Scolding — and a Smyth clause
From Katharine Salmon
Madam, — I am sure that I am among the many who read your coverage of the Scolding report on Soul Survivor (Online news, 27 September) with horror and disbelief at the many opportunities that were missed to ensure that safeguarding practices were followed.
From reports that were not passed on to Mr Pilavachi’s not having to attend a panel for ordination — the list is long. How many times does the Church of England need to be told that safeguarding practices are not an optional extra, and self-policing by the Bishops does not work?
As a teenager, I attended many events for young people which were run along the Soul Survivor lines, with limited accountability, and abusive healing practices, especially aimed at young people who identified as LGBT. As a teacher, when I do safeguarding training, these practices are now clearly categorised as spiritual abuse. As a teacher, I am reassured that my colleagues are aware of this.
As a licensed lay minister (LLM) who does the Church of England safeguarding training, however, I am frequently aware of how often these practices are not followed — because the Church does not think that the rules apply. Often at the end of our regular safeguarding training as LLMs, I raise the myriad of stories in the Church Times: Soul Survivor and Canon Andrew Hindley come to mind, but so do so many others.
It is 2024. Secular organisations have had to take safeguarding seriously for many years. The Church of England, and other Churches, are still paying lip service to what should be statutory guidance.
KATHARINE SALMON
22 Greystones Road
Sheffield S117BN
From Miss Vasantha Gnanadoss
Madam, — In 2017, Bishop James Jones published a follow-up report based on the experiences of the Hillsborough families (News, 2 November 2017). Among the Bishop’s “points of learning” was “there should be consideration of how to enshrine a ‘duty of candour’ upon police officers, to ensure that they co-operate fully with investigations.” Now the Prime Minister has pledged that a “Hillsborough law” will be introduced in Parliament by next April. The new law will impose a duty of candour on all public bodies and all public servants, requiring them to cooperate with investigations into future disasters and scandals.
The long Hillsborough struggle for truth and justice was impeded by a lack of honesty and openness by those in power, a willingness to close ranks and blame others, and a failure to disclose relevant information. The inquiry did not have access to all relevant evidence, interviewing only a few of those involved.
Much the same can be said about the much delayed Makin inquiry into the abuses by John Smyth. One might hope that candour would be the norm in the Church. Candour would be of great benefit to the welfare of survivors of abuse. The Church’s disciplinary legislation should be reviewed and amended to add a “John Smyth clause” that would make a duty of candour explicit for clergy, and especially for bishops and archbishops.
VASANTHA GNANADOSS
242 Links Road
London SW17 9ER
Grounds for deciding not to grant PTO
From Dr Andrew Gordon and Dr Jonathan Chaplin
Madam, — You report that the Bishop of Bristol, the Rt Revd Vivienne Faull, will not grant permission to officiate (PTO) to a retired priest, the Revd Sue Parfitt (News, 20 September). Ms Parfitt awaits a criminal trial for allegedly chipping a glass case containing Magna Carta as a protest against the Government’s breach of its climate policy, as found by the High Court.
We are astonished that Bishop Faull has refused permission in this case merely because “Ms Parfitt is facing criminal charges in ongoing court proceedings.” The principle of “innocent until proven guilty” has ancient roots. We can find no reason to refuse permission to Ms Parfitt in the House of Bishops’ “Policy on Granting Permission to Officiate” from 2018.
Allegation of criminal charges are mentioned only with respect to safeguarding, which is not relevant here. Paragraph 4.20 even says that “the existence of a criminal record will not necessarily prevent a person from being granted PTO” in relation to safeguarding concerns. The document also quotes the Police Act 1997, which says “registered bodies must treat DBS applicants who have a criminal record fairly and not discriminate automatically.”
Even if Ms Parfitt were eventually to be found guilty of damage to the glass case, it would be a minor matter with no injury to anyone, and intended wholly to draw attention to the vastly more damaging breach by the Government itself. A bishop who is fully alert to the imminent threat of climate change and who defends the right to protest, as Bishop Faull is, should surely be standing by Ms Parfitt, not blocking her ministry.
We call on Bishop Faull either to grant PTO or to explain herself adequately to the many Christians who applaud Ms Parfitt’s brave discipleship.
ANDREW GORDON
Address supplied (Cambridge)
JONATHAN CHAPLIN
19 Coles Lane, Oakington
Cambridge CB24 3AF
The word of the Lord and discerning what it is
From the Revd Stephen Southgate
Madam, — Many of us, I am sure, would take issue with the Revd Jonathan Frais in his dismissal of Professor MacCulloch’s understanding of scripture (Letter, 27 September), and with the general habit of declaring a preferred version of the Bible to be the word of the Lord.
Those of us who were brought to faith in Evangelical circles often had 2 Timothy 3.16 drummed into us to align us with the author’s blanket assertion of divine inspiration, and to imply divine authorship of the whole marvellous corpus (extended somehow to the New Testament, but not the Apocrypha) with added claims of inerrancy, infallibility, etc.
Half a century after those Bible classes, I am indebted to the many scholars who have made my appreciation of the scriptures much more aware of the people and situations from which they came.
Without these perspectives, we cannot plausibly reconcile Jesus’s humane teachings and ministry with such notorious pronouncements as we find in Deuteronomy 21 and 22 on acquiring female captives and stoning wayward sons, followed by an appalling litany of terms, tariffs, and punishments regarding unsatisfactory brides and raped virgins.
I cannot remember an occasion when I was bidden to affirm these passages as “the word of the Lord”; but their uncelebrated presence surely undermines much of the ground for the Church’s narrow and controlling approach to human sexuality and relations.
So, perhaps when we read the scriptures, however horrifying or consoling, a more open and helpful bidding would be: “Hear the word of the Lord.”
STEPHEN SOUTHGATE
The Vicarage, Ripponden
Sowerby Bridge
West Yorkshire HX6 4DF
Accusations of dishonesty can fly both ways
From the Revd Dr Ian Paul
Madam, — The Revd Dr Charlie Bell (Letter, 27 September) is right: dishonesty is not a Christian virtue. So perhaps we need to name the multiple dishonesties that have marked debate around Living in Love and Faith (LLF) and the Crown Nominations Commission (CNC) over the years.
These include: the dishonesty of the policy “Don’t ask, don’t tell”, followed by bishops over decades; the dishonesty of launching the LLF process in the first place in 2017, when there was no case for it; the dishonesty of the last-minute forcing of debate in Synod when LLF ended; the dishonesty of the House of Bishops’ meeting in secret, failing to be open about theological and legal advice, and then claiming that there was no need to reverse this; the dishonesty of using the PLF prayers in ways that clearly breaches the guidelines debated in Synod; and the dishonesty of those claiming that they know what happened in recent CNC meetings when that is simply not possible.
If we are going to be virtuous in the way that Dr Bell calls for, we have a lot of work to do.
IAN PAUL
102 Cator Lane, Chilwell
Nottingham NG9 4BB
Illegal acts by Israel? No: this is just politics
From the Revd Dr Ian K. Duffield
Madam, — The concern of the Bishops of Gloucester, Chelmsford, Norwich, and Southwark is understandable. The eviction of the Kisiya Palestinian Christian family from their farm in Al-Makhrour, near Bethlehem, is a matter of concern (News, 27 September) and should be pursued in Israel’s courts up to the Supreme Court, if necessary. Indeed, as they say, those responsible should be held “to account”.
Nevertheless, this does not necessitate the adoption of prejudicial Palestinian militant terminology. The language of “occupation”, “settlement”, and “illegality” in this context is political, not legal, language, according to the UK expert on international law Natasha Hausdorff. Furthermore, the citing of the United Nations in support of such an approach is more than awkward, given its systemic and consistent anti-Israel bias over many years, as demonstrated by UN Watch, and on show again in the recent UN General Assembly vote.
Similarly, the reference to the International Court of Justice — given that, as the eminent Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz has argued, it is neither properly international, nor a court, and has a tentative relationship to justice.
IAN K. DUFFIELD
Director of Research
Urban Theology Union
Victoria Methodist Hall
Norfolk Street
Sheffield S1 2JB
Commissioners’ ruling on St John’s, Hanley
From Mrs Margaret Clark
Madam, — I have read “Disused church not allowed to be used as mosque” (News, 30 August) with great interest and not a little concern. I would like the Church Commissioners to give further consideration to their decision made regarding the restrictive covenant in respect of St John’s, Hanley, Stoke on Trent.
As a retired head teacher of a large multifaith primary school in east London, and as a member of the SACRE for more than eight years, I am worried about the effects that this could have in bringing the Christian and Muslim children close together in a multifaith settings. If the Christian community is to understand the philosophies and practices of Islam better at local levels, is this the best way to go about it?
As a head teacher, I fostered celebrations and festivals of many faiths as well as Christian ones. Children of all faiths were encouraged to join together to learn about each other’s faiths with almost no exceptions.
Being well aware of the sensitivities that the local Christian may have regarding this matter, I feel that it would be a retrograde step to hinder the advancement of interfaith communities in this way.
MARGARET CLARK
Address supplied (Loughton, Essex)
Ecumenical editorship
From Mr Richard Strudwick
Madam, — In bidding you welcome to your post, I, as a Roman Catholic subscriber of some 40 years’ standing, should like to record my appreciation to Paul Handley (Comment, 27 September) for his dedicated editorship of the Church Times and his sympathetic and even-handed treatment of those in communion with the see of Rome.
Mr Handley’s last issue was especially poignant for me, as it featured the obituary of the Revd Michael Taylor (Gazette), formerly a Leeds City Councillor, whom I knew during my time as Sergeant at Mace to the Lord Mayors of Leeds. May he rest in peace eternal.
RICHARD T. STRUDWICK
21 Manston Avenue
Cross Gates
Leeds LS15 8BS
Vision and Strategy
From Mr Jonathan Baird
Madam, — With apologies to Sir Michael Caine, the Bishop of Chelmsford (Podcast, 27 September) is to be congratulated on “blowing the doors off” Vision and Strategy. In pursuit of a misguided centralist policy, this is leading to distortions and unintended consequences on an industrial scale. Yet the General Synod has neither approved nor agreed to Vision and Strategy. How so?
JONATHAN BAIRD
General Synod member
Flint Cottage, Conock
Wiltshire SN10 3QQ