Report on, and apology for, mother-and-baby homes

From the Revd Eric Heselwood

Madam,— I find it disturbing that the Church of England, at high level, has recently expressed regret and criticism of historical church social-work practice in residential care and adoption (News, 19 June).

My experience does not stretch back to the mid-19th century, but I was one of the first trained male social workers to join the Board for Social Responsibility in the early 1970s.The majority of my clients were unmarried parents, both male and female. Together with their families, they were fully supported, and all options and possibilities for their future total well-being were considered. Nothing was forced; residential care and adoption was only an option, which was, in my experience, professionally and compassionately considered.

I was privileged over 20-plus years to closely supervise many residential and field church social workers who were experienced, qualified, and often specially trained. Of course, there were occasional set backs, but nothing so dramatic as photographically portrayed in recent media reports.

Alongside these recent apologetic statements from the church authorities, l question whether the researchers did not consider the integrity and deep commitment of our early church reformers?

The Church was training social workers (Josephine Butler College) long before the Younghusband report. Deeply committed voluntary Church-based social-concern projects assisted many community/parochial projects, far too many for me to list. There were regrettable failures, as outlined, but my training research left me incredibly proud of the achievements of my predecessors.

With these recent apologies, why couldn’t our church authorities have also acknowledge with equal concern and passion, the churches’ long tradition and history in pioneering these aspects of social concern. Meaningless apologies are so hollow.

ERIC HESELWOOD
Biggin Hill, Kent

New maintenance arrangements for ordinands

Madam, — I am writing in response to the story about maintenance grants for ordinands (News, 12 June), concerning the reported “confirmation” from Canon Nicholas McKee’s team that “ordinands already in training who are set to receive less under the new system will see their funding maintained at the current level.” As a single full-time residential ordinand who is concerned about being nearly £3000 worse off next year, I would appreciate further clarification on this point.

The confirmation from Canon McKee’s team is essentially the same reassurance found in the policy document about the new maintenance system. This document explains that “an exceptional top-up will be provided” for current ordinands who under the new system are set to receive less money than they did in 2025/26 “so that the total grant level is not reduced” (page 8).

I initially assumed that this meant that I and other current ordinands in similar situations would not be worse off next year. When I questioned the National Team about this during a briefing on the new system a month ago (19 May), however, they confirmed that calculations for this “exceptional top-up” would take into account only the money received from the central Church, and would not consider the money paid out from the dioceses’ own funds.

For me and many other ordinands sent by various dioceses at my TEI, these diocesan funds have been necessary to cover all of our expenses, which, as the article notes, was “expected” of dioceses according to national guidance. The National Team, however, claimed to have no knowledge of such arrangements.

On account of this, therefore, the National Team confirmed that they would not consider ordinands such as myself to be worse off in 2026-27, since we will be receiving more money from the central Church than we have in 2025-26, despite receiving less money overall when taking into account the money from the dioceses’ own funds. This means that the “exceptional top-up” would not apply in cases such as my own, leaving me and others like me about £3000 worse off.

It is still unclear from the confirmation quoted in the article whether this situation has changed. I and many of my fellow ordinands would appreciate clarification as to whether or not the money received from the dioceses’ own funds is now being included when calculating how much shortfall would need to be covered by the exceptional top-up.

All of this is to say nothing about the fact that, regardless of how the top-up works out, any single ordinand beginning similar residential training pathways and facing similar (if not rising) living costs in 2026-27 will certainly be worse off than they would have been had they started in 2025026. As your article recognises, the new system is an improvement in many ways, but it is currently at risk of badly overlooking single full-time residential ordinands.

NAME AND ADDRESS SUPPLIED

‘Fun’ and the intention behind that helter-skelter in Norwich Cathedral

From Canon Andrew W. Bryant

Madam, — Canon Angela Tilby has misrepresented the installation of a helter-skelter in Norwich Cathedral in the summer of 2019 (Comment, 19 June). This installation was not “mere fun”, but a serious and intentional act of mission and evangelism.

The helter-skelter was part of a wider two-week event, “Seeing it Differently”, encouraging visitors to explore the difference faith can make. At the heart of this event were seventy volunteers who had been trained to speak about their faith. During the two weeks, we also gave away hundreds of copies of Gospels, literature about Christianity, and leaflets introducing prayer. Our volunteers reported numerous faith conversations. After the first weekend a local church contacted us to say they had welcomed a young woman on Sunday who said that riding the helter-skelter had made her want to start going to church.

The helter-skelter was a playful way to enable visitors to get higher and closer to the wonderful medieval roof bosses in the nave which tell the story of the Bible. Other installations, in quieter ways, encouraged visitors to explore the bosses further and the story they tell.

Norwich Cathedral is big enough to host a helter-skelter at the West end, while the east end remains a place of stillness and reflection. Beyond the pulpitium arch, there was time and space to discover the mystery and wonder that can open the soul to God; and the daily pattern of worship carried on uninterrupted.

In the weeks and months after “Seeing it Differently”, we saw an increase in numbers across our services, as well as much positive local support for the cathedral, but, sadly, all this was interrupted by the arrival of Covid.

Our focus was not about mere fun, but about making Jesus known. Surely this is what our cathedrals should be about? My experience at Norwich was that, in considering everything we did, the key question was always “How will this help us share our faith?” Rightly approached, encounters with heritage can be profoundly missional.

During those two memorable weeks, we never forgot the mystery that lies at the heart of all things. Perhaps that is why the most common response of those who visited, and said it again and again, was the sense of joy. May sacred spaces, besides being places to contain hurt, heartache, and tears, also be places where joy can be encountered.

ANDREW W. BRYANT
Canon for Mission and Pastoral Care, Norwich Cathedral, 2015-25.
Salisbury

Interpreting Danny Kruger on faith and politics

From Catherine Spencer

Madam, — I’m quite disappointed that Matthew d’Ancona’s article on Danny Kruger (Feature, 19 June) didn’t address the potential risks of his views. It softened his Christian patriarchal stance and presented a one-sided perspective. We must not fall into the United States-style trap of believing Mr Kruger’s narrative on Christian values. There are so many similarities with the policies of the US, where legislation has been implemented which is directly opposite to Christ’s teachings.

This brutality has led to the Pope stepping in to highlight the toxicity and cruelty. Be in no doubt that Kruger would use his political position to create legislation that is deeply damaging for women and minorities. He dresses this up as “Christian”, but what he really means is patriarchal, and at its full extent theocratic patriarchy. It is of course this system that has led to so much inequality and suffering.

If implemented fully, Mr Kruger’s world-view would likely lead to:

• greater economic dependence on male partners;
• state preference for male-headed households;
• less support for women’s autonomy outside marriage;
• more moral regulation of women’s sexuality; and
• structural disadvantage for single and LGBTQ+ women; and
• reduced reproductive rights.

This is not a good return to old-fashioned values, but a strengthening of male privilege while putting women, children, and minorities at risk.

I couldn’t help feeling that the Church Times had provided a platform for someone hiding behind their true intentions.

CATHERINE SPENCER
Pewsey, Wiltshire

From Mr Samuel Ford

Madam, — It always interesting to seek common ground with those whom we assume disagreement; your interview with Reform MP Danny Kruger offered a useful introduction. Immigration, however, is an important issue, and I was saddened to read Mr Kruger’s throwaway comment about legitimate immigrants who are “coasting”. What does this look like? What is the prevalence? Is deportation the best policy solution?

While Mr Kruger may distance himself from “ethno-nationalism”, it seems evident that Reform cynically encourages racism. And, if Mr Kruger is correct (as noted in the case of Robert Kenyon), to distance the person from the party, then why was this piece permitted to promote Reform’s policies and leader?

Reform seeks to privatise the NHS and dismantle hard-won employment rights — issues occluded from popular conception by industrial levels of social-media messaging, reinforced by the portions of the press representing private interests.

We worship a Lord who suffers as a mediator, not one who balances from afar. A piece that directly engaged Mr Kruger’s views with those of Jenny Hannah (cf. her thoughtful editorial on asylum-seekers the same week) would not have left anyone in any doubt where this genuinely dangerous party stands in relation to the gospel.

SAMUEL FORD
Bristol

From the Revd Andrew Lightbown

Madam, — Danny Kruger says that past comments made by politicians and their conduct in general “are important in their symbolism, and certainly character matters in public life, but it’s a fundamentally second order issue. It’s a distraction from the main debate.” In saying this, he echoes Sir Iain Duncan Smith’s answer to a question on Newsnight in 2016: “I’m not in the business of morality and everything else, because I leave that to churchmen” (note the gendered language). The problem for Mr Kruger, as it was and remains for Sir Iain, is that political decisions always and necessarily involve ethical calculations.

Morality and ethics are, therefore, first-order issues, as is character. If character is a second-order issue, anything goes: all policies, prejudices, and injustices can be justified and what becomes important is the ability to deliver a message, any message, with a grin. Without morality and character, political decision-making becomes cheap. Mr Kruger, like Iain Duncan-Smith before him, is quite wrong: character matters in public life, and it is fundamentally the first order issue.

ANDREW LIGHTBOWN
Newport

The editor reserves the right to edit letters