Updated 12 July
This news story is now reported in a fourth place:
This news story is reported in three separate places:
There are varying amounts of detail in these accounts, but what is notable is that Church of England officials are also implicated in the handling of this matter.
From the Church Times:
…Gilo also welcomed the mediation from EIO “over their repeated public dissembling around the review into my case. The bishop mandated to implement the review recommendations [the then Bishop of Crediton, now the Bishop of London, the Rt Revd Sarah Mullally] and the secretary-general of the Archbishops’ Council, William Nye, remained silent to every question and request for help on this. Eventually a Subject Access Request revealed complicity between the Archbishops’ Council, NST, and Ecclesiastical, and showed they had sought to work together on reputational management.”
And his earlier comments in September 2020 can be found here: Thoughts on the Elliott Review ‘translation’ by Archbishops Council.
From Surviving Church:
Ian Elliott, the internationally recognised safeguarding expert and reviewer, has said:
“I want to take this opportunity to acknowledge and welcome the agreement to reach a mediated settlement with Ecclesiastical Insurance regarding the dissembling that has marked their response to the review that I undertook of a historic abuse case for the Church of England. Over the course of the years since I produced the report, EIO have made comments on national television, on their website, and in evidence to the Inquiry (IICSA), regarding the accuracy of my assessments, claiming that they were flawed. These damaging statements are completely untrue. Despite this, they were never publicly withdrawn and no attempt has ever been made by EIO or the Church to set the record straight. Telling the truth is important and when that does not happen, trust is damaged and lost.”
From Insurance Business:
A spokesperson for the Church of England, which was not involved in the settlement and was unable to comment on it but was involved in the Elliott Review, said that “the rights of survivors and victims to protect their data and our duty to use that data properly in any aspect of our work is paramount.”
“We will continue to unreservedly apologise for the Church’s poor response to survivors and victims, as highlighted at IICSA, and are committed to engaging with them to inform our future work,” the spokesperson said.
As Andrew Greystone says (Surviving Church)
I wish the House of Bishops in England would step up and take responsibility for the damage the church has done. Instead, victims and survivors of abuse in the Church of England find the church’s hierarchy resistant at every stage. It’s not that the bishops don’t care about justice and healing for victims of church abuse. Some certainly do. It’s just quite low on their list of priorities.
As Gilo and many others know only too well, every engagement with the church on this issue is an uphill struggle. Some survivors who have already lost years to fighting to have their voices heard, fear that they will face further years of legal battles to persuade the church to make redress.
Bishops need to understand that healing for victims of abuse is not a drag on the mission of the church. It IS the mission of the church.”
From Insurance Post:
2 CommentsRichard Scorer, head of abuse law team at Slater and Gordon and Gilo’s solicitor in this case, said: “The outcome of this case speaks for itself. Ecclesiastical initially treated the claim as a claim for a minor data breach. But it has now paid substantially more by way of damages than would ordinarily be paid for a simple breach.
“In addition, its CEO Mark Hews has provided an unreserved apology, and it has agreed to a further mediation about the wider issue of its public treatment of the Elliott review. By settling the matter in this way, it has in reality acknowledged that this data breach occurred in a wider context of EIO failings towards survivors, some of which were explored in IICSA, and that those failings significantly aggravated this data breach. I hope that these events will be part of an urgent and radical reshaping of EIO’s behaviour towards survivors, and the full implementation of the Elliott report”.
This post will be updated as the meeting proceeds.
The Church of England’s General Synod is meeting this weekend. The timetable is here, the papers are here.
Live Video etc
All sessions are streamed live on YouTube and remain available to view afterwards.
Friday afternoon
Saturday morning and afternoon
Sunday
Monday morning
Monday afternoon
Monday evening
Tuesday morning
There is an official Twitter account.
Order Papers
OP1 – Friday afternoon
OP2 – Saturday morning
OP3 – Saturday afternoon
OP4 – Sunday afternoon
OP5 – Monday morning
OP6 – Monday afternoon
OP7 – Monday evening
OP8 – Tuesday morning
Business done
Friday 8 July 2022 PM
Saturday 9 July 2022 AM
Saturday 9 July 2022 PM
Sunday 10 July 2022 PM
Monday 11 July 2022 AM
Monday 11 July 2022 PM
Monday 11 July 2022 EVE
Tuesday 12 July 2022 AM
Official press releases
Archbishop of York’s Presidential Address
Synod endorses plan to reach net zero carbon by 2030
Archbishop of Canterbury’s speech in Synod debate on the war in Ukraine
General Synod welcomes £3.6bn investment in mission and ministry
General Synod safeguarding session
Synod debates review of Strategic Development and Lowest Income Communities Funding
More funding needed for palliative care, General Synod hears, in debate on Assisted Suicide
Synod hears of suffering of Ukrainian citizens as it votes to condemn Russian invasion
Synod backs motion affirming disabled people in the life and ministry of the Church
General Synod calls for stronger age verification for pornography websites
Global Anglican Communion given greater voice in choice of future Archbishops of Canterbury
Synod welcomes new report setting out proposals for Clergy Conduct Measure
Archbishop of Canterbury pays tribute to Her Majesty The Queen at General Synod
Press reports etc
Church Times
Synod approves net-zero routemap after climate protest
Five overseas Anglicans will help choose the next Archbishop of Canterbury
Love knows no boundaries, Bishop Poggo tells Synod congregation
Synod rejects assisted dying by a large majority
Synod debates what justice might look like in Ukraine
Government must legislate to protect children against porn, Synod resolves
Synod strongly supports swift overhaul of clergy discipline
What happened at the General Synod in York?
David Pocklington at Law & Religion UK
Synod endorsement for “net zero” plan
Synod vote on “assisted suicide”
Synod members’ blogs
Andrew Nunn
A long weekend in York
Hot air
The Garden of England
A day of rest
From pounds to PCCs to porn
Wonderfully made
Nick Baines
General Synod: Ukraine
Jo Stobart
General Synod (8-12 July, 2022)
There are 11 Questions to the House of Bishops on Safeguarding, all to be answered by the Bishop of Rochester. They are all listed here.
Mrs Kat Alldread (Derby) to ask the Chair of the House of Bishops:
Q3 Please can you tell us how many cases have been referred to the Independent Safeguarding Board for their review and the dates of those referrals?
A One case has been referred. The date of referral was 08 April 2022.
Mr Clive Billenness (Europe) to ask the Chair of the House of Bishops:
Q4 Paper GS 2263 (Update on Safeguarding) states at Paragraph 18 that the Independent Safeguarding Board can scrutinise or review how the Church has handled a particular case.if it decides to after a case has been referred to it. Have criteria and procedures been published about such referrals of cases – e.g., who may refer a case, in what circumstances, and on what basis will the ISB decide what cases to scrutinise?
A Review activity by the Independent Safeguarding Board will vary in different cases.
Referrals to the ISB could come from a range of possible sources, including individuals; parish or diocesan safeguarding bodies; the NST; clergy, or the NCIs. Its remit is to bring forward lessons and to recommend and promote best practice.
Decisions are reached on a case-by-case basis after consideration as to whether the ISBs remit covers what is requested. The ISB will decide on whether the Board should undertake a review, and if so, what its nature should be.
This approach is comparable to that seen in case review sub-committees of safeguarding partnerships or boards in wider society, where a range of actions may or may not follow their deliberations.
Mr Martin Sewell (Rochester) to ask the Chair of the House of Bishops:
Q5 When interviewed by the BBC Sunday programme about the refusal of victim Matt Ineson to co-operate with the Review into his own case, Public Inquiry Specialist and regulatory expert Kate Blackwell QC identified the necessary features of best practice for such a review as follows:
1. It must be search for the truth to shed light on what has gone wrong;
2. Scrutiny of complex issues should be done through a panel of independent experts each bringing levels of excellence from various perspectives;
3. It goes without saying that the panel must have complete independence from any party; and
4. It must engender complete faith in the survivors.
She publicly opined that the Devamannikam Review did not meet those standards and the victim has refused to participate.
Did the Archbishops Council specifically consider each of these principles before determining that the Independent Safeguarding Board was the optimal forum in which to address the various complaints of Dr Martyn Percy that for four years, he has been the victim of institutional bullying within the Christ Church Foundation in which several Oxford clergy and Diocesan advisors are alleged to have participated?
A The ISB exists to provide independent scrutiny and oversight of the Churchs safeguarding activity, to hold the Church to account for our actions as part of the ISBs remit to learn lessons from safeguarding matters. Given its remit the ISBs view was that there were likely to be lessons to be learned, the Archbishops Council and the Diocese of Oxford referred to the ISB the Churchs safeguarding activities in the last two years with respect to Dr Martyn Percy and Christ Church Oxford. They considered that it would be within the ISBs remit and the expertise of its members. They did not specifically consider the contents of the interview by Dr Blackwell. This is not intended to be a comprehensive review of all the issues around Christ Church. That would go well beyond the remit of the ISB. It is not, nor intended to be, a public inquiry.
Updated 9 July
A Private Member’s Motion has been tabled at the General Synod relating to the use of Issues in Human Sexuality in the ordination process. The text of that motion is copied below:
Vocations process and Issues in human sexuality
Revd Mae Christie (Southwark) to move:
‘That this Synod request that the House of Bishops remove any requirements relating to Issues in Human Sexuality from the Vocations (Shared Discernment) Process.’
In connection with the above, there is also a Question, published today, which is also copied below:
The Revd Mae Christie (London) to ask the Chair of the Ministry Council:
Q62 When and by what mechanism was Issues in Human Sexuality formally written into the Selection Criterion of the Church of England?The Bishop of Chester to reply as Chair of the Ministry Council:
A We do not have a record of the date or the mechanism by which Issues in Human Sexuality was formally written into the former Selection Criteria. Unfortunately, since the information is not readily available it could not be obtained within the time-frame available for responding to Synod questions.
The answer is quite extraordinary. Maybe some of our readers can help out here?
PS Mthr Mae has not moved dioceses.
For the benefit of those wondering what exactly was in the former selection criteria about this,, here’s the wording:
E 5: Candidates should be able to accept the standards of sexual morality expected of ordained ministers
Evidence for this may be drawn from a candidate’s capacity to:
And in the new (current) selection criteria, it says this
Update
The following supplementary question was put on Friday evening by Mae Christie
If it cannot be established that IHS was inserted into the discernment process , having been ordered so by the House of Bishops, and is therefore in place illegitimately, will the house of bishops, in coordination with ministry division, consider removing it from the shared discernment process with immediate effect?
Another question related to Safeguarding.
Mr Paul Waddell (Southwark) to ask the Chair of the Finance Committee:
Q55 In February 2020 John Spence told Synod that This is not about affordability, it is about justice. . . The funds for redress will be found. How much money has been budgeted for redress payments to survivors of church abuse, and where does it appear in our budgets for the coming year?
Canon John Spence to reply as Chair of the Finance Committee:
A That commitment stands but the speed of progress is dependent on numerous factors. The redress scheme must be survivor focussed and not limited by existing budget lines.
Appropriate responsibility for redress needs to be taken at every level of the Church. On the subsidiarity principle, costs should be met by the most appropriate body and all responsibility should not fall on the national Church.
The national Church future spending plans include an allowance towards redress scheme costs, but a formal budget has not yet been set. The matter of where redress scheme payments will be included in future budgets and the budget level will be considered as the work on developing the redress scheme is progressed.
The costs of the project to develop a redress scheme are within the safeguarding line of the Archbishops Councils budget. This work is being overseen by a Project Board which includes survivor representatives.
In two earlier TA articles (first this and then that one) , we have linked to criticisms (first here and then here) of the ISB’s current role in relation to the Oxford Christ Church investigation. We also linked earlier to the text of a reply from William Nye to the first of the two letters of criticism.
Among the Questions for the General Synod in York this weekend, there is one which relates directly to this.
The Revd Canon Simon Talbott (Ely) to ask the Presidents of the Archbishops’ Council:
Q123 Given the material that members of the Archbishops’ Council have been copied into relevant to the case of Dr Percy, have any of them submitted a Serious Incident Report to the Charity Commission and if not, why not?Canon Dr Jamie Harrison to reply on behalf of the Presidents of the Archbishops’ Council:
A There have been long-running and some public exchanges with the Archbishops’ Council and members of General Synod and others relating to the process followed by the National Safeguarding Team and Dr Percy. This includes some correspondence directly with the Charity Commission, following which discussions took place between the Council and Charity Commission senior officers. Recent correspondence from Dr Percy and some Synod members sets out a difference of views as to how best to introduce independent oversight into Church of England safeguarding. The Archbishops’ Council does not assess that such correspondence meets the threshold for a serious incident report.
Given this is question number 123, it seems unlikely that supplementary questions will occur.
What is this Charity Commission Serious Incident Report procedure?
An explanation is here: How to report a serious incident in your charity
And there is a lot more detail here.
The relevant category in this case is presumably
which is elaborated as:
The Questions (and Answers) for this weekend’s meeting of the Church of England’s General Synod were published today. The Question sessions (on Friday and Saturday evenings) will be devoted to supplementary questions.
Questions Notice Paper July 2022
Questions Notice Paper Annex – Q168
Update
The original version of the Questions Notice Paper contained a number of errors (listed in Notice Paper 11) and has been replaced (at the same URL) by a corrected version.
3 CommentsPress release from the Prime Minister’s Office. There are more details on the Exeter diocesan website.
Appointment of Suffragan Bishop of Plymouth: 6 July 2022
The Queen has approved the nomination of The Reverend Prebendary James Grier to the Suffragan See of Plymouth.
From: Prime Minister’s Office, 10 Downing Street
Published 6 July 2022
The Queen has approved the nomination of The Reverend Prebendary James Grier, Prebendary of Exeter Cathedral and Diocesan Mission Enabler, in the Diocese of Exeter, to the Suffragan See of Plymouth, in the Diocese of Exeter, in succession to The Right Reverend Nicholas McKinnel following his retirement.
Background
James was educated at St Peter’s College, Oxford, and trained for ministry at Wycliffe Hall, Oxford. He served his title at St Andrew’s, Oxford, and was ordained Priest in 1999.
James served as Associate Vicar at St John the Baptist, Harborne Heath, in the Diocese of Birmingham from 2002. He was appointed Team Vicar of St Michael and All Angels, Pinhoe in the Diocese of Exeter in 2007, also serving as Diocesan Youth Advisor. As Youth Advisor, he established Unlimited Church, which became a Bishop’s Mission Order in 2012.
In 2019, James took up his current role as Diocesan Mission Enabler. He has also served as Prebendary of Exeter Cathedral since 2020.
19 CommentsChurch of England press release
Alexander Kubeyinje, an experienced social work director, has been appointed as the Church of England’s new permanent national director of safeguarding. He will start the role in September and takes over from Zena Marshall, who has been interim director since January 2021.
Alexander has held a range of senior roles in children’s social care including at Lambeth, Southend and Bedford. He is currently completing an interim role as director of children’s social care for Herefordshire. His work includes vast experience of child protection and safeguarding practice, and he is committed to ensuring the Church is a safe place for all, continuing the work to ensure the right systems are in place for children, young people, vulnerable adults and the community to be able to worship and take part in church-related activities, feeling protected and safe.
Alexander studied at Havering College of Further Education.
Commenting on his appointment Alexander said: “I am excited to be taking on the role of National Director of Safeguarding for the Church of England. I am passionate about equality, diversity and the protection of the most vulnerable in our communities.”
William Nye, Secretary General to the Archbishops’ Council, said: “I am delighted that Alexander Kubeyinje has agreed to take on this role at a time when the Church is consolidating a range of new safeguarding developments, particularly as a response to IICSA’s recommendations.
“While we acknowledge there is still a lot of work to do Alexander’s senior level experience will build on the vital work carried out by Zena Marshall who has had led the team on an interim basis for the past 18 months.”
Bishop Jonathan Gibbs, the Church of England’s lead safeguarding bishop, said: “I warmly welcome the appointment of Alexander as the Church’s new Director of Safeguarding and along with the other lead safeguarding bishops, I look forward to working with him.
“His experience will provide continuing strong leadership of the National Safeguarding Team at a time of increasing demand and scrutiny.
“While there have been many safeguarding improvements in the past few years, we must be mindful we have not responded well to survivors and victims and that must be our priority.
“I would also like to thank Zena Marshall for her professional leadership of the Team over the past 18 months.”
Biography
Alexander is the son of Nigerian immigrants who came to the UK in the 1960’s. He was born and raised in Lambeth and attended school in South London. Alexander is a qualified social worker, practice leader and accomplished Director with over 21 years of experience in safeguarding.
He enjoys spending time with his wife, five children and chihuahua ‘Bentley.’ He has coached grass roots football for many years and is an integral part of his community.
0 CommentsDiocese of London press release
Fr Alan Griffin: Diocese of London publishes independent report and response
The independent review regarding Fr Alan Griffin has today been published by the Diocese of London. External safeguarding practitioner, Chris Robson, was commissioned following the coroner’s inquest in 2021 into Fr Alan’s death, to conduct a lessons learned review. This has been released in full, alongside the Diocese’s response.
Fr Alan Griffin became the Rector of St James Garlickhythe and St Andrew-by-the-Wardrobe in the City of London in 2001, in the Two Cities Area of the Diocese of London. He retired from the Church of England in 2011 and was ordained as a priest in the Roman Catholic Church in 2012. On 8th November 2020, Fr Alan died by suicide.
The Bishop of London, Sarah Mullally, said:
“I am profoundly sorry for all that Fr Alan Griffin endured and apologise unreservedly to his family and friends. Homophobia and bias, conscious or unconscious, have no place our Church – the culture has to change. It is heart-breaking to read of the failings that occurred in the lead-up to November 2020, dating back to the lack of understanding and proper pastoral care at the time of his HIV+ diagnosis and non-fatal suicide attempt in 2010.
“Chris Robson’s report clearly identifies our past mistakes, alongside the improvements which have since been made, and the areas where work is still required. I am grateful for his approach and honesty, and for the efforts of the Review Steering Group in informing our response. We owe it to Fr Alan Griffin to ensure what happened to him can never happen to anybody else.”
The Independent Reviewer, Chris Robson, said:
“I would ask that those who read the Review see it as a document that will help the Diocese of London and wider church to improve safeguarding practice. Those people I have spoken to at a senior level have recognised the issues raised in the review and I am encouraged by their response.
“Whilst it is very clear that improvements to practice are necessary, I acknowledge that significant progress has already been made. In particular, the Diocese has a strong leader in Bishop Sarah and I can see she is driving that positive change. It now requires collective effort across the entire diocese with new and improved practice being ‘lived and owned’ by the whole church community.
“I would like to thank those who spoke to me for their candidness, often during difficult and emotional interviews. I have been privileged to speak with representatives of the family and friends of Father Alan during this process. The dignity, honesty and patience they have shown has been remarkable given the circumstances and I thank them sincerely for the part they played in the review.
“Finally, when reading this Review, I would ask that you remember Father Alan Griffin, a much-loved man. It is important that lessons are learned from his death and everything possible is done to ensure these or similar circumstances are never repeated.”
The Diocesan response to the independent report’s recommendations sets out progress made to date and identifies the ongoing priority areas. These include the following, which will be scrutinized by the independently-chaired Diocesan Safeguarding Steering Group:
Press release from the Church of England
Standing Commission on the House of Bishops’ Declaration and the Five Guiding Principles
01/07/2022
The Bishop of Lichfield, Michael Ipgrave, will chair the 12-strong Standing Commission on the House of Bishops’ Declaration and the Five Guiding Principles.
Alongside him, the members will include:
Clergy
Laity
Establishing the Standing Commission was a key recommendation of the Implementation and Dialogue Group (IDG), a temporary body which reviewed the arrangements which were originally put in place in 2014, opening the episcopate to women as well as men while ensuring provision for those who, in theological conscience, could not accept their ministry.
More detail was set out in the IDG’s report to General Synod last year.
The Commission, appointed by the House of Bishops, will support dioceses with the monitoring of the implementation of the House of Bishops’ Declaration on the Ministry of Bishops and Priests.
Published ahead of the historic vote of the General Synod on women in the episcopate in July 2014, the Declaration sets out five guiding principles under which those in favour of the ordination of women and those who, on theological grounds, cannot fully accept the ordained ministry of women, can both flourish.
7 CommentsPress release from the Church of England
Bishops of Maidstone, Ebbsfleet and Oswestry
30/06/2022
A series of changes have been announced to the names of bishops who offer extended episcopal care to parishes that cannot accept the priestly or episcopal ministry of women.
Under these changes, now approved by the Dioceses Commission, the Bishop of Maidstone Rod Thomas’s successor will now be known as the Bishop of Ebbsfleet.
Meanwhile the role of the previous Bishop of Ebbsfleet – whose ministry was to traditional catholic parishes – will move to become that of the Bishop of Oswestry in the Diocese of Lichfield.
Bishop Rod, who will retire in October, has had a special national ministry since 2015 providing a voice in the College of Bishops and advocacy for those who cannot, on the grounds of complementarian evangelical theology, accept the priestly or episcopal ministry of women.
The future Bishop of Ebbsfleet, who will take on this responsibility when Bishop Rod retires, will live either in London or the M4 corridor for ease of travel and will minister nationally to complementarian evangelical parishes.
The combined effect of these changes means that the See of Maidstone will become vacant and could potentially revert to local use within the Diocese of Canterbury in the future.
Up until now, Bishops of Ebbsfleet – one of the Church of England’s three ‘Provincial Episcopal Visitors’, who minister to traditional catholic parishes – have been responsible primarily for churches in the western half of the Church of England’s Province of Canterbury.
Consultations on a successor to Jonathan Goodall, the previous Bishop of Ebbsfleet, strongly suggested that it would be helpful for the new postholder be rooted in a diocese.
The Dioceses Commission has therefore agreed that Lichfield provides a good location for this ministry to this part of the Province and that Bishop Jonathan’s successor should therefore be designated as the Bishop of Oswestry.
Updated again 1 July
On 25 May, as previously reported, the Church of England reported that its Independent Safeguarding Board would conduct a review on behalf of the Archbishops’ Council and the Diocese of Oxford, see Christ Church safeguarding review for further details.
On 15 June (apologies for delay in reporting) Christ Church Oxford announced: Christ Church appoints the Rt Hon Dominic Grieve QC to lead its Independent Governance Review.
Christ Church, Oxford has today appointed the Rt Hon Dominic Grieve QC to lead an independent review into governance of the Foundation, after its Governing Body voted overwhelmingly to endorse the former Attorney General for England and Wales as chair of the review…
…The Independent Governance Review, which is expected to report in 2023, will make recommendations that the Governing Body will carefully consider, to ensure that Christ Church’s statutes, by-laws and governance arrangements meet the needs of this unique institution in the 21st century…
Criticisms of the Church of England review were expressed in a letter to the Archbishops’ Council from Martin Sewell and others, dated 13 June, published here on 20 June: Independent Safeguarding Board and the Percy review.
(I also provided a recap of ISB history and other related links in a separate article here.)
All these developments were reported in the Church Times on 24 June. Regarding the criticism of the ISB Percy review:
…A Church House spokesperson said this week: “The Independent Safeguarding Board, ISB, was set up in 2021, following a decision by the Archbishops’ Council and House of Bishops to provide independent external scrutiny and oversight of the Church’s safeguarding activity. This includes overseeing the work of the National Safeguarding Team, NST, which along with Oxford diocese referred this issue to the ISB.
“Its remit is also to advise on how an independent presence on safeguarding should work in the long term. The ISB operates independently in that it decides its work programme, it sets its own terms of reference for its work, and it can scrutinise any aspect of the Church’s safeguarding activity that it chooses. General Synod received a full presentation and paper on the work of the ISB at its February Synod.”
Update 30 June
The Church Times has a further report on 30 June: Nye backs Independent Safeguarding Board for Oxford review
…In a letter to Mr Sewell, sent on Wednesday of last week, Mr Nye clarifies the limited nature of the ISB review. Having been asked by the Archbishops’ Council and the diocese of Oxford to look into the church safeguarding aspects of the Christ Church dispute, “the ISB agreed that it would undertake a review of these safeguarding matters, as part of its oversight remit, in order to learn any lessons. This would include looking at whether these issues should have been dealt with as safeguarding matters at all. This is entirely consistent with the ISB’s remit…”
…In the letter, Mr Nye also accuses Dr Percy of launching “a series of personal attacks on the professional standing and competence of the chair of the ISB, extending to contacting other clients of her work, with a view to discouraging them from employing her”.
Approached for a response, Dr Percy called the accusation “baseless”, but declined to comment on an allegation made to a third party and not directly to him.
Mr Sewell said on Tuesday: “William’s letter really doesn’t answer many of our questions, and we are pressing him again. I am happy, however, to explain why nobody should be surprised that a measure of frustration and anger has crept in, at the end of lengthy correspondence between Dr Percy and the ISB.
“It has completely ignored his most significant complaints and failed to answer reasonable process enquiries. This comes on top of four years of intensive bullying by College and Church alike. The Church and its agents are alleged to have actively promoted a false narrative of serious risk which was abandoned on the day after settlement….”
Updates 1 July
Press release from the Prime Minister’s Office. There are more details on the York diocesan website.
Appointment of Suffragan Bishop of Hull: 29 June 2022
The Queen has approved the following appointment.
From: Prime Minister’s Office, 10 Downing Street
Published 29 June 2022
The Queen has approved the nomination of The Right Reverend Dr Eleanor Sanderson, Assistant Bishop, in the Diocese of Wellington, to the Suffragan See of Hull, in the Diocese of York, in succession to The Right Reverend Alison White following her retirement.
Background
Eleanor was educated at Bristol University; the University of Wellington, New Zealand; and Otago University, New Zealand. She trained for ordained ministry in the Anglican Church in Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia, and was ordained Priest in 2006.
Eleanor’s ordained ministry to date has been in New Zealand. She served her title in the parish of Northland Wilton, and became Canon in Residence at Wellington Cathedral in 2007. She was appointed Vicar of the Parish of Eastbourne in 2013, whilst additionally serving as Chaplain to the Anglican Wellesley College. In 2014, she was appointed Fellow for Public Theology at the Centre for Anglican Communion Studies, Virginia Theological Seminary.
In 2017, Eleanor was appointed to her current role as Assistant Bishop in the Diocese of Wellington.
21 CommentsUpdated 29 June
Following last week’s release of the papers for next month’s meeting of the Church of England General Synod there have been a number of press reports and online comments.
Church Times
Porn, but not Pride, on General Synod’s York agenda
New report on Clergy Discipline Measure to go to General Synod
Wedding fees should be slashed, Blackburn diocese argues
David Pocklington Law & Religion UK July Synod: plans for “net zero carbon” by 2030
Telegraph
Scrap ‘unjust’ wedding fees to make marriage more affordable, urge vicars
Wealthy church parishes could give to poorer neighbours under C of E plans
Porn site age verification would stop ‘distorted’ sexualisation of children, say clergy
There is a Press release from the Church of England today about the agenda for next month’s meeting of General Synod; it is copied below. There is a second press release about one particular item on the agenda: Synod to consider plans for net zero carbon Church by 2030.
General Synod meets at York next month with debates from Ukraine war to online safety
23/06/2022
The war in Ukraine, climate change, online safety and the Church of England’s plans to increase its spending on mission and ministry are among a series of issues to be debated by the General Synod next month.
The stage at General Synod in York.
Members of the General Synod will meet at York University in July to debate a range of topics from Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine, to protection of children and young people from online pornography.
Other subjects on the agenda include plans by the Church Commissioners to distribute £3.6 billion to the frontline work of the Church of England between 2023 and 2031, announced earlier this year by the Archbishops of Canterbury and York.
Further debates will include the route map for churches, dioceses and Cathedrals to achieving net zero carbon by 2030 (see separate press release) and a call for the Church of England to commit to working towards the removal of all remaining barriers to full participation for people with disabilities in the life and ministry of the church.
A Guildford Diocesan Synod motion will urge the Government to pass legislation requiring pornographic websites to have age verification systems preventing access by people under the age of 18.
Members will also debate a Private Member’s Motion opposing assisted suicide and calling for more funding for palliative care.
Other debates include a report outlining a proposed overhaul of legislation governing clergy discipline. There will also be a presentation on safeguarding, and discussion on its future oversight followed by a separate debate.
The General Synod will meet at York University from Friday July 8 to Tuesday July 12. This is the first time the Synod has met in York in person since the pandemic.
1 CommentPapers for next month’s meeting of the Church of England General Synod are now available online. There is a list (with links and a note of the day scheduled for their debate) in numerical order below the fold.
GS 2256 Agenda July 2022 (more…)
35 CommentsUpdated again Thursday 23 June
This article summarises the various steps taken in the course of creating this new Church of England body.
On 15 December 2020, the Archbishops’ Council issued a press release, as we reported here: Independent oversight of safeguarding proposed.
On 25 February 2021, the Archbishops’ Council issued another press release, reported here as Proposals on NST independent oversight published which links to a lengthy paper authored by Malcolm Brown and brought to the February 2021 General Synod.
The Church Times reported: Synod members hear significant changes planned for church safeguarding.
Appointments to the ISB were announced:
Although the Archbishops’ Council reported that the ISB proposal was included in their agenda, first here (para 3), and then here (para 7) nothing else was announced until February 2022. We then reported: Recent Church of England Safeguarding reports. This links to GS 2244 which includes as an Annex (starts on page 11 of the PDF) the first report from the Chair of the newly constituted Independent Safeguarding Board. This is worth reading carefully.
The same article also links to Gavin Drake’s follow-on motion which you can read in full here.
The Church Times reported on what happened in debate:
And then on 26 May, this press release came from the Church of England which we reported as Christ Church safeguarding review. It links to the full text of the Terms of Reference for that review.
Updates
For an understanding of how the Diocese of Oxford views this review, see this extract from June 2022 Oxford Diocesan Synod Questions.
For information about the objections that have been raised to this review, see:
A letter on this topic has been sent to all members of the Archbishops’ Council signed by Martin Sewell, a General Synod member from Rochester diocese, and also by a number of other General Synod members.
The letter itself is contained in a PDF file which can be read here. It is well worth reading this in full.
For more of the background to the formation of the ISB, look here.
There is an online public petition related to this, over here.
What follows is the text of the covering email from Martin Sewell, which summarises the content of the letter.
Dear Archbishops and members of Archbishops’ Council,
I enclose a letter signed by members of General Synod which expresses our concern that Archbishops’ Council has prematurely engaged the newly evolving Independent Safeguarding Board in detailed case work which it is not yet properly authorised or suitably equipped to handle with the independence, resource and competence the role requires. We specifically raise a number of specific questions which we believe need to be urgently addressed by Archbishops’ Council.
After a lengthy and discreditable history of response to complaints in Safeguarding and its associated Clergy Discipline issues, nobody objects to the idea of the Church placing itself under effective outside scrutiny. Some of us have campaigned vigorously for the creation of just such a Board in previous General Synods, and you will recall that the recent February Synod considered a following motion that sought to begin a process to debate and vest the ISB with the very independence responsibility and associated powers that will make the Board the kind of constitutional creature that IICSA had in mind to save us from a repetition of the failures and scandals of the past.
That debate was cut short by a procedural motion, approved by a newly elected Synod comprising 60% new members and the matter was not brought to a conclusion. What exactly the ISB is, and what it can and cannot do, constitutionally and practically, given its low resource and part time nature, remains very much “unfinished Synod business”. In our view General Synod has an important continuing role to ensure the success of the ISB project.
We note with respect and gratitude that both Archbishops opposed the truncation of the debate by the use of a procedural device: it did us no favours and is part of the reason we are in this currently unsatisfactory position today.
When the Chair of the ISB addressed us (and her address to Synod is worth a second hearing by Archbishops’ Council) she was plainly seeking to lower expectation and to emphasise the incremental character of their approach to the role. She told us that its members were assessing and growing their understanding of the role within our complex institution, in what was described as “Phase One” of the project. That limited scope of current activity disappointed some of us, but the opportunity to fully articulate those concerns was denied.
What nobody knew or anticipated from that debate, was that only a few weeks later, the members of the ISB would be offered, and would embrace, responsibility for the devising, timetabling, structuring, implementation and personal execution of the most complex and serious Case Review in the history of the Church, and moreover that they would attempt to do so at speed. The members of the ISB have many qualities and much experience; devising and conducting complex case reviews does not appear to feature within their past skill set. In no other national Institution would such a task be delegated to novices. At the Diocesan Synod at Oxford this weekend it was confirmed that the Dr Martyn Percy Case Review is the first such piece of work the Board and its members will have ever have attempted. This is not the case on which to “cut your teeth”.
Put simply, this is a disaster waiting to happen for the reasons contained in our detailed letter. It is especially troubling if, as we understand, the Percy case is not the only matter pressed upon the ISB at short notice.
The ISB needs to be established with the confidence of all parties, and that is unlikely to be the case given the way these reviews are being hurriedly constructed. There is no shame in having second thoughts which we urge you to undertake without delay, asking the ISB to pause its work in this field whilst our objections are evaluated by all concerned. It is essential that the ISB is established with confidence in its independence, constitution, integrity and competence. That confidence must be built on sure foundations if it is to fulfil the role intended for it. Our questions are designed to help Archbishops’ Council review the problem areas to give the ISB its best opportunity to become what we all want it to be.
We hope Archbishops’ Council will discuss the questions we raise with the same care with which we have formulated them, and that the answers will be made available in good time so that they may be scrutinised at the upcoming General Synod in July.
29 CommentsChurch of England press release
Bishops’ letter to The Times on the Rwanda asylum policy
14/06/2022
All of the current Lords Spiritual have signed a letter to The Times voicing alarm about the Government’s plan to send asylum seekers to Rwanda as early as today.
They wrote:
Sir,
Whether or not the first deportation flight leaves Britain today for Rwanda, this policy should shame us as a nation. Rwanda is a brave country recovering from catastrophic genocide. The shame is our own, because our Christian heritage should inspire us to treat asylum seekers with compassion, fairness and justice, as we have for centuries. Those to be deported to Rwanda have had no chance to appeal, or reunite with family in Britain. They have had no consideration of their asylum claim, recognition of their medical or other needs, or any attempt to understand their predicament.
Many are desperate people fleeing unspeakable horrors. Many are Iranians, Eritreans and Sudanese citizens, who have an asylum grant rate of at least 88 per cent. These are people Jesus had in mind as he said when we offer hospitality to a stranger, we do it for him. They are the vulnerable that the Old Testament calls us to value. We cannot offer asylum to everyone, but we must not outsource our ethical responsibilities, or discard international law — which protects the right to claim asylum.
We must end the evil trafficking; many churches are involved in fighting this evil. This needs global co-operation across every level of society. To reduce dangerous journeys to the UK we need safe routes: the church will continue to advocate for them. But deportations — and the potential forced return of asylum seekers to their home countries — are not the way. This immoral policy shames Britain.
The Most Rev Justin Welby, Archbishop of Canterbury; the Most Rev Stephen Cottrell, Archbishop of York; the Right Rev Dame Sarah Mullally, Bishop of London; the Right Rev Paul Butler, Bishop of Durham; the Right Rev David Urquhart, Bishop of Birmingham; the Right Rev John Inge, Bishop of Worcester; the Right Rev Christopher Cocksworth, Bishop of Coventry; the Right Rev Steven Croft, Bishop of Oxford; the Right Rev James Newcome, Bishop of Carlisle; the Right Rev Alan Smith, Bishop of St Albans; the Right Rev Donald Allister, Bishop of Peterborough; the Right Rev Stephen Conway, Bishop of Ely; the Right Rev Christopher Chessun, Bishop of Southwark; the Right Rev Nicholas Baines, Bishop of Leeds; the Right Rev Rachel Treweek, Bishop of Gloucester; the Right Rev Martin Warner, Bishop of Chichester; the Right Rev Vivienne Faull, Bishop of Bristol; the Right Rev Libby Lane, Bishop of Derby; the Right Rev Julian Henderson, Bishop of Blackburn; the Right Rev David Walker, Bishop of Manchester; the Right Rev Guli Francis-Dehqani, Bishop of Chelmsford; the Right Rev Robert Atwell, Bishop of Exeter; the Right Rev Andrew Watson, Bishop of Guildford; the Right Rev Martin Seeley, Bishop of St Edmundsbury & Ipswich; the Right Rev Paul Williams, Bishop of Southwell & Nottingham
34 Comments