![]() |
Today, I meet with my DDO (A Diocesan Director of Ordinands) and ADDO (Assistant Diocesan Director of Ordinands).
In my previous ordination process post I ended with a question. What do I do next, fight or accept? I wasn't sure. I am now.
This week I met with the Revd Canon Dr Tim Goode. I needed someone who understands disability, vocation, and the Church. Someone who has lived the things I have and can personally empathise, not offer misaligned sympathy. I admire his work, his book, and everything he has done for disability theology and inclusion. I even referenced him several times at College. He started and shaped the Church’s Disability Advisory Group, served nationally on disability inclusion, advised dioceses, and pushed Church Inclusion, being one of the few voices changing disability-inclusion from the inside.
I reached out and he kindly offered to meet. He listened, nodded, smiled, shared frustration, sighed at familiar parts, and named things I knew and hadn’t yet put into words.
He explained my situation perfectly. I already understood many aspects, some I had not, but it all mattered. I was heard. He understood. He discussed inherited institutional harm, how it shapes complicit and implicit actions and reactions, and how disabled people feel like they’re the problem when it’s the structure. That's a post in itself.
He made it clear that Today's meeting is not safe. Not because they are bad people. They aren’t. They are kind and pastoral. The danger is the system, their roles, conformity, the power imbalance, and the unspoken ableism not recognised. It risks becoming a meeting with predetermined outcomes, framed as supportive "flourishing," while pushing institutional directives.
Soft‑power spaces and language are additionally troublesome. Meetings held in friendly rooms, like my Church, wrapped in pastoral language, like “flourishing,” can feel gentle while still masking pressure and steering a fixed outcome. All making today unsafe.
He told me I needed an ally. Someone not swayed by institutional language, who makes sure I’m heard and slows the pace. He suggested someone with disability knowledge, theology, and lived experience. There isn’t a trustworthy local disability advocate. That's usually me. Instead, I chose someone steady, not swayed by Anglicanism, not easily intimidated, and will keep things fair. I’ll handle the disability side. Together we’ll cover what is needed.
He also said something I didn’t expect or realise. He told me to request Archbishop Sarah. Not to escalate or complain, but because she’s my diocesan lead. Most dioceses have a diocesan bishop. Canterbury doesn’t. The Archbishop is the Ordinary here. That changes everything. When he heard this, he smiled knowingly. Although I have a bishop, she’s the Bishop in, not of, Canterbury. It means I am not going above anyone’s head, but seeking the person who actually holds authoritative pastoral responsibility for me. Her background means she understands disability, carers, chronic health, and institutional bias, and could potentially see my situation with clarity and compassion.
His last advice will be the hardest. Shine the light; Not fight. Fighting is my instinct. Disabled people often fight by themselves in an able-bodied world, but there's acceptable and unacceptable complicity. Acceptable is something done for our wellbeing, like doctors. Unacceptable is when decisions are made and actions undertaken about and to us without us. A difficult space to navigate, but I need to learn how. The Church, like most places, reacts to fight with defensiveness. Sympathy instead of empathy. Equality without equity. When pushed, they push back, retreating into process. It gets nowhere. His 30 years of experience has shown him that. On reflection, he’s right, I’ve experienced it. No one likes being shown up, told off, or put in their place.
I may have inadvertently done this last time. I highlighted barriers, the Bishop dismissed them, so I showed examples. She made assumptions, I challenged them, and she pushed back, so I showed Tim’s articles. He smiled at that. He also helped reframe her defensiveness. I may have triggered institutional bias that she has faced. She understands intersectional injustice around race and gender, but disability sits outside her lived experience. That mismatch can create a defensive reaction that isn’t personal, but still lands heavily. She may not have even realised she was triggered and needs a pastoral approach. The power of pastoral empathy.
Shining a light, therefore, is different. Slower, calmer, harder. It's naming truth without weaponising it. It invites people on a journey rather than dragging them along or triggering them. It lets God work in the mess instead of forcing the outcome. It trusts that the bush can burn without burning me. A contradiction I need to practice and live.
He also reframed “fighting the Church” because the Church isn’t one giant institution, but a living ecosystem. A patchwork of self‑running parts. There is no single system to push against. This made sense to why fighting exhausts me, alongside past actions. Shining a light works better.
So now I have an ally for the meeting, advice from someone I deeply respect, a clearer understanding of the system, a non-confrontational route to the Archbishop, and a way of approaching this without escalation and a fight to be heard.
I am currently paused, but learning to shine a light, not fight.
That’s the step I couldn’t see. Let’s hope today allows me to do so.

Shining and moving forward without malice always gets more done and enables God to show their weakness without you or people like us looking like the bad ones .. gives us a voice that is true and with strength, weakening the powers of prejudices and fear which so overshadows their own Faith hence the weakness remains in them
ReplyDeleteThanks for commenting. I agree — moving forward without malice matters. I wouldn’t have chosen malice, but recognise how hurt can spill over and shape response as we try to move forward. You’re right that God is the one who reveals and exposes weakness. Holding our ground with honesty while shining a light gives a clearer, stronger voice, especially when prejudice or fear are at play
DeleteFight. All we do is shine a light. It doesn't get done. You just end up becoming complicat to the system you're working within. Look at all those abuse cases for the church. All those who turned away. They're didn't fight and are now all leaving because they've been exposed. People don’t listen. Those who try shining a light gets silenced or institutionalised. I get your point but fight. Loudly. Scream it all. The comment above is wrong. We're already the bad ones. The ones who aren't "whole" or wanted. So does it make any difference whether we fight or not. The weakness isn't in the person. The weakness is in their inability to shout and fight. Fight for those without a voice.
ReplyDeleteI hear what you’re saying, and I get why you feel that fight is the only thing left. As I stated in the post, it's an alien concept to me, as I've always fought, even when its been less of a fight and more shining a light. For me, shining a light isn’t about being quiet or compliant. It’s about refusing to be dragged into the same destructive patterns that hurt us in the first place. I can speak clearly, name the wrongs, and stand my ground without becoming part of the system’s noise. That’s the path I’m choosing right now. It also doesn't mean that we should never fight. Sometimes fighting is definitely the right course of action. I also know that justice areas have grown through fights. The suffragettes weaponised actions. Protests and violence in the 50s, 60s, and 70s regarding race. These are all movements with numbers, power, and a voice that bursts out for all to hear. So fighting is needed. We just need to make sure we don't alienate our voice to much, otherwise we are barking in the night and just irritating our neighbours.
Delete