Response from Professor Lisa Oakley to the ‘Future of Church Safeguarding’ report recommendation 10 the removal of spiritual abuse

This response focuses specifically on recommendation 10.

Organisations A and B should use the guidance relating to emotional and psychological abuse pertaining to vulnerable adults and children rather than spiritual abuse in all guidance and training and to determine cases referred under the measure in (1) above.

It is right to be transparent and state that spiritual abuse as a terminology and category has caused concern and the language has been debated. However, the current definition is drawn on research studies which have heard from over 1,000 individuals in the Christian faith context, whose accounts of harm they identify with the terminology of ‘spiritual abuse’. Distinct aspects of these experiences are directly related to religious contexts and rationales for harm. These include exerting control through the use of sacred texts, divine position, God as complicit and spiritual threats. Contextualised safeguarding argues for the necessity to understand the context and the role this plays in experiences of harm. Therefore, safeguarding in religious context requires an understanding of those cultures and contexts and their integration with experiences of harm.

All forms of abuse and harm that have been identified and recognised have followed a trajectory of being largely hidden at first, with limited understanding and some degree of uncertainty in identification and response. Then, as understanding, evidence and awareness have grown, they have been acknowledged and categorised. The development of new categories and terminologies has enabled safeguarding to be strengthened and nuanced in order that identification and response can be enhanced.  The definition of spiritual abuse does not call for a new category, but rather for this to be recognised as a distinct form of emotional and psychological abuse, such that it can be better understood and responded to.

As former chair of the Task and Finish Group on spiritual abuse in the Church of England, the work of developing the definition, policy and guidance took many years. The group included those who had experienced spiritual abuse amongst its members. The definition and policy were subject to many rounds of scrutiny. Evaluations of training that was delivered alongside the introduction of this policy has demonstrated increased understandings and awareness.

I would have welcomed the opportunity to have discussions as part of the process of developing the report, I would still welcome this opportunity and hope to be able to speak with the group tasked with responding.

If the future is to be trauma-informed and survivor centred, it is essential that the voices of many who have described their experiences of spiritual abuse are listened to. To remove mention of spiritual abuse is to work against this. An alternative approach is to actively engage with increased understanding, address areas of concern and those which need development. In this way the future of safeguarding can be strengthened.

Prof Lisa Oakley