Truro’s deanery plan and its eucharistic theology
From Revd David Smethurst
Madam, — The diocese of Truro in proposing to introduce communion by extension to provide ministry to an entire deanery of 21 churches, is following the pattern first pioneered by the parish of Ulverston, in the diocese of Carlisle, more than 50 years ago. It was introduced as an experimental service to meet precisely that same need: a shortage of ordained clergy.
The Revd Marcus Walker (Letters, 8 May) writes that there are both “theological and ecclesiological questions which remain unexplored”. This is simply not true. Before it was trialled by the diocese of Carlisle, the eminent church historian and liturgist Canon Charles Whittaker gave a meticulous consideration of its theological and practical implications.
After several years, it was submitted to the General Synod, where it underwent 20 years of rigorous debate before being finally approved for use in 2000. At least two theses have been written on the subject, and my 1980s Grove booklet Extended Communion is extant.
For Fr Walker to quote the Sermon on the Mount in support of his view is out of context: a misuse of scripture and an affront to the many faithful who regularly find solace in the sacraments by extension.
It has now been part of approved liturgy for 26 years. It is my sincere hope that communion by extension will continue to meet contemporary needs in fulfilling Jesus’s commandment to all his disciples that they must always “feed my sheep”.
DAVID A. SMETHURST
(Rector of Ulverston 1974-87)
Natland, Kendal
From Margery Roberts
Madam, — The Revd Marcus Walker rightly questions the Bishop of Truro’s grasp of parochial traditions and, in particular, the “High Church” ones. But an understanding and recognition of all parish traditions is crucial to the success of pastoral reorganisation.
In my work as a patron, in various capacities, I have found that PCCs almost invariably emphasise their traditions when they prepare parish profiles, usually hoping and praying for a good match. In many instances, their hopes are realised; but the current and increasing shortage of clergy and of paid posts is making this less likely. Long-held traditions are at risk of being weakened and diluted. At the same time, clergy applying for posts with multiple parishes are led into claiming that they can suit all traditions. I have read expressions such as “flexible Catholic” on application forms. The financial struggles of our few remaining theological colleges, which themselves usually have distinctive established traditions, suggest that the position will deteriorate further in the future.
Some might argue that this did not matter or was even a good thing. If the tradition in all parishes were a theological and liturgical shade of beige, and if all the clergy were trained up to be the same, it would be easier to pursue pastoral reorganisation and to fill posts. I suspect, however, that, in such a situation, congregations might plummet. People are drawn to faith in many different ways, and, even if they subsequently migrate from the first tradition that they encounter, they usually retain an affection for it.
A conservative Evangelical once told me that he respected the Anglo-Catholic tradition, as he had been an altar boy when young. We are loyal to our churches and their traditions; they teach, nurture, and inspire us, and appeal to aspects of our personalities, interests, or scholarship. We lose something when we lose them. But the loss is deeper than merely losing something that we like, because the church’s tradition has been part of our pathway to heaven.
Archbishop Michael Ramsey critically but firmly endorsed the value of our traditions when he addressed the 1968 Lambeth Conference: “The local, the limited, the particular is to be cherished by Christian people not for any nostalgic attachment to it for its own sake, but always for the real thing which it represents and conveys, the thing which is catholic, essential, lasting.”
MARGERY ROBERTS
7 Nunnery Stables
St Albans AL1 2AS
From the Revd Professor Alison Milbank
Madam, —The significance of the Church Commissioners’ hearing in response to objections to the creation of a 21-church benefice in Truro diocese is immense. The oversight ministry model that it embodies marks a radical move away from pastoral ministry and offices, removing the dean/oversight minister/team rector from the cure of souls.
Leicester diocese’s first attempt at this model in Launde saw the speedy exit of the excellent clergy who sought to instantiate it. Already, the accompanying evidence for the Kerrier hearing informs us that local Methodists are complaining at being overrun by funerals that Anglicans refuse to take, even though there is no better place to preach the gospel. Moreover, priests need that pastoral ministry for their own well-being.
The traditions of the churches involved are also overwhelmingly eucharistic, and yet the diocesan response is to denigrate such worship as unmissional; the policy of “On the Way” is to move to communion by extension as a substitute. This prevents a parish’s offering the eucharist together as a liturgical community and reduces their involvement to one of reception only. The Bishop of Truro claims that the removal of weekly holy communion is to return to 18th-century church practice, but that is surely not how we should respond two centuries later, after the Evangelical revival (which promoted frequent reception), the Tractarians, and the Parish and People movement have together made eucharistic formation central to parish life.
We are a Church with a threefold order of ministry. If we are not to become decadent, we need to trust to its value, giving our clergy manageable jobs; for only with strongly pastoral and sacramental priests will we nurture vocations and have the flourishing lay ministry on which so much church policy relies.
ALISON MILBANK
Southwell
Unanswered questions about safeguarding
From Emma Ash and the Revd Robert Thompson
Madam, — Your report (News, 8 May) on the independent audit of the National Safeguarding Team (NST) raises an urgent and uncomfortable question: Why is a report published by the Church of England in May 2026 dated 2025? And why, in a matter as urgent as safeguarding, has the Church apparently waited at least five months, perhaps longer, before placing it in the public domain?
This is not a minor administrative delay. The audit makes 66 recommendations. It is of profound concern that bishops, trustees, and senior office-holders may have access to safeguarding audits for months before survivors, parish safeguarding officers, clergy, and the wider public are allowed to read them.
That is especially troubling when some of those in senior governance positions may themselves have faced safeguarding concerns, complaints, or Clergy Discipline Measure processes. The Church cannot claim to be transparent while allowing those with institutional power to read, retain, and manage the timing of reports before those most affected by safeguarding failure are told what they contain. Nor is this an isolated concern. The diocese of London indicated that its audit results would be published at the end of the year (2025). The diocese of Chester said that its report would be published early in the New Year (2026). It is simply not good enough for safeguarding audits to disappear into institutional silence for months.
Delay is not neutral. In safeguarding, delay carries risk; it corrodes trust; and it tells those already harmed by institutional failure that the Church still does not understand the moral urgency of safeguarding.
The Archbishops’ Council and NST should now publish a clear timeline for the NST audit: when it was completed, when it was received, who decided the publication date, and why it was not released sooner.
EMMA ASH
Address supplied (Tewkesbury, Gloucestershire)
ROBERT THOMPSON
Address supplied (London NW6)
From Dr Margaret Wilkinson
Madam, — Broken Rites has read with interest the INEQE report of the audit of the NST, in particular recommendation 58, that “the NST should review the policy relating to clergy spouses who find themselves in complex situations labelled as ‘domestic situations’ and clarify whether this currently disadvantages them.”
We very much hope that this recommendation will lead to a comprehensive and Church-wide, survivor-informed change in the policies and not simply a review of the disadvantages.
MARGARET WILKINSON
Beckenham, Kent
From Mr Gavin Drake
Madam, — The response from the Archbishops’ Council’s director of safeguarding, Alexander Kubeyinje (Letter, 24 April), to Andrew Graystone (Letter, 2 April) fails to address some of the most serious concerns raised about the closure of the Interim Support Scheme (ISS).
Most notably, there is no explanation why neither the closure of the ISS nor the creation of a replacement “survivor support fund” was disclosed in the NST’s report to the February meeting of the Synod, despite repeated references to survivor engagement, transparency, and the forthcoming Redress Scheme. If these changes were already advanced enough for survivors to be informed shortly afterwards, why were Synod members not told?
Nor does Mr Kubeyinje explain why the Archbishops’ Council is devoting yet more time, money, and administrative effort to designing another interim mechanism instead of ensuring that the Abuse (Redress) Measure 2025 is fully operational without delay. Senior church figures repeatedly urged Parliament to pass the legislation at speed because of the urgent needs of survivors.
Section 33 of the Measure delays the implementation of Section 1 — the requirement that all those eligible to apply for redress be treated with “dignity, respect and compassion”. It is difficult to understand why such a basic principle was framed as something that need not apply immediately.
There is also a wider question about priorities and effectiveness. In November 2021, when I was a member of the Synod, I commented on the rapid increase in safeguarding expenditure — from £1.086 million in 2016 to £2.354 million in 2020 — and questioned whether the money was being spent wisely and effectively. John Spence, then chair of the Finance Committee, replied that a point would come when there should be “an independent look at its effectiveness”.
Six years later, the NST budget has grown dramatically, with approximately £30 million allocated to safeguarding in the current triennium (News, 8 May). The response to repeated safeguarding failures appears increasingly to involve more spending, more processes, and ever more complex structures. Yet, despite these substantial resources, survivors continue to experience delay, uncertainty, repeated restructurings, and shifting schemes.
The safeguarding system may be extremely busy with consultations, audits, governance redesigns, and institutional architecture, but what remains far less clear is how this continual restructuring materially improves the lives of victims and survivors today. As with the new, not quite independent safeguarding structures, the new redress scheme appears to be another example of much talk and little action.
GAVIN DRAKE
Kirkby-in-Ashfield, Nottingham
Phynnoderee’s fame
From the Revd Dr Michael Brydon
Madam, — The Revd Professor Ian Bradley refers to St Anthony’s meeting with a satyr, in his review of Francis Young’s Fairies: A history (Books, 1 May). When the Authorised Version was translated into Manx, the compilers had great difficulty finding an equivalent term for the reference to a satyr in Isaiah 34.14. The translator, probably the Revd Philip Moore, principal editor and chaplain of St Matthew’s, Douglas, resorted to using the name of one of the legendary Manx creatures known as a phynnoderee.
A phynnoderee is a type of hobgoblin, distinctive to Manx folklore, which was not opposed to doing good turns for its human neighbours, but only if it was not offended by them. The translator presumably considered their personalities to be similar, along with the fact they both have hairy legs.
The phynnoderee’s appearance in the Manx Bible may explain why, in 1960, the Bishop of Sodor & Man and the Archdeacon of Man were both willing to commend a charming short children’s story, by John Corlett, The Phynnoderee’s Christmas Eve, in which even the “Little Man” finds himself welcomed to a midnight congregation at Christmas.
MICHAEL BRYDON
Douglas, Isle of Man
The Editor reserves the right to edit letters