Aberdeen & Orkney: differentiation of the issues

From Mr Richard Murray

Madam, — I refer to the letter from Canon Brice and others (Letters, 25 October) regarding the divisions in the diocese of Aberdeen & Orkney, where I am a lay reader and one of the complainants under Canon 54. I am also a signatory to two lengthy reports that have been made to the Scottish Charity Regulator regarding Bishop Dyer’s governance under charity legislation.

As a former chartered surveyor in public service, I had to defend my opinions of value in a court of law, and these had to be backed by factual evidence, something that is lacking in Canon Brice’s letter. My purpose in writing to you, therefore, is that I am concerned about the amount of misinformation that is being circulated, and I simply want to put the record straight.

First, Canon Brice makes an unsubstantiated connection between the opposition to Bishop Dyer’s election in 2018 and the allegations made under Canon 54. Speaking personally, in 2017, I wrote a congratulatory letter to Canon Dyer on her election. I also gave her a heads-up regarding an ecumenical initiative that I was involved in and that would be launched in the diocese and elsewhere in Scotland shortly after her consecration. I did not receive a reply. In truth, the dispute regarding her election centred on failings in the episcopal process. The open letter by the Synod Clerk and others at the time, which Madeleine Davies referred to in her report (News, 5 January 2018), explicitly stated that it was not in any way personally directed at the Bishop-elect.

Second, the complaint that I made under Canon 54 was backed up by significant documentary evidence, witness statements, and the personal testimony of the person who was bullied. The Preliminary Proceedings Committee examined this evidence and conducted interviews before going on to endorse the complaints. It was on the basis of this considerable weight of evidence, together with the other two complaints about bullying, that the Procurator concluded, without qualification, that they should proceed to a disciplinary hearing.

Third, “Bishop Dyer’s call for conversation, mediation, and reconciliation” is an empty gesture. It is generally accepted that mediation is not an appropriate process where bullying is concerned. Indeed, the College of Bishops abandoned their mediation project in 2022 and suggested that the matter could be resolved using only Canon 54 proceedings.

We cannot lose sight of the fact that the Church’s senior independent lawyer determined that there was sufficient evidence to convict Bishop Dyer of the charges that were laid against her, including of having abused and discriminated against a disabled person. I do not understand how anybody can expect victims and others to be able to move on for as long as the conduct behind those charges goes unaddressed.

RICHARD MURRAY
Rowanbank, Kendal Road
Kemnay, Inverurie AB51 5RN

The Lords Spiritual and parliamentary standards

From Mr Martin Sewell

Madam, — Until recently, I would have supported Sir Tony Baldry in his plea for the retention of the Lords Spiritual in the Upper House of Parliament (Letter, 25 October), but I regret that I am no longer able to do so. My reasons are twofold.

First, the Bishops’ privileged status has been founded upon a premiss of moral integrity, which was presumed to ensure that they “spoke truth to power”. That justification has evaporated with their collective failures to urgently address the multiple disasters in safeguarding which both IICSA and the Jay report addressed.

Second, the Church that they lead obstructs every attempt to hold episcopal delinquency to account. Under its processes, any complaint is refined and diluted at each stage until it is determined that it is does not “quite” reach the requisite standard and is dismissed.

There is a knock-on effect on the Upper Chamber. It is required that a peer should self-report an allegation in the event of a professional body investigating a complaint. The problem is that National Safeguarding Team applies a different standard from other professional investigators. Their policy appears to consider only whether a bishop subject to report presents “a current risk”, not whether they had committed a significant wrong.

Most victims lack the stamina to take their own action under the Clergy Discipline Measure, not least because it is universally regarded as “not fit for purpose”. The outcome is, nevertheless, that a flawed filter structure protects the entire episcopal class. This translates directly to the Lords Spiritual. Nobody knows how many complaints have been disappeared in this way. There is no way for anyone to find out.

The sooner the Established Church is held to the same standards as every other institution the better; the withdrawal of its privileged position in Parliament is the price we have to pay. We only have ourselves to blame.

MARTIN SEWELL
General Synod representative for Rochester diocese
8 Appleshaw Close
Gravesend
Kent DA11 7PB

Slavery reparations and acts of repentance

From the Revd Dr Ian K. Duffield

Madam, — It is surprising that the Revd Dr Michael Banner says that he has never encountered “an objection to the very idea of reparations” (Comment, 25 October), given that various problems have been identified — moral, legal, philosophical, practical, financial, and political — with events that happened a long time ago, such as the transatlantic slave trade.

For example, there are: (a) the legal idea of a statute of limitations on making claims; (b) the impossible task of quantifying a financial settlement; and (c) the identification of “victims” of an injustice perpetrated 200 years ago. Also, Dr Banner makes great play on achieving a political apology, even though Tony Blair as Prime Minister has already said sorry.

Unfortunately, Dr Banner’s illustrations from ordinary life illustrate the classic Christian error of moving from small-scale human relations to social and political life, when we need to learn (once again) from Reinhold Niebuhr that these are different categories and that it is unhelpful to confuse them.

As it is, those who wish justice to be done by Great Britain at a national level have to contend with the great political act of justice which has already happened: the ending of the slave trade and its policing (spearheaded by Great Britain and its navy at great cost).

IAN K. DUFFIELD
Director of Research
Urban Theology Union
Victoria Hall Methodist Church
Norfolk Street
Sheffield S1 2JB

From the Revd Larry Wright

Madam, — The Revd Dr Michael Banner makes the case for reparations for slavery to be linked to acts of repentance by institutions, including the Church of England, with historical links to the trade.

As an academic, he might be expected to be aware that the General Synod overwhelmingly carried a motion in 2006 doing just that. Furthermore, in 2007, a march of church leaders took place in London to mark the bicentenary of the beginning of abolition. Both Archbishops, with other bishops, were present.

In a press statement, Archbishop Rowan Williams said of the event: “The intention of today is not only to renew that act of repentance, not just an apology but repentance, acknowledgement that we were part of this terrible history, but also to wake people up to where we are now, the fact there still are problems.

“It’s an opportunity to involve people whose ancestors were involved in this, who are still feeling the effects of it, and so bring to light some of what it meant, some of what it cost.”

LARRY WRIGHT
81 The Green
Kings Norton
Birmingham B38 8RU

From the Revd Richard Adams

Madam, — The Revd Dr Michael Banner’s feature sets out good arguments for reparations and apologies in relation to the slave trade by which the UK and a number of other nations enriched themselves.

One component that so far has not been mentioned in these discussions, however, is the part played by the West African tribal leaders who sold their people to the European traders. The extent of their enrichment was undoubtedly smaller than that of Europeans and North Americans, but they, nevertheless, did sell their people into enslavement.

Should not their descendants also be drawn into debates about responsibility for this trade?
RICHARD ADAMS
Tros y Mor, Llangoed, Beaumaris
Anglesey LL58 8SB

Broad Church and the quest for theological clarity

From the Revd Dr John Bunyan

Madam, — In Theo Hobson’s and the Revd Sam Rylands’s encouragement of “broad churchmanship” (Comment, 25 October), and their appreciation of the rich “Catholic, Protestant, and liberal wings”, there is much with which I hope many churchpeople agree. Our Church’s cause has been harmed by the extreme neo-puritanism that I have seen in my home diocese, Sydney, in the 65 years I have been ordained.

I am concerned, however, first by the description of Jesus as “fully human, fully God”, blending “full humanity” and “full divinity”. That is not even “orthodox” Christology, but I do not think that it accords with what biology and other sciences increasingly are able to tell us of the nature of the human person, even the person of Jesus; nor does it accord with the limits of our knowledge of any historical person, including our Lord.

Second, I am not sure what is meant by “one form of liberal Christianity . . . too strong in the mid-20th century”. The liberal Anglican tradition was strong in the 1920s, but also from the 1960s on, rather than mid-century. Recently, I have noticed a tendency from some on both sides to dismiss airily much of the scholarship of those decades. But that has been to dismiss the work, for example, of Paul Badham, James Barr, John Macquarrie, Ian Ramsey, Charles Raven, and Maurice Wiles, and of some such as Dennis Nineham, under whom, alongside many “orthodox” scholars, I was privileged to study at London and in Durham. There were also those with whom in their understanding of Jesus I would align myself, scripturally unitarian Anglicans such as Sir Alister Hardy and G. W. H. Lampe.

Unlike some who now write denser prose, these remain readable, and relevant still in our more difficult 21st-century days.

JOHN BUNYAN
“Colenso Corner”, PO Box N109
Campbelltown North, NSW, 2560
Australia

Difficulties faced by the clergy in moving on

From Dr Christine Blackie

Madam, — Further to your leader comment (18 October) relating to clergy-vacancy rates, I welcome the Rt Revd Dr Nigel Peyton’s suggestion (Letter, 25 October) that access to professional career guidance and counselling would alleviate some of the barriers to greater clergy mobility while also addressing the issue of vocational authenticity.

Research into how clergy experience preparing to move jobs within the Church of England highlights the complex interface between clergy feeling called to a particular role or post only to find themselves confounded by the tasks of moving on (see Blackie, C., & Arnold, J. (2024). “A qualitative examination of calling in the context of job mobility among clergy”, British Journal of Guidance & Counselling).

Professional career counselling offers clergy an independent space to talk about and to reflect on topics and issues that may contradict, challenge, or disrupt their established thinking about what it means to feel called within the Church. Further insights are to be gained from recognising those systemic factors likely to affect how they go about a move. Such understanding can engender greater agency on the part of the individual to approach the work of moving on with hope and confidence.

Amid the analysis and debate about variables contributing to the current stasis, it seems that all roads lead back to the individual who is the only person who can decide whether they move jobs; and skilled and professional career support has a part to play in that decision-making process.

CHRISTINE BLACKIE
Address supplied