The stink from Lambeth Palace
Damian Thompson is sickened by the Archbishop of Canterbury's decision to withdraw as patron of a charity that studies cults
The following people could be found hovering over the lunchtime buffet at a seminar I attended last Saturday:
Mormons, Scientologists, Islamists, pagans, Methodists and members of the Family (a Christian sect that practises group sex). The seminar was hosted by the only organisation in the country capable of assembling such a spicy religious smorgasbord. Inform, a Home Office-funded charity based at the London School of Economics, provides information about cults and sects to anyone who needs it — academics, social workers, university chaplains, the police, cult members themselves and their worried parents. Saturday's seminar was held under Chatham House rules, so I can't report what was said, but — precisely because some of the opinions voiced were so pungent — it was vastly more enlightening than the obsequious platitudes of 'multifaith dialogue'.
Inform is controversial because it rejects the thesis, popularised by the 'anti-cult' movement, that people join cults because they have had their minds bent by unscrupulous leaders. Its founder. Professor Eileen Barker of the LSE, was the first sociologist to demonstrate that brainwashing, as it is commonly understood, does not exist (though she does not for a moment deny that some cults harm their members, and has indeed helped people to leave abusive groups). She has also campaigned against proposed European and Russian laws that would criminalise minority religions. These activities have earned her the hatred of the loopier sort of fundamentalist Christian, for whom all non-evangelical religions are satanic, and of authoritarian Eastern Orthodox bishops, for whom all nonOrthodox are dangerous sectarians.
Fortunately, the British government and Britain's mainstream Churches recognise that, in an age of religious instability, Inform is a precious source of unbiased information. Its board of governors includes representatives of the Church of England. the Roman Catholic Church and the Free Churches. I am also a governor, though let me stress that this article reflects only my personal views.
Inform's chief patron, since its inception in 1988, has been the Archbishop of Canterbury. It is hard to overestimate the importance of this patronage; it showed that the leader of the English spiritual establishment was prepared to defend the human rights of the most marginalised and despised religious believers. Christianity, after all, was once a cult whose opponents told lies about it. Robert Runcie grasped this point. So did George Carey, who resisted the arm-twisting of fellow evangelicals and offered strong moral support to Inform.
There was no reason to suppose that Rowan Williams would be anything other than a generous patron. Certainly no one was prepared for what happened at the end of last year. Professor Barker received a letter from Lambeth Palace informing her that the new archbishop was dropping a number of his patronages, and that Inform was one of them. To cut a long story short, a disbelieving Eileen Barker wrote back asking if she could meet Dr Williams. No, came the answer; but she could talk to his chief of staff, Chris Smith. Mr Smith duly visited Inform, but the decision remained the same (although Lambeth would continue to make a modest contribution to Inform's running costs). At no stage did Dr Williams consult his own nominee on Inform's board of governors, Colin Slee, the Dean of Southwark, who is rightly disgusted by the way Lambeth Palace has handled this matter.
Admittedly, Rowan Williams is under no obligation to act as Inform's patron, and it is certainly true that he has inherited an unwieldy list of several hundred patronages from his predecessor. Even so, the impression given by his office that he was dropping Inform as part of a routine cull is deeply misleading.
A number of theories are circulating as to why Dr Williams has dumped Inform. The first is that he has been nobbled by the same evangelical lobby that blackmailed him into disowning Dr Jeffrey John last year, after he had previously supported the appointment of this celibate gay priest as Bishop of Reading. The second theory involves the Russian Orthodox Church, which wants to settle scores with Professor Barker for defending the human rights of Russian Jehovah's Witnesses; an Orthodox priest told me that the Moscow patriarchate was exerting heavy pressure on Dr Williams to drop Inform. But my own inquiries point to a third explanation.
Apparently, Rowan Williams feels that Inform has been insufficiently sensitive in its handling of the distraught relatives of cult members. Now, it is true that parents do not always like what Inform tells them. Some of them, paradoxically, are hoping to learn that their child has fallen into the clutches of manipulative mind-benders: it gives them someone to blame. They cannot accept that their son or daughter has made an unconventional lifestyle choice out of free will and — media reports notwithstanding — is unlikely to sustain lasting psychological damage from the experience. So perhaps Inform did inadvertently upset someone. What I do know is that its staff are compassionate people who are far better qualified than the anticultists to tell the difference between groups that are merely strange and those that are actually dangerous. That is why the police and the Home Office value Inform's advice so highly.
The more one looks into Lambeth Palace's decision, the more it stinks. I happen to know that Dr Williams dropped Inform in response to allegations of the organisation's pastoral insensitivity because he has said as much privately. But no mention of this was made when Chris Smith visited the charity. In other words, Professor Barker was not told of the charges against Inform and therefore had no opportunity to defend herself and her organisation.
'This is the abysmal quality of the advice that Rowan receives from his staff,' says a Church source. Well, maybe. My own view is that you cannot blame the Archbishop's shabby treatment of Inform, or his public humiliation of Dr John, on his donnish naivety. On the contrary, these are the actions of a man who, to the disappointment of his former admirers, has shown himself willing to chip away at his liberal principles in the interests of a quiet life. One of those principles — often expressed in the Archbishop's lectures and sermons — is that it is wrong to judge religious minorities by the caricatures constructed by their enemies. No doubt he will enunciate it again soon. I just hope I can reach the sick bag in time.
Previous page
