Dear Derby Bible Week committee member, 1. So that you have more detailed information, I realise that it might be helpful to say more about the telephone conversations and communication that I had with Dick Farr and other members of the Church Society Council and Patronage Trust as they all colluded to protect Rod Thomas (the Bishop of Maidstone who gives oversight to Stapenhill) from the consequences of his abusive behaviour and dishonesty. What I have written here forms part (but by no means all) of the abusive behaviour towards us by this group of men. It is not comprehensive. It is very difficult to write about and re-live these experiences, so I hope that you will read it very carefully and react to what I have written in a godly way.
Context 2. You will be aware of some of the context of our situation from what my husband has already sent you. A group within our parish orchestrated a campaign of harassment and bullying against us in order to drive my husband out from his post. They also mistreated others who tried to speak up for us. The abuse went on for well over a year. The sort of behaviour towards us is well documented as bullying and harassment by organisations such as ACAS, the Church of England, and bullying and abuse organisations. The behaviour involved the ongoing spreading of untrue rumours, i.e. slander; false accusations that were shown to be untrue; ongoing attempts to ostracise and isolate us; shouting at us, shouting us down and ganging up on us at a number of meetings; harassment and assault of our children and open (untruthful) criticism of us in front of our and other children; mistreatment or isolation of others supportive of us so that some left church because of this group; deliberate attempts to scupper and boycott gospel work and then blame us; a petition letter sent to the diocese signed by people who had never even met my husband or been to church here; abusive letters and emails to us; open hostility and nastiness; questions and suggestions to us as to when we were going to leave, but without any reason why; the admission that those involved were trying to get rid of us; misuse of the Clergy Discipline Measure with false accusations, although this complaint was finally dismissed by the Diocese.
Diocesan involvement 3. The Archdeacon of Derby became involved with our situation in March 2017. He dismissed our concerns about bullying and tried to censure me for speaking up about it. Although he said to us that church officers had acted wrongly, we later found that he did not convey this to them and instead was supportive of them. The Archdeacon has often made unkind remarks to and about my husband and me in the past. E.g. He has said that he is waiting for conservative evangelical churches to die out. As Neil said to us in March 2019, “Well the Archdeacon won’t help you.� E.g. the Archdeacon was unsupportive when 1
someone who came to a Carols by Candlelight in 2016 complained about my husband speaking on the uniqueness of Christ and the Archdeacon said that for my husband to preach on this was ‘pastoral ineptitude’ in front of others. He also said that it might be unhelpful to the interfaith conversations going on between the cathedral and Muslims. 4. With regard to our situation, the Archdeacon said that he would meet with our PCC once in 2017 while we were away on holiday and express his support for my husband. In fact, he met twice with the PCC and invited Rod Thomas to the second meeting, although this is not allowed under Church of England rules. We found out from PCC members that the Archdeacon had not expressed support for my husband, but had told the PCC that the diocese had received letters of complaint (he did not raise this with my husband) and asked the PCC about my husband’s management style. We later realised that he was seeking to undermine my husband. It gradually became clear that the Archdeacon was regularly in contact with one of the parishioners who was engaged in bullying us. After the CDM had been dismissed, the Archdeacon admitted to us that the CDM had only been followed through in order to ‘channel’ the behaviour towards us from this group in the parish, and that this had been his advice. We also found, from requesting files from the Diocese, that he had been making disparaging and dismissive remarks about us in emails within the Diocese. The former Bishop of Derby was well aware of our situation and the way in which we were being treated, but he did not act to tackle the bullying and nor did he help. He followed the CDM through, even though our lawyer (registrar of a neighbouring diocese) said that he could not see the substance of the complaint. Instead of the situation being sorted out, we were advised to move to another post: this is another common way for organisations to be complicit in bullying and it is common in the Church of England. We have since discovered many cases like ours and many misuses of the CDM process. It is common for clergy to be ‘thrown under a bus’ and ‘moved on’. 5. The Diocese has a pastoral responsibility towards clergy and their family, and especially so during the CDM process. It is all laid down in a Code of Practice. The Diocese did not follow the Code and did not fulfil its clearly laid out pastoral obligations. Some of this responsibility was delegated to Rod Thomas, but he did not fulfil this either. He did at one point encourage my husband to meet up with Bob Marsden, who had already been misinformed [see later]. Pastoral neglect is a serious matter according to the head of the Church of England legal department, although there is no actual penalty for bishops. Throughout, there has been serious pastoral neglect towards us. Supposed later attempts of pastoral care have been extremely clumsy and harmful and pastoral care and confidentiality have been abused [see later].
Involvement of Rod Thomas 6. Rod Thomas became involved in the situation whilst we were away on leave in May/June 2017. He came to a PCC meeting whilst we were away on holiday 2
without invitation and breaking Church of England rules. When he came up, he stayed with Jonathan Fletcher’s sister, even though he had never met her before. We raised with him the fact that we were being bullied at the beginning of his involvement with the situation, but he continually ignored this. We were at no point shown any of the letters/complaints about us that he had received, although he did read excerpts to us on occasion. At no point did he or anyone from Derby Diocese tell us what we had supposedly done wrong, although Rod tried to insinuate that we had behaved wrongly. Following his involvement, the bullying and harassment towards us became worse. Rod undertook an inappropriate process with the parish and us, although we did not understand what was going on. He tried to misrepresent the situation as conflict and difficult relationships. At one point, my husband detailed to Rod the abusive behaviour towards us from the group in the parish. Rod made it clear that he did not want to consider this and said that he would need to take legal advice in order to look into the bullying. We were later told by an ecclesiastical lawyer that this is completely untrue. Rod was untruthful with us about his dealings with the group who were bullying us and about what he had said and done. For example, he told us that he had raised issues with the group engaged in bullying and addressed the situation, but we later found that he had not done this; he acknowledged that there were serious issues with one of our Readers and that she could be asked to stand down, but he later denied this. He wrote a report to suggest that the difficulties were all about relationships and threatened us when we objected to it. We found that he was misrepresenting the situation in Anglican conservative evangelical circles – see below. It was difficult to trust him, his actions did not make sense, and I would not trust him again. The ecclesiastical lawyer said that Rod had not dealt with the situation appropriately. It is also clear from files requested from Derby Diocese that there was a high degree of collaboration between the Archdeacon of Derby, the former Bishop of Derby and Rod Thomas. We found that both were complicit in the abuse towards us. With regard to the CDM, Rod came to visit us to tell my husband how to deal with the CDM complaint before we even received it. He told my husband that he could get a penalty, but we were unclear as to what my husband had done wrong, i.e. nothing. At the time we thought that Rod was trying to help us. Looking back, I do not believe that to be the case. 7. We also found out much later, following request of diocesan files, that when our children were harassed, Rod Thomas directed the diocese to think that we had involved our children in the situation and to make a false accusation against us. This has taken over a year to successfully challenge and have removed, and has meant that my husband has been unable to find a post. It also means that we have both been libelled in other dioceses. The Diocese of Derby have finally apologised. Despite what is clearly written in the file, Rod claims a faulty memory of events, as he does with much over the past few years. As Neil said to us in March this year, “Rod is always trying to enlarge his constituency”, i.e. he will not risk falling out with the power group in a church as they determine whether or not he has oversight here.
3
8. We realised that we needed to address the abusive behaviour towards us by Rod Thomas. Although it was traumatic for us, we had already spent considerable time trying to raise this with Rod himself, as Matt 18:15-20 commands. He had tried to avoid and delay meeting with us and would not acknowledge any wrongdoing when we did meet with him, aside from acknowledging that he was very late to offer the (non-existent) pastoral care which the former Bishop of Derby asked him to undertake when my husband faced a CDM, and that he might tackle things differently in the future. We realised that we would need to involve others. We asked for help from Simon Austen, a member of Rod’s Advisory Committee - he was sympathetic, but did not wish to get involved. As we then realised, Simon was busy being involved with the Titus Trust, who are facing legal claims from the victims of John Smyth. Church Society leaders and Dick Farr 9. We realised that we would need to find others to help and still thought that it would be best to try to do this within our own constituency within the Church of England. In practice, this meant raising it among members of the Church Society Council of which Rod Thomas is President. It was not clear from the Church Society website whom I could approach and nor was it easy at the time to find a person to speak with on the Council. Council members themselves did not seem clear at first. I had communication with Jason Ward (a Council member), who advised speaking with Paul Darlington or Dick Farr as members of the Church Society Trust. (Jason also let me know that our situation was being misrepresented among Derby ReNew clergy and suggested that I ring Bob Marsden about this.) I rang Paul Darlington. When I had explained what had happened with Rod Thomas, Paul quoted Philippians 2 at me and misapplied it to say that I should go away and suffer in silence. I explained to him that the outworking of what he was suggesting would mean that abuse would be swept under the carpet in the church and that leaders were then unaccountable. It is also worth noticing that in order to misapply Philippians 2, it would require Paul to disregard Philippians 2:3-4 in terms of his treatment of me. Safeguarding organisations such as 31:8 note that use of Scripture to silence victims is very common in church abuse. Paul eventually and reluctantly agreed that he would speak with Rod. Having agreed to speak with me, he then impressed upon me that his mum had had to eat tea on her own whilst he was speaking with me. Clearly, he did not consider abuse towards us to be an important enough issue for him to have to deal with. I also had communication with William Taylor by email who advised speaking with Dick Farr as the best and wisest person. 10. I tried to speak with Mark Burkill, but he did not want to take any responsibility. He suggested writing a letter to him so that he could mention at a Council meeting that our complaint had not been dealt with. He did however let me know - inadvertently - that Rod Thomas had misrepresented our situation to the Church Society Council and suggested that it was conflict or something akin to pastoral breakdown. It is worth noting that ‘conflict’ does not cause the kind of illness that we experienced, complete with PTSD symptoms, whereas 4
abuse does cause this kind of illness. The professionals we have dealt with have been very clear on that. 11. I wrote to Dick Farr, William Taylor, Mark Burkill, Jason Ward, Lee Gatiss and Paul Darlington to try to explain what had happened to us, the abuse that had occurred and Rod Thomas’s role in it. I think that my husband has forwarded a copy of this letter to you. At no point did Lee Gatiss reply, although I later found that he is one of the safeguarding contacts for Church Society. When I did speak to Lee several months later, he agreed to speak with me and said that he had received my emails, but he was unhelpful and twisted my words and became threatening and aggressive. He then chided me for delaying his evening meal. When I tried to expose some of what had happened to us on social media, Lee started asking on social media if anyone knew a good libel lawyer. I would point out that we are telling the truth. 12. There were two telephone conversations where Dick treated me abusively. My husband heard a good deal of the first and all of the second conversation and was very shocked by the way Dick spoke. Throughout, Dick was hostile and aggressive. He repeatedly accused me of things that I had not said or done, he ridiculed me, he twisted my words, he raised his voice and he repeatedly cut me off. He said that he wanted to speak with my husband and not me on the grounds that he is a complementarian. I explained that I was as well. It became clear that this was just a misuse of theology to attempt to silence me and was in fact misogyny. I would point out that Jesus was quite willing to speak with women and to treat them with dignity. I had always understood that male headship was not about ruling over others, shouting them down or bullying them. I had thought that male headship was about sacrificial servant leadership which treated others with kindness and dignity. Dick then minimised and denied the abuse that we had already suffered at the hands of the group in church, even though he had not been a witness to any of it. Dick asked what we had done wrong to merit the abuse that we had suffered - this question is in of itself a form of abuse and is a common tactic of abusers in order to shift blame to the victim, and it causes further trauma to those who have suffered abuse. It is well documented by safeguarding organisations and we have experienced it a number of times. I asked Dick if he would put that question to someone who was a victim of domestic abuse. Again, he ridiculed me and said that the way we had been treated was nothing like that serious. I explained to Dick that in fact those who understand, research and treat the kind of mobbing/bullying abuse that we had suffered (doctors, counsellors, neurologists) have found that it is on a par with domestic abuse in terms of its seriousness and the consequences on victims e.g. PTSD symptoms, gastrointestinal issues, heart problems, depression, anxiety and sometimes suicide. There is corroborating evidence of this from the Society of Mary and Martha (Sheldon) where other clergy have also experienced the kinds of symptoms I have already mentioned. The conversations with Dick caused further trauma for us. The second conversation was almost as bad. Dick had just sent me another dismissive email which did not answer any of the urgent questions we had. I picked up the telephone to call him. He answered and 5
said that he could not and would not speak with me and that he had other things to do. Again, he was abusive, rude and unkind. He ridiculed and belittled me for suggesting that it might be better to involve someone to help from outside of the Church of England. He slammed the telephone down. 13. As you will be aware, we were raising issues of abuse, but Dick Farr, William Taylor, Paul Darlington, Lee Gatiss and Mark Burkill all thought it would be appropriate to meet with Rod Thomas and with him decide what to do. Of course, they tried to hide this from us, because they realised that it was wrong. Only when pressed in writing did they acknowledge it. I wonder if some of them met with Jonathan Fletcher in order to decide what to do about his abusive behaviour. It is not normal to meet with an abuser and follow his/her advice. From speaking with him on the telephone, Jason Ward was aware of this meeting and who was present, although he did not personally attend the meeting. When I asked him who was there, he said, “Oh you know, William, and…” 14. William Taylor telephoned us at one point before the second conversation with Dick. Outwardly he appeared sympathetic, but in the middle of the conversation threatened that the group might just not help us at all. I asked what that would say about them as Christians and he said that of course they would deal with the situation. He also let slip that Jonathan had been talking to him about our situation whilst Jonathan was staying with William and family on holiday. William suggested a number of Anglican ministers who were ‘independent’ and could help with the situation. Unfortunately, all of them are those who would be under William’s control and those from their own tight circles. When we suggested finding someone who was not an Anglican, he was less pleased with this idea. His main concern was to check whether we were planning to take any formal/legal action against Rod Thomas for his abuse and dishonesty. He also suggested that Rod should drop in on us. When Rod did drop in, he intimated that we had wrongly involved our children in the situation, but we did not understand him at this point. We later found from requesting files from the diocese that Rod had made this false accusation against us to the diocese. Rod also misapplied Scripture to say that although we had not behaved sinfully, we had been unwise, because we had not followed his advice. But his advice had been to have in positions of leadership those in church who had been bullying us - lying, spreading false rumours, nastiness to us etc. We had already been made ill by them. It struck us that what Rod Thomas was advising was worldly but not biblical wisdom and that he was misusing the Bible. 15. Jonathan Fletcher also recommended that at St. Peter’s Stapenhill we should put/keep in positions of teaching and leadership those who were engaged in abusive behaviour towards us. He recommended this to us and also to his sister. Jonathan Fletcher had bullied me on the telephone before we went on pastoral leave. He accused me of doing and saying things that I had not done or said. I realised that he had been misinformed by his sister, Rod and perhaps others. Even Rod had acknowledged to us that Jonathan’s sister was engaged 6
in spreading rumours. When I tried to explain the truth to Jonathan, he refused to listen, cut me off repeatedly and instead said that I was not listening to him. I have done plenty of listening to Jonathan Fletcher. He also told me that what was going on at St. Peter’s was very bad for evangelical witness and suggested that it was our fault. I felt very distressed by this, but I could not see (and he could not tell me) what we had done wrong. Like Rod Thomas, Jonathan even said to me that we should apologise to those who were being abusive towards us, but like Rod he could not tell me what we had done wrong or what it was that we needed to apologise for. I have to say that this approach caused much greater trauma for us. Jonathan impressed upon me that Rod Thomas was independent in his dealings with our situation, yet we later found from another clergyman that Rod Thomas was a member of Jonathan’s preaching group and that they had been misrepresenting our situation in that group. Jonathan also told us in a letter that he had been talking with the (former) Bishop of Derby about our situation (I think they are members of the same dining club) and that the Bishop of Derby was grieved. Why either thought it appropriate to be discussing us in this way I do not know. 16. We also had a visit from Pete Wilkinson (Jonathan’s nephew and Nim’s son) who said that he wanted to support and help, but then minimised the abuse towards us, got angry and accused us of having the wrong attitude. He also suggested that we should apologise, but again was unable to explain what for. It is in itself abusive to suggest to victims that they should apologise to their abusers and it causes further harm. In answer to his questions we explained to Pete that his mother had not been telling the truth and he immediately shut this down and changed the subject. He was insisting that his mother was supportive of us. We explained that she had signed a petition/letter (also signed by people who had never met my husband) with untrue accusations against us. Again, Pete shut this down and changed the subject. 17. When I spoke with Bob Marsden, he also revealed that Jonathan Fletcher’s sister had been slandering us when he had had a meal with her. Bob had himself been misinformed by her and Rod. Bob got cross and told me that we needed to ‘move on’ (a common but callous response to those who have suffered abuse) and that he had also said this to the other Derby ReNew members. I fear for those who have suffered abuse in the congregations of some of our evangelical ministers. 18. It is incredible that members of our constituency have tried to convince us of and impose upon us a narrative of events that is patently untrue. This in itself is abusive. 19. Neil suggested in his letter to us (already forwarded to you) that we take our issues back to Church Society Council or that we make use of the Clergy Discipline Measure against Rod. We have already taken our issues to Church Society Council and its members have shown themselves unwilling to be concerned about abuse, unwilling to respond appropriately and unwilling to be accountable. I was alarmed that a vicar would suggest that we return to 7
those who had repeatedly been abusive to us. Use of the CDM against Rod Thomas would be a pointless exercise given that no bishop has yet been penalised through it. The CDM was misused against us and that experience was very traumatic. 20. There has not been a lack of transparency or proper process on our part. We were trying to engage with Dick and the others as the Bible commands. As I explained above, In the final conversation, Dick refused to address the issues and slammed down the phone on me. After this, we realised that it was not possible to engage further with Dick or the others. We realised that we would have to involve others from elsewhere but we could not think who and the whole episode had taken its toll on us. Dick and William Taylor had made it clear that they did not want to involve Christians from outside of the C of E. 21. Dick Farr and the others did not give any pastoral support or care. They kept talking about giving pastoral support, but did not actually do it. In one of his emails, Dick suggested David Banting as someone who could give pastoral care. I did ask how that could work, given that David Banting works for Rod Thomas and is not independent! David Banting came to see us. He talked for the whole hour and was tactless, but did not listen and then raised a lot of issues that were painful for us in quick succession at the end. He treated us with contempt and talked down to us. I wanted to say something, but he said there was not time. He then took another 10 minutes to share a verse and pray at us, without even asking if that would be helpful. I have observed that many ministers are unable to empathise. Some months later, David Banting got in touch with a couple who were at the time meeting with us to be a caring (but not lecturing) presence. David gave this couple an untrue and unjust version of events concerning us, even though we had already explained to him what had happened. He asked the couple to influence us towards a certain course of action. He also told them that the diocese would be taking formal action to get rid of us within a few months. [Just in case you don’t realise this, this is a HUGE no-no in terms of pastoral care and confidentiality.]. Thankfully the wife, a GP who understands the importance of confidentiality, was alarmed by David’s actions and made sure that we were informed. David then spoke with one of the current church wardens at St. Peter’s Stapenhill (the same woman who assaulted our children), and told her that the diocese would act to get rid of us within a few months. Obviously, we regard this as harassment. Rod Thomas is well aware of David Banting’s actions as we have raised it with him, but he has not dealt with the situation or shown that he can see that there is a problem with David acting in this way. 22. I am sure that you will find this a long email, but I make no apology for it because I need to document at least some of what has taken place. I also feel that as committee members you need to understand the issues. It is draining and traumatic to have to write it and to explain it to those who have not so far shown that they know how to respond to those who have suffered abuse. If you don’t understand why this kind of group/institutional bullying towards us is abuse, I would suggest that you read a book called Overcoming Mobbing by Len Sperry 8
and Maureen Duffy. It is not a Christian book, but it is written by two professionals who have researched extensively this kind of abuse and who for many years have counselled those whose lives have been ruined by it. 23. I would also recommend that you listen to some talks by Diane Langberg. She understands trauma and abuse in the church context. She is coming over from the US to do a conference at All Souls Langham Place in 2020 - Church as Refuge. This is not an Anglican conference and is independent of Church Society, but it is being promoted by CS. I wrote to Diane Langberg about some research and explained our situation. She said that she was disturbed by the abuse we had suffered and that it would harm us to engage in any kind of process (e.g. mediation, conflict resolution etc.) that treated what had happened as less than abuse - she said that it would do us further harm. 24. I do hope that, following your deliberations, you will not add insult to injury. Although we are immensely grateful to the four leaders who, following your request have written to you to witness to the issues with the conservative evangelical leadership culture, we dread words like ‘support’ or ‘care’ in our circles because I have seen what many ministers think it means and it has done us further harm, because they have no understanding of trauma or abuse, and in our case, supposed pastoral care has been misused by those in leadership to manipulate and bully us even more. Some lack humility and selfawareness. It is clear that these people do not understand what we have been through. We do not want to be forced or pushed into reconciliation with Dick by DBW or anyone. It is not actually about apologies, it is about things being put right. We don’t want a half-baked apology from Dick (“I’m sorry that you feel hurt”, “I’m sorry if you thought I…" etc) with no action. The Bible talks in terms of repentance (which means taking responsibility and acting to put things right) rather than just vague apologies. Repentance from Dick would mean some things would have to be sorted openly/publicly in order to correct what has happened. If Dick is sorry he would surely need to take time out from various ministries to seek help to consider his best steps and how best to view his behaviour. He would need to distance himself from the others in a big way. He would need to make his position clear with St. Peter’s Stapenhill and the other ReNew clergy. He would need to be willing to stand up to Rod Thomas and to sort out the issues. 25. I think the idea of one of the four who wrote to you to have a meeting/forum where Dick is present and there is openness is a good one. Although it would likely be traumatic and stressful for us after everything we have been through, it sounds like the right way forward. However, we would want there to be other witnesses present, such as the four who have already witnessed to the toxic conservative evangelical culture. We do not wish to be ganged up on yet again. I would also like someone who clearly understands mobbing abuse and trauma to be present.
Yours in Christ, Kate 9
10