Archbishops’ Council safeguarding
From the Revd Dr Ian Paul
Madam, — I was interested to read about the Rochester diocesan synod’s motion of no confidence in the safeguarding oversight by the Archbishops’ Council (News, 13 December). None of us was informed about it until after the event — but then the synod itself was not informed, either, as I understand it was tabled at the end of the meeting without notice.
The Bishop of Rochester, Dr Jonathan Gibbs, was indeed a member of the team and joined Council meetings for three years. Under his leadership, we introduced the Interim Support Scheme, which has been providing survivors with substantial help. During that time, the Council fully supported his work and was never criticised by him; so I am unclear what his own vote of no confidence now means.
He will also have been aware that it was the Council itself that commissioned the reports of Makin, Wilkinson, and Jay, and who have carefully planned responses to each (it was Wilkinson who said previous failures have come from rushing into action instead of considering options). And these responses will come to the General Synod, along with the proposals for the Redress Scheme, including its fully independent administration.
But the Rochester synod will not have been aware of this, since in the debate (I understand) none of this was mentioned, and it was materially misinformed on other matters.
We can use this moment of crisis to attack the groups in the Church which we dislike, as seems to have happened here. Or we can focus on what really matters: putting in place support for survivors of historic abuse, and independent scrutiny of safeguarding to protect the vulnerable, things that dominate the Council’s agenda at every meeting.
IAN PAUL
Archbishops’ Council member
102 Cator Lane, Chilwell
Nottingham NG9 4BB
From Mr Simon Gell
Madam, — Miss Vasantha Gnanadoss (Letters, 13 December) points out that Keith Makin (and victims/survivors) praised Bishop Peter Hancock. What she fails to address was that Bishop Hancock was the single C of E cleric that Mr Makin was able to praise over the 40-plus-year period of the Smyth disaster, when Mr Makin’s terms of reference required him to provide examples of good practice within the C of E. On the other hand, Mr Makin identified failings of around 50 people, most of whom the C of E appears unwilling to investigate properly.
Miss Gnanadoss confuses often good local performance in many dioceses (which Smyth victims acknowledged in their statement at the time of the publication of the Makin review) with horrendous performance on historic cases by the church hierarchy (archbishops, bishops, Archbishops’ Council) over decades.
SIMON GELL
75 Woodbury Avenue
Petersfield, Hampshire GU32 2EB
From Mr Donald Wetherick
Madam, — My letter (13 December) referred to the death of a child attending a camp run by John Smyth in Zimbabwe as occurring in 2016. This was a careless error, for which I apologise. I now realise the child, Guide Nyachuru, died in 1992 (aged 16). The death and subsequent prosecution of John Smyth in Zimbabwe (later discontinued) are noted in the Makin report.
DONALD WETHERICK
20A Ellesmere Road
London E3 5QX
Pastoral supervision: all the clergy, every diocese
From Canon Stephen Fielding
Madam, — I write to endorse the superb article about the desirability of pastoral supervision for clergy (“Safe Church needs safe clergy”, Comment, 13 December). Ruth Layzell is absolutely right to press for its widespread introduction, because it is, as she says, a “potentially transformative practice”.
St Luke’s for Clergy Wellbeing has pastoral supervision as its major strategic priority for the next five years. We, with The Henry Smith Charity, are working with dioceses to promote and embed this practice.
Our ongoing programme with British Army chaplains demonstrates that regular pastoral supervision in a safe and confidential space with a trusted and experienced supervisor is a lifeline. It enables clergy to share the emotional and psychological burden of their ministry, gain insight into their practice, and, where necessary, reflect on how they might address issues differently in future, to their own benefit and the benefit of those they serve.
The writer also identifies the many pressures that are risks to clergy well-being. At St Luke’s, we hear and learn about these pressures through the psychological and psychiatric interventions we facilitate. This evidence-based data will significantly inform our advocacy as a clergy-well-being charity.
STEPHEN FIELDING
Chairman, St Luke’s for Clergy Wellbeing
The Vicarage, Bendish Lane
Whitwell SG4 8HX
From Mr Denis Tully
Madam, — In the General Synod debate, in July, about enhancing rest periods for office-holders, I said: “Every diocesan bishop should know that their parish priests have someone that supports them, with competent reflective practice.” Dr Ruth Layzell, in her article, makes the same point from a different perspective. Nevertheless, it is not only in the context of safeguarding that ministers are experiencing increasing pressures affecting clergy well-being. Arguably, people with less experience, or, as some might put it, less formation, are being put into highly demanding posts with expectations that are questionable, in terms of targets and timescales. One very able curate from a prominent successful church told me that they were already stressed at the prospect of moving to the parish to which they were newly assigned, because of what they were being asked to do.
Dr Layzell talks about non-managerial supervision, a practice that is embedded in the youth-work profession and is taken for granted as standard. Whatever language is used, the basic principle of having someone who can help us see beyond our immediate challenges, whether that be finding solutions or reinforcing our worth, will always be of benefit for the minister at the coalface.
Some years ago, the director of clergy training in my diocese set up a network of work coaches that clergy could use. When someone requested a coach, there was a matching process. He told me that, without exception, coaching was the best development resource he had ever set up for clergy, providing the best return of investment for the diocese, because, essentially, clergy were supported in finding their own answers to their own challenges.
Whatever you call it, this kind of support should be an essential part of any strategy in a diocese that promotes clergy well-being. Without it, that strategy falls short.
DENIS TULLY
Synod representative for Southwell & Nottingham diocese
71 Morley Avenue
Nottingham NG3 5FZ
Uganda Church Association votes to call it a day
From the Revd Dr Michael Hunter
Madam, — For more than 60 years, the Uganda Church Association (UCA) has existed to link together many of those, primarily though not exclusively expatriates, who have lived and worked in Uganda. It has been a source of up-to-date information about Uganda, in particular the (Anglican) Church of Uganda; it has stimulated prayer for Uganda and its people; and it has provided grants for Christian work in Uganda, especially in the area of training for ministry. The Association has been fortunate to have as its chairpersons during this time a number of distinguished church leaders.
While the Church of Uganda has multiplied enormously in this period, the number of those from this country who have worked in Uganda for a significant length of time — whether in partnership with the Church or in secular posts — has decreased dramatically. Consequently, it is not surprising that, as our membership has aged, its numbers have also diminished. The remaining members continue to have a great interest in Uganda and a love for the country and its people, but, having regretfully decided that the UCA is no longer viable, they voted earlier this year to close the UCA.
I am, therefore, writing to inform your readership that the process of closure is complete, and the Charity Commission has been notified.
MICHAEL HUNTER
Formerly Hon. Secretary, UCA
18 Linnet Grove, Kendal LA9 7RP
Vocations for vacancies
From the Revd Martin King
Madam, — No doubt many readers will have sympathy for the parish in vacancy and the retired priest struggling to keep it going in the face of a total lack of applicants (Comment, 13 December). I wonder, though, how many priestly vocations that parish (or, for that matter, that retired priest) has fostered in recent years. No bishop, let alone their PA, has the power to conjure up candidates, when insufficient numbers are coming through from the body of the Church — the parishes.
Should not every parish in the land be looking to ensure that there are more candidates in the future?
MARTIN KING
29 Parkfields
Welwyn Garden City
Hertfordshire AL8 6EE