Voice of the Laity - Anglican Diocese of The Murray

The Voice of the Laity - Diocese of The Murray

A listening process

But Who's Listening?

At a meeting with the Primate and parishioners of the Parish of Murraylands, the Bishop of The Murray agreed to the invitation of Bishop Keith Rayner to conduct a 'listening process' in the diocese. This was to be an opportunity for those who felt hurt by Bishop Davies' treatment of them or others to speak to someone trustworthy without fear of further bullying, threats or intimidation. Bishop Rayner was to visit parishes in the diocese where lay people would be able to speak with him at meetings or privately. Bishop Davies confirmed that he had spoken to Bishop Rayner, who had indicated he was willing to accept this task.

Draft terms of reference suggested that Bishop Rayner would:

Listen to peoples' hurts and concerns
Identify issues and make recommendations
Report to Diocesan Council
Make the report available to people who had met with him, to Synod, and to the Primate and the Archbishop of Adelaide.

According to the proposed terms of reference, legal and financial advice would then be sought about issues identified, so that appropriate action could be taken.

While the details were negotiable, key proposals were that a review would be undertaken by a respected and experienced person with links to the wider church, people from around the diocese would be able to speak to this person confidentially, recommendations would be made, and that the whole process would be undertaken in a way which was transparent and accountable.

We had concerns at the time about whether this process would result in any real change or simply be a whitewash. But it was never going to happen anyway!

Shortly after the meeting at which these undertakings were given, members of the Voice of the Laity were advised that the Bishop had met with the clergy of the diocese, and that the clergy had vetoed the invitation to Bishop Rayner. It is not clear why the clergy should have the right to veto an agreement made between the Bishop, the Primate, and the lay people of the diocese. Or why the clergy should have any say in the matter at all. This was to be a listening process for the lay people.

On August 10th, Mrs Lyons received a letter from the Bishop instructing her to appear at a meeting between "her group" and the Diocese of The Murray. There are two parts of the letter that immediately suggested that any 'listening process' would be a sham.

Firstly, the suggestion that the Voice of the Laity is "her group". In a letter to clergy, the Bishop wrote dismissively of the Voice of the Laity and concerns expressed by members of the laity from all parts of the Diocese, as 'political campaigning by Mrs Lyons'. Part of the tactics used over the last five years has been to write off any complaints as 'people being horrible' or the whining of a disgruntled few, or the results of being stirred up by one or two troublemakers. This is hardly suggestive of a willingness to listen and take action to repair any hurts.

Second, calling a meeting more than an hour's drive from Murray Bridge, and setting the time and date without any consultation or checking to see whether this would be convenient, demonstrates an arrogance which again makes it clear that genuine listening is the last thing on the mind of diocesan authorities.

Eventually a suitable time was arranged and representatives of the Voice of the Laity met with the Bishop, the Archdeacon and the Chancellor. The meeting was not productive. The Bishop made it clear he had no intention of honouring the commitments he made at the meeting with the Primate, and repeatedly said that he did not trust the lay people with whom he was speaking. Instead of an open and accountable diocesan-wide listening process, what was now being offered was a consultation with the parish of Murraylands. Lay people were asked to decide which of two solicitors selected by the Diocese should conduct this consultation (a third person, not a solicitor, whom we had in mind, was not able to undertake the project). A special session of Synod would be called on November 3rd to discuss the extension of this consultation to the rest of the diocese, and to agree to meet any costs.

Now even this new proposal has been changed. A meeting of the senior staff of the Diocese on 20th September agreed that: the special call of Synod be deferred to allow for the mediation process agreed between the Murraylands Parish Council and the Diocese to take place and be evaluated.

In addition, the Bishop will initiate his own 'listening process', in which members of the diocese (specifically excluding the parish of Murraylands) can speak to him about any matters of concern. He will go to any such meetings with a support person, an archdeacon or other member of diocesan senior staff, and the lay person or clergyman who wishes to speak with him may also bring a support person.

What's wrong with all this? Well, to start with, the parish has no issue or disagreement with the Diocese. The parish is part of the Diocese. Like many other parts of the Diocese, the Murraylands has serious issues with the behaviour of the Bishop. It is a misrepresentation to say that that there has ever been any talk of a mediation between the parish and Diocese.

In any case, there has been no agreement between the Murraylands Parish Council and the Diocese or the Bishop in relation to a mediation process. Lay people at the meeting with the Bishop repeatedly made it clear that a 'mediation' was not what they were asking for, and would not be satisfactory. If even this simple fact, simply explained, cannot be heard and acknowledged, what on earth can be the point of a listening process?

Why would the parish not be interested in a mediation? Because there is only any point in mediation where there is honesty and a genuine will to be reconciled on both sides. Where there has been abuse and dishonesty, it is reasonable to ask that prior to any formal mediation this goodwill be demonstrated in an acknowledgment of past wrongs, an apology, and clear action to repair damage done to parishes and individuals.

In addition it is surely wrong that the Bishop is able to set the terms of reference for an investigation into his own behaviour, and to determine beforehand who will have access to any report and what action, if any, will be taken over matters discussed in it.

The same objection applies to the Bishop's listening process. He knows very well that he has lost his temper and verbally abused lay people and clergy, that he has been less than truthful, including making false claims and allegations, that he has stomped out of meetings when he did not get his own way, etc, etc, etc.

If there was to be a listening process, if the Bishop had been serious about ministering the Gospel in love and peace in the diocese, he could easily have shown his goodwill and positive intentions by being honest about past bad choices and wrong actions, making an honest attempt to repair the damage he has caused, and publicly announcing his intention to act differently from now on. There is no need or reason to force lay people to confront him and a legal adviser or other senior clergyman to tell him about his own behaviour and its consequences, when he has already been repeatedly made aware of the impact of his behaviour, and has so far shown no sign of caring about its consequences.

Sitting down as equals in mediation misrepresents the situation, which is that people in the diocese have been hurt by bad temper, dishonesty, and verbal and emotional abuse. The Bishop is in a position of power compared to lay people, and has the resources of the diocese (paid for by the lay people!) behind him. This includes free legal advice and advocacy not available to others. As well as this, it is known around the Diocese and the national Church that lay people and clergy who have expressed concerns about the Bishop or his ministry, even when this has been done privately to the Bishop, have been vilified and threatened. The proposals for this 'listening process' show no commitment to change in the Diocese, to real listening or pastoral care, or to providing a safe way for people to talk openly.

It would be surprising if anyone accepts the offer to talk with the Bishop in these circumstances. Of course, that could be part of the plan! It would be easy then to claim that the fact that no one chose to talk with the Bishop proves there is no problem after all. There are serious problems, but a necessary precursor to resolving them is providing ways for people to speak openly and without fear. Proposals which would have allowed this to happen have been undermined.

This has been a longish discussion, but it is worth repeating this vital point. Much of the concern in the diocese relates to a perception of dishonesty, bullying and vindictiveness by diocesan leadership. Unless this behaviour is acknowledged and repented and firm commitments made that such behaviour will not be tolerated in future, it is not only pointless but wrong to ask lay people who already feel victimised to sit down with the Bishop and expose themselves to further malicious words and actions.

We now believe the only option is for the Bishop to resign.

This does not mean the lay people of the Diocese are unwilling to forgive. Most members of the Voice of the Laity feel nothing except genuine concern for the Bishop, and want the best for him and for the Diocese. The laity of the Diocese are in the position of a woman married to a man who is violent and abusive. Some of her friends tell her she must forgive and go back to him. Wiser friends know she has already forgiven, but that the only hope for change and for the future of their relationship is if the husband accepts responsibility for his wrongdoing and apologises and declares his intention to treat her fairly from now on. If the husband does not repent, and believes he has a right to treat his wife abusively and dishonestly, then there can be no mediation, no reconciliation. There is no question of a lack of forgiveness on her part. It would simply be wrong to insist on her staying in the relationship while that behaviour continued.

Real listening, reconciliation and redemption in any broken relationship is possible only when the wrongdoer accepts responsibility and makes an open and genuine commitment to change. This has not happened in the Diocese of The Murray despite requests and advice over a long period of time. Present actions and continuing manipulation and blaming of others make it clear that it is not going to happen.

The Voice of Laity will continue to conduct its own independent enquiry along the lines originally agreed by the Bishop at the meeting with lay people and the Primate. We will also continue to to hope and pray for openness, honesty, that promises will be kept and change made possible.

From the Scriptures

The lord tests the righteous, but he despises the wicked and those who love violence. Ps 11:5

Do not fear the words of a sinful man. His glory will be turned into dung and worms. He may be exalted today, but tomorrow he will not be found. He will return to dust, and his plans will come to nothing.
1 Maccabees 2:62-63

Do not fear, for I am with you; do not be dismayed, for I am your God. I will strengthen you and help you; I will uphold you with my righteous right hand.
Isaiah 41:10

Printing pages from this website

You are welcome to print and distribute pages from this website. Proper attribution should be given, including the web address.

Pages are designed for ease of reading online. For correct layout on a printed page, you may need to check your 'Print Preview' and adjust by checking 'Fit to Page' or some similar command. The latest version of Internet Explorer will fit to your print page size while keeping most of the onscreen page layout. It can be downloaded by clicking on the link above.

Alternatively, simply select the text you want, and copy it to your word processing program.

Links