Archbishop of Canterbury and the Children’s Society

From Dr Andrew Purkis

Madam, — The Children’s Society, whose full name is the Church of England Children’s Society, has refused a donation from the Archbishop of Canterbury, who is its president. This was no quiet decision conveyed privately, but a noisy public declaration of solidarity with child victims of abuse (regardless of any distress caused to its president or the wider Church) (News online, 20 December).

This prompts reflection about what sort of charity the Children’s Society now is. The latest annual report and accounts contains no mention whatsoever of Christianity, Jesus Christ, or the Church in its charitable objects, in its vision and values, in the movement that the charity is trying to build for the future, or the description of its partners or volunteers.

The Bishop of Derby is a trustee and vice-chair, but the chair (in former times a bishop) is a financial expert who advises private-equity and venture-capital firms. Individuals, businesses, and charitable bodies are thanked for their generous support, but there is no specific mention of churches or church congregations. If there is appreciation of any supportive contribution of its presidents, the two Archbishops, or of the Bishops of the Church of England, who are all vice-presidents, it is kept completely secret.

If you thought that Christingle services denoted a connection between the Christ-child and the beating heart of the Children’s Society, or if you thought that the association with the Church at different levels was something cherished and owned as part of the DNA of the charity, as its full name suggests, please think again. That is history. The fact that the CEO, Mark Russell, was formerly a leader of the Church Army may mask the fact that any hint of religion, Christian inspiration, or special relationship with the Church has been systematically rooted out from the charity’s self-description.

I have always thought, and still do, that the Children’s Society is a brilliant charity and eminently deserving of support for its magnificent work with the most disadvantaged and abused children, and it may be that the downgrading and airbrushing of its church and specifically Christian character was necessary for the sake of having the most impact on children.

But it should be absolutely clear to all who support it that this is an entirely secular charity whose historic, close association with our Church is over. It is surely time, given the realities set out in the charity’s annual report, that the Church of England should be removed from its formal name, and that the role of the Archbishops and Bishops as presidents and vice-presidents should end, unless any of them individually might wish to show support in the same way as they do for other secular charities that have no association with the Church.

ANDREW PURKIS
44 Bellamy Street
London SW12 8BU

From Canon Gilbert Spencer

Madam, — As a lifetime member of the Children’s Society and a supporter for more than 40 years, I have until now endorsed and applauded their consistent, ambitious, and pioneering work. I am, however, saddened by the rejection by the chief executive, of the donation by the Archbishop of Canterbury. Whether or not it was an act of generosity, contrition, or conscience on Archbishop Welby’s part, this should not be the issue, because to reject any donation only reduces the good work of the society. This case has sadly lessoned the aid for those who may have suffered some kind of abuse and brought more bad publicity on the Church.

GILBERT SPENCER
75 Acorn Close, Ashford
Kent TN23 3HR

From Mrs Sheila Round

Madam, — So the Children’s Society has issued its judgement: what an exalted position it has! Forgiveness and love apparently do not exist in this “Christian” charity. Their next step must surely be to drop the “Church of England” from their official title.

While I pray for the well-being of Archbishop Welby, I must resign my membership of the Children’s Society after well over 50 years of fund-raising and support, and transfer to another charity caring for young people in distress.

SHEILA ROUND
27 West Town Road, Backwell
North Somerset BS48 3HA

From Caroline Windsor

Madam, — The decision by the chief executive of the Children’s Society to reject Archbishop Welby’s Christmas donation, “as it would not be consistent with the principles and values” of the charity, seems both crass and unchristian. The Archbishop has apologised and resigned. To kick a man when he is down — and especially a man who is known to suffer from depression — seems insensitive in the extreme.

I hope that the charity may have the grace to reflect on and reverse their decision.

CAROLINE WINDSOR
Address supplied

Safeguarding scandals and episcopal resignations 

From the Revd Marc Kerslake

Madam, — Imagine the confusion of many members of the clergy and their faithful congregations on Christmas morning, as many of us shuttled to various services across ever-expanding benefices and mission communities, and to often draughty and cold churches, in which shrinking teams of volunteers are working their socks off fighting the decay of ancient buildings with increasingly perilous finances, to hear the Archbishop of York tell us what we really need to do is strip ourselves of all our finery and kneel in penitence and adoration at the nativity — during his sermon in the beautifully ornate York Minster.

The irony probably couldn’t be more profound. But perhaps he had been inspired by Archbishop Welby’s tone-deaf final speech in the House of Lords? Not so much as a mea culpa as a vestra culpa, really.

It is hard to assess the damage that our current senior leadership is doing to the mission and ministry of the Church that we all love, but I regularly meet folks who would no longer set foot in a church because of these individuals. The Church of England has suffered decades of decline while being poorly led by out-of-touch and self-satisfied bishops. The latest serious scandals are symptomatic of their failings, and it is time for a complete change

MARC KERSLAKE
The Rectory, Grove Road
Whimple EX5 2TP

From the Revd Andrew McKearney

Madam, — We who still call ourselves the Church of England have betrayed the trust of the nation with the many safeguarding failings that continue to be uncovered. We must publicly acknowledge this in penitence and sorrow, simply, humbly, and boldly. First, the House of Bishops should resign in the same way as a board, a group of trustees, or a governing body would in the face of such failings. Second, now that the Church of England has lost the moral authority to be present in the House of Lords, the Lords Spiritual should relinquish their place there. Will our Archbishop and our Bishops show the nation that as a Church we “get it”?

ANDREW McKEARNEY
46 Beckett Drive, Radley
Abingdon OX13 3EY

From the Revd Fred Dawson

Madam, — The righteously indignant cry for heads to roll needs to be checked, urgently. No one doubts that a great deal of damage was done (a) by perpetrators of sexual abuse and (b) by the Church’s not dealing with the problem promptly and appropriately. Nor can there be any question about the long-term suffering of the abused. But are we not in danger of falling headlong into a pattern of reaction which recalls the Terror of the French Revolution or the Salem witch trials — in character, if not in magnitude? The present Bishop of Newcastle should beware of being cast as Witchfinder General.

There are two problems for senior leaders in this respect. One is that ordained ministers have, as part of their DNA, a programmed-in tendency to be forgiving and to extend second chances to offenders. The trouble is, there are instances where 70 times seven just doesn’t cut it, at our human level. Hindsight is a wonderful thing. The second is that clergy are often not good at confrontation and are inclined to take the line of least resistance. Taken together, these two reasons underline the need for safeguarding to be done, and checked, out-of-house.

But, in my view, none of that means that we should turn on those who have borne the heat and burden of the day for decades, sometimes made mistakes (yes, some of them serious), and bay for their blood. Which of us has not made mistakes?

In a Radio 4 interview on 22 December, the Bishop of Gloucester made an important point about the appointment of the next Archbishop of Canterbury: anyone who actually wants the job should probably, ipso facto, be excluded. I reflect with sadness how her predecessor Michael Perham’s last months in office were marred by historical allegations that turned out to be insubstantial.

FRED DAWSON
The Rectory, Weston Subedge
Chipping Campden GL55 6QH

From Mr Michael Brown

Madam, — Andrew Brown may be very knowledgeable about newspaper matters, but he is clearly not acquainted with the Bishop of Newcastle. Otherwise, he would not make the insulting suggestions in his column (Press, 20/27 December). Unfortunately, by writing in this way he only strengthens her arguments.

MICHAEL BROWN
16 Haswell Gardens
North Shields NE30 2DP

Unitatis Redintegratio: an ecumenical jubilee 

From the Very Revd Nicholas Frayling

Madam, — Sixty years ago, on 21 November 1964, Pope Paul VI promulgated the Second Vatican Council Decree on Ecumenism, Unitatis Redintegratio.

Making due allowance for the fact that the Church of England and (dare I say) the Roman Catholic Church as well have pressing internal preoccupations, it is strange that no mention seems to have been made in the Church Times of this significant anniversary.

Ecumenical engagement has become increasingly arduous: I speak as one who shared in the experience of inter-Church cooperation in Merseyside in the heady days of Sheppard, Worlock, and Newton; but Unitatis Redintegratio marked a watershed moment, not only for Catholics, but for Christians of all traditions, as it focused on the unity of the whole people of God, and recognised the authenticity of separated Christian communities.

On a recent visit to relatives in Western Australia, I was delighted to discover that Anglicans and Roman Catholics in Perth were far less reticent. A joint service of choral evensong was held in St George’s Cathedral, under the title Vespers for Unity. The president was the Anglican Archbishop, and a moving sermon was delivered by the RC Archbishop — followed by what was, by all accounts, a splendid party.

I am unaware of similar (or any) public recognition in this country of the watershed declaration that “the restoration of unity among all Christians is one of the principal concerns of the Second Vatican Council.” A public rededication to this cause in all our Churches has surely never been more needed.

NICHOLAS FRAYLING
41 Homeheights, Clarence Parade
Southsea PO5 3NW

Nicene Creed: mission needs a different emphasis 

From the Revd George Day

Madam, — The article “In the beginning — or the end” by the Revd Professor Andrew Davison (Faith, 20/27 December), was extremely helpful, especially in seeing Christian theology as a whole. As he says, “Every part of Christian belief can properly be held to the light in turn, and in each jewel we can see the whole refracted.” And “the topics of the Christian faith are more like a circle than a line with a definite beginning and end. You can join the circle at any point. It is more important to get all the way round than to start exactly here or there.”

Nevertheless, although he speaks of placing Jesus at the centre, what seemed to be missing from the article was reference to the life and ministry of Jesus. This is the same failing as we see in the creeds, where it has been pointed out that all that comes between the incarnation and the crucifixion is a comma or a full stop. The picture of the diptych in the article makes the same jump. Particularly today, we surely need to point to the life of Jesus — healing, teaching, challenging, loving, caring, serving, and calling — yes, calling us to follow him in loving God and neighbour.

This, perhaps, in our sceptical world, is a more useful starting point than any other, and more likely to be understandable than theological reflection on the incarnation or atonement or the nature of the Trinity, however important each of those may be.

GEORGE DAY
5 Abbey Grange Close, Buckfast
Buckfastleigh TQ11 0EU