In a statement, copied below, the diocese of Coventry has announced that the consecration of Canon Tim Lomax as the next Suffragan Bishop of Warwick has been postponed. Canon Lomax’s appointment was announced on 11 September.
Bishop of Warwick — Important Update
The consecration of the Revd Canon Tim Lomax as Bishop of Warwick, previously scheduled for 6 November, has been postponed.
This follows advice that further enquiries should be undertaken following complaints which were received after the announcement. It should be stressed that at this early stage no findings have been made and no conclusions have been reached. Sufficient time will now be given for this assessment to be conducted. We are committed to taking seriously the experiences of all those involved, and I want to assure you that all concerned are receiving appropriate support.
We recognise that this will be disappointing news for many people across the Diocese of Coventry and beyond, particularly those who have been looking forward to welcoming Canon Lomax into this ministry.
We will share further news as soon as we are able, and ask that you keep this in your prayers.
Oh dear…
For a number of personal (for me) reasons which I won’t publically reveal, I am not at all surprised. He came to St Albans as a ‘bright young thing’ and a protege of the previous bishop as he had done mission stuff (and I’m not denigrating it at all) in the Lichfield Diocese. I felt that his view of mission was very limited, especially for churches which did not subscribe to the HTB style agenda. When I wrote a book from my doctoral research on Anglo-Catholic Mission, in spite of the support of my suffragan, he made no attempt to… Read more »
In a nutshell then
Doesn’t this situation suggest an open recruitment and appointment process for bishops as happens in many provinces of the Anglican Communion, rather than the secrecy surrounding the current process in the Church of England. An open process would enable comments etc. to be raised prior to an appointment being made.
The Church of England needs an urgent and thorough review of how the Church of England makes senior appointments. We are no longer living in the Eighteenth Century and there is absolutely no reason where the process can’t be open and transparent and I can see absolutely no good reason for the involvement of the King or Prime Minister even if their involvement is purely ceremonial. I am a member of the Church of England not HTB and I find the disproportionate influence of one conservative, reactionary and homophobic faction very alarming.
So agree, David. Thanks for your comments
I stand to be corrected don’t think there is any HTB connection here.
I believe it is the case that Prime Minister Jim Callaghan (PM 1976-79) said that the system of Bishops being appointed by the King (on the advice of the PM) had to retained because (some) Bishops have seats in the House of Lords. You cannot allow the Church of England the unfettered right to appoint people to the Lords.
The answer is both a radical reform of the Upper House and the disestablishment of the Church of England.
The world has moved on a long time since Callaghan. Even then, however, it is very difficult to think of circumstances where someone would be a fit and proper person to be a bishop but not a peer.
I hear your concern but none of the words in your last sentence describe Tim Lomax.
This matter seems to be coming up a lot on recent TA threads. Let’s be clear. All episcopal appointments in the Church of England are Crown appointments under the Appointment of Bishops Act 1533. You might not like that, but that is the law. Nominations to diocesan bishoprics do usually lead ultimately to those bishops serving in the House of Lords, with women being fast tracked still. Nominations to suffragan bishoprics obviously do not. The constitutional convention that the Prime Minister accepts the Church’s (sole) name for diocesan appointments (introduced by Gordon Brown in 2007) had the result of adopting… Read more »
Very apt. Only thing is you should have omitted the word ‘senior’.
It’s three and a half years since the last Bishop of Warwick retired. For a lot of that time the see was vacant. The diocese got by, and continues to get by, without a suffragan. I seem to recall that barely 1% of adults are in church on Sunday. Rural churches in the diocese are in a parlous state, particularly in the southern half. A failing diocese in my experience.
Canon Lomax presumably remains on the books of the St Albans diocese in the meantime. This press release makes no mention of whether he is suspended from ministry in that diocese whilst the safeguarding matters are investigated.
The St Albans website says he is on “special leave”. https://www.stalbansdiocese.org/news/an-update-on-the-consecration-of-revd-canon-dr-tim-lomax/
There is nothing to stop someone on ‘leave’ from ministering of course. Quite where that leaves the complainant(s) in this situation is open to speculation. Once again the Church’s rhetoric on safeguarding is not matched by its actions. If these complaints warrant the postponement of the consecration one would assume that they ought to require a suspension from ministry as well.
Who knows what language is used when and for what reasons? Those who have stepped back from ministry are taken off the National Register of Clergy so can’t minister. Not saying that is the case here, but I have come to doubt what is said in press releases.
A more general point. As is entirely usual, the St Albans press release asks us to keep those concerned “in your prayers”. I am not criticising the press release but it made me wonder, does this mean anything? In our polarised church, do we still pray for one another, or only those in our faction, or even those? Has church politics and campaigning displaced prayer? Or does “keeping them in our prayers” mean anything more than a formal mention in public intercessions? (as opposed to a genuine longing and yearning directed Godwards)? For example, I find it hard to imagine… Read more »
I don’t think either release says whether or not the complaints have anything to do with safeguarding. Correct me if I have missed something, though.
I think it was the Church Times article I saw reported that the NST were involved
We do not know any details – sometimes people go to the NST with a concern because they do not know where else to go.
Another report (Church Times) indicates the complaints “triggered a meeting of the national safeguarding team”. They indicate what the complaints do not relate to.
The previous suffragan, when Bishop Christopher Cocksworth was on a sabbatical, told me I when I appealed for justice and honesty in a safeguarding case, I must know he, “could not intervene in safeguarding matters”.
During that same sabbatical I got a near identical response from the same suffragan. When the bishop came back from sabbatical he properly investigated.
Indicating what they do not relate to implies that some matters are considered to be more serious than others. Drawing such distinctions goes against the spirit of all the safeguarding training I’ve ever done.
Those sort of distinctions are surely a matter for a judge or a tribunal if it goes that far. Introducing tiers of seriousness in a press release risks diminishing the experience of complainants.
It makes it clear that children are not involved.
Agreed. But given that this has become the norm, it is self-sustaining. If you don’t say ‘these matters do not relate to children and young people…’ people will now assume, speculate and gossip that they do.
Not Soul Survivor apparently so no need to go over old ground again – for the sake of those affected as much as anything, but here we go again (see below)… It just shows how Safeguarding is being weaponised. Full transparency is never possible in situations where no one trusts anyone. Misinformation and distortions and that’s just in the first handful of posts above.
It is only a week since a discussion thread about Bishop Stephen Lake where there were expressions of concern for bishops in the present context and the processes in place. One noted how ‘the degree of jeopardy and exposure for those in episcopal orders does feel quite scary’. Another observed how ‘Some very fine bishops have been minced through this meat grinding process’ another that it raises ‘profound concerns’. The assumption that smoke must always mean fire was also rightly questioned. No one in public ministry avoids being strongly disliked by some, or avoids getting things wrong at times. We do not… Read more »
Suspended before started, in effect
Thank you for your wise words, David. We do seem to lack compassion.
The Anglican communion seems to be very good at scoring own goals. Can anything good come from any of this? I thought when a safeguarding concern is raised, it should be treated as confidential for the sake of all parties. In the crypt of St Mary’s (Warwick) is a ducking stool. The fable is float and be declared guilty, drown and be declared innocent. It sounds like its restoration might be better for Anglican PR.
@Danny Crowther but are you happy for those who turn out to be guilty being able to exercise institutional power over witnesses while the investigation goes on? Not would I trust the investigation to remain secret rather than entering into gossip.
I think the best approach is suspend while investigating- as a neutral act! – and to not gossip or assume guilt but to hold the situation in our prayers.
Your words have wisdom too, Kyle. I am indeed not happy with those potentially guilty being allowed to carry on regardless. I am also unhappy that we cannot do confidential investigations. Your words remind me that we do very much need a culture where confidential matters can remain so, prayers can be sought without “headline news”, and gossip is shunned by one and all for the evil it is. Only then will be able to be compassionate to the accused and the accuser.
I think you are right David. The fact that most posts here are now fishing around the hideous speculation of not knowing anything but thinking everything, is so unhealthy. We now have a church which has an explicit policy and process which makes people guilty by inference, secrecy and with no evidence. This is a grotesque way to operate as a church pastorally. I live in the Diocese of Salisbury and am thinking.. how can Stephen (a fine bishop by the way!) come back from this? And now I am thinking how can Bishop Elect Tim possibly start from this?
And the complainants …?
That’s my point! We don’t know the veracity, substance or content of any of the complaints – hence the speculation becomes rife from burying a youth worker under the patio to falling out with a churchwarden who has a gripe about a reordering project.
All the complaints might be true but lets have a clearer, shorter process for everyone concerned. For the good of plaintiffs, defendents and the good of the church.
Aye, there’s the rub. If the complaints are serious and might be based in fact, suspension is a must. But if they’re not, the process becomes unfair punishment. The thing is that, as of now, we just can’t know.
Here is Canon Tim Lomax addressing a significant part of his constituency 11 June 2023 in the wake of the Mike Pilavachi abuse scandal. Pilavachi was suspended as an employee of the Soul Survivor charity the previous month. https://youtu.be/UoUigapSBeE?is=S7w_RC__WX4HgRbs It’s odd that there’s no mention of victims and survivors. Presumably some are present. There is an absence of concern. The concern seems to be for the church and the Soul Survivor brand. “It’s going to be rough, it’s going to be unpleasant, but we’ll be ok” speaks comfort to the church but not to its victims. He repeats it 4… Read more »
I had zero knowledge of Tim Lomax, and almost zero knowledge of Soul Survivor. But after increasing my knowledge in the last few minutes I share your concerns.
Argument by analogy is almost always dangerous. So quoting from Scipture (Romans) and equating it to Soul Survivor is at best dishonest. Difficulties arising from external attacks are entirely different to difficulties arising from internal evil. St Paul did not hold back his condemnation of sins within churches.
Well I am not over impressed with it as a talk but without its fuller context – where, when, who took, what for and what came before and after – I can make no judgement.
Agreed. Caution. Mixed with concern.
Here is the livestream of the whole service, to give context: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h8u1vndwNEo There appears to have been a safeguarding statement after the extended time of worship near the beginning, but this is blanked out and the screen shows a web address to refer to. Bizarrely, the feed returns to the congregation chatting and laughing while the screen reads ‘applause’. I only stomached 10 minutes of the sermon, but the earlier part of the service and what I saw of the sermon major very much on what a difficult time the church is having, with the analogies and Bible reading referring… Read more »
I agree, similar to what I said above, but also benefit of hindsight. I didn’t hear anything about victims or repentance of the church, and I watched it all the way through.
The degree of mixed messaging about safeguarding in the last few posts is almost beyond belief and makes me very sad. The COf E has many well documented historic safeguarding scandals the vast majority of which go back to bishops and other senior clergy in positions of power. As an outside former safeguarding professional the way this has lead the church not to repentance and reparation for survivors and victims but to the subsequent weaponisation of safeguarding processes by those in positions of power feels nothing short of obscene. It has reached such industrial proportions there seems to be a… Read more »
Susanna (no ‘h’), Thank you for your sympathetic understanding.
We have never understood the reason the DSO has had so much support from senior clergy in the cathedral and diocese however much we have been able to prove her factually wrong.
Apparently she has now been promoted and is called, ‘Director of Safeguarding’!
Good to see you back here. On the subject of ‘neutral’ suspensions, I seem totally unable to get across on TA that the C of E has its own specific rules about suspension (and they have the full force of statute): sections 36 and 37 of the CDM 2003 (as amended) set out in crystal clear language when a bishop or archbishop may lawfully impose suspension and equally may revoke it. In the case of a safeguarding matter involving a child or a vulnerable adult, the bishop or archbishop has to be satisfied, on the basis of information provided by… Read more »
Thank you Rowland, I’ve been concerned that the threads for Lincoln, Salisbury and Lomax have mostly all been focused on the respondent without considering the impact that the speculation has upon complainants. As you helpfully point out the bar for suspension is high. In some circumstances complainants are entitled to lifelong anonymity and they cannot put forward their version of events without sacrificing that legal right. The talk in these threads has been mainly about process and the difficulties of the respondents, the complainants are all too often overlooked in these discussions. By detailing the legal threshold for a suspension… Read more »
Tim Lomax hasn’t been suspended.
Rowland, this was the very point I made in my article in 2019 about the suspension of the then Bishop of Lincoln, Christopher Lowson, in response to Archbishop Welby’s statement that his suspension was a neutral act: see the post on this website, ‘Legal issues arising from the suspension of the Bishop of Lincoln’ on 24 May 2019. As I pointed out, that suspension under section 37(1)(e) of the CDM 2003 is not a neutral act is demonstrated by comparing the different wording of the forms giving notice of the suspension when the suspension is under other paragraphs of the… Read more »
Yes, you may recall I said that at the time, but our efforts seemed to fall on deaf ears (even then we were contracted) and today TA contributors are still calling for ‘neutral suspension’ even in the face of sections 36 and 37 having been quoted numerous times on current threads with the case of Bishop Lowson also specifically mentioned.
Correction: contradicted – not ‘contracted’.
Having watched the video – thank you for sharing it – I don’t know the full context of what was said around it, but Tim Lomax does mention the victims, those who have come forward with information, their pain, all who are involved. It comes about 14 minutes in for the first time and then there is a second reference towards the end, Blink and you miss it, but it is there. So I can see it will come over as if he doesn’t, but it is there. Why this wasn’t said at the beginning, seems odd, but then I… Read more »
Michael H, I wonder why the bishop investigated your case and not ours? He had interviewed us for over two hours and seen our documented evidence much of it from Subject Access Request information. He had also understood the similarities with our case and that of Father Alan Griffin. Instead, on the day he left the diocese he wrote me a letter, my friend was not included.He wrote as the truth the fabrications and untruths persistently perpetrated by the Diocesan Safeguarding Adviser for the previous three years. Since these lies could be indisputably proved to be such, the Bishop’s stance… Read more »
I do worry that this may impact a little known safeguarding process that safeguarding team at the diocese of Coventry are running – the learning process at the Order of Mission looking, which has been going on for a couple of years already by this point, and delayed already by a safeguarding audit.
Thank you Daniel C for your comment. I was very interested to learn from your comment that the safeguarding team at the Coventry diocese have been following a little known safeguarding process. This is the first I have heard of it. As I have been a supporter and advocate for my friend for more than six years and have failed to find any justice, I should like to know more. Would it be possible please to explain more of what it is about? If you would rather not make this information public I am quite happy that Simon Sarmiento from… Read more »
Just a question: why were the complaints only raised when his appointment was announced?
https://www.anglicanwatch.com/another-church-of-england-episcopal-appointment-another-safeguarding-file-opened-before-the-new-bishop-even-take-office/
From Anglican Watch USA.
I’m beginning to wish someone would complain about me. I could have a nice rest. Mind you, the church where I live would lose (during the 2 year investigation) its organ-player, PCC Sec, Sexton, Safeguarding person, and H&S person.
I am happy to complain that the organ playing has made me feel unsafe while I have wandered around the dangerously untended churchyard and the PCC secretary has refused to acknowledge my pain. I think that covers all the bases, will that do?
I am happy to complain that the Name Naughtius Maximus is not sufficiently Python. Cleese can you make sure that com Palin about the organ playing Shine Jesus Shine is noted.