The Synod’s vote on the future of C of E safeguarding 

From Mr Philip Belben

Madam, — Reactions to the Synod’s decision on safeguarding (News, 14 February) display two erroneous opinions, each of which leads to rhetoric that can be potentially dangerous to safeguarding.

First is the claim that victims have not been listened to. The process of making a decision often involves listening to the views and advice — often conflicting, sometimes contradictory — of many parties. A decision must then be reached, and it is seldom that it can ever please all involved.

For one party to claim that they have not been listened to, simply because it is not their view that has prevailed, is unfair. Their views have been listened to, and taken into account; but this will have been as part of a wider picture, with other views also heard and acted upon.

Indeed, and this is the second error, the victims are not the primary beneficiaries of safeguarding. The primary beneficiaries may, we hope, never know the benefits they have received: they are those who might have been abused in future, but for the safeguarding work that prevents this.

Also to benefit are those who might have been tempted to sin, but for the safeguarding work that removes their temptation, for example by placing them in less tempting positions. These people may even see safeguarding as an inconvenience rather than a benefit, but it is a benefit all the same.

The role of victims in the current process, that of deciding how safeguarding is to be carried out, is to provide testimony of what has gone wrong, why, and what might have prevented it. For victims to receive closure — the acknowledgement of wrong, and steps taken to prevent its repetition — and even redress is important, and the Church should be doing more in this area. Nevertheless, it is not safeguarding, and should not be confused with it.

PHILIP BELBEN
The Chapel, Maitlands Close
Nettlebridge, Radstock BA3 5AA

From Mr Andrew Graystone

Madam, — On the Tuesday morning, the General Synod agreed that there was a need for major culture change in the Church of England to make it a safer organisation. On the Tuesday afternoon, they voted for a Measure that leaves the power of bishops completely unchanged and unchallenged.

ANDREW GRAYSTONE
17 Rushford Avenue
Manchester M19 2HG

From Canon Philip Brent

Madam, — It pains me as a cleric who has been in Holy Orders for 28½ years, to have to state that my trust in the episcopate has never been lower. When one victim of abuse told the Synod that bishops have “lied” in public, it makes it extremely difficult to know whom you can trust any more.

If any parish cleric made a safeguarding error of the magnitude that the Archbishop of York seems to have made, they would be asked to step down from public ministry while it was being investigated, and made to wait until due process had happened. Only one bishop implicated in the Makin report has stood aside while an investigation is held.

The Synod’s decision not to go for fully independent safeguarding, but, rather, to go for the halfway house was described by Dame Jasvinder Sanghera, former C of E Independent Safeguarding Board lead, as an attempt to stop independent scrutiny of the Bishops, because, if that were allowed, more bishops would have to resign. It appears they are looking after themselves and not the victims of abuse.

I would find it very hard to take on any position that would be considered as that of a “Bishop’s officer”, which I have done in the past, as I don’t wish to get tarred with the same brush. I have never felt so distanced from those supposedly called to be our shepherds in Christ and, as a result, so disenchanted with the Church that I feel called to love and serve.

PHILIP BRENT
The Vicarage, Vicarage Gardens
Scunthorpe DN15 7AZ

From the Revd Mark Edwards

Madam, — I write with deep disappointment and sorrow regarding the Church of England’s recent decision to retain significant control over its own safeguarding procedures.

The history of abuse cases within the Church of England is well-documented, each one a harrowing reminder of how institutions fail when they attempt to police themselves. The decision to adopt a halfway measure — a so-called “model 3.5” that neither fully embraces independence nor retains the status quo — feels like an attempt to appear proactive while avoiding meaningful change.

Survivors and those affected by these failures were clear in their calls for complete independence. Instead, we are left with a “fudge,” as some have rightly called it, which does little to restore trust or ensure robust safeguarding practices.

The reluctance to relinquish control suggests a continued prioritisation of institutional self-preservation over genuine reform. No matter how well-intentioned internal safeguards may be, the presence of the old boys’ network — a culture that too often shields abusers rather than supports victims — renders any internally managed safeguarding system inherently flawed. The Church lacks the training, resources, and objectivity necessary to handle these matters effectively. Without full independence, the same patterns of failure, cover-ups, and betrayal of survivors will, I fear, persist.

If the Church is truly committed to rebuilding trust, it must recognise that trust is not restored by half-measures and internal committees, but by demonstrating full accountability to an external body with the expertise to oversee safeguarding properly.

MARK EDWARDS
The Vicarage, 2 East Acres
Dinnington
Newcastle Upon Tyne NE13 7NA

Madam, — In the letter “Synod’s latest decision on future of safeguarding” (14 February), the writer speaks of how difficult it is to get a second opinion on any judgements made by an individual safeguarding officer and the reasons that this is so. Much of that letter echoes my own experience. For the past five years, I have had direct encounters with partiality and bias leading to a conflict of interest on the part of one particular diocesan safeguarding officer (DSO).

There has been no possibility of the scrutinising of facts by an independent person. This is despite a substantial dossier of evidence that I have gathered.

In the Synod’s debate on Tuesday of last week (at which I was present), many speakers promoting Option 3 spoke enthusiastically, praising the professionalism of the DSOs. How can this be believed, though? Where is the independent person or organisation overseeing the work of DSOs, and where can complaints be directed when their performance is not up to standard?

From my perspective, independent oversight of local safeguarding efforts, as recommended by Professor Jay, cannot come too soon.

NAME & ADDRESS SUPPLIED

From Mr Roger Hale

Madam, — Professor Alexis Jay must be wondering why she bothers. Long investigations into very delicate areas on behalf of both the Government and the Church of England, followed by immensely sensible/workable recommendations, have fallen on deaf ears. She must be asking herself “What’s the point?” Still, I assume she is well paid for her trouble, even if future assignments may be difficult to come by because of the track record.

ROGER HALE
78 Egginton Road
Etwall, Derby DE65 6NP

The Church Commissioners and the cure of souls 

From Mr Andrew Orange

Madam, — The chair of the Strategic Mission and Ministry Investment Board, Carl Hughes, writes last week (Letters) that the national funding managed by the Board is intended to deliver additional provision for the cure of souls in parishes where such assistance is most required. While this is true for some of the grants, we now know that it is not true for all of them.

The answer to a recent parliamentary question, given on 3 February, categorises the grants according to whether they are given under the 1998 Measure (effectively the cure of souls) or under the 2018 Miscellaneous Provisions Measure (being used to justify a much broader, catch-all, category of spending).

In the table provided, the 2018 element quantifies what is going astray: £17 million in 2020, £20 million in 2021, and £38 million in each of 2022 and 2023 — with probably more in a further category where classification between 1998 and 2018 has not been possible.

When one remembers what even £10,000 is to a parish, these are extraordinary sums. They are astray from the charitable object of the Church Commissioners registered with Charity Commission, which refers to the 1998 Measure, not to the 2018 Measure. Given that it is not referred to in the charitable object, it is hard to see how the 2018 Measure can be used as a proper basis to justify trustee spending.

Furthermore, readers may be interested to know that, at the time when it was introduced, the guidance notes to the Miscellaneous Provisions 2018 Measure described it as “dealing with uncontroversial matters that do not merit separate, free-standing legislation”. The Secretary General, William Nye, introduced it to the Ecclesiastical Committee saying “this extra power will give just a little degree of extra freedom.” Yet this Measure has ushered in an entirely new basis, which has radically altered the spending of the Commissioners’ money.

By a false prospectus, as it seems, it is now only partially spent on the cure of souls — and there is an intention to enshrine the new basis within the new Governance Measure. We should all be very concerned.

ANDREW ORANGE
General Synod representative for the diocese of Winchester
The Grove, Chute Forest
Andover SP11 9DG

From Dr Barry Barton

Madam, — The letter from James Ginns (14 February) rather dismayed me. I had, perhaps naïvely, assumed that our deanery, just over the border in Lincolnshire from Mr Ginns’s elderly father in Leicestershire, must have have held the English all-comers record for the largest number of parishes served by a single stipendiary priest. Alas! no: we in our deanery have a mere 33 parishes served by a single stipendiary.

It seems as if the Church of England’s senior managers — our bishops — have adopted the management ethos of organisations such as the Post Office and the so-called high-street banks, to whom their rural branches are, or were, unprofitable administrative inconveniences and should, therefore, be encouraged or, at least, allowed to wither on the vine and quietly disappear.

Perhaps a Church Times reader could explain how in the near future a countryside littered with closed, abandoned, and derelict churches would be a good advertisement for “mission”.

BARRY BARTON
15 Swinstead Road
Corby Glen, Grantham
Lincolnshire NG33 4NU

What the public need to know about the next Archbishop of Canterbury 

From Mr Philip Johanson

Madam, — The Crown Nominations Commission is inviting people to contribute to the discussion and discernment process regarding the appointment of the next Archbishop of Canterbury (News, 14 February). It is asking for suggested names, together with the qualities, values, and vision that the person should have.

Surely, to be able to make meaningful contributions, people need to see the job description and person specification for the post. Otherwise, they will get suggestions like those given on the BBC Sunday Morning Live, of Gareth Southgate and Cliff Richard.

It would also be helpful to know whom the Archbishop of Canterbury is accountable to. Is it reasonable to think that the previous Archbishop did not have a job description and no person to report to, and that is why he spent his first 18 months in office visiting very Province of the Anglican Communion rather than focusing on the task of leading the Church of England?

There will be those who argue that an important part of the job is travelling around the Anglican Communion, while others will say that the priority is leading the Church of England — which will certainly need to be the priority of the next post-holder. For that and other reasons, a job description is a first essential before responding to the questions.

PHILIP JOHANSON
10 Ditton Lodge
8 Stourwood Avenue
Bournemouth
Dorset BH6 3PN

Managers or shepherds? Responses to Dr Grundy’s article on episcopacy 

From the Revd Michael Croft

Madam, — I write in response to the Ven. Dr Malcolm Grundy’s insightful article, “Shepherds and not managers” published (Comment, 14 February) at the end of a week when the General Synod revealed to the world a Church in freefall and disarray.

I have been ordained for 37 years, served in stipendiary ministry for around 20 of those years, and run a research consultancy across all sectors in the UK and elsewhere developing new, systems-based frameworks for enabling people and organisational development. Fundamental to my whole experience is a commitment to developing people and developing the conditions in which people thrive.

My work teaches me of two extremes in organisations. At one extreme, there is the mature organisation that has always been there, but is failing. It looks inward, falls into bickering, with conflicted vested interests driving agendas and a presumption that it has right to exist. At the other extreme is the organisation that looks outward, embraces uncertainty, builds trust, and is clear about what it is there for as it looks to a hopeful future. The evidence from all sectors is clear.

Inwardly focused organisations become progressively more fragile and risk imploding. Outwardly focused organisations look to the future of the not-yet. I wonder which extreme best describes the Church of England right now?

To draw on a theme in Dr Grundy’s article, there is a need for talent development in the Church of England to lead a future-focused Church that is established in hope. There is a need to put aside bickering, factiousness, and vested interests on all sides, to re-learn what we are about, and to recapture a vision for our vocation.

There is a saying in the world of people development which, I think, is appropriate in considering talent development. It is this: “Recruit for behaviours and train for skills.” I think the Church of England has been inclined to presume that we need to train in a specific set of skills before focusing on behaviours or the qualities that we might need in those who lead the Church. I think the Church of England presumes that skills and knowledge borrowed from other sectors will see the Church equipped, when that borrowing has accelerated the rate of freefall and fragility.

I believe that the way forward in talent development in the life of the Church of England will require a focus on the qualities — the behaviours — of those who lead and, indeed, those who influence leadership. So, away with peevish and factious division that simply increases fragility, and let’s see the Church of England focus outwardly on hope and the future.

MICHAEL CROFT
Church House, 6 Upgate
Louth, Lincolnshire LN11 9ET

From Canon John Corbyn

Madam, — The Ven. Dr Malcolm Grundy, in his article “Shepherds and not managers”, makes telling points about the process of appointing clergy to senior posts in the Church. In any system of appointment, in the Church and without, there will be some degree of “whom you know”. The extent of this in the Church has not served it well.

The part played by diocesan bishops in appointing to senior diocesan posts from which diocesan bishops are often appointed is of particular concern. Examples of this include the appointment by one diocesan of a suffragan who was his best man, and the appointment of another suffragan for whom the appointing diocesan was the godfather of a child of the suffragan.

A point not made by Dr Grundy is the number of appointments to senior office of candidates currently or previously serving in a diocese and, therefore, often with close relationships with others already in senior posts. Such internal appointments contribute to closed thinking. I suspect that this has not contributed to effectiveness in safeguarding and personnel matters.

JOHN CORBYN
3 Richards Way
Salisbury SP2 8NT

From Canon Chris Oxley

Madam, — Reading the Ven. Dr Malcolm Grundy’s excellent contribution on the need for renewing the process of selecting bishops, I was reminded of a conversation in one of our coffee breaks during the 2008 Lambeth Conference.

Two English bishops, commenting on the process of selecting for a neighbouring diocese vacancy, had heard that the search was on there for someone who would be prepared to sit on the fence, but with both ears to the ground!

CHRIS OXLEY
14 Lammas Close
Husbands Bosworth
Lutterworth LE17 6LL

There is a better path than BLM to racial justice 

From Prebendary John Root

Madam, — Chine McDonald is right to urge “a motivating vision that should keep people working tirelessly for justice” (Analysis, 14 February). But to see support for Black Lives Matter (BLM), or for diversity, equity, and justice (DEI), as markers for progress to that vision is to misread our present-day context.

Against her dismal narrative of moving backwards and “backlash”, there are indications of progress towards a more racially equitable society. Chinese pupils on free school meals get better results than all other pupils, including middle-class white ones.

Advertisers clearly believe that pitches disproportionately featuring black actors will win the favour of white TV viewers. The overwhelmingly elderly and white membership of the Conservative Party chose to elect an outspoken African woman as their leader. The proportion of Anglican ordinands from minority-ethnic backgrounds has risen from six per cent to 13 per cent in the period 2017-23. I regularly hear vicars say how many Iranians are now members of their churches.

Multi-ethnic Britain is not characterised by a racist backlash, but by a “superdiversity” creating what a sociologist has described as “radical unpredictability”. The currents are flowing in several different directions at once.

In this respect, for her to dismiss the Sewell report is an error. Sewell correctly identified that to see systemic or institutional racism as the governing narrative was simplistic. Rather, the very diverse trajectories of the various ethnic groups in Britain could be explained only by placing alongside racism other major variables such as class and educational level, region, pre-migration history, and patterns of family formation.

Protest slogans, such as BLM, or impersonal top-down policies, such as DEI, have only limited traction in this context. Conversely, a positive readiness to value and learn from the strengths and competencies of other ethnic groups, along with an emphasis on agency rather than grievance, have been repeatedly seen as shaping the vision that generates good outcomes for all ethnic groups.

JOHN ROOT
42 Newlyn Road
London N17 6RX

A ‘grievous wrong’ 

From the Revd David A. Baker

Madam, — Today I received the good news that my mother’s clergy-widow pension is increasing to £16,673 per year from April. I myself am due to retire, having been ordained in 1997, in 2034, when, after 37 years of service, my clergy pension is forecast to be (if I take the smaller lump sum offered) £14,025 per year.

What action is being taken, by whom, and with what timescale, to rectify the grievous wrong of 2011, when clergy pensions were reduced from two-thirds of the national minimum stipend (NMS) to just half?

DAVID A. BAKER
The Rectory, Gilberts Drive, East Dean, Eastbourne BN20 0DL