A few years ago, I was asked to cast a journalistic eye over a manuscript titled Philosophy of Spiritualism before its publication. I had only one comment to make, which was to congratulate its authors, Barry Oates, David Hopkins and Carole Austin, on producing an excellent, well-written book – the perfect introduction for anyone seeking a better understanding of Spiritualism.
And who better qualified to write such books? Both Oates and Hopkins are Spiritualist ministers, and Austin an officiant, which is one step down from being a minister. All three were also members of the Spiritualists’ National Union (SNU) Philosophy and Ethics Committee.
That book is now in print and, by all accounts, selling very well, as is a sequel written by the same trio, The Religion of Spiritualism, which became available last year.
So it came as a surprise to me to discover that the three authors have since disappeared from the Philosophy and Ethics Committee, leading inevitably to whispers about resignations and skullduggery.
Following the shock resignation of former SNU president Duncan Gascoyne as chairman of the Arthur Findlay College, which I reported on a few weeks ago, I felt I should investigate further. What I learned was surprising, raising once again important questions about the way in which the Union conducts its affairs. It’s a complex story, but I’ll keep it brief, and I’ll start by tackling the running of the Union.
David Hopkins (above right) knows the Union well. He has been an individual member for 52 years, is a second generation SNU minister (both parents were very active speakers and mediums) and an SNU Gold Service Award holder. He explains, “The current system is that, at the Union’s annual general meeting, the president and incoming officers choose the other NEC members, some from nominations, others without even nominations, including last year the financial director.”
Membership of all committees terminates at the closure of the AGM in mid-July, though in practice they remain in post until new members are chosen at the first subsequent NEC meeting, usually a couple of weeks after the AGM.
Problems began for the Philosophy and Ethics Committee (P&EC) when an Arthur Findlay College Course (AFC) Organisers’ and Tutors’ meeting took place at Stansted Hall in February 2010 at which, following discussions, a number of conclusions were reached on sometimes controversial subjects and statements were agreed collectively. Topics ranged from abortions and aliens to evil spirits and possession. A report of the meeting, including the statements issued, was published in Psychic News (6 March 2010), resulting in readers’ letters voicing criticism of the tutors’ views.
Barry Oates (left), a Spiritualist for 45 years, an SNU minister since 1992 and recipient of the Union’s Award of Merit in 2005 and 2009, tells me that he had differences of opinion with Duncan Gascoyne over the tutors’ statements because they gave the impression that they expressed Union policy on various ethical issues.
“The reason the P&EC was set up was to deal with these very issues, but we realised nothing is as straight forward as it seems and it was taking a long time to get the balance right, especially if they were to be accepted by the National Executive Council (NEC) as Union policy.”
Following those differences, Oates resigned as chairman but remained on the P&EC in order to get their second book finished and launched in time for the SNU AGM in 2010. Duncan Gascoyne had taken him onto the NEC when he became president and Oates said he would go when Duncan did. He had made it clear that he would not remain on the NEC after the AGM.
“I, like many who have known Duncan for many years, was very sorry to hear of his resignation,” Oates tells me. “Although I had my differences, I know Duncan as a very sincere Spiritualist who has always been motivated by his love for the Union and his desire to see it succeed. His methods did not suit everyone but he got the job done. There is no doubt in my mind that as far as the College is concerned he was in the right place at the right time and, for that, all Union Spiritualists should be grateful.”
After his election as SNU president in 2010, David Bruton took a number of new faces onto the NEC. He also phoned Oates and asked him to consider becoming chairman of the P&EC. Oates explains that there was a condition to that appointment, “being that they would expect changes to the committee – in other words, ‘we don’t want those who have produced two very successful books for the SNU’. I refused the chairmanship, of course, and later I discovered that is what the NEC expected me to do.”
Meanwhile, David Hopkins had similar issues with the AFC tutors’ statements, and had objected – “as a member of the NEC, i.e., as a director of the SNU” – to them and the implication that this “policy” came from the AFC, which was a sub-committee of the NEC. “The response from Duncan Gascoyne was to issue a personal attack on me, coupled with an attack on the P&EC. This led to Barry Oates’ resignation as the committee’s chairman.”
David adds: “Voicing criticism of the AFC or its paid tutorial staff was not popular. One got the impression that the AFC was a ‘sacred cow’ with some, against which criticism was seen almost as blasphemy.”
Once Philosophy of Spiritualism was completed, it was submitted to the NEC for approval and publication. “Without reference to the committee or the authors of the book,” Hopkins continues, “the then-NEC, under President Gascoyne, gave away the income from the book to Psychic Press (1995) Ltd [publishers of Psychic News], which was then under the direction of SNU treasurer David Bruton.
“The authors had expended much time and effort on research, discussion and writing the book for the SNU only to see the fruits of their efforts given away and the Union losing any income that might arise. As one of the Union’s most successful (if not the most successful) publications, clearly there could have been considerable on-going income for the SNU.”
When the trio’s second book was ready for publication, the NEC was only prepared to fund a limited print run, which would have increased the cost of individual copies. Instead, the P&EC was extremely grateful to obtain funding for a substantial initial print run of The Religion of Spiritualism from the Winifred Gandine-Stanton Trust. All income goes to the Union.
Hopkins, who had been a member of the P&EC since it was established in 2004 and was its chairman up until the 2010 AGM, did not resign from the committee, nor did Carole Austin. They were, he says, “dumped”. Oates, as we have already seen, turned down the chairmanship because of that condition.
Rubbing salt into the wound is the fact that they were not told why, after the success of their two books, their services were no longer required on the P&EC. But they were not even told they were no longer required. It became apparent, however, when the SNU website displayed the membership of its committees … with the exception of the P&EC.
Hopkins adds: “We were not asked if we were prepared to take the committee in a different direction, nor if we had plans for further publications. In fact, extensive research and preparation had been undertaken by the three of us and we had informally discussed producing at least one and probably two more books in the ‘series’ – as we considered it to be.
“We were not told we were being replaced. I would have expected at least the courtesy of a contact from the President or Vice-President Spiritual (as P&E is part of the responsibility of the holder of that position) but we waited and waited … and waited, knowing only when, months later, new names appeared on the website that our services had been dispensed with.”
Judith Seaman, SNU vice-president (Spiritual), is shown as the committee’s chairman and Brian Gledhill, Tony Penketh and Linda Smith are members.
“At the SNU AGM last year,” Hopkins adds, “much was made of the retirement of President Gascoyne. Yet Barry Oates, who had been on the NEC for eleven years, had been the first vice-president (Spiritual), founder chairman and member of the P&E committee and had done a tremendous job dealing with churches in difficulties, was not even mentioned, by either retiring President Gascoyne (whose responsibility it clearly was) or incoming President Bruton, who could have done so when Mr Gascoyne failed to do so.
“The SNU had been led for years by Mr Gascoyne but there have been many others who have supported him and the work. Thanks and praise should not be concentrated just on the leader of an organisation but be given to all involved.
“I have recently been informed that I have been nominated as SNU vice-president (Spiritual). After considering this nomination very carefully, I have advised the SNU General Secretary that I will not be accepting the nomination in these elections.”
Committees, of course, change all the time but it would be wrong to dismiss what has happened to the P&EC as no more than internal differences. It seems to me to reflect a far deeper problem with the way in which the SNU is run. Certainly, not enough public recognition is given to those who have worked on behalf of the Union for decades. And their contribution is swept aside when differences of opinion arise.
Perhaps those who are calling the shots should take a closer look at the three authors’ The Religion of Spiritualism and a quote they include from Sir Arthur Conan Doyle in particular:
“Mankind must learn once and for all that Religion has nothing whatever to do with theological beliefs, or forms, or ceremonies, or priesthoods, or vestments, or sacraments, or any of the other trappings and adornments which have so covered it that we can no longer see it. It depends upon two things only, and those are Conduct and Character. If you are unselfish and kind then you are of the elect, call yourself what you will. If you are dry and hard and bitter and narrow, no church and no faith can save you from the judgment to come.”
Perhaps the time has come for the SNU’s rank-and-file membership to demand of its officers that they focus more on common courtesies and spirituality than on the personal pursuit of power at all costs.