on Friday, 2 June 2023 at 1.53 pm by Simon Sarmiento
categorised as Church of England
Christina Beardsley has written a paper with this title, which was published in Modern Believing in December 2022. Normally this publication is not available electronically without a subscription. The Liverpool University Press has kindly allowed it to be on Free Access for the calendar month of June 2023.
Trans People and LLF is available in two formats, as a web page, and as a PDF file. Here is the abstract:
Since the Living in Love and Faith (LLF) project began, gender-critical discourse has become increasingly prominent and trans people’s lives routinely debated in the British media. Gender diversity is respectfully handled in LLF‘s resources, but LLF‘s Next Steps Group (NSG) has proposed a working party on ‘gender identity and transition’ to consider current ‘societal debates’. This problematising of trans people conflicts with LLF‘s premise that ‘no person is a problem, or an issue’. The NSG’s proposed bibliography, setting gender-critical texts and gender-affirming texts side-by-side, could also undermine the Church of England’s trans-affirming policies and pastoral practice. As an alternative I offer a theological critique of three gender-critical texts contrasting them with a generous, tradition-sourced Christian anthropology.
In relation to this, readers may find it useful to see a letter, also written by Christina, to the Bishop of London in July 2021, which was originally published at Unadulterated Love. This letter sets out in detail the Church of England’s then current policy and practice in relation to trans people, and begins this way:
I understand, from the recent minutes of the May meeting of the House of Bishops that the House ‘agreed in principle to the formation of a working group on gender identity and transition under the auspices of the LLF Next Steps Group, details of which will be announced in due course.’
As I explained in my letter of May 21st 2021 my own view is that to convene such a working party suggests that trans people are a problem for the Church of England or that there is some uncertainty about their status as members of the Body of Christ.
Given the Church of England’s policy and practice in relation to trans people, I see no such problem or uncertainty. Here is my understanding of the current position of the Church of England regarding trans people…
A CONTINUING lack of communication, no co-ordinated case management, and poor pastoral support, has left a “heavy toll” on a vulnerable survivor of abuse, the Independent Safeguarding Board (ISB) has concluded in its first case review.
The review, redacted for legal reasons and dated March 2023, has been submitted to the Church’s Director of Safeguarding. It was written by Steve Reeves, one of three ISB Board members, and has been approved by the survivor whose case it relates, known as Mr X. The abridged version has been seen by the Church Times this week.
The abridged text of the Spindler review into the case of Mr X can be found here.
The full text of the concluding recommendations is copied here, below the fold.
Church Commissioners fund posts 5% return in 2022 despite challenging markets
London, 25 May 2023: The Church Commissioners for England, which manages the Church of England’s endowment fund, delivered a 5% return in 2022, a robust performance in the face of challenging market conditions.
“Our aim is to support the mission and ministry of the Church of England through providing as much funding as we can on a sustainable basis, year in, year out, come rain or shine – and achieving these returns in a year of double-digit inflation, an unprecedented cost-of-living crisis, and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, is truly a testament to the skill and dedication of our investment professionals,” said Alan Smith, First Church Estates Commissioner. “As a result of our consistent strong returns over the long-term, we were able in 2022 to announce an increase in our distributions to the Church to £1.2bn over the next three years, a 30% increase over the previous three-year period.”
“Our focus on the long-term and genuinely diversified approach allowed us to be resilient in the face of strong economic headwinds in 2022, saidTom Joy, Chief Investment Officer. “Considering that equity and fixed income markets were under considerable stress, this is a very creditable result – and marks the fourteenth consecutive year of positive returns.”
The Church Commissioners 2022 results are published in its Annual Report.
The Church Commissioners for England manages the endowment fund of the Church of England in a responsible and ethical way. The portfolio is truly diversified across a broad range of asset classes to mitigate risk, and assets are invested with a long-term outlook. This approach has enabled the Church Commissioners to deliver an average annual return of 10.2% over the last ten years.
A document from the Church of England Evangelical Council, which has appeared on other forms of social media, gives an explanation of that group’s plans for further responses to the current LLF processes.
THE Independent Safeguarding Board has served the Archbishops’ Council with a formal dispute resolution notice, saying that the Council is continuing to frustrate its work and threaten its independence, while failing to put survivors first.
The notice was served on Wednesday afternoon in a letter sent by two of the three ISB board members: the lead survivor-advocate, Jasvinder Sanghera, and Steve Reeves. Its contents have not yet been made public. In it, they complain that the Archbishops’ Council has repeatedly blocked their work, compromised their independence, and refused to listen to both them and to survivors…
We will update this article again when any responses to the letter are published, or if other information (e.g. the full text of the notice) becomes available.
OPPONENTS of the commendation of blessings for same-sex couples circulated documents last week challenging the legality of the proposed prayers and expressing anxieties about their practical application.
Last week, the Church Society, a conservative Evangelical organisation in the Church of England, distributed a compilation of questions relating to the work of the Living in Love and Faith (LLF) implementation groups (News, 3 May)…
…In addition, a small group of General Synod members who opposed the introduction of blessings for same-sex couples in February issued “further commentary” on the proposals.
The note was emailed to Synod members late on Sunday evening by Stephen Hofmeyr (Guildford), and signed by a further seven legal professionals who sit in the House of Laity, all of whom voted against the motion introducing the Prayers of Love and Faith (News, 9 February).
The two documents referenced can be read at the following links:
Dominic Grieve KC has completed his independent review of the governance of Christ Church and a report setting out his recommendations to the Governing Body.
Christ Church commissioned the review to ensure that its governance meets the needs of an Oxford University college in the 21st century. It has made a series of important recommendations, which are set out below.
Now that the review is complete, the Governing Body will consider its conclusions and the changes necessary to ensure that Christ Church has an effective system of governance in place. Implementing these reforms will require consultation with the University, the Church of England, and the Charity Commission, and the approval of the Privy Council and Parliament.
The press release linked above contains a 43 paragraph summary of the recommendations.
The full text of the review (218 paragraphs) is linked here.
Full text of statement issued on behalf of Soul Survivor complainants:
In a statement released through solicitor Richard Scorer of Slater and Gordon Lawyers, who is advising some of the complainants, a number of survivors of abuse in Soul Survivor said:
“The allegations against Mike Pilavachi are extremely serious. They clearly require comprehensive, independent and transparent investigation, covering both the allegations themselves and, crucially, the institutional response to those allegations, both within Soul Survivor and across the wider Church of England.
“Given the network of connections between Soul Survivor and the Church of England, we do not believe that any Church of England body, whether the Diocese of St Albans or the National Safeguarding Team, can plausibly conduct an independent, objective and transparent investigation at this time. There are simply too many connections between the Church of England and Soul Survivor, both at diocesan and national level, and too many potential conflicts of interest, for survivors to have confidence in the independence and transparency of any church-run investigation.
“By way of example, Justin Welby has been personally involved in Soul Survivor over many years. One trustee of Soul Survivor (until last month) is also a trustee of the Lambeth Trust, the Archbishop’s personal charity. A senior figure in Soul Survivor is the son of a senior Church of England Bishop. These are just some examples of the intimate and longstanding network of connections between Soul Survivor and senior figures in the Church of England.
“The days when churches could plausibly investigate themselves and mark their own homework are long gone. Accordingly, we call upon the Church of England and specifically the CofE National Safeguarding Team (1) to accept that a trusted independent agency should be appointed to conduct this investigation (2) to engage with survivors in the selection of such an agency and the drafting of any terms of reference, so that any investigation can be truly independent and have the confidence of survivors from the outset”
…The investigation, which is being led by safeguarding professionals from the National Safeguarding Team and the Diocese of St Albans, is independent from Soul Survivor and has my full support…
Throughout the course of the LFF project, Andrew Goddard has provided a series of analyses of various aspects of it. His latest article on the Psephizo website is the last of a three-part set, but first for context here are links to the preceding two items:
There has been some discussion, both on TA and elsewhere, of what form(s) of “differentiation” might be attractive to those dissenting from the proposals for action that have now emerged from the LFF process. Andrew now discusses these possibilities in considerable detail in this article:
Following the publication of the independent lessons learnt review into the Church of England’s handling of allegations against the late Revd Trevor Devamanikkam, and the response of those criticised, the Bishop of Newcastle, Helen-Ann Hartley, having taken appropriate advice, yesterday required Lord Sentamu, Honorary Assistant Bishop in Newcastle Diocese, to step back from active ministry until both the findings and his response can be explored further.
The Archbishop of York, Stephen Cottrell, is fully supportive of this decision. The Diocese of Newcastle remains committed to the highest standards of safeguarding which seeks always to place victims and survivors at the heart of this vital work.
If you or anyone you are in contact with are affected by the publication of this report and want to talk to someone independently, please call the Safe Spaces helpline on 0300 303 1056 or visit safespacesenglandandwales.org.uk
The full text of the statement issued yesterday by Lord Sentamu is available here.
Statement from Alexander Kubeyinje, Church of England’s national safeguarding director following publication of lessons learnt review into the late Revd Trevor Devamanikkam
What happened in this case makes for incredibly harrowing reading and I apologise for the hurt and harm caused to the survivor. The review was to highlight failures and how the Church can and must learn from its past mistakes.
If we are to be true to our words that we want change then there is a responsibility that senior leaders would want and need assurances that lessons are learnt.
I support the Bishop of Newcastle’s decision completely as responding well to victims and survivors is a core part of the Church’s safeguarding and this review is part of this, we have a duty to and must do better.
Lord Sentamu said he had told the review what he told the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA) when it considered the matter – “namely that the action following a disclosure to the bishop of Sheffield was his and his alone in line with established safeguarding procedures and guidelines”.
He added: “I acted within the agreed procedures, rules and practice guidance on safeguarding, set by the House of Bishops and the Clergy Discipline Measure. Safeguarding is very important but it does not trump Church Law (which is part of the Common Law of England).
“And the law is not susceptible to be used as an excuse for exercising the role given to an archbishop. Church Law sets the boundaries for diocesan bishops and archbishops.”
The Bishop of Oxford has written to his clergy. The text of that letter is available here.
Update: The full text of Lord Sentamu’s statement is now available, as a PDF.
We have published several news reports recently, that relate to the Independent Safeguarding Board, here, and also here, and earlier over here. These provide some context for a letter from David Lamming published in the Church Times this week under the heading Church Interference with the ISBthat summarises the current difficulties:
Sir, — The Annual Report 2022-23 of the Independent Safeguarding Board (ISB), written by the two members, Jasvinder Sanghera and Steve Reeves, and published on 24 April, blows away any remaining claim that the ISB is independent, stating on page 19 that it “currently exists within the structure of the National Church Institutions with oversight from the Archbishops’ Council”.
That servile relationship with the Archbishops’ Council is highlighted by the fact that Meg Munn has been imposed on the ISB as acting chair, in clear breach of the ISB’s terms of reference, which state that the Archbishops’ Council “ratifies” board appointments and that each member is appointed following a process that includes “public advertisement of vacancies” and “the use of expert recruiters to ensure a wide field”. Added to this is the obvious conflict of interest in appointing a person who also chairs the National Safeguarding Panel.
It is especially disturbing to note, according to the report in the Sunday Telegraph on 23 April, that neither board members nor abuse victims were consulted over the appointment of Ms Munn, and that the members were “instructed not to engage with victims on matters of ‘independence and the arrival of the chair'”. Given, too, the expressed lack of confidence in her by many survivors of abuse, Ms Munn must surely now state that she will not take up the role of acting chair, and the Secretary-General, William Nye, must give a full account of how her appointment came to be made.
In February, General Synod members were denied the opportunity to debate the ISB (News, 2 February; 6 February). Patently, such a debate must take place at York in July, when those responsible for the current débâcle can be held to account.
The Church of England is obstructing its own safeguarding panel by denying them their own computers, refusing to share data and treating them with “hostility”, whistleblowers have told The Telegraph.
The Independent Safeguarding Board (ISB) was formed in January 2022 and tasked with scrutinising the work of the Church’s National Safeguarding Team (NST), as well as holding the Church to account regarding its safeguarding duties.
However, the ISB’s only two board members have come forward to claim that their experience working with Church officials is “an uphill battle and unnecessarily challenging”.
In an interview with The Telegraph, Jasvinder Sanghera CBE, who founded the Karma Nirvana charity which aims to end honour-based abuse, and Steve Reeves MBE, executive director of Global Safeguarding, raised the alarm.
They claim there has been “clear interference” with their work, a “lack of transparency” and a “reluctance to provide information” meaning that at times they have been “met with hostility”
Their concerns have been echoed by victims who claim that unless the Church revokes its “inappropriate and irresponsible” appointment of the new ISB chair as Meg Munn – the former foreign office minister who already holds posts within the Church of England – they will not only feel “re-abused” but they will also refuse to work with the ISB and share their testimonies…
And there is a great deal more detail, which should be read in full, if possible.
In a statement to Premier, Martin Sewell who is a member of General Synod said :
“These latest revelations confirm the serious concerns that I, survivors, and members of General Synod have repeatedly raised about the lack of independence in the Established Church’s responses to the IICSA enquiry. I thank the two ISB members for bravely aligning themselves with those of us calling for a comprehensive and open debate of this scandal on the floor of Synod.”
In a statement to Premier Bishop Joanne Grenfell, the Church of England’s lead safeguarding bishop said:
“The Independent Safeguarding Board was set up to provide important external scrutiny for the Church’s safeguarding work and it is vital that the right structures are in place to do this.
“We look forward to working with them as they begin the next phase of their work to scope out what these structures are and to having conversations about concerns they have raised. An acting chair was put in place until the end of the year to ensure continuity and I look forward to working with all three Board members.
“We welcome their annual report (being published tomorrow) and note their comments around their work to date and desire to continue with this independent scrutiny of the Church’s safeguarding. It is vital that we have independent scrutiny as this informs the core responsibility for all in the Church of ensuring good safeguarding in all our parishes kand settings across the country. This important work goes on every day of the year. “
House of Survivors has a useful ISB timeline on this page.
The response from Joanne Grenfell quoted by Premier can now be found here. It appears that it was not written as a response to the Telegraph article, but in order to link the ISB annual report to the CofE website.
….Given that about 45% of the General Synod has clearly articulated the conviction that the proposals of the bishops are unacceptable, urgent consideration needs to be given to a form of good differentiation involving structural re-organisation without theological compromise. Following this path could prevent the unity of the Church of England being torn apart in the same way that the Communion has been.
on Friday, 31 March 2023 at 1.40 pm by Simon Sarmiento
categorised as Church of England, News
Updated
A group of clergy in the City of London, has announced to the world, via a YouTube video, that they have set up “a new Deanery Chapter for the City of London”.
The Diocese was first informed a few hours ago that a group of clergy in the City of London is seeking to set up its own parallel, unregulated structures, outside of those of the Diocese of London and the Church of England. This unilateral move would have no legal substance.
The initiative has been announced publicly, without discussion, at a time when constructive ongoing dialogue continues here in the capital, and across the country, following the House of Bishops’ proposals in response to the six-year Living in Love and Faith process. As a Diocese, we remain committed to working together through our differences, recognising the strength of our shared faith in Christ, and all that brings us together.
…In this week’s video, Mr Fishlock and Mr Martin say that the new group will seek to support ordinands who, “because of conscience”, feel “unable to be ordained by the diocesan bishop or any bishop acting on her behalf.
“Therefore, senior leadership from the churches within this deanery chapter will commission these individuals so that they are enabled to work within Church of England churches, until such a time that that ordinations can take place.”
They add that support will also be made available to prospective ordinands and curates who are unhappy about the plans for blessing same-sex couples, as well as to deacons who are unwilling to receive post-ordination training within the diocesan structure…
Professor Maggie Atkinson has resigned as chair of the Church of England’s Independent Safeguarding Board, ISB; in a statement she said she wished all concerned the greatest success in their crucial work on safeguarding.
The Archbishops’ Council has agreed the appointment of Meg Munn as the acting chair until the end of 2023. She will work closely with the two other Board members, survivor advocate Jasvinder Sanghera and Steve Reeves who have started developing plans for what independent scrutiny of the Church’s national safeguarding work will look like in the long term.
The ISB work will continue to sit alongside the Church’s National Safeguarding Panel of which Meg is also the independent chair and there will be updates on this in due course.
Speaking this week, Dr Atkinson said: “Changing family circumstances and ISB matters have meant that my presence even from a distance has become a distraction and therefore I decided to tender my immediate resignation to the Archbishops’ Council.
I wish all concerned the greatest success in their crucial work on safeguarding across the Church and will keep their endeavour in my prayers.”
Dr Jonathan Gibbs, the Church of England’s lead safeguarding bishop, and member of Archbishops’ Council said: “I would like to personally thank all three board members for their work so far, particularly their important focus on responding well to survivors. I wish Maggie well as she leaves the Board and welcome Meg as she works with Jasvinder and Steve and builds on the existing work of the ISB. The Archbishops’ Council remains committed to this important principle of independent oversight as the ISB moves to its next phase.”
Meg Munn is a former MP and Government minister and a qualified social worker with extensive experience in senior safeguarding roles in local authorities. She has been the Independent Chair of the National Safeguarding Panel since 2018.
Meg said: “I am pleased to be asked to take up the role of Chair of the Independent Safeguarding Board. As I know from my work leading the National Safeguarding Panel, independent scrutiny and oversight is a vital part of the Church’s national safeguarding work. I look forward to building on that and the work of the Board to date.
I want to thank Maggie Atkinson for her work as Chair. She demonstrated a strong commitment to engaging widely to develop phase 2 of the Board’s work, an approach that I will follow.”
Jasvinder Sanghera and Steve Reeves said: ” We would like to thank Maggie Atkinson for her work and acknowledge this has not been an easy decision for her. While working with limited resources, we have met the various challenges of the past seven months. The work of the Board in raising the voices of victims and survivors has continued. We welcome Meg Munn to the role of acting Chair and look forward to our collectively work towards implementing the vision of the ISB.”
This is a detailed review of the many missteps in the short life of the ISB, which needs to be read in full. Here’s two extracts:
…This latest act in the tragi-comedy which is the ISB, came at the end of a lengthy period of the Chair being “stood back” – in truth suspended by the Church – but even from that time, the Archbishops’ Council was still maintaining the fiction that it was not controlling the very body whose role was in part to hold its parent body to account. The announcement of both the “standing back”, and the resignation were published on the CofE website; this is not insignificant; a truly independent body would have been reporting its own comings and goings.
If you read the terms of the announcement – and we must now be clear that the news management is largely in the hands of the CofE Communications Department – it was all very respectful and amicable; evidently the Chair was leaving partly to spend more time with her family. If you believe this is the top and tail of the story, I have a lovely bridge in New York to sell you – ‘real cheap.”
————-
…The appointment of Ms Atkinson’s temporary replacement brings additional important issues to light .The former MP Meg Munn who is taking over, currently numbers amongst her career portfolio of offices, that of member of the National Safeguarding Steering Group and Chair of the National Safeguarding Panel. Whether she and /or either of those bodies played any part in the original conceptualisation of the ISB or the current shenanigans is unclear. So much is and will remain unclear; General Synod has not been allowed to debate these problems and may not be in July.
One might have assumed that the interim role would have fallen to the Survivor Advocate who has been the de facto voice of the body, since Ms Atkinson has been “stepped back”. However, Jasvinder Sanghera appears to have been nudged aside, with Ms Munn imposed upon her and her colleague Steve Reeves without any notice, still less consultation, neither were survivors consulted.
One might be critical of the slow pace of change, and even perhaps of the naivety of the ISB members; sometimes they appeared to be talking a better game than they delivered within the complex and tangled institution that is the CofE.
What cannot be denied however is that Ms Sanghera and Mr Reeves have brought bona fides to their task and devoted a lot of time to talking to Survivors, gaining their confidence. The effects of the imposition of the Archbishops’ Council ‘s choice of Chair into this difficult situation without any consultation with the very group that has been abused and ignored by the Church for far too long, is yet another example of the arrogance of power that taints so much that the Church does in this area…
The Church of England Evangelical Council has today published a lengthy statement which includes this declaration:
If the Church of England’s General Synod or House of Bishops:
authorises or commends liturgical provision for the celebration, dedication, blessing or solemnisation of any sexual relationship other than marriage between one man and one woman, or liturgical provision for the blessing of those in such relationships; or
removes the bar on clergy being in such relationships; or
produces pastoral guidance that is indicative of a departure from the Church of England’s doctrine that marriage between one man and one woman is the proper context for sexual intimacy; or
amends Canon B30 so the Church of England no longer affirms that “according to our Lord’s teaching marriage is in its nature a union permanent and lifelong, for better for worse, till death them do part, of one man with one woman, to the exclusion of all others on either side”;
we will declare that this action represents a departure from the faith which is revealed in the Holy Scriptures and set forth in the catholic creeds and to which the historic formularies of the Church of England bear witness.
Our desire is to keep faith with this inheritance as members of the Church of England and to remain in full communion with those Provinces of the Anglican Communion who also maintain the biblical and historic teaching of the church catholic.
We will therefore resist all attempts to introduce any of these changes or to marginalise those who, in their own teaching and practice, uphold the received doctrine of the Church of England and the teaching of Jesus on marriage.
We are compelled to resist.
More from the same statement page is copied below the fold.
Since the SCIE report on Lambeth Palace Safeguarding was published on 28 February, there has been a series of news and comment articles about it. Our reporting of it has been a bit disjointed so for clarification here is a complete record.
Our original 28 February report is here: Lambeth Palace safeguarding audit published. We then published links to six other items in the Comments rather than by amending the original post. We also mentioned two of these in our Opinion roundup on 4 March. Here are all the links:
The Equal Campaign approves. For far too long conservative evangelical organizations such as CEEC and the Church Society have claimed that only those who subscribe to their package of fundamentalist beliefs are entitled to call themselves evangelical. As the writers of the letter show, this is simply not the case.
The full text of the letter to the Church Times is copied below the fold.