by Richard Scorer

The ‘Independent Review into Soul Survivor’ by barristers Fiona Scolding KC and Ben Fullbrook  was published on Thursday. The report has generated some criticism from survivors: this piece (link to Scolding, Colluding or Both? My critique of the Scolding Review into Soul Survivor and Mike Pilavachi – God Loves Women (wordpress.com)  is a particularly incisive critique, and articulates some of the feelings which I know some survivors have about the review’s approach. In this piece however I want to highlight some other issues arising from this report. As I observed earlier this year, the Soul Survivor scandal has important implications for the Church of England. As the review makes clear, complaints about Pilavachi were deliberately brushed under the carpet for years, even as the CofE was telling IICSA that everything had changed. This should strike down any complacency about the state of safeguarding in the CofE. If a cover up can still happen during IICSA, how effective is the CofE’s safeguarding system in reality? On this subject, where does the report take us?

Evidentially, of course, this review was handicapped from the start.  God Loves Women raises concerns about the review’s approach to contacting and speaking with survivors – I cannot comment on these, as for the individuals I represent I acted as conduit between the reviewers and my clients. I know however that many survivors were also unwilling, understandably, to speak to a review commissioned and paid for by Soul Survivor itself.  For legal reasons, the Church of England National Safeguarding Team did not share all or even most of the information in its possession with the reviewers. The reviewers also confirm that “We have not been permitted to see Mr Pilavachi’s “Blue File” (a file held by the Bishop which acts as a personnel/HR file for the diocese and which is transferred between dioceses) because of data protection guidelines. We therefore have to rely upon what the diocese has told us about the information contained within it”. In addition, a police investigation remains ongoing. Clearly, therefore, much primary evidential material was unavailable to the reviewers. Hence, for reasons which are not necessarily the fault of the reviewers themselves, the evidential foundations on which this report are built are deficient. 

The report concludes that many if not most in the Soul Survivor leadership knew about Pilavachi’s behaviour. This is not a surprising verdict, and given the known facts any other conclusion would have been nonsensical. However, the question of who knew what and when needs more forensic analysis. There is some of this in the report, but overall the reviewers conclude that “It has not been possible for us to identify exactly who knew what and when, but we consider that those most involved in the church and its leadership would have known about Mr. Pilavachi’s behaviours towards others”. To be fair to the reviewers, it would have been difficult for them to reach definitive conclusions without seeing all the primary material. But there remains a need to properly pin down responsibility and culpability for the enabling of these shameful events (beyond the obvious primary responsibility of Pilavachi himself). This is not about trying to notch up legal ‘gotchas’. A hard analysis of who knew what and when, and what they did with that knowledge, and how they reflect on their behaviour now, is important for several reasons. Without it, those individuals who enabled Pilavachi’s behaviour can hide behind the conclusion that ‘everyone’ knew, and thus by implication everyone was at fault, whilst in effect evading personal responsibility. But it also leads onto another fundamental question:  how can Soul Survivor truly reform itself when so many of the people leading it now were also heavily involved, and some were in leadership positions, during the years when Pilavachi did these things, and was widely known to be doing them?  

To give just one example of continuity of personnel at Soul Survivor between the Pilavachi period and today, the new associate pastor at Soul Survivor, appointed in 2024, was deeply involved in the organisation prior to his ordination in 2016. Before his 2024 appointment, the Soul Survivor leadership expressed its intention to recruit from “outside the church” to bring “fresh perspectives and strengths” (see https://premierchristian.news/en/news/article/soul-survivor-watford-appoints-former-member-as-new-associate-pastor ). Given the promises of change in the Soul Survivor statement accompanying the review, I would have welcomed some discussion about this appointment and especially the apparent reversal of a promise to recruit from ‘outside the church’, as this might raise questions about the extent of commitment to change. It would also have been useful to understand what the new associate pastor feels about the handling of earlier complaints about Pilavachi’s behaviour, and how that failure informs his approach to safeguarding and his leadership of Soul Survivor now.  The question of how cultural change is achieved in an organisation afflicted by scandal when there is continuity of personnel arose repeatedly in IICSA; as well as being a fundamental problem for Soul Survivor, it also cuts across the wider Church of England, where many in the current ‘purple circle’ are implicated in previous failings. As someone said to me today, referencing Graham Cray, “there is no real action in the Church of England against Bishops who have failed. How could there be? There would be no-one left”. The report makes some specific recommendations about changes to Soul Survivor’s culture and governance, and the public statement issued by Soul Survivor seems to include a commitment to provide regular updates on the implementation of these. On this we shall see,  but crucially, how is the Church of England, or anyone else, going to monitor this? Reversion to type becomes so much easier when the media are no longer on the case. As Matt Drapper observed online, “without social media, and print media, none of this would have come to light in this way and he (Pilavachi) would likely not have been held to account in any meaningful way”. This is a very important point, and one true of so many CofE scandals, as I noted in IICSA. But the same point also has force looking forward: once the media spotlight is switched off, will past behaviours simply resurface? Absent effective oversight, this is a real risk.

However, on the question of how the CofE– provides that effective oversight, the reviewers could only go so far given their remit. The report makes some pertinent comments about the dangers of quick-fire ordination, an issue which has arisen in other CofE scandals, and about the difficulties in overseeing Bishop’s Mission orders. It emphasises the need for better diocesan oversight “particularly in respect of large churches since these have often been associated with more high profile failures of governance”. Again, it makes some specific recommendations.  However, its ‘Broader recommendations for the Church of England’ at the end of the report have a somewhat motherhood-and-apple-pie  flavour ( e.g. “Those who wish to be in communion or part of the Church of England should recognise that this comes with rights, but also responsibilities”; “An individual’s reputation or prominence must never be a reason not to challenge poor behaviours”; “The Church must continue to promote a culture where the reputation and wellbeing of its members are more important than the reputation of the organisation or any individuals within it”). These are not really ‘broader recommendations’ so much as patently unrealised aspirations.  I don’t particularly criticise the reviewers for this because a comprehensive wider analysis of where this scandal leaves the Church of England was not in their job description.  One of the people we need to hear something meaningful from about this is the CofE’s Lead Safeguarding Bishop, who so far as I am aware has remained largely silent throughout this unfolding scandal. 

However, one of the most troubling passages in the report was the suggestion (in section 4.23) that “Mr Pilavachi’s  view  was that the Church of England’s attitude to the allegations changed markedly from the point at which they reached the public domain and the press”. Whilst this may be a self serving claim, the implication that the Church of England National Safeguarding Team only started to take the allegations against Pilavachi seriously when the media got hold of them is extremely troubling. There is already widespread concern that the CoE safeguarding is  unduly influenced by reputational factors, and is not objectively applied, (for example being weaponised to settle internal scores).  We still have no detail about what the NST actually did in this case, what they unearthed, exactly what action has been taken and against whom, and whether they could plausibly act as neutral investigators given that so many prominent leaders in the CofE have Soul Survivor connections. As some members of General Synod have said, there still needs to be a proper independent inquiry into the Church of England’s failings in this case. I hope synod members will continue to press that case. There are, of course, many more points that can and will be made about this review in the coming days, but the reckoning from this awful saga is far from over.  

 Richard Scorer is Head of Abuse Law and Public Inquiries at Slater & Gordon Lawyers (UK). He acts for some of the Soul Survivor complainants

Fourth in a series of guest articles detailing the unhappy situation in the Church of England with regard to its failures in the management of Safeguarding.

By Anon & Friends

No. 4: Redefining ‘Independent Review’

Trust and confidence in the Archbishops’ Council and National Safeguarding Team is broken beyond repair. The statements made on safeguarding and issued by both Archbishops, senior staff and Lead Bishops seem designed only mislead both church and public. Yet ordinary members of the church seem to be powerless in the face of the lack of accountability and competence over the ways in which safeguarding policy and practice is being operated.

Recently, the Archbishop of York was found to have deliberately lied to General Synod over progress on reviews and the closure of the ISB. Victims of abuse are now writing to their MPs and calling out the deceptions, incompetence and cover-ups. In a short series of five extracts of letters sent to Members of Parliament, the case for root and branch reform is set out.

These short extracts detail the deceptions fed to General Synod, the wider Church of England and general public. On the scales of justice, we find that statements from either of the Archbishops cannot be trusted and have little weight. Furthermore, little, if anything, that the Archbishops’ Council says to General Synod about safeguarding is likely to be true.  The scales of justice can no longer be balanced, and victims are now calling upon Parliament to intervene as a matter of urgency.

In five brief extracts taken from letters to MPs, the issues now being put to Parliament are carefully set out, and the call for independent statutory regulation of church safeguarding is made. Victims of abuse and injustice have no confidence in the Church of England’s leadership being able or willing to address the abuses it continues to perpetrate. Only external legal independent intervention can right these wrongs, and finally put a complete stop to all of the continuing injustices that the Church of England’s safeguarding policies and practices perpetuate.

….this is not the first time that Archbishop Cottrell has deliberately misled General Synod.  On 30^th May 2024, the Church of England’s NST issued the following press release (Christ Church, Oxford: Safeguarding practice review suspended): 

The review group overseeing the independent review into the handling of alleged safeguarding issues regarding the former Dean of Christ Church, Oxford has announced that it is suspending its work.

The Safeguarding Practice Review was announced in November and commissioned by the Archbishops’ Council and Oxford Diocese. Members of the review group were to consider evidence relating to the alleged safeguarding issues with a view to appointing and instructing an independent reviewer with relevant expertise and experience. That has been unable to happen despite the efforts of the review group members. This has meant no further progress can be made on the review. Stakeholders have been informed of this and support offered.

Victims are unlikely to accept unregulated, non-professional and non-independent “support” from their abuser. That notwithstanding, it is worth recalling what Dr Percy was seeking. As set out in the unaltered text of Martin Sewell’s questions 40 and 41 at GS in July 2023, it is Dr Percy’s 

“complaint into the deliberate weaponisation of safeguarding allegations, with intent to cause harm to [him], perpetrated by senior clergy, church lawyers and church PR.” [see page 3 of the Appendix to the Report of Proceedings, July 2023]. 

In answers to these questions, Archbishop Stephen Cottrell said (see Report of Proceedings, July 2023, pages 80-82; our emphasis):

“…. the Archbishops’ Council recognises the importance of this Review into the handling by the Church of safeguarding allegations made against Dr Martyn Percy and is giving it active consideration proposing to work jointly with the Diocese of Oxford. We hope, in the near future, to be in a position to consult all interested parties on a proposed way forward. 

Synod members will understand that we should consult all of the interested parties first before making further details public…it is my strong view and my consistent view that it is in everyone’s best interests and to everyone’s benefit – obviously especially Martyn Percy himself – that an independent review takes place of the issues and concerns that have been raised and I look forward to that happening.” 

Despite the promise made above, the Review Group (RG) was set up without any consultation with Dr. Percy who raised the following issues:

1. The RG membership had not been at any stage discussed with Dr. Percy. The RG would not engage directly with Dr. Percy, and would not address concerns expressed by him about potential loss of impartiality due to perceived conflicts of interest in their proposed terms of reference with consequent risk of bias.
2. Dr Percy put to individual RG members concerns about their previous professional connections with those complained about, which created reasonable perceptions of conflicts of interest.  Even when these were pointed out, one declined to reply in substance, and the rest declined to reply at all to the points made.
3. In the light of this, the RG was not demonstrably independent, or even competent. Yet again, General Synod were presented with an inevitable (but avoidable) perception of the Church of England ‘setting and marking its own homework’ on safeguarding.

In these circumstances Dr Percy did not consider it possible to safely engage with the RG, both in his own interests and, as a matter of principle, on behalf of others being offered similarly unsatisfactory reviews or complaint resolutions.  His decision is entirely congruent with Professor Alexis Jay’s conclusion that responsibility for safeguarding should not remain with an institution where there is little trust in its ability to perform key functions with unquestioned and unquestionable impartiality. 

General Synod and all interested parties were promised an “Independent Review”. The Archbishop of York promised that to General Synod. But this was not delivered. Not for the first time, it appears that the concerns of a complainant have not been recognised or action taken to address them. Independence and impartiality are inseparable concepts in the secular world. We must now ensure that they are also embedded throughout Church Safeguarding and its underpinning culture. 

There was no consultation. The membership of the group and its Terms of Reference were non-negotiable, and no attempt was made to consult with Dr. Percy until after these conditions were imposed on him. In July 2024, the Archbishop of York was asked this question by Mr. Sewell to address what he had told General Synod in July 2023. He was asked to explain why the review of Dr. Percy’s case had not gone ahead. He stated:

“Accepting entirely the good faith of that expressed commitment, can you please make enquiries and set out with particularity the extent to which that promise of consultation was actually delivered in practice?”

The Archbishop answered:

“As Synod will be aware, a review group was formed to oversee an independent review into the handling of alleged safeguarding issues involving the former Dean of Christ Church Oxford. Its terms of reference and membership can be found at the link here.

The Group consulted extensively with interested parties. Whilst some progress was made, it became clear that it was not possible for all parties to reach the necessary level of agreement to allow the review to proceed. Accordingly the review group suspended its work. This is deeply regrettable as it leaves various voices unheard, many of whom would welcome a review on the lines that was suggested. For ease I have reproduced the latest statement from the review group below.

The review group overseeing the independent review into the handling of alleged safeguarding issues regarding the former Dean of Christ Church, Oxford has announced that it is suspending its work. The Safeguarding Practice Review was announced in November and commissioned by the Archbishops’ Council and Oxford Diocese.

Members of the review group were to consider evidence relating to the alleged safeguarding issues with a view to appointing and instructing an independent reviewer with relevant expertise and experience. That has been unable to happen despite the efforts of the review group members. This has meant no further progress can be made on the review. Stakeholders have been informed of this development and support offered. It will now be for the Archbishops’ Council and Oxford Diocese to consider any next steps.”

None of the above is true.

Third in a series of guest articles detailing the unhappy situation in the Church of England with regard to its failures in the management of Safeguarding.

By Martyn Percy

Part 3 Lies and Damned Lies

Trust and confidence in the Archbishops’ Council and National Safeguarding Team is broken beyond repair. The statements made on safeguarding and issued by both Archbishops, senior staff and Lead Bishops seem designed only mislead both church and public. Yet ordinary members of the church seem to be powerless in the face of the lack of accountability and competence over the ways in which safeguarding policy and practice is being operated.

Recently, the Archbishop of York was found to have deliberately lied to General Synod over progress on reviews and the closure of the ISB. Victims of abuse are now writing to their MPs and calling out the deceptions, incompetence and cover-ups. In a short series of five extracts of letters sent to Members of Parliament, the case for root and branch reform is set out.

These short extracts detail the deceptions fed to General Synod, the wider Church of England and general public. On the scales of justice, we find that statements from either of the Archbishops cannot be trusted and have little weight. Furthermore, little, if anything, that the Archbishops’ Council says to General Synod about safeguarding is likely to be true.  The scales of justice can no longer be balanced, and victims are now calling upon Parliament to intervene as a matter of urgency.

In five brief extracts taken from letters to MPs, the issues now being put to Parliament are carefully set out, and the call for independent statutory regulation of church safeguarding is made. Victims of abuse and injustice have no confidence in the Church of England’s leadership being able or willing to address the abuses it continues to perpetrate. Only external legal independent intervention can right these wrongs, and finally put a complete stop to all of the continuing injustices that the Church of England’s safeguarding policies and practices perpetuate.

We write in relation to an issue that has comparable seriousness to that of the plight of the sub-postmasters and the Post Office scandal. In 5^th July 2024, members of the General Synod gathered at the University of York. The Archbishop of York, Stephen Cottrell, spoke to give his presidential address, which are on the record. But before doing so, he made the following statement, publicly to Synod, off the record: 

“Just before giving the address, Synod, I’d like to make a small correction to the record. Since the last meeting of the General Synod, and following publication of the Wilkinson Report, it has come to my attention that when I spoke in the ISB debate at the July Synod in 2023, I mistakenly said that the decision of the Archbishops’ Council to terminate the contracts of the two remaining members of the ISB was unanimous.

In fact the Wilkinson Report states, of those voting 11 voted in favour, four voted against, four chose not to vote. I’m sure we will all remember, those of us who were here, it was a heated and difficult session. I spoke incorrectly and since it has been pointed out to me I wanted to apologise and put the record straight.”

This is what he said in July 2023, answering a question from Synod member Robert Thomson, from the Diocese of London:

“I think I just want again to reiterate something that I said earlier: the decision that was taken, painful though it was, was taken because we believe, in the medium term, it will be the best way of providing what the Church needs in terms of scrutinising and overseeing the safeguarding of the whole Church in its ministry to everyone. But this was a collective decision, and it was a unanimous decision. As I think has come out, there may have been some disagreements around timings, because this was a sensitive issue, but they were not disagreements about the decision itself.”

It is easy to misspeak when you are speaking off the cuff in answer to a question you were not expecting. But the questions followed a scripted, prepared and rehearsed presentation by some members of the Archbishops’ Council, including Stephen Cottrell.

This is what he said in his introductory remarks and presentation in July 2023, and well before the session could be described as “heated and difficult”:

“I will make a few final comments at the end of this short presentation before we open up for questions. But the other thing I want to emphasis is that we do take collective responsibility for this as the Archbishops’ Council. Yes, yes, we wish we weren’t here, but we have proceeded all along in the knowledge that we are working with people of good will and in the belief that we all want the same thing. But we acknowledge that we have failed to get there. And the decisions we took in getting here were unanimous.”

Questions about the disbanding of the ISB were first formally raised at the Synod during “question time” on Friday 7^th July 2023. In a supplementary question to the Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby, Sam Margrave from Coventry asked:

“Your response says that it was the decision of the Archbishops’ Council and not the two Archbishops personally. As a statement of fact, how did the Presidents vote on this issue at Archbishops’ Council?”

Why was the Archbishops’ Council so determined to portray the decision as unanimous? That has not been explained. The claims began in a June 2023 paper from the Archbishops’ Council’s Secretary General, William Nye, to members of the General Synod. The paper, GS Misc 1341, was penned to provide background to the decision ahead of the “heated and difficult” session the following month. In it, he writes: “It is the considered judgment of the council, as a whole, that it is necessary to reset the process in order to get to the destination.”

Since disbanding the ISB, the Archbishops’ Council has spent more than one million pounds of charitable funds to defend its actions, including commissioning two reports from lawyer Sarah Wilkinson into the “creation, work and termination” of the ISB”; and by Professor Alexis Jay, the former Chair of IICSA – the statutory Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse – which found appalling behaviour by Church of England officialdom, into how an independent safeguarding structure for the Church of England should be established and how it should operate.

Sarah Wilkinson’s report sets out the vote in Archbishops’ Council on the decision to disband the ISB. Rather than being unanimous, 11 members of the Council voted to scrap the ISB; four voted against; and another four abstained. So why the continuing insistence by the Archbishops’ Council and its staff that the decision was unanimous? In his apology, Stephen Cottrell sought to explain his “speaking incorrectly” on the heated and difficult nature of the session in which he spoke. This, however, does not stand the test of scrutiny, and must be regarded as deliberate deceit.

First, he made the comments twice: (a) in his pre-prepared and scripted opening comments; and (b) in answer to a question.  Second, it echoed the comments from William Nye that the decision was that of the Archbishops’ Council “as a whole”. Third, following Justin Welby’s comments that both archbishops wanted to wait before a decision to disband the ISB, the Archbishops’ Council’s communications staff proactively briefed the media to say that the decision was unanimous. This was untrue, and all members of the Archbishops’ Council knew that to be the case. None spoke up.

In setting out why he was “correcting the record”, he said that it had come to his attention that he had misspoken, “following the last meeting of the General Synod and following the publication of the Wilkinson Report.” The Wilkinson Report was published in December 2023. Since then, there was a meeting of the General Synod in February 2024. So why has it taken until now, a year later, for Stephen Cottrell to realise that he had misled the Synod?

Second in a series of guest articles detailing the unhappy situation in the Church of England with regard to its failures in the management of Safeguarding.

by Martyn Percy

No. 2: Marking Their Own Homework

Trust and confidence in the Archbishops’ Council and National Safeguarding Team is broken beyond repair. The statements made on safeguarding and issued by both Archbishops, senior staff and Lead Bishops seem designed only mislead both church and public. Yet ordinary members of the church seem to be powerless in the face of the lack of accountability and competence over the ways in which safeguarding policy and practice is being operated.

Recently, the Archbishop of York was found to have deliberately lied to General Synod over progress on reviews and the closure of the ISB. Victims of abuse are now writing to their MPs and calling out the deceptions, incompetence and cover-ups. In a short series of five extracts of letters sent to Members of Parliament, the case for root and branch reform is set out.

These short extracts detail the deceptions fed to General Synod, the wider Church of England and general public. On the scales of justice, we find that statements from either of the Archbishops cannot be trusted and have little weight. Furthermore, little, if anything, that the Archbishops’ Council says to General Synod about safeguarding is likely to be true.  The scales of justice can no longer be balanced, and victims are now calling upon Parliament to intervene as a matter of urgency.

In five brief extracts taken from letters to MPs, the issues now being put to Parliament are carefully set out, and the call for independent statutory regulation of church safeguarding is made. Victims of abuse and injustice have no confidence in the Church of England’s leadership being able or willing to address the abuses it continues to perpetrate. Only external legal independent intervention can right these wrongs, and finally put a complete stop to all of the continuing injustices that the Church of England’s safeguarding policies and practices perpetuate.

We have recently been made aware of the Interim Support Scheme being weaponised against victims trying to secure help and support whilst their reviews and compensation are being worked out. Some victims report that payments are late, reduced or withheld if they complain. Others have discovered that their interim support is being covertly means-tested, and their family is expected to contribute to the financial support the Church of England may provide….

This is an unconscionable situation, in which the Church of England is now:

1. Constantly delaying independent reviews on abuse.
2. Consistently deceiving the public over what is “independent”.
3. Continuing to withhold funds and support from its victims.

Paragraph 24.3 of the General Synod Terms of Reference v3 (October 2023) for the Interim Support Scheme says that the Panel dealing with claims can require the following information:

Where financial support is requested, provide details of the survivor’s means on an income and expenditure form, supported by evidence, including likely sources of additional income (including income which the survivor is reasonably likely to receive in the twelve months following the request and if there is a joint income from a spouse or partner) and financial support which may be available to the survivor from any other source;

However, these Terms of Reference do not say the gross joint income but must only consider a joint income and must therefore consider the disposable joint income after reasonable deduction of reasonable expenses including expenses incurred by a partner in providing joint income. This might involve travel, business clothing, a motor vehicle, food when at work etc as well as debts, fines etc. There may also be children therefore the expenses related to those children must also be taken into account.

There is a legal judgement on this going back to 1990 – Delaney vs Delaney ([1990] EWCA Civ 14) in which Nourse LJ and Mr Justice Ward held that in considering joint incomes, all expenditure had to be considered and taken into account to allow the recipients of the joint income to live to a proper standard, and that any accusation of ‘living extravagantly’ levelled against the joint parties should be approached with caution.

Therefore if the ISS Panel have requested details of the income of a spouse or partner who has been abused by the Church of England, or in order to treat it as ‘joint income’, they should also have taken reasonable steps to establish what expenses she might be incurring and to be very cautious about accusations of extravagance.

Appeals against decisions by the ISS Panel(s) are decided by Mrs Maureen Cole (Chair of the Archbishops’ Council) Audit Committee. There clearly has to be very strong objection to Maureen acting in this manner due to a conflict of interest especially since during the past twelve months her Audit Committee has considered a report into the operation of the ISS which will require a follow-up and this will potentially lead her to be auditing her own actions.

Ms. Cole is a trustee of the Archbishops’ Council. So any Appeal run by her will in effect amount to her investigating herself. Ms. Cole has no professional accreditation in auditing, so is also outside any sphere of external regulation.

The Headline here is that Church demands that spouse or partner is expected to pay for abuse against their partner at the hands of the Church of England. Furthermore, if there is an Independent Appeal against the financial decision made, those who made the decision will be reviewing their original decision.

This is how the Archbishops’ Council define “independent”. They keep it inhouse, and mean by the term “compliant third party who continues to endorse the original decision”. The ISB, countless numbers of reviews on safeguarding incompetence and cover-ups have been subjected to similar “independent” processes. This is the church marking its own homework, again and again.

Proposed Actions:

In view of the above, victims are no longer to believe or trust statements made by the Archbishops, the Lead Bishop for Safeguarding and Archbishops’ Council to members of the General Synod on safeguarding. The situation has now become intolerable. Our concerns as victims and stakeholders can now be summarised under three headings:

Archbishops and the Archbishops’ Council:

1. Repeated delays in reviews.
2. Refusal to commission properly independent reviews.
3. Continued cover-ups of abuse.
4. Weaponisation of safeguarding against others.
5. Cease and Desist letters sent to victims complaining.
6. Deliberate lies told to General Synod in public.
7. Dishonest and libellous gaslighting of victims.

The National Safeguarding Team:

1. Gross incompetence.
2. No conflicts of interest policy.
3. No register of interest for staff.
4. Repeatedly dishonest processes and procedures.
5. No accountability or transparency.
6. Complete lack of professional standards.
7. No external regulation.

Lambeth Palace and Church House Westminster:

1. Largely exempt from Freedom of Information Act, 2000.
2. Constant non-compliance with data law.
3. Exempt from any external regulatory body.
4. Extensive conflicts of interest in senior management.
5. Audit Committee controlled by Archbishops’ Council.
6. Opaque patterns of expenditure.
7. Gross mismanagement of charitable resources.

We believe that the time is ripe for bringing legal proceedings against the Archbishops’ Council.  In the meantime, we wish to draw to (MPs) attention what the Archbishop of Canterbury has stated about the plight of the “ISB-11”, who have been left without any support over the past year. He says they are being well supported. This is untrue. These deceptions will not change whilst the present arrangements for oversight at Lambeth Palace and Church House Westminster are allowed to continue. The CofE keeps marking its own homework, and awarding itself top grades. It is time to end this fiction of fairness and competence. Safeguarding in the CofE, whenever weighed, is always found wanting. The injustice and incompetence cannot continue.

First in a series of guest articles detailing the unhappy situation in the Church of England with regard to its failures in the management of Safeguarding.

by Martyn Percy

No. 1: Who Pays?

Trust and confidence in the Archbishops’ Council and National Safeguarding Team is broken beyond repair. The statements made on safeguarding and issued by both Archbishops, senior staff and Lead Bishops seem designed only mislead both church and public. Yet ordinary members of the church seem to be powerless in the face of the lack of accountability and competence over the ways in which safeguarding policy and practice is being operated.

Recently, the Archbishop of York was found to have deliberately lied to General Synod over progress on reviews and the closure of the ISB. Victims of abuse are now writing to their MPs and calling out the deceptions, incompetence and cover-ups. In a short series of five extracts of letters sent to Members of Parliament, the case for root and branch reform is set out.

These short extracts detail the deceptions fed to General Synod, the wider Church of England and general public. On the scales of justice, we find that statements from either of the Archbishops cannot be trusted and have little weight. Furthermore, little, if anything, that the Archbishops’ Council says to General Synod about safeguarding is likely to be true.  The scales of justice can no longer be balanced, and victims are now calling upon Parliament to intervene as a matter of urgency.

In five brief extracts taken from letters to MPs, the issues now being put to Parliament are carefully set out, and the call for independent statutory regulation of church safeguarding is made. Victims of abuse and injustice have no confidence in the Church of England’s leadership being able or willing to address the abuses it continues to perpetrate. Only external legal independent intervention can right these wrongs, and finally put a complete stop to all of the continuing injustices that the Church of England’s safeguarding policies and practices perpetuate.

We write to inform you that victims of sexual abuse at the hands of the Church of England are now receiving ‘Cease and Desist’ letter from Farrer & Co., stating that complaints about the conduct of the Archbishops’ Council and other officers amount to acts of harassment. At the same time, the Archbishops claim that Non-Disclosure Agreements’ have no place in the Church of England in safeguarding disputes. Yet they continue to be used.

Attempts made to discover how much the ‘Cease and Desist’ letters have cost the charity, how many victims are being persecuted with threats of police action, legal costs if they persist in complaining, and whether or not all the members of the Archbishops’ Council are even aware of who is writing in their name as trustees, have been firmly rebuked. Audit Committee members have been told to mind their own business.

Recently, Andrew Selous, a former Member of Parliament and a Church Estates Commissioner responsible for answering other MP’s questions about the Church of England, faced some testing questions on safeguarding matters in mid-December 2023. In response to questions raised by Sir Ben Bradshaw in the House of Commons over serious concerns relating to the conduct of the Archbishops’ Council in safeguarding and Mr. William Nye’s treatment of victims of abuse, the Secretary General of the Archbishops’ Council and General Synod responded to Mr. Selous as follows: 

Dear Andrew

You passed on some further questions received from Sir Ben Bradshaw about the Archbishops’ Council’s interim support scheme for victims and survivors of Church-related abuse.

The Scheme was developed to assist victims and survivors in urgent need and at point of crisis. It is operated by the Archbishops’ Council (AC), and responds to urgent requests from victims and survivors of Church-related abuse.  Neither the AC nor the Church of England more widely can support victims and survivors indefinitely; and it would be unhelpful if victims and survivors become dependent on financial assistance for the Church of England in the long term…the AC nor other Church of England bodies can take the place of the statutory benefits system. However, each application is reviewed by the Scheme panel…assessed, and awards made on an individual’s needs and circumstances on a case-by-case basis applying the terms of reference.

The National Safeguarding Team provide regular updates to the Archbishops’ Council about the Scheme, including management information.  The Scheme does not have specific performance targets in place.  The Scheme staff are developing an applicant feedback form but that is not currently in place. 

All complaints against members of staff of the National Church Institutions are logged and monitored by the Director for the business area.  Any complaints against members of the National Safeguarding Teams are monitored by the senior leadership team for recurring themes and, where necessary, to improve working practices and service delivery.  

The Scheme staff have collected feedback from applicants who have provided it, and this is also acted upon to improve the scheme delivery.  An example of this is that feedback from applicants to the Scheme have informed the recent review and amendment to the TORs, and an increase in resources in the team to manage the demands.  

I am not aware of a commitment to record and publish satisfaction levels.  We have no plans to publish this data.  Feedback on the Scheme will be used to inform and improve working practices as part of our continued commitment to listen and act on victims’ and survivors’ voices. 

Sir Ben posed various questions relating to the Archbishops’ Council’s Audit and Risk Committee (ARC).  I should note that the roles of the ARC, and of AC management are distinct. The role of the ARC is to support an organisation in fulfilling its governance and oversight responsibilities in relation to financial reporting, internal control structure, risk management systems and internal and external audit functions. It acts as a strategic oversight function that should be independent from the management functions which are responsible for the design, operation, and monitoring of the internal control structure.

The AC ARC Terms of Reference reflect that independent role of the committee. Whilst the ARC could request that an internal audit review of the Interim Support Scheme be undertaken, it would not be appropriate for the ARC to become involved in the management of the Interim Support Scheme, including any monitoring activities and decision making.  For all AC internal audit reviews that are carried out, the findings of these audits are presented to the AC ARC for review and consideration, and to note and consider potential further actions as may be appropriate based on the audit conclusions.  

I hope this is useful. 

Best wishes for Advent and Christmas, 

William Nye LVO
Secretary General.

The risk and the responsibility in safeguarding, as Mr. Nye describes it, is therefore to be passed on to the taxpayer and government, and back to the victims. Mr. Nye, as Secretary General, confirms that Church of England policy is to ultimately pass on the costs, risks and responsibility for victims of sexual abuse and harmed by its actions and processes to HM Treasury and the taxpayers. The context for this note might be treated as an unfortunate one-off lapse, were it not for a number of Diocesan Directors of Finance in the Church of England reportedly briefed by Mr. Nye that they did not need to be setting aside contingency funds in their diocesan budgets and forward planning for legal claims made by victims of abuse, as such accountability for any likely financial compensation will never happen.

As a model of governance, the Church of England has lost the trust, confidence and respect of the nation. A recent social policy survey for the University of London found church leaders to be amongst our least trusted public figures. No amount of spin, PR or propaganda can re-set this. There will be no reform or renewal of the church until the endemic truth-decay is properly addressed.

I am sure that many of us can remember important conversations we have had which made possible significant changes of direction in our lives.  I can remember one such conversation which took place in the early 80s. Those who have read this blog over a period will know that, long ago, I completed a university thesis connected with my interest in the Greek Orthodox liturgy.  The detail of this research is unimportant here.   However, there was a dilemma I faced that comes with getting involved with any information of a very specialised kind.  This will be familiar to any of my readers who have undertaken post-graduate research.  The problem in essence is this.  Unless you are able to pursue a career of academic research and teaching, the information gathered over two or three years of academic research becomes rapidly out of date, especially if one has no access to university libraries.  What does one do with research which may be of interest to only a handful of people who happen to be interested in your chosen topic?  Was it all a massive waste of time to get so involved in a single specialised area of knowledge? 

The conversation I had was with a distinguished academic who understood both the substance of my research and the dilemma of my being unable to take it further.  What she said to me at the end of our conversation was a moment of liberation.  I had described to her my then fairly recent interest in healing and the way that this dimension of activity seemed to embrace almost every Christian culture that was around at the time.  I was meeting it in a New Age context right across to the charismatic.  My academic mentor was interested in this exploration and made a fascinating observation.  She pointed out that I, in the process of absorbing the highly visual culture of the Byzantine Orthodox faith, had also developed a facility to penetrate other value systems and cultures.  Struggling to understand the assumptions of the Byzantine writers for two years had been, effectually, an initiation into thinking within an alien culture.  This ability to live inside another culture in this way had demanded skills of imagination and intellectual flexibility which would always be useful.  My new interest in Christian healing would draw on these same skills of understanding, imagination and flexibility of thought.  In summary, my academic research had prepared me for an immersion into Christian cultures that were not my own.  The word I use to describe this process is rather an old-fashioned one, the word ‘indwell’.   One tries to live inside the thinking of another in order to understand better what the other is experiencing and talking about, while not necessarily agreeing with them.  Indwelling the culture and thinking of other Christians has become a core activity of mine over the past 40 years.

The attempts, on my part, to indwell other people’s thinking have been partly successful in my professional work as a clergyman.  For a time in the 80s I acted as an ecumenical officer for a diocese when the possibility of achieving Christianity unity seemed an achievable goal.  My later work as a part-time adviser on the healing ministry was also undertaken with a background of a substantial generosity of spirit between Christians from quite different backgrounds.  The emergence of a spirit of division and intolerance among Christians which seems to be a feature of this present century, is reflected in the current bitter disputes among Christian bodies who cannot agree on same-sex relationships.  The deeper issue is that Christians fail to understand one another or agree how to read and understand the Bible.   And it is on this point that my own skills and ability to indwell the thinking of others seems to fail.

 ‘Bible-believing Christians’ present us with a model of truth which allows no compromise.  The problem I have with this group is not the tenets of their belief system which are in continuity with certain beliefs from the past.  My problem is the way that the word ‘true’ in the context of the Bible is defined.  When the word ‘infallible’ is also introduced into the discussion, I desperately feel a sense of shutters coming down, precluding anything resembling true dialogue.  It is only since the eighteenth century that ideas of truth and falsehood in the scientific sense have been circulating.   The definitions of truth that existed before had to accord with the dictates of those in spiritual or political power, not in the language of scientific reasoning.  The contortions that some biblical ‘scholars’ get into to accommodate the ‘plain meaning’ of God’s Word when reading the text of Genesis are tortuous and insulting to anyone of basic intelligence.  Answers to simple questions are needed – how did the creation of sun and moon take place after the creation of light in the Genesis narrative?  What were the numbers of animals entering the Ark? These questions cannot be answered with the pseudo-scientific formulae of many Biblical conservatives.  The answers that exist in reasonable discourse belong to the world of symbol and metaphor not scientific measurement. I recognise that few Christian teachers in the UK spend much time on these questions.  In the scheme of things, they are trivial.  More important is the possibility that ordinary Christians, reared to accept ideas of scriptural infallibility, secretly spend a great deal of time worrying about such issues.  Only allowed to have a single version of the meaning of truth, these Christians are deprived of any insight as to how things can be true in a whole number of ways that are more glorious, more life enhancing than a narrow concentration on scientific fact.  One quotation from Scripture draws us back to the richness of beauty in our understanding of God ‘O worship the Lord in the beauty of holiness’.  The truth encountered in beauty takes precedence over the truth contained formulaic barely understood doctrinal formulae.  The latter matter but they never engage the human spirit without the former.

To return to my important conversation with my academic mentor, which had the effect of releasing my imagination and my aesthetic sensitivity into my spiritual and intellectual journey, I am grateful for one special gift.  I am deeply grateful for the fact that in my reading, learning and discussions over the years I have never been encouraged to think I have arrived, in respect of truth.  The discovery of aspects of truth on this journey only urges me on further to explore new things.  Paradoxically the more of truth one learns, the more truth yet to be discovered emerges.

by Martyn Percy

Part 2 of Martyn’s assessment of Alpha

Alpha courses appear to be a phenomenal success.  My copy of Church Times seems to take on the proportions of the Sunday Times whenever there is an Alpha News insert.  Their own publicity suggests that hundreds of thousands of people have taken part in a course in this country, the Commonwealth and beyond.  Alpha News is full of good reports and self-publicity, smattered with quotes from ‘academics’, Bishops, and the like.  The Alpha Course itself has now become a business operation, with its own staff, teaching materials, sweat shirts, videos and books.  Of its type, it is one of the slickest commodifications of the gospel.

I ought to state now that I have not attended an Alpha Course; but I have seen much of the Alpha material.  To my mind, it has a number of features that are commendable.  First, it is a course, not a ‘hit and run’ exercise in evangelism.  A number of evenings, a weekend away and a final supper can facilitate the building up of community relationships.  Second, because it is designed to be locally-based, and from the church, it avoids the pitfalls of some itinerant evangelists who might not relate easily to local contexts and churches.  Third, there is a wealth of supportive literature to aid enquirers.  It is well-marketed, and written and presented in a ‘light’ apologetic style, formed from an evangelical-charismatic basis.  A sort of David Watson Jesus Then and Now for the 90’s, but with much more emphasis on the individual, the therapeutic, and a very personable Holy Spirit.

People who attend an Alpha Course seem to enjoy the fellowship and find their faith refreshed.  Amongst most, if not all charismatic-evangelical churches, the Alpha Course has now become obligatory; a logo that makes a statement about being in the vanguard of fashionable evangelistic techniques.  Yet I do have quite serious reservations about the style, content, approach and results of Alpha.  How though, can something apparently so successful be flawed?  Three reasons immediately come to mind.

First, there is very little attempt to present the Church as the body of Christ which is the initial repository for the Gospel.  The assumption Alpha appears to make – common to a good deal of evangelical apologetics – is that people become Christians first, then think about joining a church.  The disassociation is highly problematic.  Whilst individual evangelists and various agencies target the millions beyond church structures, the majority of conversions often fail to be properly inculcated in to the church.  This is, in part, because these same people are embarrassed by the church, and offer a Gospel that barely mentions it, if at all.  Evangelicals tend to have little theology of place, or an appreciation of directional plurality, regarding the church as a collection of people who are in agreement with one another.  A focus on the church and sacraments would deepen the course, and ensure the material was more firmly rooted as an arm from within the church, rather than an external agent being used as a go-between.  Some Roman Catholic and liberal Anglican churches have ‘tailored’ the course in this way, although the authors forbid this.

Second, the genius of Christianity lies in its contestability.  In the relentless appeal to ‘basics’, the course obviates the implicit and explicit paradoxes in the Gospel, as well as its breadth.  It offers Christianity as a simple, uncontextual, boundless project that is ‘learned’ through a course offering certain types of knowledge and experience.  Any group that offers a course on ‘Basic Christianity’ needs to address who chose the basics, and why certain ‘basics’ were selected and not others.  In Alpha, the basics turn out to be an appeal to a largely innerrant Bible, attenuation of a homely and powerful Holy Spirit, and expression of an Evangelical atonement theory.  They are not, interestingly, the Trinity, baptism, communion or community, which might be more appropriate for other groups.  Moreover, the authors apparently do not like the course being adapted or enculturated.  This suggests that a ‘package’ of truth is being sold.  Yet Christianity is arguably not something we ‘possess’; like God, it possesses us, but is beyond us too.

Third, the focus on the Holy Spirit is one of over- emphasis.  The Spirit on offer obviously arises from a personable, therapeutic, home-counties context that is concerned with the individual.  The dynamics of the Spirit’s work in creation, justice, peace, reconciliation and the wider church receive scant attention.  This is because the authors of the course reflect an elite, upper-middle class outlook (Eton, Cambridge, Brompton), which, quite naturally, has also enculturated the Gospel.  In introducing the Gospel from here, there is inevitably no real social mandate, no prophetic witness and no serious appreciation of theology or ecclesiological breadth and depth. 

It is true that the Gospel is free to all.  But it does not follow that it should be sold and marketed as a cheap package deal – a bargain-break weekend for two in eternity.  Alpha offers a highly successful ‘trial pack’ (a ‘nice’ version of Christianity), yet one that does not actually relate to what is ultimately on offer, namely the complexity of salvation from within the church.  As a locally-based evangelism programme, it is seriously flawed.  True, it does recognise that ‘lasting conversions’ are made through local church connections and friendships, with less coming from hyped-up rallies or events that are outside the church.  But the weaknesses lie in its theological foundations.  It sets its own ‘questions’, and then offers the ‘answers’ to them: a classic technique in apologetics – caricaturing ‘objections’ to faith, then demolishing them.  There is little space for people to actually reflect on and vent their own serious social, personal, moral or theological concerns.  The appeal to ‘basics’ seems to assume that all Christians are more or less the same underneath, and that their ecclesial expressions are merely cosmetic.  They are not: for many they are matters of theological and aesthetic substance. 

As a course, it is therefore somewhat prescriptive, a package rather than a pilgrimage.  Participants are locked into a hermetically-sealed hermeneutical circle, that keeps more issues out than it actually addresses.  It is a confident but narrow expression of Christianity.  It stresses the personal experience of the Spirit over the Spirit in the whole church, in all its plurality and depth.  It attempts to transform course members in to converts, and then again into church members.  Ironically, the skeleton of the course does provide a good template that parishes could adapt and deepen according to need and context.  A number of parishes I know have adapted the middle-class presuppositions of the course for their own situations where ‘supper parties’ are not easy formats in which to discuss life and faith.  It is odd then, that the authors of the course are against this.  Presumably, this is because there is a real bias in the material that is not to be ignored, and is to be protected from dilution.  So here we have a technique with fundaments, Patent Pending.

My hunch is that Alpha ultimately does to churches what any revival does.  Mostly, it excites and galvanises existing believers, and encourages them to ponder (briefly) the world outside the church.  Then to engage with it more openly than they might otherwise, albeit temporarily.  However, although this form of apologetics is to be preferred to some itinerant evangelism or mass rallies, insofar as it is locally-based, it has still done little to address the theological vacuity of its parent missiological models.  It is still more monologue than dialogue.  People are still mostly ‘sold’ a Gospel that is independent of the church – and then the course organisers wonder why the attendees don’t translate into members.  It also offers a version of the Gospel that is weak on sin, suffering, atonement, sacraments and sacrifice.  True, people have to start somewhere with the claims of the Gospel: milk precedes meat, and you learn to walk before you run.  But does the presentation have to be so sugar-coated, crude and narrow?  People’s previous experience of the church is deemed to be peripheral, and the selected ‘basics’ presented as central.  For example, one cannot imagine receiving any reasonable answer to a question like this: ‘What did God do for me when I was baptised as child?’  Such issues are omitted from the agenda.  They are just too complex to form the basis for a discussion about divine action and the graciousness of God.

The danger of a therapeutically-tuned version of the Gospel that is intentionally socially relevant is that it will itself become a fashion-victim.  The course comes from the same church – Holy Trinity, Brompton – that introduced John Wimber’s ‘Signs and Wonders’ (miracles are the best form of evangelism: 1984-86), the ‘Kansas City Six’ (1988-90: a group of strange American ‘prophets’, now widely discredited) and the ‘Toronto Blessing’ (RIP, 1994-1996).  In their own way, all these phenomena were rather ordinary within the econtext of revivalism and enthusiastic religion, yet they were marketed and sold well, particularly by Holy Trinity, Brompton.  They have a shelf-life of between 18-24 months, and in spite of some of the same Bishops and ‘academics’ who promote Alpha (one is placed in this category by virtue of being a Principal of an Anglican Theological College) giving each of these movements their full impramatur, they fizzled out.  So what they actually point to, ironically, is the lack of a deeply-formed ecclesial identity and enduring spirituality in these faith-expressions.  Without something new to sing about, punters in the pew eventually become bored.  ‘Success’ is therefore about being at the forefront of spiritual fashion, riding along on the crest of the latest wave or craze. 

A key to this is the singling out of the spiritual as an ‘event’ which can be transformed into a commodity.  This means that Miracles and Blessings suddenly acquire an identity that makes them stand out from the crowd, like a designer label on a handbag or a pair of trainers.  An ordinary blessing won’t do anymore: it must be the ‘Toronto Blessing’.  Prayer for healing is old hat: ‘Signs and Wonders’ is where the action is, and God is deemed to be.  Prophecy is interesting, but have you heard the Kansas City Six perform?  So it is with Alpha.  An ordinary catechetical course will no longer suffice – evangelical-charismatic consumers are buying a name and an identity.  And the Alpha authors will not tolerate imitations or adaptations of their Gospel: it is salvation by copyright.

It will be interesting to see how many attending the courses, then ‘making a decision’, or having a numinous experience, are actually members of their local church in two years time.  My guess is that for all the hype, triumphalism and talk, this course is mainly about ‘refreshing’ charismatic-evangelical identity.  It does not address the world in all its pain, ambiguity and profusion – so it won’t actually change it, in spite of the claims.

Revd Dr Martyn Percy,