Polish show how to keep the feast
From Mr Jonathan Luxmoore
Madam, — Having witnessed the passing of another All Saints’ Day, I must confess to a growing sense of gloom at how little Christian communities in this country —ceding publicity and popularity to the sinister tackiness of Hallowe’en — now make of what should be a great pre-winter festival of resurrection faith and light.
I marked the occasion by visiting the family grave in Cheltenham Cemetery of my maternal grandfather, Canon Verney Lovett Johnstone (1905-48), a one-time Fellow of Keble and author inter alia of The Anglican Way. We appeared to be the only people across this vast 65-acre site, first opened in the 1860s — until a procession assembled in the distance, complete with priests and servers, and began moving our way, praying and singing hymns.
They turned out to be Roman Catholics from the Polish Church’s Cheltenham-Gloucester parish, one of about 200 across England and Wales, who had come to bless the cemetery’s many Polish graves and adorn them with candles and flowers.
The rector, the Revd Dariusz Mazur, said that he was surprised and disappointed that none of our own denominations made similar gestures for All Saints’ Day; for, in Poland, the festival is celebrated on a huge scale in cemeteries and churchyards nationwide, dazzlingly illuminating the autumnal darkness in a spectacular affirmation of Christian devotion, family love, and respect for past generations.
Perhaps parishes could make this a resolution for All Saints’ Day 2025: to revive a popular tradition for this principal feast, and begin lighting up our churchyards with candles, flowers, lights, and decorations. If Christianity is to survive, it has to be out in the open, visible and attractive in every community, not locked away in hushed half-empty churches.
JONATHAN LUXMOORE
33A West Street
Chipping Norton OX7 5EU
Science illuminates liturgical traditions
From Professor Ken Miles
Madam, — In his recent article (Comment, 18 October), the Revd Daniel Sandham highlights a deepening crisis of confidence in the Church’s liturgy. Resources for rediscovering that confidence can be found in an unlikely place: science — not pure science, but science interpreted as a gift from God that can enrich a life of faith.
Based on studies of normal volunteers and knowledge of medical conditions associated with reduced spirituality, it is possible to characterise the mental and bodily processes that become activated when Christians sense the presence of God, and to identify forms of worship that are most likely to bring about these changes. When we do this, we discover that rituals, bodily movements and postures, markers of influential authority (such as vestments), and worship environments with vertical lines are key elements. They can all be found (although not exclusively) in traditional worship undertaken in inherited church buildings.
And yet this knowledge creates a dilemma, because the aspects of worship that are most likely to bring about a sense of God’s presence can often seem incomprehensible to non-believers. Finding creative and novel ways to explain the liturgy remains a major challenge for the Church. Perhaps a science-based account of Christian worship could not only increase confidence in the Church’s liturgy but also provide a culturally relevant way of communicating the value of our inherited traditions.
KEN MILES
Southbank, Paignton Road
Stoke Gabriel
Devon TQ9 6SJ
Safeguarding issues: accountability and redress
Madam, — Martin Sewell speaks of the collective failures of bishops to address urgently “multiple disasters of safeguarding” (Letter, 1 November). I have direct experience of disasters of safeguarding from no fewer than four bishops and both Archbishops.
For almost five years, since 2020, I have been an advocate for an elderly ailing friend (with his written permission) who had a complaint of sexual touching made against him by a chorister — an allegation that my friend vehemently denies. He was not even in the country for many weeks of the time span given for the three incidents to have taken place.
The complainant changed his story many times, but there has never been any investigation or scrutiny of evidence. The evidence that we have provided and that might have exonerated my friend has been substantial, much of it based on Subject Access Request (SAR) information.
There is no independent complaints or appeals procedure to turn to, as Professor Jay recommended. We have only the columns of your newspaper to highlight the injustices of safeguarding practices in the Church of England.
Three bishops involved with the case said that they could not intervene in a safeguarding process. A fourth colluded with the preferment of a cleric who, at the time, was under a Clergy Discipline Measure (CDM) process because she suppressed evidence that might have exonerated my friend. Despite there being a trail of emails showing her having done this, the diocesan bishop at the time and a dean were instrumental in denying this evidence.
Similarly, last year, the same diocesan bishop very markedly supported the diocesan safeguarding adviser. This was after he had met with us for more than two hours, read all our evidence, and sympathised. Nevertheless, he still accepted the adviser’s contrary story of our case. So, once again, there was no justice.
I should like to thank Mr Sewell for drawing attention to this scandalous situation, in which there is no proper process for making realistic complaints against bishops and so allowing such gross injustices to become acceptable within the Church of England.
NAME AND ADDRESS SUPPLIED
From Mr Andrew Graystone
Madam, — Speaking in a Lords debate on the Infected Blood Inquiry, the Bishop of Sheffield said that “After having waited decades for justice, the infected and the affected are, in many cases, still being made to wait for the full implementation of the compensation scheme. This is just wrong” (Quotes, 18 October).
Of course, the Bishop is correct. But the irony that the Church of England still has no scheme to offer redress to victims of clergy abuse cannot go unnoted. Not one survivor has received compensation. The Redress Scheme was conceived in 2020, and promised for 2022, but it is not yet open for applications. It will not start to deliver until at least 2025.
Meanwhile, the Interim Support Scheme, which was intended as a stop-gap to provide short-term help to survivors in extreme need, is being more and more tightly restricted. One beneficiary has been told that the support they depend on is being reduced by three-quarters. Another woman has been told that the scheme will not support her, because the unqualified and anonymous church officials who have assessed her case regard her allegation of rape by a church officer as “unsubstantiated”.
This is just wrong, too. But, in this case, the Bishops have it in their power to put it right.
ANDREW GRAYSTONE
17 Rushford Avenue
Manchester M19 2HG
If Dyer case is canonical, the canon needs fixing
From the Revd David Mumford
Sir, — Given that the proceedings in the Aberdeen & Orkney case (News and Letters, 25 October; Letters, 1 November) are in line with canonical procedures, one conclusion must be that Canon 54 is not fit for purpose. The length of time that the case has taken and the costs involved are unacceptable. We are left with an effective verdict of not proven, in that the complainants have not had their grievances determined and the Bishop has not been exonerated. The canons relating to the method of choosing a bishop when a diocese cannot agree on a nomination also need amendment.
Canons by themselves cannot guarantee right conduct or sensible decisions. Even in the church injustices can happen. When people need to effectively contest situations in which bullying or unfair dismissal are alleged or where protected characteristics such as disability are involved, then membership of a trade union is profoundly important.
I hope that the SEC can speedily revise the relevant canonsm and, in the mean timem I would encourage membership of the Faithworkers Branch of Unite.
DAVID MUMFORD
Flat 20, Ramsay Hall
9-13 Byron Road
Worthing BN11 3HN
Cultural pressures exacerbate impetus to division
From Mr David Healey
Madam, — Reading “Not ashamed to be Broad Churchmen” (Comment, 25 October) reminded me of the Litany: we there ask God to preserve the Church from “heresy, and schism”.
In most organisations, just as in families, we have to learn to work with people with whom we disagree: the same applies equally to both the Church of England and the “one holy catholic and apostolic Church” (if we have an ecclesiology that goes beyond the local congregation).
The authors reminded us, too, that the Church Universal and the C of E have always grappled with difficult issues, on which Christians have profoundly different views. Dissent is not going away: church history (a subject about which many of Evangelical conviction are, to our intellectual shame, profoundly ignorant of) is littered with it. Cultural pressures always bear upon the Church. The uncivil nature of America’s contemporary public debate and its culture wars are both alarming and dangerous. So it is here: we are under pressure from the world also to adopt the style and tone of its debates.
We need in all traditions to remind each other to handle debates with grace, and in humility of spirit to hold together under the demanding constraint of being one. Otherwise, we have both imbibed the spirit of the age and fail to offer an example of living alongside people (with whom we differ) in civility and to hold dissenting views with principled firmness and grace.
The genius of the C of E is in part its capacity to reach out to and minister to people of many different backgrounds, personalities, and cultures: our variety, if lived out with grace and a sacrificial attitude, ought to be a strength: patrons and patronage societies in the C of E often acknowledge that one of our roles is to help to maintain the mix of traditions.
There are forces at work in the C of E that seek to undermine that balance, potentially terminally. We may also think, as in politics, that we can do better than our leaders: I suspect that many who think they ought to lead the Church may not be quite as good at the junction box of Church and State as they might imagine.
Any fool can close something down or split it: it takes much more effort and sacrifice to preserve and nurture, and make our unity work so “that the world may know”.
DAVID HEALEY
14 Blackford Road
Edinburgh EH9 2DS
The Labour Budget
From Mr John Alty
Sir, — I was surprised that in your coverage of the Church’s reaction to the Budget (News, 1 November) there was no mention of the impact on public trust in politicians arising from the fact that the Government had promised before the election that they didn’t need to raise taxes, other than on non-doms and private schools; and that they had a fully costed programme for public services.
In the light of what was announced, some people might find the pre-election statements misleading and inconsistent with the values of honesty and integrity which we look for in our politicians and public life more generally.
JOHN ALTY
20 Meynell Crescent
London E9 7AS
Strugglers and shiners
From Mr Derek Wellman
Madam, — The Revd Malcolm Guite (Poet’s Corner, 1 November) refers to the hymn “For all the Saints” and mentions particularly the line “We feebly struggle, they in glory shine.” Many years ago, a cathedral verger told me that this line perfectly summed up the difference between him and his colleagues and the Dean and Chapter.
DEREK WELLMAN
52 Nettleham Road
Lincoln LN2 1RH