Trying to write something intelligent about the elevation of Bishop Sarah Mullally to the post of Archbishop of Canterbury is like attempting to stand still on a moving escalator. The moment that you think you understand what might be happening is also the moment that you realise that the information you had latched on to is now out of date and does not reflect what is currently happening in the Anglican world. What follows here is not an all-round commentary on the significant news coming out of Lambeth Palace. It is merely a number of observations that can be made about the constantly changing scene that is appearing before us as we accustom ourselves to the new reality of a female Archbishop.
My regular readers will know that Surviving Church will not be affected by the fact that a woman has been nominated. Several names of female candidates had been mentioned already, and most people have got used to the idea, indeed probability, that a female candidate would emerge as the one chosen for the post. We could spend time reflecting on qualities needed for an Anglican leader and whether Mullally has these qualities. As I do not know the new nominee, I have only the opinion and knowledge of others to make the judgement as to whether she has the requisite gifts of leadership, eloquence, pastoral skill and theological competence. There are those who have raised queries in each of these areas over her suitability for the new post. I note these criticisms but do not want to suggest that my opinion has anything to add to the discussion in these areas.
The one area where I may have something to say is in the area of safeguarding. I am no expert in understanding in detail how safeguarding protocols operate in the Church, but I do bear witness to the agony of survivors as well as the falsely accused when they have fallen foul of the Church’s safeguarding juggernaut. When things to do with safeguarding do go wrong in the Church of England, the amount of pain and suffering is considerable. Speaking generally, the Diocese of London has been an arena for a variety of well publicised cases of safeguarding failure, including Father Alan Griffin and Survivor N. The common features of both these stories was a profound lack of pastoral sensitivity as well as the extensive use of reputational management firms and church lawyers in attempts to protect the institution of the Church of England. Having looked again at the material which has appeared on this blog, which involved suicide and attempted suicide, one has to conclude that the Church is not good at protecting the victims of abuse and false accusation. The culture of Mullally’s diocese under her watch seems to be strongly and consistently defensive of the privileges of the powerful. Even if the heavy lifting of protecting the institution was done by firms of lawyers such as Winckworth Sherwood and crisis management firms like Luther Pendragon, there is no sense that any of the Church authorities, from the bishop downwards, were prepared to stick up for victims. If we were looking for a prophetic voice, one seeking to ‘defend the poor and the fatherless’, in our new Archbishop-designate, we cannot expect to find it in Bishop Mullally.
The mention of church lawyers reminds us of the heavily protectionist culture of Lambeth Palace and Church House over the past few years. Watching the performance of General Synod in recent years has been like witnessing a boxing match between two very unequal opponents. Plucky individuals like Martin Sewell produce material and ask questions which are either not answered or drowned in procedural obfuscation. For those who long to see the Church enter a period of real contrition for the pain of abuse survivors, we look for a prophet. Somehow the lawyered up central administration of the Church has consistently thwarted this possibility. The weight of institutional inertia weighs down and defeats any scattered voices of prophetic pleading.
I have no doubt that Sarah Mullally has many good personal qualities and the skills of management which are needed by the Church at this time. She can only bring the qualities she has to the post, and we should not criticise her for not being something else. But, from my personal perspective, I regret that the successful candidate lacks the much-needed quality, that of prophetic transparency, which would communicate with a public who long for human authenticity in a religious leader. The suffocating control of church bureaucrats which create the current church climate will not be challenged in the Mullally regime. These officials have effectively in their choice of candidate decided what qualities the new Archbishop should have. If the Mullally tenure is less than successful, it is those who chose her who must carry much of the responsibility for this failure.
Looking beyond Mullally’s time as Archbishop, I believe that what will be said is that in 2025 a great opportunity for the Church of England was missed. The general public had begun to understand clearly that any organisation that obstructs justice and healing for some of its members was in urgent need of revolutionary reform. Energetic change and honest speaking were required but what was delivered was the kind of safety that left the power brokers of the Church firmly in charge alongside a general culture of churchiness which had little appeal or attraction to the outsider. In short, we have an Archbishop who is a creature of the system rather than one who will challenge it. It was always going to be difficult or impossible for any leader to stand sufficiently on the outside of the institution to be able to challenge it, but many of us wanted that effort to be made. The safeguarding cause may not be the only issue facing the new Archbishop, but it is one that most people understand. It could have been the issue that allowed the Church to be seen as one that cares, that loves and consistently pursues justice.
Gerald Bray has written 3 Oct 2025-‘Sarah Mullally:Undertrained and inexperienced’-on the Evangelicals Now web page. There is a shorter version of his reflection on Anglican Ink: SARAH MULLALLY: ‘UNDERTRAINED AND INEXPERIENCED’
Anglican Ink also has 3 Oct 2025: THE LANYARD CLASS ARCHBISHOP: SARAH MULLALLY IS THE PURE DISTILLED ESSENCE OF EVERYTHING WRONG WITH THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND.
How can a seasoned and senior nurse be a christian yet Pro-Choice on abortion? A glance at NHS website’s ‘Dating Scan’ ultrasound at three months should surely raise big questions.
Oddly, Mullally is allegedly Pro-Choice but averse to AD (Assisted Dying). I do not support unrestricted TOP or AD, but people advocating for their own assisted suicide is very different from 25% of defenceless unborn UK children getting ‘terminated’.
Time alone will tell, but I feel very uneasy when looking at Mullally’s healthcare dominated CV, and her limited theological credentials for such a senior post..
“Defenceless unborn children get terminated” When will you hold to account, the men who create the children? Either by rape or lack of maturity..the result is the same. It is easy to blame the woman and so rare to hold men accountable. Have you noticed that we have one million extra people in the UK per year? A large per centage of them are males from countries where rape is so commonplace that it us not seen as a crime?. These men have viewed porn and concluded that European children and women are to be treated like unpaid hookers. There has been a massive rise in attacks that include biting, breaking bones, insertion of objects and other tortures and of SA and rape. Women and girls have never been so terrified and so unprotected. If you are truly anti abortion, then work to stop Porn. Work at where and what drives men to create unwanted pregnancies.
Thank you for this Stephen. I agree with your thoughts and think that the selection wreaks of keeping the Status Quo of the Anglican Church. I imagine the choice of Archbishop would be unpopular with the Protestants in this country and around the world.
I think we ought to give ++Sarah space rather than trying to hang around her neck what is past, most of which was inherited. Sad to say, much as I admire him + Richard Chartres played safe and so we reap the results.
She can bring a new vision of an inclusive gospel leadership. Much as safeguarding is important, it needs to be put in perspective. There needs to be a greater emphasis on the over-riding power of the gospel. Sadly safeguarding has become the 21st century replacement of Health and Safety! it becomes our shibboleths which no-one can dare to challenge.
Is it impossible to make much sense of the incarnation-passion-resurrection without understanding the primacy of ‘justice’.? This surely is very fundamental to Christian belief. The history of human life is littered with spiritual systems where power over people trumped ‘justice’. Contempt for ‘justice’ can collapse a small group, a parish, a diocese or a denomination. Just look at the free fall of modern Anglicanism. Scepticism about safeguarding’s importance is unwise.
Actually James, I think mercy features equally strongly, but let’s stay on topic.
Or, turn that around, and the utter absence of mercy for victims can be a mark of satanic vice being rings at work.
The Canon W G Neely cover up in Belfast’s Down and Dromore Diocese is interesting.
Did the forces of fundamentalist Anglicanism in Ireland see fit to eject a gay organist from Drumcliffe parish according to 2019 reports.
W G Yeats lies buried there, with his tombstone carrying ‘horseman pass by’
Might-‘victims and parishioners pass by’-be the career epitaph of Bishop David McClay?
A question for Bishop David McClay: what stops you from naming the deceased Canon W G Neely who was an abuser?
Our Lord Jesus Christ holds to a more uncompromising line on people who maltreat children.
Bishop McClay should look up a concordance and seek NT verses with the word ‘millstone’.
Getting rid of a gay organist is an example of the cruelty and malice that keep me away from church. A Chinese trainee vicar made a homophonic remark in his sermon, at the evening service that I used to attend. I quietly made for the exit. After 40 years of church attendance and 40 years of keeping quiet amid horrific attitudes, I knew I had reached the end of my patience. What was this silly man doing or thinking? Had he researched the important contribution that homosexual people have always made to the C of E? No. He was the usual pompous ass. I have had enough.
Odd how we now have an Archbishop of Canterbury, a female and an ex-nurse, who is pro-choice. So is 10 or 11 or 12 million UK abortions since 1967 just ignored? Yet we have a perpetual riot on sexuality! Heterosexual sex appears to have pretty awful modern consequences in the UK. But Anglican leaders are reluctant to talk about abortion or oppose it. You have to really admire Roman Catholicism for its pro-life stand.
You are aware that it takes two to tango? And that there are no more social housing units given to women and girls who are abandoned by men after pregnancy is created? Usually by rape. Before anyone condemns abortion consider that the life if both mother and baby may well be cut short by poverty and homelessness. The women who will die of exposure, curled up in a city doorway, may well have been damaged by an uninvited pregnancy. Do you think that they should have had the baby? Well maybe so. But is it any better that BOTH mother and baby die in this way? While 30 000 illegal single male migrants of fighting age, are comfortable in hotel accommodation…have some thought for those that they hunt down, break their bones, rape and discard. Have some thought beyond “those females should not have an abortion “. See the bigger picture. Provide broken damaged females with accommodation and support before you condemn them. After a rape/torture has taken place, the trauma is so extreme that few females recover. Dealing with goons who hold only females to account, as if they are to blame for the rape, is not that they need. 720 000 rape victims in 2024. How many needed medical attention? How many needed abortion? Do your research.
Does the Martin Sargeant saga suggest safety in the London Diocese?
Fabulous piece again, Stephen — and thank you for opening another window for us all to look through.
Thank you, Dr John, for sharing your perspective. I appreciate your wish to give Bishop Sarah the opportunity to bring fresh vision and leadership. However, it’s important to recognise that for many survivors, safeguarding is not simply another policy concern or an overextension of “Health and Safety.” It’s a deeply personal and painful issue that defines whether the Church can truly be trusted as a place of safety and compassion.
In February 2019, I had the opportunity to meet Bishop Sarah at Pret in Mayfair. It was a pleasant and hopeful meeting — she listened with genuine interest and asked how she might be able to help. Sadly, despite her initial engagement, I did not hear further from her after that conversation. My next contact came years later, in February 2024, when I raised concerns about safeguarding and reporting procedures at the Royal Household. Her written response was courteous but offered little substantive assistance, and it contained a factual error regarding the Lambeth Safeguarding Officer’s role.
I share this not to assign blame, but to highlight the sense of distance many survivors experience when reaching out for support or accountability. While I understand that Bishop Sarah may have inherited systemic problems, leadership at this level now demands more than continuity — it requires courage, transparency, and a willingness to confront the culture that has allowed so much pain to persist.
True gospel leadership cannot stand apart from safeguarding; the two must walk hand in hand. Only when the Church listens, learns, and changes will it begin to heal and rebuild the trust that has been so deeply damaged.
Like Archbishop Welby and others, Bishop Sarah may have limited power while expensive lawyers, civil servants, and insurers hold sway. Perhaps the system’s first act of reform should be to take its oaths less to worldly structures — and more to Jesus Christ — and go forward from there.
I suspect there will be many victims of abuse who find this comment very difficult, if not painful to read. Victims who have lived highly compromised lives with great internal suffering.
Likening the importance of Safeguarding to a trend of ticking seemingly unnecessary Health and Safety requirements is not only ignoring the huge pain of the many CofE victims, but – and something you’re probably far more interested in – reduces all power of the gospel to blatant hypocrisy.
We are entitled to judge Bp Sarah on her track record, and in the safeguarding realm it isn’t good. She did inherit a bad situation from Richard Chartres, but her own handling of it drew criticism from the coroner. She has also gained a reputation from survivors in other cases of not being helpful, and her General Synod voting record on safeguarding matters has often been disappointing.
The ‘overriding power of the gospel’ has not been sufficient to prevent some survivors and those falsely accused from taking their own lives in the face of the Church’s cruelty and indifference; nor to motivate the Church to apply compassion, justice, and humanity to their cases. So this is not some new-fangled shibboleth, but literally a life and death matter.
It’s also an issue which has the potential to destroy the C of E, as people leave out of disillusionment and vast sums are paid out in compensation. The stakes could not be higher, and so far Bp Sarah does not look like a person able to rise to the challenge. Her refusal to give an interview to Ch 4 after her appointment was announced certainly doesn’t look hopeful.
Give her a break. You write like it is a level playing field out there. For Sarah M to have survived the misogynist culture of the C of E? She must be a good person. She gets my approval.
Business as usual. The current overriding objective of the C of E is not to be noticed. They were partly successful but overrate their ability to manage communications.
I watched the Sky News interview, which appeared fairly scripted, deferential, if not exactly fawning. The poor bloke looked like he’d drawn the short straw, most people neither knowing much nor caring about the ‘established religion’ but oh well someone has to cover it. We discovered she does believe in the Virgin birth and the Resurrection, affirmations she made which seemed to delight the Archbishop designate. Phew.
Watching was like drinking a large mug of thick warm soup. Vaguely filling, but hardly satisfying. I felt sleepy afterwards.
A different journalist Cathy Newman, who has her finger firmly on the pulse of things that matter to many of us here, had her channel snubbed. “Times Radio” was left with Mounstephen, who made a hache of things by trying to close down awkward questions. By trying to hide and avoid Cathy, the ABC has immediately signified the key matters for commentators to focus on. It was so elementary a comms error, as to be laughable if it weren’t so serious.
When Welby resigned, or was sacrificed, it was naive to assume the suffering of many which has been unaddressed, would somehow be silenced. New reports last night from Zimbabwe where Smyth (Welby’s nemesis) had been enabled to continue his activities, immediately surfaced.
It will continue to be impossible to dampen down the fury of victims and survivors of church abuse, however hard they try. However the ABC should think carefully about not fuelling the flames.
Working in the care sector which is predominantly non-religious or Muslim it was apparent when the news of the appointment hit personal news feeds how completely irrelevant it was to the vast majority of people. Most scrolled on through, a few commented that they didn’t know anyone still did that job but complete disinterest was the overwhelming response. Be the person male, female or non-binary they were to the majority, yet another entitled person to dress up in ridiculous clothes and swan around handing out opinions that no one gives a damn about.
As a survivor I think the choice was uninspired and more of the same but what else did we really expect. I do think what was really significant, even since Welby was appointed, was how completely irrelevant this role now is to the vast majority of people, the next appointment on the retirement of Bishop Sarah in seven years time time may not even make the news feed.
This is an excellent article, Stephen. It succinctly addresses the fact that Sarah Mullally represents the most extreme and most un-Christian wing of the Church of England — the theologically untrained and secular managerialism-driven defenders of this shell institution at all cost.
No matter the hurt to survivors. No matter the betrayal of the core message of Christian Gospel represented on Calvary.
Sarah Mullally is a master of performative tearfulness on camera for victims, but there are excellent articles on this very blog which address Sarah Mullally’s rather staggering cruelty both towards survivors and towards those who have been falsely accused.
Mullally’s embedded relationships in the Diocese of London with ruthless scandal-management companies like Luther Pendragon and controversial lawyers like Winckworth Sherwood, all point that we can expect more of the same William Nye culture. As Stephen says we look forward to a glaring lack of the prophetic, and certainly no overturning of the tables of the moneychangers.
The suicide of Fr Alan Griffin, the attempted suicide of Survivor N, the fact that the Diocese of London remains at or near the top of dioceses with the worst safeguarding scandals, all point to what we are inheriting now.
She isn’t theologically untrained. She has a diploma in theology from the University of Kent and a master’s degree in theology from Heythrop College.
But is a Masters and a Diploma very lightweight by today’s standards, for such a nationally and globally important post?
No. It’s more than Runcie had. And she has professional qualifications, too.
Runcie studied in the 1950’s after front-line war service. Mullally is in a different era.
Are her qualifications lightweight for our era? And could she be a Paula Vennells mark two?
Bit of a red herring: “qualifications” at the level of this “job”. Unless you mean experience. But no one has experience of being ABC, by definition.
Personally I think she’s highly capable, but the bar was set low by the previous incumbent.
It’s not possible for a single person to have all the capabilities the job theoretically requires. It remains to be seen which areas she focuses on. As far as I can see, none of her predecessors had power to change anything much. Maybe, as we said, the brief is to maintain the status quo. I’ve little doubt she’s qualified for that. There’s always hope she may try to do something a bit different.
Being the C of E lead, wider UK/Irish Anglican figure of note and Global Communion figurehead generates problems. The office holder is surely internally conflicted by this package. I struggle to understand her passion for opposition to AS (Assisted Suicide) while being Pro-Choice on abortion. I am not enthusiastic on either, but at least the adult choosing AS does exercise a meaningful choice. Can an ex-nurse view the NHS Dating Scan and feel comfortable with the drift of UK abortion practice and grim statistics? Is Mullally a bit-‘doolally’-on abortion and AS?
Calling an MA lightweight?
Mathew..you come over as very extreme.
The antinomian heresy-in a woke fleece-continues. Blasphemy is the cardinal sin of those who wilfully disregard biblical instruction on natural justice, and of following the witness evidence of ‘2 or 3’. With safeguarding catastrophes do we get an impression of this principle being rewritten to: ‘disregard the evidence of 200-300 witnesses……….
Stephen has quite rightly drawn attention to the serious neglect in safeguarding perpetrated by Sarah Mullally in her post as Bishop of London.
Since her appointment many criticisms of her have centred around the tragic suicide of Father Alan Griffin; and quite rightly so. Some commentators have taken an ‘everybody makes mistakes’ attitude as though that excuses her. It most certainly does not. It cannot be overlooked that the Rev Alan Griffin took his own life: he committed suicide as a direct result of inadequate safeguarding practices which Sarah Mullally did not address. The Archdeacon who was culpable of giving out false information in the case, is still in post.
Before giving an opinion on Sarah Mullally and the Father Alan Griffin case it is vital to read the full report by the Coroner, Mary Hassle. This report was directed specifically to the Archbishop of Canterbury. This is the link:
Alan-Griffin-2021-0243-Church-of-England-Published.pdf
From the Coroner to the Archbishop Justin Welby (sections 6 and 7)
Section 6,reads: ‘In my opinion action should be taken to prevent future deaths and I believe that you have the power to take such action’.
Section 7 reads: ‘You are under a duty to respond to this report within 56 days of the date of this report, namely by 3 September 2021. I, the coroner, may extend the period. Your response must contain details of action taken or proposed to be taken, setting out the timetable for action. Otherwise you must explain why no action is proposed’.
The Archbishop’s actions as a result of this instruction has not resulted in any significant improvement in safeguarding practices. Indeed, in the John Brassington case there are nine similarities to the Father Alan Griffin Case. After the Coroner’s report I wrote these in a chart and sent it to senior clergy in John’s Diocese and the Church of England. It was ignored by them all.
In section 5, ‘Coroner’s Concerns’, points 4, 5, and 6 reference the involvement of the Archdeacon. These comments are critical of his approach. This then calls into question the reason Sarah Mullally did not investigate his actions. If the Archbishop was called to account for this gross injustice why has Sarah Mullally not been?
As Stephen points out in choosing Sarah Mullally it is a missed opportunity for the Church to be seen as one that cares, that loves and consistently pursues justice.
Apologies! Coroner’s report a more accurate link:
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Alan-Griffin-2021-0243-Church-of-England-Published.pdf
It always feels very odd and unnerving when senior legal officers use pretty blunt language, and this report seems very blunt indeed. But the reasons for the bluntness are not a boiling over of emotion, far from it, because the blunt directness is probably needed to emphasise and highlight just how lousy the Church behaviour has been.
The Fr Allan Griffin RIP case is utterly dreadful when you study this coroner’s report. Words can barely capture how poorly matters were handled. Anyone clearing out a work office pre-retirement, in the age before IT-computers, could come across some untidy or pending items. But what seems really odd to me, after reading the coroner’s report, is why the documents were not simply passed to the new responsible officer in their current state.
Also, please remember that in nine respects and at the same time, John Brassington was treated in the same way and is still awaiting justice.
Shameful! A contributor above notes Channel 4 interest in John Smyth and victim compensation to people in S Africa and Zimbabwe. That’s positive and good to see. But the sadistic and satanic maltreatment of people in the UK also needs addressed. I had reached a stage where little could shock me to do with Anglicanism. But the coroner’s report on the late Allan Griffin is hard to believe.
Gospel of John (8:7).
And I wish her good luck
Bit of a showstopper that verse, Adrian — and it certainly cuts deep. But I can’t help thinking of Luke 19:40: “If they keep quiet, the stones will cry out.” Had that truth been heeded in the corridors of Lambeth and other ecclesiastical centres of power over the years, perhaps the Church of England wouldn’t find itself in such a chronic mess — and many might have been spared terrible suffering.
Any bishop taking up this office will need all the luck in the world, but more than that, they’ll need courage, integrity, and compassion. I do wish her well, but I also wish the Church would widen the field — to include Christians from other walks of life who have proven leadership skills and moral conviction.
All people really want is someone to lead with honesty and heart — someone prepared, if need be, to lose their mitre for Christ.
Deuteronomy 19:15 has a principle running through the whole bible. That’s surely what is missing in so many Anglican Church cases.
‘Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.’ Clearly that saying was never intended to mean we should turn a blind eye to each others’ faults. Acts and the epistles show us that in the early Church fault and failings were often addressed pretty openly.
No one is proposing to stone Bp Sarah to death – apart perhaps from some of the more evil trolls on social media. Jesus was speaking to a crowd that were obviously hypocritical and misogynist, because they hadn’t brought to him the man who was also caught in adultery. Honest and fair criticism is a different matter.
Silencing victims and critics has been all too common in the C of E – what we desperately need is more transparency. We also need to keep in mind that our new archbishop is a human being, with faults that may well concern us, and feelings that deserve our compassion.
I think Romans 12 and 13 is where we can find wisdom for the abuse accountability much needed by everyone alike. Our church culture has, I think, become what it is due to us not even considering the possibility of being taken to court. My own church is now facing 2 different county court claims raised by me. They can still settle one of them without going to court. But they are at a complete loss to know how to even open an investigation into their own unlawful behaviours. If, as I can see, they are “scorners” then they will not receive any wisdom from my actions. They may grow more resentful at being called to account. Giving a place for wrath from the appropriate authorities is, for me to continue in peace with them, our only option now. Who knows what happens after this? Maybe a bit of culture change for the better way of being together in Christ.
‘Laud’s prayer’ in The Spectator (Oct 11, 2025) is very interesting on Mullally.
The reason that Sarah Mullally gets my respect is this. Firstly I confess that I know very little about her. During the crass episode that was filmed whereby Welby made light of his serious lack of safeguarding…during his farewell speech..Sarah M was the only one who seemed to be praying. She was the only one who seemed to be awake enough to know how the public would view Welbys levity. The silly bully boy Bishops were sniggering away
It was awful.
I think she will have to put up with alot from the silly Bishop bully boys and my guess is that she has already been mocked and negated by that type. She has not walked away. Good for her.
Who is father Allan Fife? I am horrified that anyone should take their own life after being bullied. But. Not surprised. A woman who went on to become a vicars wife in Peckham, bullied me without reason or mercy, when she joined a house share in 1985. She picked on me because I was vulnerable as I was recovering from being subject to a serious personal crime. I was an inexperienced former Sunday School teacher. She started up a rumour that I was having an affair with the landlord from whom we rented the house. He was creepy and predatory beyond measure. A former missionary, he was given to hugging and groping me. I was too terrified and too young to know what to do. This woman had a lover called Simon who used to stay a few nights a week and although she described herself as a Christian, she was given to boasting about her promiscuity. The first time that I heard about her crazy reputation wrecking, was when I was on a date with a man from the university Christian union. He said he was “willing to overlook my affair with the landlord” I was in absolute shock. I said “you cannot believe that I would compromise my faith and have anything to do with that disgusting old man” He clearly did believe it. The date ended early. The woman who started that and many other nasty rumours, also did things that were too disgusting to mention . But I will say that I attempted suicide after being subjected to six housemates, all goaded by her, into extreme bullying…and that is what brought me here. The fact that she married into the church of englans Irwene tribe and went around claiming to be some sort of exorcist, really gave me the creeps. Big time. I never returned to church because I wondered how many of the so called leadership, were getting their jollies by this sort of insane carry on. So I relate to this Father Fife. If false accusations from types like Vicars Wife of Peckham…led him to take his own life…then I do understand.