well, decision-making can become an expression of trust: trust in God’s action beyond human control, trust in one another’s integrity even in disagreement, and trust in shared structures capable of bearing weight over time. Attending seriously to the practice of communal discernment is therefore not an optional refinement, but a necessary condition for restoring the Church’s capacity to decide, to act, and to be trusted.” (Report p58)
(My wife in a quick edit of this reminded me of a recent conversation with a church elder whose church had used a model of shared discernment. I may return to this.)
In conclusion of his report Professor Ford challenges the Church of England (Report p 59)
“In the final chapter of the Gospel of John, that broken trust is healed by Jesus (21:15-19). Peter is given a fresh start. At its heart is utterly mutual trust and love. Jesus has already laid down his life in love. Now he asks Peter three times, ‘Do you love me?’ and three times Peter says Yes. But that is not all. The healing of their relationship is accompanied by Jesus entrusting Peter with his responsibility within the Church: ‘“Feed my lambs” … “Tend my sheep”…. “Feed my sheep.”’
Let us trust that Jesus today will do no less for us in our Church and for all those who turn to him—even that he will ‘accomplish abundantly far more than all we can ask or imagine’. (Ephesians 3:20)”
This provides a deeply challenging counterpoint to Professor Hope Hailey’s words at the end of her section:
“Often inertia is a major barrier to change but no one I interviewed thinks the status quo is sustainable. Whether they can find internal agreement on a way forward sufficient to restore public trust I do not know.”
I make no apology for not attempting a summary, but rather identifying what for me were key hinge points in their work. Further I hope it prompts a wider reading of the whole piece. For now I suggest its identification of blame casting and tribalism provide a useful lens through which to read those who hold a particular agenda to the fore in order to guide our voting. If you have a vote, please consider these things.
For myself the report provides me with a huge challenge to carry with me as I seek to serve on the next synod. My hope is that early on in the new synod the whole synod can gather together around some of the challenges Professors Ford and Hope Hailey have set for us, and find new ways of working and of restoring trust.
The big question must surely be on how we clear away enough of the mess that makes working together so difficult and thus enable enough meaningful and rewarding work in the short term that we have confidence to invest in the continued journey. It is often important to have a key reset moment. In my work in peacebuilding I often call this ‘a place of grace.’ It’s a place that enables people to be honest about the past, about how it has hurt them, and share about the ongoing pain and trauma they carry. This is not the place for dealing with issues of contravention of laws; that is for the judicial system. The ‘place’ we set up, and far more than that, the prayer and compassion exercised there, becomes a place where the grace of God can be easily experienced. Some might call that a thin place. It enables people to say things they could not previously say, and to hear things they would have previously argued again. It can often enable apology and forgiveness, though these are never forced and often not reciprocal. It is a place where a journey of reconciliation can begin, and a new way of working can result.
I passionately believe we need that place of grace in our midst if as The Church of England we are to offer that same grace and hope to our nation.