Bullied & Abused Lives in Ministry A Christian Support Group for Damaged Ministers International and Inter-Denominational

During 2001 the Society of Mary and Martha organised a consultation on Clergy Stress. This led to the publication of a report and discussion document entitled “Affirmation and Accountability”, copies of which are available from the Society. (For reasons of time the study focussed on the Church of England, but many of the issues are relevant to other denominations as well.)

During the consultation period we, along with other interested groups and individuals, were asked for our comments. What follows is a slightly edited version of our submission.

Submission for the Society of Mary and Martha

CLERGY STRESS CONSULTATION 2001

Introduction

Every normal human being will experience a major nervous system malfunction given sufficient stress. This is because the brain has circuit breaker cells which shut down parts of the cerebral cortex when overloaded and overstimulated. (From “Understanding the Behaviour of Victimised People” by Dr William Wilkie, MB, BS, DPM.1)

Stress is not the employee’s inability to cope with excessive workload but a consequence of the employer’s failure to provide a safe system of work as required by the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974. (Dr Tim Field, UK National Workplace Bullying Advice Line/Bully Online.2)

Bullying remains endemic within the Church of England and can take many forms. (Revd Andrew de Berry, MSF Clergy & Church Workers Newsletter Dec 1999.)

We believe that the biggest single advance the Church of England could make in tackling the problem of clergy stress would be to bring its understanding and practices into line with secular employment legislation, and to recognise that such stress is caused by problems within the working environment, and is not an indication of inadequacy or deficiency in the clergy who suffer from it.

We also believe that, although the problems within the work environment which lead to clergy stress are many and complex, psychological violence (bullying) towards clergy is now a significant, yet poorly recognised, cause of stress. This belief is borne out not only by our own experiences, but by the experiences of the many damaged clergy and spouses who have contacted us through BALM. Clergy may be bullied by their superiors, or by members of their congregation.

This submission focuses primarily on clergy stress caused by bullying as that is where our experience and expertise lies, but much of it will also apply to stress arising from other problems within the working environment.

Finding the Solutions

Tackling the problem of clergy stress at a practical level requires a two-fold approach. In the longer term, there needs to be a willingness to take realistic and effective measures to reduce the stress placed on clergy by their working environment. In the shorter term, there needs to be better understanding and support for those clergy who do suffer the effects of too much stress; from our own experience and from the experiences of others related to us, the problems are all too often compounded by the lack of appropriate and constructive support from dioceses. Moreover, it would appear that sometimes the “support” offered is actually counterproductive, and that this is due largely to ignorance about the nature of bullying and the effects of stress.

So finding solutions has to begin with:

Education and Exploding the Myths

1. Bullying

Bullying is not

a.. a personality clash b.. people being unkind or “difficult” c.. tough management d.. something which only happens to children e.. something which only happens to “wimps” or unassertive people f.. something which those targeted can stop by standing up to the perpetrators g.. something which can be resolved by a “no-blame” reconciliation process Bullying is a form of abuse or assault (psychological violence), which has serious and devastating consequences not only for those targeted, but also for any organisation within which it is allowed to prevail. Although it can be an overt form of abuse, in the workplace the perpetrators usually act covertly and systematically to undermine, control, and (if they deem it necessary) to “see off” their targets. It has been observed that “elements of psychological abuse in the workplace correspond with elements of torture and the outcome of the torture process ………. outlined in Biderman’s Chart of Coercion”3.

The perpetrators are often superficially charming and may appear to be an asset to the congregation (particularly if the congregation is small), to the extent that observers may find it hard to believe that they are capable of bullying. Moreover, incidents reported by the person being bullied may sometimes seem quite minor, but it is the sustained and systematic nature of bullying which turns seemingly trivial incidents into seriously damaging abuse.

In the workplace, and similarly in the church, the underlying cause of bullying is usually power abuse, with the perpetrators choosing as their targets anyone whom they perceive as a threat to their assumed power. When those targeted resist the perpetrators’ attempts to control and intimidate them, the perpetrators will simply intensify the abuse until the targets either leave or break down under the stress of what is happening.

Anyone may find themselves the target of a bully simply by being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Recent and rather rapid changes within the Church of England have left many clergy particularly vulnerable to this kind of abuse. If, as is often the case, the bullying is perpetrated by volunteers from within a congregation, the clergy can be particularly vulnerable, for whilst the perpetrators have very little to lose by their actions, the clergy stand to lose their ministry, calling, income and home. The needs of various dependants may add to this vulnerability, for example a spouse’s career, children’s education etc.

References & Further Reading:

a.. “Bullying from Backyard to Boardroom” (see footnotes)

b.. “Bully in Sight” by Tim Field (Success Unlimited, Wantage 1996)

c.. “Dealing with Workplace Bullying” by April Harper (psychologist)

http://www.bulliesdownunder.com/harper.htm d.. “Workplace Bullying – What Do We Know, Who Is To Blame and What Can We Do?” by Charlotte Rayner, Helge Hoel, Cary Cooper (Taylor & Francis 2001)

e.. Also UMIST study (Feb 2000) into workplace bullying by Professor Cary Cooper & Helge Hoel (eg. see TUC press release at http://www.tuc.org.uk/newsroom/tuc-401-f0.cfm)

f.. research into Industrial Psychopaths (sub-criminal psychopaths) by Paul Babiak PhD (eg. as reported in Clinical Psychiatry News, 28(5):38, 2000)

g.. research on Thought Reform, Verbal & Emotional Abuse etc. h.. See also books listed on this website at http://www.balmnet.co.uk/books.htm and anti-bullying websites listed at http://www.balmnet.co.uk/links.htm

2. The Effects of Stress

Being bullied is extremely stressful and may lead to burnout or stress breakdown – which is not the same as nervous or mental breakdown; as stated above, everyone breaks down under stress. The above-mentioned article “Understanding the Behaviour of Victimised People” by Dr William Wilkie, MB, BS, DPM (see Introduction), outlines better than we can do here the effect that stress (from any source) can have on people, as well as the particular problems that arise from psychological violence.

Too often reactions which are normal under excessive or prolonged stress are assumed to be signs of abnormality or deficiency within the person affected, which may then be assumed to be the cause of the problem rather than a consequence of it (this is sometimes referred to as the “Mental Health Trap”). (Such assumptions lie behind the myth that only “wimps” get bullied!)

We feel the following points need particular emphasis:

a.. Although people have different thresholds at which they may break down under stress, a person’s inability to cope with stress should not be seen as an indication that they are of a weak constitution. a.. Under extreme or prolonged stress people often undergo an apparent personality change, and it is therefore dangerous to make long term assumptions about a person by observing their reactions under stress. People of a previously very strong constitution may become unassertive, over-anxious, compliant and unable to cope with even the most trivial of stressors. a.. A person’s reactions under stress may resemble symptoms of mental illness – loss of emotional control, apparent over-reactions to seemingly trivial stimuli, hypervigilance (eg. being on constant alert for further abuse) etc., may be mistaken for instability, irrational behaviour and paranoia. a.. People who break down under stress, particularly after bullying, need ongoing reassurance that they are not to blame for what has happened. Feelings of failure and self-blame will only add to the stress they are under. Although it may sometimes be helpful at a later stage to examine whether the person might have been able to handle the situation differently, this approach is likely to do more harm than good if attempted too early in the recovery process. a.. Extreme fatigue is a normal reaction under stress. Most stressed people will “try harder” to overcome their problems, when what they need most is “worry-free” rest. a.. Psychological violence can additionally lead to Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, the symptoms of which may also be mistaken for mental illness; however, PTSD is a normal reaction to abnormal circumstances, and is not usually an indication of long term or underlying problems in those who suffer from it.4 a.. Being bullied almost always leads to feelings of powerlessness in those targeted. If the support offered is too directive and/or controlling, however well-intentioned this may be, then there is a danger that it will be perceived as replicating the bullying, so reinforcing feelings of powerlessness and causing further stress and distress. a.. Stress is not a spiritual problem, but an overload of stress can affect all areas of a person’s life, including their spirituality. Again, it is important not to treat the effects of stress as if they were the cause of it; urging a stressed person to put more effort into their spiritual life will only increase their stress and sense of failure. References & Further Reading

a.. “Bullying from Backyard to Boardroom” (see footnotes)

b.. “Understanding Stress Breakdown” by Dr William Wilkie, MB, BS, DPM (Newleaf, Dublin 1999)

c.. “Post Traumatic Stress Disorder – The Invisible Injury” by David Kinchin (Success Unlimited, Wantage 1998)

d.. “I Can’t Get Over It – A Handbook for Trauma Survivors” by Aphrodite Matsakis, PhD (New Harbinger Publications Inc., Oakland, California, 2nd Edition 1996)

e.. “Post-traumatic stress disorder without the trauma” by Michael J. Scott & Stephen G. Stradling (British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 1994, 33, 71-74)

f.. “Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder in the Work Setting: Psychic Injury, Medical Diagnosis, Treatment and Litigation” by John M. Ravin MD & Christopher K. Boal MD (American Journal of Forensic Psychiatry, Vol 10, No 2, 1989)

g.. “Bullying & Spirituality” on this website at http://www.balmnet.co.uk/spirituality.htm h.. See also http://www.successunlimited.co.uk/stress/ptsd.htm & http://www.successunlimited.co.uk/stress/health.htm i.. See also accounts of Pavlov’s experiments, and the neurophysiology of stress

Practical Suggestions

a.. Employment rights for clergy Although bringing clergy within the provisions of employment legislation should not be seen as an alternative to tackling the stress caused by their working environment, it could provide clergy with a greater sense of dignity and security – particularly those clergy who do not hold freehold positions. As employees, clergy might still suffer from stress and might still be bullied, but employment legislation enables employees to seek legal redress and compensation in such situations, and therefore gives employers a stronger incentive to create a safer working environment. With or without employment rights, we recommend that the Church of England officially recognises Amicus (Clergy and Church Workers Section) as representing the interests of the clergy. a.. Clergy Discipline The proposed Clergy Discipline Measure (whose future is somewhat uncertain) is something of a “curate’s egg”. Unlike the existing Incumbents (Vacation of Benefices) Measures and Rules, it has no explicit safeguards for those whose infirmity may have contributed to their inefficiency or the breakdown of relationships in a parish. Since the symptoms of stress breakdown and PTSD are frequently misunderstood (by both congregations and Bishops) as those of inadequacy or inefficiency, there is a danger that stressed and/or bullied clergy could find themselves facing disciplinary proceedings when what they need is rest and support. Bishops therefore need to be aware of the potential within this Measure for compounding the problems of stressed/bullied clergy, and for such clergy to be unjustly disciplined. On the other hand, the proposed Measure contains the important new provision that it would be possible to call Bishops to account for their actions. If it fails to progress, some way should be found of making Bishops accountable, since this would encourage the highest standards of care for those in their oversight. a.. Better education about bullying and stress – for all clergy, and particularly for those who support them All clergy need to be able to recognise bullying, whether against themselves or within the congregation(s) they serve. Education about bullying involves listening to those who have experienced it, and not just to those who talk only from a theoretical stance. Clergy also need more specific training in such issues as group dynamics and in building healthy congregations (where bullying is more likely to be recognised and less likely to be tolerated). Those supporting clergy need to know how to respond to bullying, and to recognise that in most cases bullying can only be stopped by the intervention of someone from outside the situation who has the power to take sanctions against the perpetrator. Reconciliation attempts usually do more harm than good, empowering the perpetrator and disempowering the person being targeted. A better understanding of stress and the effects that it can have on a person will help to ensure than when clergy do begin to show signs of stress, action can be taken sooner rather than later and before lasting damage results. a.. Believe clergy who report bullying Although there will always be exceptions, most people who report bullying are genuinely being bullied. Those who are being bullied usually feel ashamed of what is happening to them, and by the time they seek help are likely to be already showing signs of stress breakdown, and are thus likely to present as over-emotional, and apparently over-reacting and/or paranoid. In these circumstances it is all too easy for the person’s account of bullying to be dismissed as delusional or overstated, when in fact the symptoms of stress breakdown should be recognised as actually corroborating what they are saying. Clergy who are being bullied should be encouraged to seek support sooner rather than later, and should be able to do so with the assurance that they will be believed and effectively supported, rather than be treated as if they themselves were the problem. For this reason, all dioceses should set out (and use) an effective anti-bullying policy. a.. Take stress reactions seriously and provide worry-free rest before the damage becomes more serious or permanent The golden rule when a person is suffering the effects of too much stress is “remove the stress from the person, or the person from the stress”. Most stressed people will ignore the body’s warning signs and continue to struggle on, which can cause long term health problems. Clergy, who are generally highly committed people, are particularly susceptible to this, especially since seeking help is too often regarded as an admission of failure or spiritual inadequacy. Stressed people often need a “rescuer” who will remove the burdens and enable them to rest. It is important not to assume that congregations will provide all the practical support necessary for over-stressed clergy to rest. Many congregations find it difficult to minister to their clergy, and where the stress is due to bullying, there may be little willingness to do so anyway. However, it is important when dealing with stressed people to respect their dignity and not to simply take over control of their lives (eg. by making decisions about them, or assessments of them, behind their backs), as loss of control is of itself very stressful, and may replicate the experience of being bullied (see above). Long term solutions require the full involvement of the stressed person, but should wait until he/she is first rested and reassured. a.. Do not put stressed/bullied clergy back into the same stressful/bullying situation and expect them to “prove” themselves Sadly this does happen, and many stressed and/or bullied clergy are treated as if they themselves are the problem. We have heard of cases where clergy have wisely decided that, for the sake of their health, they need to move as soon as possible to a new position away from the stress, only to discover that they were being hindered in doing so by their Bishop, albeit perhaps with the best of intentions. Unfortunately, in the short term, this sort of approach may even seem to work, as the stressed person struggles even harder to prove they can cope so that they will be able to move on (see “Catch-22” below), but in the longer term it is a recipe for disaster, as almost inevitably the person will suffer further problems which may eventually force them to resign or retire. This may confirm a Bishop’s opinion that this person was unsuited to ministry, but with the right support and understanding at an early stage, the outcome could be very diffe rent. a.. Consider wider provision of recuperative positions to allow stressed clergy to recover properly, without having to resign or retire from ministry Clergy who suffer from stress (particularly if caused by bullying) may need to leave the parish where they are ministering, but may not be well enough to be appointed to another position. Moreover, parishes today often expect 150% from their clergy, and clergy who have suffered from stress may seem an unattractive prospect – with some justification, perhaps, as people who are not given the time and space to recover fully from the effects of stress are likely to suffer ongoing problems. However, as most clergy live in tied houses, it is difficult for them to take time out between jobs to recover fully as they may have nowhere to live. Moreover, fear of losing their home will only add to the stress they are already under. Without positive and sympathetic intervention, a “Catch-22” situation may develop: the clergyperson may be unable to recover until they leave the stressful position, but may be unable to find a new position until they have recovered. a.. Do not see small/rural parishes as “light-duty” positions in which to place stressed clergy Although it may seem that the workload will be lower in small parishes, where there may be considerably fewer occasional offices, the working environment may actually be more stressful than in larger parishes. For example, expectations from the congregation may be higher, and in addition, bullying flourishes more easily in small congregations, where it is possible for one or a handful of people to dominate. Where small parishes form part of a multi-parish benefice the stresses can be greater, and there is a further level at which bullying can occur. a.. Encourage greater openness about stressful and/or bullying parishes, and encourage candidates always to talk to the previous holder of any position they are applying for All too often, clergy applying for a parish position may be unaware that the previous holder of that position had serious problems. Even if they are aware that he/she had to retire on health grounds, they may not be told the reasons why. Some parishes have a history of clergy who have had to retire or resign on health grounds, and applicants for a position should be made fully aware of this. It is all too often hoped that problems will leave with the departing clergyperson, when in fact they remain within the parish itself. a.. Enable more effective measures to be taken against lay officers who repeatedly abuse power and/or bully the clergy, and reduce the likelihood of such power abuse by (for example) limiting the length of time that any one person can hold office At present there is nothing that clergy can do to prevent lay officers who are bullying them from holding office. And in smaller parishes churchwardens and other officers may be chosen for their willingness to take on a job that no-one else will do, rather than for their suitability to hold that position, and for this reason any bullying behaviour may be tolerated by the congregation. In these circumstances, it is all too easy for unscrupulous people over a period of many years to set themselves up to be indispensable, and then to hold the congregation to ransom by threatening to resign unless they get their own way. The growth of a more collaborative style of ministry may be sound in principle, and has undoubtedly reduced the possibilities for clergy to bully their congregations; however, over recent years the lines of authority within a congregation have become increasingly blurred, creating the opportunities for greater power abuse by lay members and officers. Responsibility without a corresponding authority is recognised as being a significant cause of stress in the workplace, and this is the position that many clergy find themselves in. (See also Supplementary Questions below)

a.. Address the problems of excessive expectations on clergy, long working hours and “living over the shop” Expectations of clergy are often far too high, and most clergy work far too many hours each week. Some clergy place too many expectations on themselves, but many congregations object to their clergy taking a regular weekly day off and expect them to work from early morning to late evening on their working days. Resisting these expectations can in itself be very stressful. Bringing clergy under employment legislation may help in addressing some of these problems, but further steps will be needed to educate and change attitudes if the expectations on clergy are to become more realistic. In addition to reducing expectations and working hours, the boundaries between work and home can be improved by ensuring that all clergy houses have separate living and working areas, with separate entrances to each, and separate phone lines for work and family. a.. Consider the whole family when responding to stressed or bullied clergy One of the things that can make the clergy particularly vulnerable to bullying and stress is that they “live on the job” in tied houses. Under stress it can become very difficult to maintain boundaries between work and family, and the whole family may suffer the effects of stress caused by the working environment. With bullying in particular, the spouse and the children may themselves be targeted in attempts to undermine the clergy. Even if the family are not particularly affected by the stress, they will be affected by a move, resignation and/or retirement, and their needs must be taken into account. If they are not this will simply increase the stress and sense of failure on the part of the clergyperson, and will therefore do little to resolve the problem in the longer term.

Diocesan Pastoral Care and Counselling Schemes

We have not included the provision of counselling under the list of practical solutions that should be considered for tackling the problem of stress amongst clergy. Whilst we would generally want to applaud the intentions of those dioceses which have provided counselling schemes for the benefit of clergy, and believe that counselling can be of benefit in cases of mild stress, and/or where the clergy have personal problems which are affecting their ministry, we feel that there can be significant drawbacks and disadvantages in referring stressed clergy to work-based counselling schemes in the expectation that it will resolve the problem. For example:

a.. Referring stressed people for work-based counselling helps perpetuate the myth that it is the person who is the problem, rather than the working environment. Where the stress has been caused by bullying, it also allows the perpetrators to switch the focus of attention away from their own abusive behaviour by inferring, usually under the guise of sympathy and support, that the person they are targeting is mentally ill, and that it is their “mental illness” which is responsible for the current problems within the parish. a.. Referring stressed clergy for counselling may seem an easier option than tackling the actual problems in the working environment. A responsible employer should look to see what changes can be made in the working environment, and to reduce the expectations on the stressed person. Counselling will achieve little if the cause of the stress is not addressed. a.. Counselling itself is a stressful process and as such is generally contra-indicated for people who are already suffering from any significant stress.5 a.. General counsellors are often trained largely in dealing with people’s endogenous or intra-psychic problems (those which come from within), and may be highly skilled in doing so. However, they may have less training or experience in dealing with employment-related concerns such as stress and/or workplace bullying, where the source of the difficulty is external. Misplaced or misguided counselling, however well-intentioned, can do serious damage to stressed and bullied people by feeding and reinforcing their own feelings of failure and self-blame, challenging their reality, and pushing them further into stress breakdown. a.. Counsellors in diocesan counselling schemes may themselves be diocesan clergy or otherwise employed by the diocese. Clergy may therefore feel concerned that their confidentiality could be compromised, and circumstances related to us suggest that this concern is not entirely groundless. In addition, where bullying is involved, and/or the clergyperson’s continuing ministry is under question, there can be boundary problems. Overall, therefore, clergy may feel safer talking to someone who is further removed from their situation. (See also Supplementary Questions below)

Conclusion

In the current climate, it is highly desirable that clergy and those who support them should have a good understanding of how to deal with the effects of stress, but this is only a “sticking-plaster” solution. The problem of clergy stress can only be reduced if the church becomes a psychologically safe and supportive environment in which to work, where clergy feel truly valued and genuinely supported by both their congregations and their superiors. This may well require a wholesale change of culture and attitude, involving steps to eradicate bullying and abusive behaviour at all levels, so as to create an atmosphere which promotes the well-being not only of the clergy, but of all church members, of the church itself, and ultimately of the world it is called to serve.

Revd Arthur Kennedy, MA (Oxon.)

Mrs Pauline A. Kennedy, MA (Oxon.)

(Founders of BALM)

Footnotes

1.. Chapter 1 of “Bullying from Backyard to Boardroom” (1st Edition)

published by the Beyond Bullying Association. This book can be read online at http://cwpp.slq.qld.gov.au/bba/book/contents.html, and is also available for free download at http://cwpp.slq.qld.gov.au/bba/docs/bfbtb1.doc. (Return to text)

2.. Bully Online can be found at http://www.bullyonline.org (and http://www.successunlimited.co.uk) (Return to text)

3.. From “Psychological Abuse in the Workplace” by Robyn Mann, Chapter 7 of “Bullying from Backyard to Boardroom” (1st Edition) (see Note 1 above). (Biderman’s Chart of Coercion can be found in Amnesty International (1975)

“Report on Torture” p53) (Return to text)

4.. “I Can’t Get Over It – A Handbook for Trauma Survivors” by Aphrodite Matsakis, PhD, (New Harbinger Publications Inc., Oakland, California, 2nd Edition 1996), page 2-3 (Return to text)

5.. “Understanding Stress Breakdown” by Dr William Wilkie, MB, BS, DPM (Newleaf, Dublin 1999), page 63-4 (Return to text)

Supplementary Questions

After submission of the above we were asked to comment further on the following points:

Do you have ideas as to what might constitute appropriate and effective sanctions against lay officers, how would they work, who would implement them, and what safeguards would be needed? Do you have ideas for a suitable mechanism for making Bishops accountable for their provision of a safe working environment, and how such provision might be evaluated?

We are not suggesting that Bishops should be held personally accountable for providing a safe working environment. The responsibility for providing a safe working environment for all clergy, including Bishops, rests with the Church as a whole, though obviously Bishops play a vital role in this. If clergy were to become employees, then employment legislation would place the responsibility with whoever, or whichever body within the Church, was to be defined as employer.

What we do believe is that accountability at all levels within the Church of England, including amongst volunteers, is an essential part of creating a psychologically safe working environment and ensuring dignity for all. Accountability provides an incentive to good practice; unfortunately, it is not sufficient to assume that everyone in the Church will behave decently and properly, because experience shows that this is not the case.

Exactly how Bishops and lay officers should be made accountable, and what safeguards there should be, is a matter for General Synod and/or its legal advisers; we ourselves are a little out of touch with the legal minutiae of the Church of England.

Sanctions which could be taken against lay officers might range from a formal verbal warning/rebuke through to debarring from office for a period of years. That lay officers are volunteers is not in itself a barrier to accountability.

The psychological safety of the working environment can be evaluated in terms of the number of clergy who suffer stress in ministry.

If you were advising a counselling service ………… what advice would you give?

In addition to the points we have already raised in relation to supporting stressed and bullied clergy, and about counselling in particular, we would advise the following:

a.. A work-based counselling scheme needs not only those who are experienced in counselling people with personal problems, but also a number of counsellors who have specific training and experience in dealing with work-related concerns, and in recognising and dealing with the effects of workplace bullying. And, because clergy may encounter various traumatic situations in their ministry, there should be at least one counsellor who can provide specialised trauma reduction counselling as this is rarely available through the NHS within the necessary timescale. a.. Free or subsidised counselling schemes should not remove choice or autonomy from clients. Such schemes can probably not provide the same level of choice as would be available to clients seeking private counselling, but at the very least, clergy using diocesan counselling schemes should be able to choose whether their counsellor is male or female, lay or clergy, and involved in or independent of diocesan structures. If clergy are not at ease with the first counsellor they see, or with the methods and models used, then they should be free to change to another. Without such provision, clergy using diocesan schemes may find themselves in the unsatisfactory situation where their only options are counselling with which they do not feel comfortable, or discontinuing counselling altogether. In particular, clergy who are being bullied may feel pretty desperate to find a resolution, and faced with a choice of this kind may make the mistake of believing that any counselling is better than no counselling, when in fact misplaced or misguided counselling can be extremely damaging. a.. Ideally, in order for clergy to feel assured that diocesan schemes are truly independent and confidential, they should be able to contact independent counsellors directly without any need to go through a co-ordinator (who is likely to be directly involved in their diocese). If this is not possible, then scheme co-ordinators should not expect clergy to divulge any details of their problems to them, nor should they seek to direct or oversee counselling which clergy receive through the scheme. Exactly what issues are to be addressed in counselling, and the approach to be followed, should be a matter between individual clergy and the counsellor they see. a.. All counsellors and scheme co-ordinators should be required to give an absolute commitment that under no circumstances whatsoever will any identifiable information about individuals using diocesan counselling schemes be passed to their bishop, or to anyone else holding office in the Church, without the informed consent of the individual concerned. It has been brought to our attention that there are loopholes in some Codes of Practice, which counsellors have used so as to pass confidential information about clergy to their bishops with impunity. a.. Work-based counselling can be seen very crudely in terms of “problem-solving” schemes, to which people can turn in order to deal with problems arising from their work situation, or to address personal problems which they feel are affecting their performance at work. It is not a medical service, and it should not be the place of counsellors in diocesan schemes to attempt to make quasi-psychiatric assessments, or to overrule what the client has asked to address in counselling. http://www.balmnet.co.uk/clergystress.htm