*** DEBUG START ***
*** DEBUG END ***

Letters to the Editor

by
13 December 2024

Letters to the Editor intended for publication in our 20 December issue should reach our office by noon on Monday 16th

iStock

Makin, episcopal collegiality, and Welby Lords speech

From Professor Michael Mulqueen

Madam, — The Church Times deserves credit for drawing on the opinions of three retired senior police officers to scrutinise thoroughly the Makin report, where it deals with policing procedure (News, 29 November).

Your reporting will create doubt, especially among UK law-enforcement professionals, as to whether Mr Makin properly understood the crime-recording requirements upon police in 2013. Replies from Mr Makin’s public-relations adviser on this matter were unclear to this reader.

Crime-recording — the time-consuming task of an officer identifying and recording crime from information reported — is governed by Home Office rules, which have tightened considerably over the past 11 years. It seems that relevant information was escalated up the chain of command in policing in 2013, but police chose not to record a crime. By today’s rules, my opinion is that this cannot reoccur. Additionally, no archbishop could have altered the police position of the day. To have tried would rightly have been rebuffed as unwelcome and unhelpful interference.

If Mr Makin were to confirm, with regard to the Home Office crime recording rules that prevailed in 2013, whether he conflated the act of reporting a crime with that of recording a crime, then the question whether a cardinal error has heaped injustice upon Archbishop Welby could be resolved. This serious question deserves an unambiguous reply.

None of what I write is to play down accounts of police dismissiveness towards courageous victims and those seeking to support them. Nor is it to add to debate concerning the Church’s institutional failures with regard to safeguarding.

It is, however, to note also a problematic downside for police and victims which has arguably arisen because of how Archbishop Welby has been effectively cornered into leaving.

Police encouragement of a “no-fear” culture in reporting historical safeguarding concerns is hardly helped by piling on people of good faith who, because they seem to have stuck to the safeguarding norms of a decade ago, are to be vilified now.

How might those clergy and lay people with historical information that they wish to convey to safeguarding authorities calculate the odds of being, at some future point, targeted by church leadership for not doing enough?

MICHAEL MULQUEEN
Emeritus Professor of Policing and National Security
University of Central Lancashire
Preston PR1 2HE


From Canon Nicholas Sagovsky

Madam, — Many thanks to Bishop Peter Selby for his reminder (Letters, 29 November), when discussing the recent actions of the Bishop of Newcastle, of the principle that “publicly attacking fellow bishops, let alone calling for their resignation, is a freedom that you give up when you accept office as a diocesan bishop”. Why should this be so?

There is always conflict and disagreement within the Church. There is, however, also what St Augustine calls a “law of communion”, which governs how conflict is handled within the Body of Christ. The “law of communion” for bishops is based on their “collegiality”. As St Cyprian put the underlying principle in his reflection On the Unity of the Catholic Church (in 251): “The episcopate forms a unity of which each one holds their part within the totality” (Episcopatus unus est cuius a singulis in solidum pars tenetur).

Though the precise meaning is debated, Cyprian’s teaching is the first clear statement of a central principle in Anglican (as well as Orthodox and Catholic) ecclesiology: the solidarity of the bishops is vital for the exercise of their authority “with justice, courtesy and love” (to quote the Common Worship Ordinal). The sacramental sign of this solidarity is their communion with one another. If this is broken, the unity of the Church as a whole (its catholicity) is fractured.

In 2008, the Inter-Anglican Doctrinal Commission produced a report, Communion, Conflict and Hope. When putting forward ten theses on what it means to be a bishop in the Anglican Communion, they commented: “It is of the essence of the episcopate that bishops give themselves over to collegial mutuality in the service of communion” (my emphasis).

The Bishop of Newcastle’s public criticisms of the Archbishops of Canterbury and York, together with her criticisms of other bishops, have a distinctly Donatist (or rigorist) ring to them. When interviewed on the BBC Sunday programme on 1 December, she was asked about her current relationship with the Archbishops of Canterbury and York. She replied: “I don’t have a relationship with either of them at the moment.”

It sounds from this as if the Bishop of Newcastle is not currently in communion with the whole college of bishops. If this were to be the case, it would have serious implications for her ministry in the diocese and for those, like me, who serve (in my case, with permission to officiate) within the diocese of Newcastle. To maintain our confidence in her leadership, we need the assurance of her participation in the unanimity (which does not preclude robust debate) of all the bishops. The communion (koinonia) of the whole episcopate, undergirding the ministry of each diocesan bishop, is vital to the spiritual welfare of every member of the local church.

NICHOLAS SAGOVSKY
Address supplied


From Miss Vasantha Gnanadoss

Madam, — Bishop Peter Selby wisely offers an alternative perspective to that of the Bishop of Newcastle on how bishops conducted themselves when responding to the Makin review. This more positive assessment accords with the fact that many bishops have quietly implemented good safeguarding standards in their own dioceses.

The Makin review records that the former lead bishop for safeguarding the Rt Revd Peter Hancock “recognised the need for a thorough examination of the abuses carried out by John Smyth and called for an independent review. He met with victims and has been praised by them for his relentless focus on their needs and his commitment to a trauma informed approach to safeguarding in the Church” (Makin 24.1.2). This demonstrates the courage of a bishop when he was receiving little support.

Bishop Selby also draws attention to the treatment of Lord Sentamu in Newcastle diocese, pointing out that it has resulted from concern about reputation rather than justice and care for individuals. Lord Sentamu’s interpretation of canon law is backed up by Philip Jones in his article “Safeguarding and the Rule of Law” (ecclesiasticallaw.wordpress.com). He writes: “Thus the Archbishop may not intervene in another diocese on a routine or discretionary basis. To do so would be to exceed his jurisdiction.”

Lord Sentamu’s experience as a High Court judge in Uganda and as a member of the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry team gives confidence in his full understanding of the law.

The Bishop of Newcastle has published a letter from the Archbishops which informs her that Lord Sentamu is willing to work with her on an agreed statement, to be made public, that will seek to acknowledge the difficulties this caused and thus, it is hoped, enable her to be in the position of enabling him to resume his ministry. I hope that she will see this as a helpful suggestion and show a willingness to cooperate.

This is a time when we should be focusing on the good safeguarding work in many dioceses and speak of a hopeful future for the Church of England. This would be a sensible way to help restore the Church’s reputation.

VASANTHA GNANADOSS
242 Links Road
London SW17 9ER


Madam, — In his valedictory address in the House of Lords, the Archbishop of Canterbury suggested that a “head had to roll” for the safeguarding failures described in the Makin report.

This is a marked departure from a recent pattern of responses by him and other Church of England leaders to safeguarding failures. When, in 2021, both the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishop of London were required to respond to a coroner’s Prevention of Future Deaths report, after a shocking, institutionally homophobic, and bungled safeguarding investigation that led to the suicide of the Revd Alan Griffin in November 2020, the response was a “lessons learned” review, “to promote learning and improve practice, not to apportion blame”.

Therefore, no one named in the coroner’s report has resigned, been held to account, or disciplined. Church leaders whom the coroner named and who failed so appallingly remain in post with responsibility for safeguarding.

Bishops and others may hold their heads in shame at the Makin report and the Archbishop of Canterbury’s responses. But he has, at least, taken personal responsibility for his failures, and the failures of the institution that he leads. The same cannot be said of those whose comparatively recent actions and failure to act led to the death of Alan Griffin.

NAME AND ADDRESS SUPPLIED

From the Revd Sheila Rosenthal

Madam, — Bishop Selby criticises a bishop for criticising a bishop despite his assertion that this is a freedom that you give up when you accept office as a diocesan bishop.

Isn’t this the problem in part, that clergy — especially, it seems, bishops — collude to keep things in-house, instead of showing leadership and a seriously professional eye to the issue of safeguarding?

“Well done” to the Bishop of Newcastle for calling it out and holding an archbishop to public account. She has shown remarkable courage, wisdom and leadership, and authority.

SHEILA ROSENTHAL
Hirschkopfweg 22
2270 Baiersbronn, Germany


From Mr Paul Clifford

Madam, — Your correspondents who have rushed to defend Archbishop Welby as the victim of unfairness (Letters, 29 November and 6 December) are rather missing the point. As his valedictory speech in the House of Lords made clear, he did not resign because he was criticised in the Makin report, but because he took personal responsibility for the institutional failings of the Church of England, of which he is the senior figure.

This was a brave decision, but a vital one. Only such a move could persuade the victims that the Church takes its betrayal of them with appropriate seriousness. It also demonstrates a model of accountability for organisational shortcomings which some leaders in other spheres of national life would do well to emulate.

PAUL CLIFFORD
Michaelmas Cottage
Bletchingdon Road
Kirtlington OX5 3HF


From the Revd Andrew McLuskey

Madam, — Was cracking jokes the right way for the Archbishop of Canterbury to take leave of his colleagues in the House of Lords? It seems that Archbishop Welby and other top people in the Church still do not get the full horror of what, on occasion, has been done by church leaders to those they are meant to care for.

ANDREW McLUSKEY
70 Stanley Road, Ashford
Middlesex TW15 2LQ


From Donald Wetherick

Madam, — The 1989 Children Act and associated Working Together document on inter-agency coopera­tion established the current UK frame­work for safeguarding chil­dren. The Childen Act established the “paramountcy” of the “best interests of the child” regardless of criminal actions or the likelihood of successful prosecution of abusers. This legislation, however, came after John Smyth had already left the UK for southern Africa in 1984.

Following the principles of the Act, when historic abuse was dis­closed to Ely diocese in 2013, the most urgent action was to inform agencies in southern Africa of the current risk John Smyth posed to young people there. This was report­edly done by Bishop Conway at the time. A crime report to the UK police about historic abuse allega­tions in the UK, while important as a matter of justice and concern for victims, would come second to the matter of safeguarding children cur­rently at risk.

The Makin report and Arch­bishop Welby’s subsequent resigna­tion have focused attention on the reporting and investigation of Smyth’s historic abuses in the UK as crimes. Perhaps more attention should be given to the sharing of information between UK and southern African agencies after 2013 and how these concerns were escal­ated, especially following the death of a child in Zimbabwe in 2016. This is what good safeguarding practice would require, and perhaps some­thing victims in the UK might have hoped would also result from their own painful disclosures.

DONALD WETHERICK
20A Ellesmere Road
London E3 5QX


From the Revd Chris Martin

Madam, — To those charged with finding us a new Archbishop of Canterbury: Please send us a pastor, not a manager; please send us someone who understands the Church as corporeal rather than corporate, and for whom a “top-down” approach will be only about the flow of money; please send us someone who will not pit bishops and dioceses against parishes and priests, and who is committed to people, parishes, and priestly presence more than policies, programmes, and politics. Please!

CHRIS MARTIN
The Vicarage, School Hill
Stoke Gabriel, Totnes TQ9 6QX


Parochial experience

From the Revd Charles Overton

Madam, — Fifty years ago, when I was an ordinand, I noted that a neighbour­ing theological college training future priests had three clergy on its staff who between them had only three years of experience running a parish. I thought that rather odd. These days, it seems that one can even become a bishop after serving only a few years as a part-time curate.

May I suggest that the con­­gregations of the Church of Eng­land deserve to be served by bishops with at least a few years of experience as an incumbent, and their priests need to be trained by people with similar experience of what parish ministry is really about at the “coal-face”.

CHARLES OVERTON
The Valletts, Waterloo, Letton
Hereford HR3 6DN

Browse Church and Charity jobs on the Church Times jobsite

Letters to the editor

Letters for publication should be sent to letters@churchtimes.co.uk.

Letters should be exclusive to the Church Times, and include a full postal address. Your name and address will appear below your letter unless requested otherwise.

Forthcoming Events

Women Mystics: Female Theologians through Christian History

13 January - 19 May 2025

An online evening lecture series, run jointly by Sarum College and The Church Times

tickets available

 

Festival of Faith and Literature

28 February - 2 March 2025

tickets available

 

Visit our Events page for upcoming and past events 

The Church Times Archive

Read reports from issues stretching back to 1863, search for your parish or see if any of the clergy you know get a mention.

FREE for Church Times subscribers.

Explore the archive

Welcome to the Church Times

 

To explore the Church Times website fully, please sign in or subscribe.

Non-subscribers can read four articles for free each month. (You will need to register.)