Bullying in the Church of England: Theological and Ethical Perspectives

On 31st May, 2022, there was an online conference organised by ABEL (Against Bullying, Encouraging Love) entitled Pedestals, Pulpits and Pews: Perspectives on Bullying in the Church of England. Recordings of the presentations are viewable on YouTube. This article from Andrew Goddard is his presentation which, while only exploratory in nature, opens with how to think ethically in relation to bullying and then offers some more explicitly theological reflections. It draws on his expertise as someone who has taught Christian ethics within theological education and his own experience, alongside others, of bullying behaviour and the failure of Christians with oversight to address it.

Most people who have studied ethics have been introduced to the idea of different approaches to ethics where perhaps the most common categorisation is a threefold one. There are deontological approaches focussed on rules and obligations, consequentialist approaches concerned about outcomes or consequences, and virtue approaches concerned about character and habits and patterns of life. I have doubts about this schema but it points to three elements which need to be considered in any ethical thinking or three lenses through which to consider ethical questions. 

First, we need to think about the nature or structure of our actions and how we act. This involves thinking about patterns or structures of actions that can be identified and named and morally evaluated, often by formulating moral rules or laws to guide us and enable moral judgments. Second, we need to think about actions’ consequences which also shape our decisions about how to act and how we evaluate our own and others’ past actions. But we need also to think, third, about actors or agents. That means considering the sort of people we are and we want to become, the sort of cultures and communities we inhabit and want to develop – their ethos and patterns of moral formation or deformation. I want to begin with some thoughts on bullying and ethics in relation to each of these three elements.

Evaluating Actions

The first area of ethical reflection concerns how to define, categorise and evaluate actions. In one sense every single action is unique. But moral (and legal) reflection involves identifying, classifying and naming patterns of action and offering judgment on whether these are to be commended or condemned. “Bullying” is one such classification. I want to highlight 5 areas by suggesting there are two elements to bullying which while not unique are importantly distinctive and then noting three issues raised by focussing on the nature of the act.

First, “bullying” is a classification and terminology which now has a negative moral judgment tied to it either by definition or consensus. Often our ethical debates are about whether some action is right or wrong—abortion, euthanasia, war, divorce. We agree what sort of behaviour it is that we are talking about but disagree about whether it is right or wrong, about whether/when such action might be justified. Other ethical categories are ones where the terminology itself builds in the moral judgment or there is near-universal agreement that what it refers to is wrong—injustice, sexual abuse, genocide. Bullying is in this latter category; there are few if any people willing to defend bullying as such or to present a case for “justified bullying”. The defence instead is that what happened is not bullying. 

This explains why bullying is what “Yes Prime Minister” referred to as an “irregular verb”, a jocular label for what I discovered is technically called emotive or emotional conjugation. Bernard’s example (in an episode called “The Bishop’s Gambit”) is “I have an independent mind, You are eccentric, He is round the twist.”  We might come up with something like “I implement creative change through strong and effective leadership, you have poor change and personnel management skills, he bullies”. All this means, of course, that questions of definition become particularly important.

Secondly, “bullying” is a category which tries to classify and name not so much a specific action but a pattern of action extended over time. If we say that someone stole from or assaulted me we are often pointing to one specific, perhaps very brief, action or interaction which stands alone as a one-off. While it is perhaps possible to use the term “bullying” for one single action, if it is genuinely a one-off then usually “bullying” is not an appropriate term. Thus one long-standing widely used definition of bullying refers to “repeated, deliberate verbal or physical abuse by someone with more power than his or her target” (Olweus, Aggression in the Schools, 1978). This has some important consequences. By definition it therefore takes time to realise or discern that bullying is occurring, both for observers and for victims. Given that bullying is wrong, that means that, by the time such a moral evaluation is able to be made, wrong has been done for some time and sustained harm already suffered.

Three further observations building on these. Thirdly, the fact there is agreement that bullying is wrong means that we need to take care in how we use the term – it is not morally neutral. Hence questions of definition are of particular importance. The defence to accusations of bullying is almost always going to be “I wasn’t bullying”. Definitions are, however, not always easy especially if we then seek to delineate and distinguish bullying from other categories such as strong leadership, harassment, manipulation, undue pressure, pastoral or spiritual abuse. We may be attracted to the famous test applied to “hard-core pornography” by Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart: “I know it when I see it”. However, whatever sympathy we might have for the view that “I know bullying when I see it”—even more when I am experiencing it!—we do need to seek to develop a wide consensus and awareness as to what is meant by the term.

Fourthly, as in the definition noted earlier, at the heart of any such definition must be issues of power. At the heart of bullying is a combination of power imbalance and abuse of power. That means that wherever there is an imbalance of power we need to be aware of the danger of bullying occurring. It means that to identify bullying we need to develop an account of the proper use of power. We will return to this in our later theological focus. 

Fifthly, we need not only to define bullying but address what motivates it: why do people bully?  This might be simply to assert, maintain or increase the imbalance of power through controlling and abusing the relatively powerless. It might be because someone is viewed as of less value because of some characteristic—their sex, race, sexuality, beliefs. It might be in order to achieve certain outcomes—overcoming opposition to change, silencing disagreement.


That forward-looking motivation leads nicely into the second ethical area: the consequences of our actions. Here I want to explore two areas in relation to allegations of bullying behaviour, one relating to defences and one relating to accusations.

Firstly, as we’ve noted few defend bullying as bullying but often the behaviour which leads to accusations of bullying is defended as justifiable actions necessary to achieve good and important outcomes. This is a classic consequentialist ethical argument—the end justifies the means, you can’t make an omelette without cracking eggs, you can’t turn round a big organisation headed for the rocks without taking drastic measures, and so on. In church contexts this gets even more serious as the ends used to justify the behaviour normally claim to be part of God’s purposes, whether in terms of church growth or effective mission or securing greater holiness or giving respect to church leaders. But God is at least as concerned about our means as he is about our ends. Even if it is accepted that there have been problems, the argument is often used that these must be kept quiet as otherwise the consequences—the damage to individual or institutional reputations or even the gospel itself—are too great. This is of course often another form of bullying even if dressed up in legalese as a confidentiality clause in some settlement.

Secondly, in relation to accusations. When an accusation of bullying is made we are being told that among the consequences of the accused person’s actions was that this person felt bullied by them. That simple fact in and of itself must always be a cause of concern and proper investigation. Especially given the serious effects of being bullied on people’s mental, physical and spiritual health and well-being and that the nature of bullying means it will already have taken some time for it to become evident. To fail to investigate properly any accusations of bullying—which was my experience—is a serious but often almost systemic institutional failure that compounds the negative effect of the bullying behaviour itself. 

But this does not mean that whenever someone reports bullying that bullying has indeed taken place. In some cases the accusation may simply be false and malicious. The paradox is that as we rightly begin to take bullying more seriously accusations of bullying can themselves, because of their power and potentially damaging consequences for those accused, become a form of bullying. In other cases there may be patterns of bad behaviour that need to be addressed but the language of “bullying” may be inappropriate—here we return to the challenge of definition.

In short, approaching bullying through this lens of consequences highlights the necessity of establishing and using proper and trusted procedures by which concerns about bullying can be raised and then properly investigated and effectively addressed.

Virtue and character

Turning to the third ethical lens, “bullying” is used not just as a verb for actions but as an adjective for people. In the 1950s a Parliamentary sketch writer gave the Conservative politician Reginald Manningham-Buller the memorable nickname “Bullying-Manner”. Fellow lawyer, Lord Devlin, wrote of him in a way which illustrates the complexity of bullying and also how, perhaps particularly among Christians, bullying can be done in more subtle but still powerful ways. Devlin writes of the nickname “Bullying-Manner”:

This was wrong. He was a bully without a bullying manner. His bludgeoning was quiet. He could be downright rude but he did not shout or bluster. Yet his disagreeableness was so pervasive, his persistence so interminable, the obstructions he manned so far flung, his objectives apparently so insignificant, that sooner or later you would be tempted to ask yourself whether the game was worth the candle: if you asked yourself that, you were finished… (Quoted in John Sackar, Lord Devlin, p 228).

Because bullying refers to a pattern of action over time it inevitably speaks more directly than do certain other failings about the character of the agent. It points to a vice—a habitual pattern of bad behaviour, a disposition to respond in certain bad ways to particular people and/or situations. That is one reason why the accusation of bullying is so serious. One can admit one has got drunk, even on a number of occasions, without thereby admitting one is a drunkard. To admit bullying, in contrast, is to admit something negative about one’s character.

This points to two further important areas. Bullying in relation to the agent means firstly that challenging questions are raised about how we best respond to those who bully. These relate to whether and how there can be transformation of character not simply greater clarity and enforcement of rules. Connected to this is how in some cases the pattern of behaviour may be related to psychological or personality disorders such as narcissism. These are real challenges. We have as a church to be a place of forgiveness, healing and fresh starts but many of us will sadly know situations including in church senior leadership where someone’s leadership style in one context has been experienced as bullying but they are then appointed to another, perhaps more senior and powerful role, and the same pattern recurs causing further damage.

Secondly, the reality is that the character of a leader shapes the wider culture and ethos of the common life of their community or institution. When the person in charge has a bullying manner that has damaging effects not just on those directly subjected to the bullying but much more widely, including giving licence to others to bully.


So what, in the light of these ethical reflections, might be said theologically about bullying? Again this can only be selective. After pointing to theological anthropology I will more fully try to sketch out an account centred on Christ and the Spirit, with a focus on power, to help us respond to bullying in Christian contexts.

As so often in Christian ethics a key theme must be to unpack and explore the belief that all human beings are made in the image of God and called to be God’s image-bearers. Set in the context of ancient near eastern myths and terminology this designation in Genesis 1 is radical because it universalises or democratises a status elsewhere limited to the ruler, the one with political power. In contrast, the Judaeo-Christian tradition, though not without its failings, has come to recognise and defend the inherent dignity, fundamental equality, and intrinsic value of every human being. Alongside that it has particularly sought to protect the weak and vulnerable. Bullying behaviour, particularly when directed against people because they are different and/or vulnerable within a wider community, is a denial of this fundamental conviction. It diminishes a fellow divine image-bearer and limits or prevents their flourishing and the fulfilment of their call to bear God’s image.

As Christians it is Christ as the Son who is, in the words of Colossians 1, “the image of the invisible God”. And God’s purpose, according to Roman 8:28, is to “conform us to the image of his Son”. Here we find the strongest possible anti-bullying message rooted in Jesus’ incarnation, his teaching, and his example. 

Paul in Philippians 2 famously calls the church to “have the same mindset as Christ Jesus” and that mindset is the very antithesis of bullying – it is kenotic. It is self-emptying love as seen in the one 

Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
rather, he made himself nothing….he humbled himself

Here we see the path of true and divine power in which the one with the greatest power does not use that power to establish, solidify and extend his own power or to disempower and disregard others. Rather he empties himself, makes himself nothing, in order to enter the position of the relatively powerless and use his power to serve them and seek their good.

And that anti-bullying pattern is what he then calls his disciples to do in their own lives and exercising of power and authority. In Matthew 20:25 and Mark 10:42 he describes how the rulers of the Gentiles “lord it over them” and says “Not so with you. Whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant”. The Greek word katakurieuo speaks of a pattern of behaviour with some similarities to what we would call bullying as those with power “exercise their rule to their own advantage and contrary to the interests and well-being of the people” (NIDNTT, 2:519). In 1 Peter 5:3 it is applied to the life of the church as the shepherds of God’s flock are warned about “not lording it over those entrusted to you”. 

Philippians 2 continues its account of becoming a servant with the culmination of Jesus’ kenotic path and in the passion accounts of mocking and spitting, we see this path involves being subjected to patterns of bullying behaviour. Here for those Christians who have been bullied is the comfort that Christ has been there too – in a pretty extreme form. He stands not with the bullies even if they claim to be acting in his name but with those who are bullied and abused by those who have more power.

Jesus’ way, faced with an imbalance of power, is the fulfilment of the vision of the servant in Isaiah 42: “A bruised reed he will not break, and a smouldering wick he will not snuff out. In faithfulness he will bring forth justice”. This is why patterns of leadership which embody, justify or turn a blind eye to bullying behaviour among Christians, perhaps on the grounds that it serves God’s purposes, are so distorted, even blasphemous. This consequentialist defence highlights one of the core spiritual diseases that underlies bullying among confessing Christians and amounts to a denial of the two great feasts (between which this conference paper was first presented) of Ascension and Pentecost. 

The Ascension speaks of Christ’s rule—the second half of Philippians confirming that the pattern the Father honours is the kenotic pattern. It reminds all with authority and power in the church that accomplishing God’s purposes is not something which depends on us and we have no justification for “using any means” in order to accomplish to those purposes. Much bullying within the church stems ultimately from a lack of trust in God and in the reign of Christ over the church and the world. 

Pentecost similarly is the gift to us of God’s “incomparably great power” which is “the same as the mighty strength he exerted when he raised Christ from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly realms”. Appeals to the Spirit’s power can sometimes be a cover for bullying and abusive use of human power but the key here is that it is the Spirit’s power and that mighty strength is at work on the dead Jesus. The Spirit’s power is not evident in bullying power, however successful that might sometimes appear. The Spirit’s power works through those who walk Christ’s anti-bullying way of the cross so that the Spirit’s power might be at work even on the powerless dead. 

As those called to embody the way of Christ, all forms of bullying should therefore be a scandal in the church. Never something to be tolerated, perhaps as a necessary evil, or implicitly or explicitly condoned even celebrated because they appear to yield what we might think of as success. Instead, with Hudson Taylor, we need to cultivate the conviction that it is God’s work done in God’s way—which is the way of Jesus—that will never lack God’s supply.

And God’s greatest supply of course is the Spirit and as we close I want to tie this to the earlier reflections on virtue and character to end on a more positive note. The biblical passage most often linked to virtue is the fruit of the Spirit in Galatians 5. All 9 of these virtues are powerful antidotes to a “bullying manner”, but perhaps none more so than that translated “gentleness”. This of course takes us back again to the way of Christ. Some of you may have come across the recent book by Dane Ortlund. It opens by pointing out that in the 89 chapters of the four gospels “there’s only one place where Jesus tells us about his own heart”. That place is Matthew 11:29: “I am gentle and lowly in heart”.

And so it should not surprise us that Paul entreats the Corinthians in 2 Cor 10 “by the humility and gentleness of Christ”. After describing the Spirit’s fruit he urges that Christians caught in transgression be restored “in a spirit of gentleness” (Gal 6:1). Timothy is called to instruct his opponents gently (2 Tim 2:25) and to pursue gentleness (1 Tim 6:11). 

To return to our opening ethical reflections, in relation to bullying in the church yes we need to work on definitions and establishing good processes of investigation and response but here is the real antidote. Above all we need a deeper, positive Christ and Spirit centred vision and we need to make that vision a reality in church life by allowing the Spirit to bear fruit and by doing what Colossians 3 urges the church to do: put on “compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience”.

Revd Dr Andrew Goddard is Assistant Minister, St James the Less, Pimlico, Tutor in Christian Ethics, Westminster Theological Centre (WTC) and Tutor in Ethics at Ridley Hall, Cambridge.  He is a member of the Church of England Evangelical Council (CEEC) and was a member of the Co-Ordinating Group of LLF.

Signup to get email updates of new posts
We promise not to spam you. Unsubscribe at any time.
Invalid email address

If you enjoyed this, do share it on social media (Facebook or Twitter) using the buttons on the left. Follow me on Twitter @psephizo. Like my page on Facebook.

Much of my work is done on a freelance basis. If you have valued this post, you can make a single or repeat donation through PayPal:

For other ways to support this ministry, visit my Support page.

Comments policy: Do engage with the subject. Please don't turn this into a private discussion board. Do challenge others in the debate; please don't attack them personally. I no longer allow anonymous comments; if there are very good reasons, you may publish under a pseudonym; otherwise please include your full name, both first and surnames.

17 thoughts on “Bullying in the Church of England: Theological and Ethical Perspectives”

  1. Connected to this is how in some cases the pattern of behaviour may be related to psychological or personality disorders such as narcissism. These are real challenges.

    Until more information about narcissistic personality disorder is made available in an easy to follow format (it is a complex diagnosis) narcissists will continue the thrive in a church setting. Churches are absolutely perfect hunting grounds for those who instinctively abuse systems of trust.

    • Dear Joe, You are absolutely right. May I recommend a booklet “Help! I need to know about Narcissism” by John Steley, a Christian Clinical Psychologist. Leominster, Day One Publications, 2019 SBN 978 1 84625 633 2
      with best wishes, Anne Lee

      • Thanks Anne. 100% agree with the booklet synopsis…

        The word ‘narcissism’ may create images of people taking ‘selfies’, maintaining an attractive image on social media or something similar. True narcissism however is something far more serious. It destroys communities, churches, marriages, families and individuals. It is not just a case of people showing-off. True narcissism is destructive and needs to be understood.

  2. A full and helpful discussion on bullying and ways to counter it. I makes me examine my heart and ask the Lord to keep me from such inclinations. The heart is deceitful.

    Leaders with gifts of leadership often find it hard to lead in the spirit of the self-humbling Christ. It is hard for them to know when being insistent and to a degree forceful borders over into bullying. I think of Paul who was often forceful when he believed it was necessary (think of Galatians). But I do not wish to countenance bullying.

    Is bullying more likely in one church structure than another? Does a plurality of elders with none dominant help to act as a check o bullying? Do hierarchical church structures give too much power to an individual? Is a pastor with absolute authority a good thing?

  3. Thanks so much for this Andrew. Adding the negative acts questionnaire here which is helpful – and will add another couple of things from the ABEL poster at General Synod. At a simple level, 2 or more of these acts experienced or witnessed on a regular basis suggests that serious bullying is present.
    Einarsen, S., Hoel, H. and Notelaers, G., 2009. Measuring exposure to bullying and harassment at work: Validity, factor structure and psychometric properties of the Negative Acts Questionnaire- Revised. Work & Stress, [e-journal] 23(1), pp.24-44.

    Someone withholding information which affects your performance
     Being humiliated or ridiculed in connection with your ministry
     Being ordered to do tasks below your level of competence
     Having key areas of responsibility removed or replaced with more trivial or unpleasant tasks
     Spreading of gossip or rumours about you
     Being ignored or excluded
     Having insulting or offensive remarks made about your person, attitudes or your private life
     Being shouted at or being the target of spontaneous anger
     Intimidating behaviours such as finger-pointing, invasion of
    personal space, shoving, blocking your way
     Hints or signals from others that you should quit your present post
     Repeated reminders of your errors or mistakes
     Being ignored or facing a hostile reaction when you approach
     Persistent criticism of your errors or mistakes
     Having your opinions ignored
     Practical jokes carried out by people you don’t get along with
     Being given tasks with unreasonable deadlines
     Having allegations made against you
     Excessive monitoring of your ministerial activities
     Pressure not to claim something to which you are by right entitled (e.g. sick leave, holiday entitlement, travel expenses)
     Being the subject of excessive teasing or sarcasm
     Being exposed to an unmanageable workload
     Threats of violence or actual violence

  4. Here also is some information on the Active Bystander Programme

    What hurts the victim the most is not the cruelty of the oppressor but the silence of the bystander”
Elie Wiesel, Holocaust Survivor

    The Active Bystander Programme is a programme that can be used to help individuals and organisations address bullying. It covers the following areas
    How do I prepare and decide how to act ?
    Notice something significant is happening.
    Assess for safety and barriers.
    Take some responsibility.
    Aim for de-escalation.
    Choose an intervention.
    Take action.

    What interventions are there?

    Direct action


  5. [deleted]. IP: I am not going to host these kinds of personal attacks. As I said before, come back when you can follow the comments guidelines.

  6. The silence of the bystander is always a problem to me. I’m not sure a bystander should always get involved. If the camera pans out – what about the bystander in a street fight… or the bystander in Nazi Germany when Jews were being herded into vans… etc.

    How far did Christians engage themselves in the political issues of their day?

    I understand the context here is church politics but I’m just asking the general question. If involvement is futile should you still get involved?

    • Bullies assume that bystanders will not get involved. They are experts at ‘reading the room’ and count on the crowd doing nothing (if not actually supporting the bullying).

  7. I strongly suggest that all readers of this blog who are interested in the topic of bullying in the church should go to the ABEL (Against Bullying Encouraging Love) website http://www.abel.org.uk where they will find all the presentations from the Conference to watch again as well as a number of resources they may find helpful.

  8. Recently I completed my latest safeguarding training, and asked if safeguarding covered bullying as it is such a prevalent problem. I was told it does not. Extraordinary.

  9. Human nature being what it is, isn’t there an inevitable risk that an abuse of power leading to bullying is more likely in a strongly hierarchical organisation where outward show of prestige is facilitated through the wearing of fine vestments whilst leading ceremonies where people bend the knee and worship? Those genuinely seeking to serve their local community in a spirit of true humility might indeed be put off by a career path which potentially leads to a palace in which “lay” acolytes are the servants…

    The CofE has hastened to put in place credible safeguarding provisions, and a quick browse for “complaints procedure” against the various dioceses indicates there are often independent and properly trained teams available to respond to allegations. But though policies purporting to prevent bullying are to be found, there’s a very wide spectrum of enforcement processes – one of the more enlightened being the six steps of the Diocese of London, which actually seeks to resolve rather than evade issues: see https://www.london.anglican.org/church-and-parish-support/human-recources-hr/diocesan-policies/clergy-informal-complaints-process/ (the spelling error in resources is actually part of the link!)

    It would be good if all dioceses at least achieved that standard of response when genuine complaints are raised, rather than deploying a medieval-minded hierarchy to fend off the victims of abuses of power.

      • I spoke recently to someone who provides support services in a diocese which does not, shall we say, excel in resolving issues. Their view was that the “medieval mindset” issue and all that flows from it is out there in plain sight, but nobody is sufficiently empowered to challenge the status quo.

        Some other possible grounds for hope and justice may flow from the soon-to-be assented new CDM process. CDM2003 was effectively declared unfit for purpose by the committee led by Bishop John Inge which reported in 2022. But, as always, progress is glacial…


Leave a comment