Alex Frost Viamedia.News Evolution not Revolution: Creating Change in Working-Class Ministry in the Church of England
Helen King ViaMedia.News Safeguarding: Still Not Trauma-Informed
Stephen Parsons Surviving Church How Senior Clergy and the National Safeguarding Team fail Abuse Survivors who seek help. The Case of Jane Chevous.
Michelle Burns Guarding the Flock Review Fatigue: How Many More Warnings Does the Church Need?
Colin Coward Unadulterated Love A very brief history of LGBTQI+ activism in the C of E
Sooner or later a senior member of the Royal Family is going to want a same sex marriage. It’s inevitable. And the Church of England is going to be wrong-footed when it happens.
It’d just be an argument for the sensible position on this.
Disestablishment.
We can’t really speculate what might happen at some future date but, as I point out below, an earlier monarch abdicated because his proposed marriage was unacceptable to both the Church and the State. Disestablishment is seen as the panacea for every stance taken by the C of E which its proponents don’t like.
I’m proposing disestablishment because it would allow the CofE to hold to gospel truth without being constrained by the state.
It would also be a matter of equality with other Christian denominations and end the pretence that the UK is anything other than a post-Christian secular society.
There’s no good reason why the CofE should be privileged in law.
Monarchs would also be free to live as non-Christians if that was what they chose to do.
If by ‘holding to gospel truth without being constrained by the state’ you were referring to pacifism I might have some sympathy but I suspect you are thinking more in terms of equality legislation? But once again please feel free to correct me if I am mistaken.
I don’t see that pacifism is advocated in the Old Testmanent. And I can’t actually see any call in the New Testament for me to allow other people to go and get killed defending my freedom and society while I do nothing to help. But feel free to correct me if I am mistaken.
Thanks for your response Rerum, although my comment was addressed to Gareth, who once again has chosen not to reply. Thus I assume I was correct in thinking that his proposal for “disestablishment because it would allow the CofE to hold to gospel truth without being constrained by the state” was referring to equality legislation. However I am glad to now reply to you. As you probably know, in the New Testament Jesus advocates for peace, most famously in the Sermon on the Mount (Matt 5) where he also states that in doing so he is not disavowing the Old… Read more »
Good reply. I’m probably not going to give exactly the answer Gareth would, but this is my view – The church needs to be much more competent and confident in its social teaching. It’s counter-productive for it to worry that if it doesn’t hold fashionable X view then it might be disestablished. Instead it needs to have the confidence to think that if it’s actually right about something, it might be better to be disestablished and hold the view with integrity. But alongside the confidence, it needs the competence to get teaching right. I don’t know how it acquires the… Read more »
Nor where the revenue comes from to provide the required level of care.
And this would bring the CofE in line with every other single entity in the Anglican Communion. It may not want to do that, for reasons to be defended. But given the severe declension of the CofE, vis-a-vis its incipient and governing logic at the time of its 16th century origination, it would be useful to hear that defense. Monarch is “space for faiths.” Parliament — does it remotely care? CNC — resolutely under assault for its appointment of Bishops. One does not need to be pleading for the abolition of establishment, but one does need to understand its rationale… Read more »
Remind us what ‘gospel truth’ is.
Sorry I missed this, hence this late response. The C of E does not get a single mention in the Equality Act but this myth persists however many times the legal position is explained that, e.g., the Roman Catholic Church, Methodists (and others) are exactly on the same footing. Due to its being established, the C of E confers exclusive legal marriage rights on parishioners. The distinction arises in the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act by which the C of E is not required to conduct such marriages by reason of the above duty to marry parishioners in church. Again,… Read more »
Rowland, I value your wisdom on this forum but surely the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act can be considered part of equality legislation, and therefore the specific exclusions of the Church of England (and Church in Wales) from this Act are effectively exemptions from said equality legislation. The fact remains that it is illegal in English law for Church of England clergy to marry same sex couples. That is why parliament is concerned, as per https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2023-03-21/debates/92586257-2E3C-49B3-9026-DACC541A1E27/SameSexMarriage(ChurchOfEngland)
My goodness, that debate was in 2023. I have tried to set it out as clearly as possible. As far as statutory (secular) law goes, C of E clergy are not required to conduct same-sex marriages for reasons which have been carefully explained. That is not the same as your saying it’s illegal.
Any changes in doctrine are matters for the church and General Synod.
Ok, so am I right in understanding that you are saying this: while it is not legal for me to conduct a same sex wedding, it is technically not illegal? While this may be a legal distinction I am not persuaded it is a moral one.
p.s. Rowland, I did not respond to your suggestion that the 2023 parliamentary debate re the established church and equality legislation, especially same sex marriage, is no longer relevant, but I am not aware that anything substantive has changed, unless you count the ‘conclusion’ of LFF, and therefore the situation remains, and remains debatable. However, thanks to your elucidation I now understand that it is not technically illegal for me to marry two persons of the same sex, even though there are no circumstances in which it would be legal for me to do so, unless and until the law… Read more »
A reply jointly to you and to Gareth. I have written at great length, indeed (literally) exhaustively, on this thread, and cannot take matters any further. You have your views and it’s clear that our respective positions are irreconcilable.
I didn’t say anything about the equality act. I was speaking in reference to Kate’s point. If a member of the royal family wants to live in opposition to what Christ and the apostles taught on marriage (the union of one man and one woman) and sexual ethics (that sex is for marriage) they should be able to do that. I’d propose that it would be sensible to say that the monarch is no longer the defender of the faith, or indeed that the Church of England is the established church. We know that the UK in the 21st century… Read more »
I quote your words, to which my reply seems entirely appropriate:
“It would also be a matter of equality with other Christian denominations”.
That is exactly what is achieved without disestablishment by the two Acts to which I have referred taken alongside each other. I can’t take this matter any further.
I’m referring to the idea that the CofE shouldn’t be privileged or established in law. Nothing to do with equality legislation, but to do with the equal treatment of all religious groups in law. I think that is long overdue already. The CofE isn’t a national church in a real sense in terms of attendance or affiliation. Therefore there’s no reason it should be established. The Church of Ireland, Church in Wales and the Scottish Episcopal Church function perfectly well without establishment. Freeing the church from the pressures of political powers would also be beneficial. The sexual orientation of a… Read more »
The King wanted a second marriage to a woman and could not get it. Is that also “wrong-footed”?
His great-uncle Edward VIII was made to abdicate over his proposed marriage which was equally unacceptable to the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Prime Minister of the day.
I am no historian, but wasn;t the marriage issue a convenient way of avoiding someone who was not suitable for other reasons?
I think later events showed these concerns to be fully validated.
On the other hand i read:
In the view of historians such as Philip Williamson, writing in 2007, the popular perception in the 21st century that the abdication was driven by politics rather than religious morality is false and arises because divorce has become much more common and socially acceptable.
Whatever, i consider the abdication to have been a ‘good thing’.
I have always understood that the marriage was opposed on both constitutional and religious grounds by the prime minister Stanley Baldwin and Archbishop Cosmo Lang. 2026 attitudes aren’t really relevant to the situation in 1937 when divorce was taboo and probably totally so. I’m not familiar with Phillip Williamson’s writings. ‘Constitutional’ and ‘political’ have different meanings. Edward and the Duchess were effectively exiled for the remainder of their lives, although on his death, as King, Edward was buried at Windsor and subsequently the Duchess also.
I have no idea whether it was true or not, but the film Darkest Hour had a scene where King George VI meets in private with Churchill and they convince each other to resolve against Hitler. Somehow I doubt whether Edward VIII would have done similarly.
Makes a good film scene, but I would not be surprised if it was all completely fictional!
I think this was what I had in mind – the abdication had far reaching consequences, and may have altered world history.
But, as I say I am no historian, scraped through O-level.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Upd7aJSJw10
I think our comments might be out of sequence. I haven’t seen the film, but wouldn’t disagree with your assumption. I was thinking about the earlier scenario and the part played by Stanley Baldwin.
Mr. Wateridge, re: “constitutional and religious grounds”, I don’t have a horse in the race i.e. establishment v. disestablishment (although I like watching the ponies run). However, one of the things about constitutions, written or otherwise, is that they take the long view, and from high ground. The notion that a mere x % of church attenders = a case for disestablishment is a an example of partisan tunnel vision–handy though it may be as an ecclesiastical political agenda. It seems to me, as an outsider, there is more to the issue ( link). https://www.seenandunseen.com/still-standing-curious-case-established-church As a citizen of a… Read more »
Thank you for bringing that book to my attention. I hadn’t seen it.
I realise you are using the terms ‘you’ and ‘your’ as meaning ‘one’ and ‘one’s but, to be clear, I am not advocating or encouraging disestablishment and strongly deprecate some of the arguments for it which we so frequently encounter on TA from people with a superficial approach to the subject and who might not even be members of the C of E or even Anglicans. I do concede that Welsh and Scottish Anglicans sometimes have a point, but largely the more vociferous comments don’t seem to come from our immediate neighbours. I keep a close watch on international, and… Read more »
Yes indeed, for example the phrase, “a cautionary tale about being careful what you wish for.” can be read as ” a cautionary tale about one being careful about what one wishes for”. I wasn’t suggesting you had tipped your hand pro or con. I simply wanted to pick up on your turn of phrase “constitutional religious” as segue into the issue having layers of complexity for national life, something that folks who live England have an existential interest in, pro or con, and who are the people most likely to know what they are talking about–Communion identity politics notwithstanding.… Read more »
Sorry! My reply was unnecessarily pedantic. There are all kinds of facets to the established C of E which the objectors overlook or, quite possibly, don’t even know about: the right to be married in your parish church and to be buried in its churchyard as just two examples. I don’t have much current knowledge of our bishops in the House of Lords but in the days when I watched the late night debates I remember impressive speeches by Archbishop Justin Welby about matters of social justice, and former Winchester bishop Tim Dakin about education needs and provision (he was… Read more »
and I suspect those voices received an interested and appreciative hearing beyond those in church on Sunday.
My concern over disestablishment woud be unforeseen consequences.
Every action has consequences.
Every non-action has consequences.
My heart wants disestalishment but my head does not.
I certainly want much more independent outside or secular bodies with a role in areas such as safeguarding.
That makes perfect sense to me…all of it..
…and just a follow up from surfing, I would be interested in what folks there think of this archived piece from The Guardian? https://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2000/apr/15/debate.anglicanism Teaser: “I respect your demand for Anglican integrity, but I do find your views insular and backward-looking. Henry VIII was a despot, but does that throw much light on establishment today? The CofE is not entirely autonomous, but it is hardly oppressed. In return, it has the opportunity to speak on and influence public affairs well beyond the pulpit; and a sense of responsibility for the people of this country and not just for its flock… Read more »
Warning: This is lengthy, but I hope it may be of equal interest to Ruairidh. By a remarkable coincidence, in the context of our recent discussion of constitutional versus religious grounds, and disestablishment of the C of E, my email inbox this morning brought this fascinating (at least to me) report of proceedings in the High Court of South Africa, Western Division at Cape Town. The Moravian Church has been established in what is now South Africa for 200 years. Although recognised by the state and fully functioning with synodical government and internal disciplinary powers, it isn’t, of course, established… Read more »
Thanks. I will read later.
Thanks so much. I have read the article linked–I had to do so a couple of times to to get the sense of it. Very interesting. As I read it, I seemed to recall the case of a U.S. judge who used religious language in a controversial judgement on abortion. So I did a quick search. See links. Different issue of course; but even in a country where there is no church by law established, religious fervour, often of a fundamentalist kind, permeates all precincts. Religious fundamentalism, integralism, and constitutional ‘originalism’ are similar ideological species. “Alabama State Supreme Court Chief… Read more »
I’m quite certain that would not happen in a UK secular court. But the C of E has its own internal courts. I’m not sure what their continued status would be if the C of E were disestablished.
Thanks for this exchange. There are wheels within wheels. The issue is layered…increasingly so as I learn more about it from folks on the ground there.
“The notion that a mere x % of church attenders, etc.”
The idea that there is a Church of England that very few people attend; and that is no longer the Church of England as conceived in the 16th century; and that the Monarch now styles himself “Space for Faiths”; and on it goes — partisan tunnel vision? Nonsense. Wake up and smell the coffee. This isn’t the perpetually miniscule ACofC, which you have grown accustomed to. Baptisms outpaced by funerals more than 2 to 1.
You need more history and better maths.
And have a good day!
I’m more of a tea taster myself. Curiouser and curiouser is the case of an American who, dividing his time between a strain of French Catholicism and a conservative and very American Anglicanism, appears somewhat obsessed with C of E establishment/disestablishment on a UK blog site. You should cast your research net on current affairs much wider. By the looks of it, and as alluded to in my initial comment, there are folks in England from a variety of backgrounds who can help you with that. The C of E rejected the so called Anglican Covenant thus making it moot… Read more »
I don’t know much about you and that is fine with me. Since you move toward evaluating me in the terms of your own framing. I run a business in France and am there 90 days a year. And I go to church. I taught at Centre Sevres in Paris. My late wife was baptized Catholic. The chaplaincy at the Paris transplant hospital that cared for her was Catholic. I lead retreats in France. My working colleagues are Catholic. I am an admirer of Chemin Neuf and salute their ecumenism.’Very conservative’ is in the eye of the beholder.I am not… Read more »
Actually I try and evaluate your argumentation based on how you yourself frame those arguments in your comments. What one knows about you on TA is largely the result of information you yourself disclose in your comments from time to time. Instance the current one. It wasn’t that long ago you were referencing here a book you have published on your life in France. So, given your self disclosed interests over the years here, such as your views on The Communion and its provinces (including Canada), the ministry of the Archbishop of Canterbury and how that plays out in both… Read more »
Having served Episcopal and Anglican churches in Germany, UK, France, Canada and the US ought to make it obvious why the larger logic and fate of the AC interests me. I am not from a single Province. My former colleagues were missionaries in Burundi and Tanzania. We have a relationship with the Diocese of Kenya and support a girl’s school and school for the blind there. I did some translating for the Francophone African Provinces in Nairobi. I had a fifteen year investment in larger communion life. Since I am apparently so well known, perhaps we can let that go… Read more »
One wonders what to make of a taking exception to commenting on self disclosed biographical info accompanied by the shariing of yet more bio. You tend to talk about yourself a fair amount from time to time in order to buttress or elucidate your opinions. I am surprised that you are surprised that other commentators would see it as fair comment to suggest that your self disclosed info may contextualize where you are coming from. As for who does what to whom, perhaps you might review , to put it politely, the sometimes overly acerbic nature of your comments to… Read more »
I look forward to your conceding this.
“Since I am apparently so well known, perhaps we can let that go from here on out. I tire of reading about your most recent rendition in notes here.”
I don’t know you, don’t interest myself in that, and wish you as well a pleasant summer.
I hope topics can remain the main things, and not my life and work.
Pythonesque indeed.
Kind regards.
Other commentators? Who? you for certain sure!
But of course your most astute comment is that continuing this line of commentary, is, as you say, ‘pythonesque’ and I await with joy its end!
Let the topic be the topic. Play the ball and not the man .
Be well and enjoy the nice weather God gives in Nova Scotia. We envy it.
For the record I always look forward to AP’s deep, informed and broad insights, and the external/fresh perspectives he helpfully brings to discussions of the CofE’s possible futures. If indeed, perhaps unlike the ACC, it has much of one.
I’m also a fan of Monty Python.
Happy summers all.
Give it a rest guys!
I am taking your good advice, Perry. Blessed are the peace makers. : )
Volontiers!
I’m not sure that Stanley Baldwin could have foreseen the implications (and what I think you are possibly hinting at) for the monarchy of WW II. He might have done. He was a shrewd politician and desperate to avoid another war. I tend to think that current judgements depend very much on hindsight.
I have declined to read Stephen Parson’s piece that names the survivor without her explicit consent. I believe that is totally wrong for many reasons. Even if her name has been used elsewhere, that is not universal consent.
i think, although it is right to be cautious, that if your read the piece and the responses, you would agree that it was appropriate.
I got as far as the author assuming it would be OK to name her. Assumed. At that point I stopped and I won’t read further.
PS I don’t see a legitimate reason to name the survivor in the blog piece. What purpose adding her name serve?
Kate, Section C.6.3 of the review states, ” The survivor TT requested that she remain anonymous during the case review process but reserved the right to make herself known publicly if she chooses to, once the review has been completed. ” Jane chose to exercise the right to make herself known in her blog Can the church offer compassionate safeguarding? – Barefoot Tales and speaking on Radio 4 Womans’ Hour BBC Radio 4 – Woman’s Hour, Didi Conn: Frenchy from Grease, Church of England abuse review Yes victims and survivors have a right to anonymity but we also have the right… Read more »
There is a huge difference between a survivor being open on their own blog and someone else using their name without their explicit permission. The first controls how the experience is presented; the other is uncontrolled. It’s a matter of agency. I am shocked you can’t see the difference.
Kate, Jane Chevous had already waived her anonymity in two forums, as Stephen was aware. As a survivor who has also waived my anonymity, I would find it very tedious if everyone who subsequently wanted to make a public comment about it felt obliged to contact me for clearance first. I appreciate your concern for survivors’ confidentiality and agency, but in this case Jane had used her agency to go public.
I notice at your suggestion the survivor has herself responded so clearly Stephen guessed correctly. I continue to maintain, however, that naming survivors without their explicit permission is poor practice.
The first comment on Stephen Parsons’ blog post is from the person concerned and begins “Thank you Stephen for such a thorough report and evaluation of the review into my case.”
This information is public: it is not something that has been ‘used’, it’s the survivor herself who has taken agency here. Jane chose to go on Woman’s Hour and also see her own blog post on https://barefoot-tales.uk/2026/07/15/can-the-church-offer-compassionate-safeguarding/.
Thank you Helen for recognising out that Jane’s name was used on my blog for a purpose – to help a reader understand how her experience fits into the wider picture of safeguarding. I ‘know’ Jane though we have never met in the flesh. It was clear after reading your blog that her name could attached to this Review and it certainly helped my ability to see how things fit together. I was confident that Jane would not find my mentioning her name intrusive in any way. It has enabled several of my ‘regulars’ to send her messages of support.
Thank you Helen, Janet, Stephen, for clarifying I had already chosen to waive my anonymity and go on Women Hour, in order to reach as many people as possible and refuse to be ashamed. Thank you also to Kate for making the vital point that survivors should never be named without permission, unless they have already waived; and even then it is trauma-informed and at least courteous to check or at least inform before writing about them, unless you already know that is okay. In this instance Stephen and I are acquainted and thus it was a safe assumption, but… Read more »
Can we look at the Safeguarding Machine that seems to have taken over everything in the C of E and in my viewis crippling its ministry ? I understand that there needs to be some caution but why does a bishop moving from a suffragan to a different diocesan post need to do it? Why do I as a lay minister need to ‘refresh’ every 3 years? As someone who worked in Social Services, I know that it is the bluntest of instruments. DBS checks just show that you haven’t been caught!! The crafty and determined will always find a… Read more »
I have previously linked this on another thread.
https://lawandreligionuk.com/2026/07/30/church-of-england-safeguarding-reviews-and-reports/
David Pocklington, “Church of England Safeguarding: Reviews and Reports” in Law & Religion UK, 30 July 2026,
Has there ever been an independent audit of safeguarding in the Church of England ? Is Safeguarding effective ? Does anyone know ? Has Safeguarding saved a single vulnerable person from Abuse? Does anyone know? It sounds like a good idea that people should repeat their training every three years but is it ? Where is the evidence ?
I am strongly in favour of Safeguarding but only if there is hard evidence that it works.
I understand your distress but most people don’t have a background in Social Services, so you aren’t ‘average’. The regime isn’t perfect but the best system we currently have and we must support it. Skills, priorities and memories fade, which is why we need refreshers. Problems morph and develop so re-training can presents old ideas in new clothes for fresh impact. Most of all, this is about church officers building Credibility and offering Accountability. Please don’t be angry with us for wanting a safe environment; instead, please be angry with those church officers who keep destroying your conscientious hard work.
I have been the wife of a survivor for 23 years, and yes to everything that you have posted here, all of it. A lack of “awareness” and safeguarding training among the regular, basically powerless parishioners, was not the cause of the problem at all, and yet apparently micro-managing the church cleaning volunteer is a solution? DBS checks are indeed a liscense to carry on, for all abusers who have never been caught, and condemnation for those who were caught on a student prank or stag night dare years before they even believed in Jesus. How hard could it be… Read more »
As a lay minister you are in a position of authority, and like teachers, sports coaches, etc., quite rightly have to update safeguarding training every three years. Not exactly onerous, although in my opinion the sports coach courses are far more interesting & useful than those provided by CofE. This is not least because sports courses do not shrink from exposing problem cases in plain English, so there can be genuine shock impact at times. Additionally they usually provide much useful ‘myth busting’ information in the Q & A phase, which can be quite lively (‘lively’ not being an accusation… Read more »
I don’t know about the bishop, but an update every 3 years is hardly onerous and is important to keep your knowledge and practice safe and up to date. In that time, policies have been updated, the number and nature of safeguarding cases has changed, and our knowledge of current child abuse – especially online abuse and exploitation – had changed significantly. The church is statistically significant for both prevalence of abuse and of abusers, so we need to stay well equipped and informed. And no, DBS checks and training alone won’t stop abuse but the evidence has shown that… Read more »
Michelle Burns once again highlights how the CofE sees safeguarding as something for the little people to worry about. We fill in all our forms and do all the online and face to face courses but those with real power cock a snook at it all. Lots of warm words and on cue hand wringing but no significant action. The Archbishop of York when the Bishop of Chelmsford gave a known paedophile an honorary canonry and renewed his appointment as rural dean. That Archbishop Cottrell is still in post tells us all we need to know about the veracity of… Read more »
Accountability lies at heart of safe guarding, and without accountability no amount of processing can fix it, This is apparent across so many areas and goes right to the top of the C of E. If archbishops, bishops and clergy cannot themselves be held accountable for their failures in a failing church, then fail it must.
Not just CofE that has a problem with accountability. I cannot think of any religious group/faith that does well in this regard.
Having followed many discussions of safeguarding on TA, I wonder if part of the problem is the system of courts that the CoE has in relation to the state system. The Church of Scotland system is quite different. If a minister is reported for a church offence, for example mistreating. a parishioner, then the matter goes to the presbytery disciplinary committee. If it is a criminal offence, for example child abuse, then it goes directly to the police (although the presbytery clerk is informed). This way church and state are kept separate. Which raises the point about CoE disestablishment. Are… Read more »
The courts and tribunals of the Church of England are equally courts of the land and ‘staffed’ by judges or lawyers who hold or have held the equivalent of high judicial office, e.g., the diocesan Chancellor in a recent case is a deputy High Court judge. But I think the very recently enacted (by the UK parliament) Church of England Clergy Conduct Measure answers your concerns. It has introduced an entirely new and far more flexible disciplinary regime largely intended to dispose of most cases without reaching a formal hearing, and, among other things (other than in exceptional circumstances), it… Read more »
It is not a surprise to anyone who knows Colin’s history that he omits to mention the leadership of Richard Kirker in his attempt to give a timeline on Gay and later more including organisations that graced UK Anglicans since the 1970s. I was fortunate to see the birth of this extraordinary movement and to know many of its key players. While Scotland and Wales have moved far beyond the sad debate that strangles the English Church it is interesting to see that with the arrival of the group LGB Christians in October 2023 a further dimension of the complex… Read more »