suggests that there is
now little tolerance and reconciliation in the Church today – and one wonders
why this might be suggested. Is this why attendances are falling?
There
has certainly been some friction during the period of the unification of the
church, to the point when open hostility has sometimes broken out.
In
1967, Donald Soper, an ardent socialist and a prominent methodist minister, was
extremely popular nationally for his promotion of pacifism and nuclear disarmament. He was
genuinely chagrined in his later years when Margaret Thatcher became Prime
Minister – for she was a more strictly moralist Methodist, much more attuned
to the austere Methodist zeal of the Victorian age. This contrast between two
senior members of the Church illustrates the potential divisions in the Church.
Donald Soper argued that the policies of Margaret Thatcher were inherently
incompatible with Christianity. He considered her something of a throwback
to a former age. He was supported by Methodists of a similar external political
persuasion. Prime Minister James Callaghan was a “socialist” Methodist. He used
to say that his kind of socialism owed as much to Methodism as to Marx.
Margaret Thatcher’s brand of Methodism came from her father, who was a lay
preacher. She, herself, preached in a Methodist Church whilst she was studying
at Oxford. Her Methodism was one of such passion that it was perhaps even
foreign to the English Establishment as a whole, never mind to the Methodist Church
of the kind that Donald Soper and his followers would wish to have. She considered the
Methodism that had grown up, particularly since 1932, to be a powerful and
marvellous evangelical faith – though she wished that it had an even more formal
theology. It was this puritan passion within Methodism which took Margaret
Thatcher into high office as much as her conservative monetarist policies.
If
such external political divisions did not seriously influence the internal
affairs of the Church, then it is probably solely due to the fact that such
differences had long been present within the Methodist Church - and the church
had never sought to discourage them. The policy of tolerance and reconciliation
had always prevailed.
However, the changes brought about by efforts to organise and consolidate the
unity of the Methodist Church have meant that tolerance and reconciliation are
not as common as they were. Strong unifying guidance has been needed – and that
has come from the centre, the Executive in Methodist Church House. This is
perhaps why there was no sign of either tolerance or reconciliation throughout
the whole of the case involving Rev Timms – as illustrated in the film
“The DIsciples of John Wesley".
One
catalyst for this change in mood may have been the Methodist Act of 1976 which
established the church. By allying itself to the State, the Methodist Church
came to enjoy certain, particularly financial and economic, privileges, as well
as furthering the unification of the Church. On the other hand it meant that
the Church owed certain responsibilities to the State. It took those
responsibilities seriously - perhaps too seriously for its own good. And
therein may lie a major problem.
The
1976 Act effectively required a single unified church, speaking with one voice.
Certainty and clarity are not qualities that were always present in the
traditional system, when polarities in opinion were held together in a dialogue
of listening and speaking in mutual respect, love and prayer. Yet the Act was an
alliance between Church and State – and Parliament requires certainty and
clarity.
Because the 1976 Act made
Conference the sole authority on doctrinal standards, the Methodist Church
decided that it needed to enter into a review of its standards and rules of
conduct. That, it was thought, is good organisation.
The central doctrine of
the Methodist Church, which was mentioned in the Act, needed clearer definition
if it was to be followed in a practical manner. The little “black book” of
Standing Orders that had been compiled was thought to be “too cumbersome” for
practical use. So a new set of Standing Orders was commissioned. They were to be
more approachable, more clear and more comprehensive – and perhaps more
importantly, they would further unify the various elements of the Church. The
organisation of this compilation was done by the Methodist Church’s Law and
Polity Committee - a body containing a large number of lawyers.
By the year 2000,
Conference had introduced a completely new process for dealing with complaints
and discipline. There were significant changes – some of which were difficult
for the average person to understand. The new Standing Orders had a legalistic
approach; reconciliation was still mentioned in the wording – but tolerance had
been forgotten.
The new work was so big
and unapproachable to the average church member that a senior member of the
church, his Honour Judge Clifford Bellamy, was asked to chair a committee and
write a guidance to the Standing Orders. Bellamy’s guide was a noble attempt to
make the new system more accessible to members of the Church- and, in
particular, to set out the balance between one Standing Order and another.
Ever diligent, the
Conference considered, and adopted, improvements to the Standing Orders almost
every year. The Guide could not cope with the modifications and additions. By
2008 Bellamy’s Guide had gone through three editions – and was then, within a
couple of years, effectively abandoned as being no longer relevant, nor
adequate to the task. In the end the Guide had proved to be, in itself, so long,
complex and cumbersome, that it was not fulfilling its role of enlightening many
of its readers.
The intense organisation
which had produced the detailed Standing Orders, and the guide to them, had
effectively ground the organisation of it to a halt. The many changes in
Standing Orders had begun to cause confusion – and that has continued during the
past decade.
The need for a guide, as
perceived in 2000, is again becoming clear. But the sad history of Bellamy’s
guide does not encourage another such venture.
The
consequence is that individuals tend to interpret Standing Orders as they
would wish to see them, or as, in their view, any “reasonable person” might
see them. Their own external political beliefs inevitably decide the way they
see things. The polarities in such views of church members are assumed, or
expected, as they have always been, to be held together in a dialogue of
listening and speaking in mutual respect, love and prayer. When this occurs, the
Standing Orders may be ignored – after all, they do not attempt to find ‘common
ground’, and they are too complex to be applied.
In disputes, most people
seek ‘justice’ – but what does that mean? Is it ‘justice’ if someone gets ‘his
just deserts’ – or is there a system in which a ‘person is innocent until proved
guilty’? Is the approach to finding justice holistic – or is it specific to the
accusation?
The worthy attempt to
create a common set of rules for all the diverse attitudes within the Church has
failed. Yet there needs to be order and unity – so those who do not interpret
and obey the new Standing Orders, as issued by the central Executive, are not to
be tolerated.
Those
who saw a need for limits to toleration in the Church have won their case.
Nor, it seems, can there
be any reconciliation between differing views. That is how unity is achieved by
managers: it is organisation that, in theory, should work. Some might term it
the ‘Thatcher approach’.
The problems arise when
someone, such as Rev Timms, disagrees; for there is no remedy when any
variations of interpretation occur. Important concepts such as ‘justice’,
‘honesty’ and ‘openness’ are open to different interpretations – particularly
when intentions are taken into account. Yet when one side takes one view
and the other a different view, there is no real means of settling the
differences within the Standing Orders. Reconciliation is easily avoided.
The comprehensive Standing
Orders on Practice and Discipline in the Church do not have the clarity of
thought that Conference intended when it sought to unify such rulings and comply
with the spirit of the Methodist Church Act. The organisation it created, and
installed, produced a monster.
The story of Rev Peter
Timms, as detailed on the internet in my film entitled
“The Disciples of John Wesley", may point to a more deep-seated malaise that could threaten the unity
of the Church. The film demonstrates several basic points about what has
happened to the general understanding of the Church’s Standing Orders. It seems
that the rules that were intended to promote peace and harmony have actually
produced disastrous conflict.
The Timms dispute actually
arose because of differing views on the meaning of a new Standing Order.
This was the ‘molehill’ that turned into a ‘mountain’. The local Methodist
administration would not tolerate any interpretation of the new standing order
other than their own.
Nevertheless, individuals
within the South East Circuit acted upon their own interpretation of the new
Standing Order - and when the District Chair’s differing interpretation was
implemented instead of their own, they discovered that there was no means in the
Standing Orders of appealing the decision and receiving an authoritative
interpretation.
Any church members who
complain in such circumstances discover that current Standing Orders are now so
thoroughly “comprehensive” that it would seem that very few people – even in the
headquarters in Methodist Church House – can understand them in total. There is
no ‘interpretation’ body to intervene in disputes about the meaning of a
Standing Order – interpretations are imposed by whoever is more senior in the
Church, without any tolerance of any opposing interpretations.
One problem with this is
that the Standing Orders were written by lawyers, and resemble an extremely
lengthy legal document. Some might say they read like an Act of Parliament.
Others say that one cannot see the forest for the trees.
Very few people are
acquainted with the entirety of the Standing Orders – and, since the Bellamy
Guide is now defunct, there is no guide to suggest how one Standing Order might
take precedence over, or qualify, another. Although the Standing Orders are
supposed to promote justice, fairness and openness in the Church – in accordance
with the obligations under the Methodist Act – they allow executives to pick and
choose which Standing Order suits their current purpose.
The Standing Orders may
easily be interpreted in a partial, one might say, a political way. One side
might take the ‘Soper approach’ – the other the ‘Thatcher approach’ in
interpretation. The Standing Orders were supposed to bring together these two
widely different approaches – in fact they have simply imposed a dictatorship
from the Centre.
As a consequence, the
Standing Orders may even prove to be prejudicial against individual members of
the church – for one side is no longer actively encouraged to offer tolerance
and reconciliation to the other. Tolerance and Reconciliation are now reduced to
a set of Standing Orders that detail how the Church should deal with disputes.
Loving one’s neighbour no longer comes into it.
Complicating this is the
fact that the Standing Orders effectively protect those same persons - the
executives of the Church - who actually employed the lawyers who drafted them.
The executives have absolute power of interpretation – and we know what absolute power
does to people. Why then should such executives show any tolerance or
reconciliation?
Executives of the Church
are even protected - by various Standing Orders - against anyone who might
complain, be they lay persons or members of the Church. This means that the
Executive’s interpretation of Standing Orders will always prevail. Managerial
targets make this desirable, indeed necessary. And if something goes wrong -
and justice, tolerance and reconciliation are left behind in the process - the
Standing Orders may easily provide a “cover-up”. This is extremely dangerous for
the Church.
The internet film about
Rev. Timms illustrates this well. Perhaps the main problem it raises is the
desire by the executives involved to create a “cover-up”.
It is not just the
interpretation of particular Standing Orders which is the problem. Several
Standing Orders clearly contradict others. Further, the film about Rev. Timms
also illustrates that there is no realistic system of objection against
procedure - by the use of procedural motions. Procedure is whatever the
Executive decides is appropriate at any given point in time.
There is no effective
general system of oversight or scrutiny in the Standing Orders. This again
becomes very apparent when one views the film about the case of Rev. Timms. He
was denied all appeals.
As a consequence, the
system of judgement in the management of complaints is haphazard. In some areas
the civil law system of judgement ‘on the balance of probabilities’ is
mandatory - though that particular system is perhaps not properly understood
by the lay members of inquiry panels. Elsewhere there is no accepted system of
judgement.
In fact, in many parts of
the system, judgement may be by “whim” – operated by people with little or no
training in assessing the probity of evidence and judgment. Each may have his or
her own definition of ‘evidence’ and ‘justice’. This is little better than
‘thumbs up, thumbs down.’
And we all know what
happened to the Christians when the Roman Emperors held sway over their lives.
There is, further, no
detailed procedure of case management set down in the Standing Orders. Do
complainants need to submit documentary evidence in support of the initial
complaint? Do respondents need to reply in writing? Is there any system of
rebuttal? None of these issues are dealt with.
There is no system for
either complainants or respondents to independently call witnesses. The panel decides
who will be the witnesses. Nor is there any requirement for a panel of inquiry
to insist on ‘best evidence’. Hearsay evidence seems to be quite acceptable – it
is not ruled out by Standing Orders. There are no rights of disclosure of
documentation. So, idle or false gossip can be strong damning evidence, even
though documentary evidence to the contrary might exist, though not produced
because "the panel does not require it."
Complainants and
respondents are allowed to hire a solicitor to conduct their case – but few
complainants, even ministers, could ever afford the solicitor’s fees. The
Church, which can afford solicitors to defend itself against complaints,
will not offer financial help to the complainant for one to be hired. In other
words, there is no legal aid whatsoever; he who controls the purse strings
decides the case.
In general, there are few
rules on how inquiries should be conducted by a connexional panel. The set
procedure for investigation provides for a preliminary examination leading to a
full examination. However, this system of conducting a “prima facie” case before
starting a full investigation was easily by-passed in the case of Rev Timms, as
is shown in the film on the internet. The panel simply used another Standing Order to
subvert the requirements of the ‘prima facie’ rule.
Significantly, in the case
of Rev. Timms, evidence of this subversion of the ‘prima facie’ provision only
emerged by chance. The complexity of the Standing Orders makes it easy to
cover up such controversial and underhand operations.
The Standing Orders
provide no system of oversight concerning the workings of the complaints
inquiry. In the case of Rev. Timms, a system of covert surveillance was set up
to attack him – it was hushed up when it was accidentally exposed. No blame was
apportioned for this – because there is no one who can apportion such blame.
Indeed, the senior
complaints worker at Methodist House who chooses the members of a connexional
complaints panel has no power to intervene, should any procedural mistake be
made. The executives may hire, but they may not fire.
Most of these points are
exemplified in the film on
the internet. In one sense the film, apart from being a
personal tragedy inflicted upon an aged minister, is a practical guide to what
is wrong with the complaints system that the Church created in a spirit of
unification and centralisation. There are other important points which are not
explicitly mentioned in the film, even though they may be applicable to the
events described.
The basic problem is that
the Methodist Church has tried its very best to organise itself and unify its
rules of conduct in the light of the Methodist Act; but it has failed. In the
process, it has forgotten its past traditions of love, tolerance and
reconciliation.
Lawyers were chosen to
write the Standing Orders because it was thought that they would produce a clear
exposition of the Methodist Church’s doctrines in a set of Standing Orders that
could be relied upon and presented, if necessary, to Parliament. The intention
was sound, but the organisation of the work produced a labyrinth of rules which
are of little use to the common man or woman. No doubt those lawyers who draft
our laws in Parliament will appreciate such thoroughness – but most members of
the Church will find that reading them is like entering a maze.
It is a classic example of
someone diligently trying doing to do the right thing – and producing exactly
the opposite as a result of their best endeavours.
Floundering around in the
mess that Conference has created, the Church executives need clear guidance on
how to interpret the present Standing Orders. They need a more manageable
version of them which will fulfil the Church’s obligations both to Parliament
and its own members under the Methodist Act. It is a problem which requires
clear thinking and good management – and it seems that the present executives
are too embroiled in the difficulties to undertake that.
They are running around
putting out the fires - when they should be looking for what is causing the
conflagration.
The Church clearly
recognises the need for some guidelines to the Standing Orders. They produce
booklets such as “Positive Working Together”, which are specifically
aimed at the average member of the Methodist Church. Such worthy efforts however
seem to be merely “putting out fires”. They give good advice on Methodist
behaviour without actually mentioning the Standing Orders - which the Church
will ultimately rely upon to determine and guide such behaviour.
For example, “Positive
Working Together” begins with the words:
“These guidelines have
been produced to assist District Circuits and local churches in dealing with
bullying and harassment.”
The booklet makes no
attempt to explain that malpractice such as ‘bullying’ is contrary to the
Standing Orders - which all Methodist members are bound to follow. But then,
the words ‘Standing Orders’ do not appear in the booklet at all. We might guess
why.
On the other hand, the
word “bullying” is not actually mentioned in any Standing Order about
complaints. It is, after all, a rather vague and non-legal term which tends to
reflect the interpretation by one individual of an aggressive approach from
another. There is no legal definition of ‘bullying’.
The terms that are
actually used in Standing Orders are ‘harassment and abuse’ – actions which are
well-defined in civil law. Again, we might guess why this is so.
Most members of the Church
will nevertheless claim to know exactly what ‘bullying’ is – and they will no
doubt expect the word to appear in the Standing Orders. However, someone being
subjected to bullying in the church may find it difficult to find support in the
Standing Orders. After all – do the words “harassment and abuse” not indicate or
require a series of such actions before being any complaint can be
considered?
"Bullying" may be a
one-off incident.
Such precise definition of
terms is not required when disputing parties are brought together by tolerance
and reconciliation. But the world has changed.
Contrasting the Standing
Orders with various Methodist booklets, one can see what seem to be two
different languages within the Church. The ordinary members, even ministers such
as Rev Timms, speak with one voice – the Executives and their lawyers speak with
another. The excessive organisation of the compilation of the Standing Orders
has actually produced a situation which has become divisive. Unity has produced
division.
We might consider that the
remedy might be to re-draft the Standing Orders in a way in which their
intention is clear and easily comprehended. That, however, has been tried over
the past twenty years and there is little hope that a second attempt to produce
a perfect set of Standing Orders would not fall into the same traps as the
previous attempts.
In criminal and civil law,
the answer to the interpretation and application of complexities in the law has
been to create an appeal court – and indeed even a further court, the Supreme
Court. This judicial structure points to a possible solution, though perhaps the
Methodist Church may not need to go that far. If a sturdy and vibrant system of
humane toleration and reconciliation cannot be resurrected, the Church must look
elsewhere to impose it.
The glaring omission in
the Complaints and Disciplinary Procedure is that the fact that there is no
oversight or scrutiny of the application of Standing Orders to any given action.
To remedy this, Conference might delegate a senior judicial figure, a person
such as Clifford Bellamy, or a committee of such persons, to act in such a
capacity. This would, at least, constitute a ‘safety net’ for the system. Such
an initiative might also help translate the language of the Standing Orders into
terms that the ordinary person can readily understand.
There is also a lesson
that we might take from the English legal system. The Human Rights Act of 1998
provided a system of guidance to the general interpretation of statutes. In the
complaints system, this is what Standing Order 1100 attempts to achieve,
placing it over all the other Standing Orders.
If Conference were to
create a more clear separation between the general principles of
guidance of Standing Orders from other Standing Orders which outline the
details of particular rights and forms of procedure, the job of
the ‘oversight’ person or oversight committee might be made more easy.
As the Constitutional
Practice and Discipline of the Methodist Church stands, it is easy to assume
that all the Standing Orders are equally important and that any of them may even
over-ride the general principles which are contained in Standing Order 1100.
When such a mistake is
made, it is easy to forget that all members of the Methodist Church have a
right, in accordance with Standing Order 1100, to be treated with ‘justice,
openness and honesty’.
Equally, all complainants
and respondents have the right to expect members of the Executive and its
agents to accept responsibility for their own acts in the interpretation of
Standing Orders.
None of this appears to
have occurred in the case detailed in the film
“The Disciples of John Wesley". Yet there was no avenue of complaint or objection that Rev Timms was
allowed to take, because other, lesser, Standing Orders were deemed to overcome
all his points of dispute. The Executive simply abandoned him, saying that
there was nothing more that they, or he, could do. His letters of objection were
placed on a pile, unread.
In seeking unity in the
Church and compliance to the Methodist Act, Conference’s well-intentioned
operation is now showing itself to be a good example of how those who diligently
make detailed plans may find that they achieve the opposite of what they
originally intended.
The unification of the
diverse Methodist movements, followed by the alliance of the Church and State,
unwittingly persuaded the Church to go astray from the Methodist Way. Tolerance
and reconciliation were left by the wayside. Though it appears elsewhere in the
texts, the word ‘love’ does not appear in the Standing Orders concerning
complaints and discipline. Nor does ‘tolerance’.
The film on the internet about
the Rev Timms’ case is no encouragement to anyone who is thinking of joining the
Methodist Church. It details a situation inside the church which many current
members may even find sufficient reason for them to leave the church. The
executives involved may feel , however, that if they ‘give in’ to Rev Timms,
such persons will lose confidence in them and may make the final decision to
leave. The true centre of this dispute may be a concern about the dwindling
membership of the Church.
However, the real
significance of the film is that it would not have been made even three decades
ago. It details problems which have only arisen since tolerance, reconciliation
and love became lost in the organisation of the Church. It shows how, with the
centralised re-organisation, the Executive has gone astray from the Methodist
Way.
It has lessons for us all
as we try to answer the main question it poses – how did the Church come to this
extremely worrying situation?
- Peter Hill
(PLEASE NOTE:
Rev Clifford Bellamy wishes to make it clear that he has taken no part, in any
capacity, in any campaign either in favour of, or against, Rev Peter Timms
and that he does not have a view on the matter. He hopes however that a
mutually acceptable outcome can be negotiated so that this long outstanding
matter can finally be brought to an end)
