By ANON (Views from the Pews)
“The House discussed the start of work on a review of the definition of safeguarding, to examine whether the Church’s structures and processes are established in a way that can best ensure everyone it comes into contact with is kept safe from harm.” (Minutes of the House of Bishops Meeting, York, 21 May 2026).
We have recently had another visit from the Archdeacon. Our parish is about to go into vacancy (the Vicar is leaving), so we have had the pep-talk about what an “opportunity” this time will be for our congregation and parish. We have no idea how long the vacancy will be, and the Archdeacon (helpfully?) said that the current gap between a clergyperson leaving and a new one arriving in the Diocese is about 18 months. Some vacancies take longer to fill, we were told.
We should be OK going forward. Our benefice comprises two parishes, with one Victorian church and one much older. Both have church halls. One of the parishes also has a mission church that was built on the new housing estate in the 1960s. So, we have five buildings to care for. The is also one JMI CofE school in the benefice. We do Messy Church too, and have a ministry to the residential and nursing homes in the parishes. Churchgoing numbers have been steadily declining over the past decades, and the pandemic (2020) hardly helped. But we have a nice Vicarage and also a house for the Curate in the other parish (formerly the Rectory), though, of course, no actual Curate these days, because far fewer people are offering for ordained ministry. So, like the rest of the Deanery, we rely on several retired clergy to help out. But they are getting older and not being replenished.
The Archdeacon told us that this “opportunity” we have before us – a long, 18-month vacancy in all probability – is a time when the laity can “discover their own ministry”. At the PCC meeting, the Archdeacon reminded us that “every Christian has a vocation, and every baptised member of the church has a ministry”. We were told to renew our commitment to the Diocesan vision for “the ministry of the whole baptised people of God”. As we wait, pray and work for a new incumbent, we might be “surprised to discover how rich and fulfilling this ministry of the laity can be”.
Whilst I don’t necessarily baulk at such sentiments, I was left with an uneasy feeling about how things have been left. Sharing a vision for “the ministry of the whole baptised people of God” sounds OK (sort of), but I also know this is not a phrase found in the New Testament. I quietly wondered to myself if the Archdeacon knew that this overused soundbite wasn’t biblical?
Be that as it may, we will roll up our sleeves and get on with keeping the ship afloat, the show on the road, and the shop open for business. That, in essence, is what we are bound to do until sometime in 2028, when, God willing, the long siege of improvisation, burdens and duties is lifted, and we are finally relieved by a new Vicar.
Meanwhile, what most of us dread on the ground is the paperwork, administration, and responsibilities we will collectively be left with. Our benefice has two PCCs, both of which are independent charities. Our crumbling 1960s mission church has no PCC, but it does have several trustees as it is also a charity. We have to pay the quota to the Diocese too (there is no relief during a vacancy), and also handle the insurance, maintenance, and audits for the church hall kitchens, as well as contractors who handle health and safety.
We could probably manage all of this, though we only have one Church Warden for the Victorian church. Our other older church is about to lose one of its Church Wardens too, and we cannot find a replacement despite trying hard. There is one Treasurer for the benefice, but not one for the individual PCCs. We are not sure if this is legal, but the Archdeacon has been “taking advice” on this since last summer. Thus far, silence reigns on this query. So, we are just carrying on.
But it is safeguarding where the wheels look set to come off. Many denominations specify that any person with a recognised ministry should undergo DBS vetting and safeguarding training. On the assumption that anyone who has a role or responsibility that might relate regularly or frequently to a young person (i.e., under 18), vulnerable adult, or person who is ‘temporarily vulnerable’, we are struggling to make sense of how we are supposed to manage the next few years.
Frankly, we don’t know who should be covered by church safeguarding training, vetting, and DBS checks, and who should be included in the statistics and returns for the Diocese. To be honest, this wasn’t really any easier when we had a Vicar.
For example, when it comes to ministry with, to or from vulnerable adults, we accept that anyone involved in bereavement visiting, ministry and support should probably be listed. But quite a few people in our congregation offer this kindness and care just as good Christian neighbours might do, and it’s not clear to us that we can make people register with some Diocesan list and comply with their training just because they also happen to come to church. We think that laypeople who regularly help out at funerals or baptism visits, or anyone involved in supporting families, probably should be vetted.
We also have vulnerable adults (including people who are registered disabled) in our congregation who are actively engaged in various ministries (e.g., leading worship, music, intercessions, reading lessons, etc). But we don’t know if they need vetting for any risk they might pose to others? Or, for any harm they might come to whilst they are ministering? According to the Diocese, technically, it is the person who is offering the ministry who has to be risk-assessed. But the ministers in this case are vulnerable adults, so what do we do?
We have similar quandaries with our young people. Some youngsters help out in Sunday School and support the crèche. Some of our youth group lead services with the worship band and even give short talks at the all-age services. Again, we don’t know if our young people need vetting for any risk they might pose to others? Or, do we vet the people they minister to for any harm the young people might come to whilst they are ministering?
More generally, with worship, we have lesson readers, welcomers, sidespersons, and folk leading intercessions. We assume that as these are all involved in regular ministry, they should all be vetted, trained in safeguarding, and subject to DBS checks. But that is a very large slice of our congregation. We do actually have a lot of lay participation in our worship, and wonder if everyone in the music group needs to go through the safeguarding vetting and training processes too? The guidelines from the Diocese stipulate that “anyone involved in ministry” should be, but that would be dozens and dozens of people. It might include most church members.
We also have some elderly retired clergy and lay readers sitting in the congregation, but they no longer have an official licence to minister, and so they don’t preach or take services. That’s fair enough. But people still look to them for pastoral care and occasional spiritual counsel. After all, they are experienced, kind, gifted and pastorally wise. We don’t know whether we are in breach of diocesan guidelines by allowing this to happen, though we don’t see how it could be prevented.
Finally, the issue that really perturbs us is hospitality. Our last Vicar was lovely, but their spouse was not a Christian and didn’t go to church. Despite that, the Vicarage was endlessly hospitable to the congregation and wider parish. Do we need to put all of the members of a clergy household through safeguarding training and vetting even if they are non-churchgoers? What about retired clergy holding an official licence and entertaining at home, but with lodgers in their house who are not vetted? Or what about vulnerable adults and under-18s who are part of a clergy household and involved in supporting events at official or casual church events, including hospitality in a Vicarage, but have not been safeguarding-trained or vetted? Are they at risk, do they pose a risk, or is it a case-by-case matter of resolving the queries?
We genuinely don’t know, and when we raised this with the Archdeacon, we were told that the Diocese would “take advice” and get back to us. That was last year, and nobody in the Diocesan safeguarding team seems to know the answers. As almost everyone in our churches has some responsibility, and we try to model a holistic vision for and approach to lay ministry, we think that everyone in the congregation should potentially complete safeguarding training and be vetted through DBS. But that would be silly, wouldn’t it? The Archdeacon has promised “to clarify the position of the Diocese”. Meanwhile, we are apparently meant to carry on as before.
These days, the Church of England talks a lot about “every member ministry”, but it doesn’t have any watertight definitions of ‘minister’ or ‘ministry’, or even precise legal demarcations. These terms can mean almost anything, and they vary from parish to parish. In our church, the team that serves the tea and coffee each week after worship and supervises the drinks and snacks for the children has a ministry (according to some definitions of safeguarding). Some say the team should all undergo DBS checks and safeguarding training. But it will be different at other churches in our deanery, where high numbers of laity involved in numerous ‘ministry teams’ won’t be vetted at all, and neither will the leaders of the home groups or Alpha Courses.
Meanwhile, our diocese has been busy collecting enormous amounts of personal data from laity across the parishes so everyone can be ‘processed’ for safeguarding vetting. Unfortunately, the diocesan IT systems were recently hacked, and a lot of personal data was stolen, so some churchgoers have had to apply for new IDs. So, it looks like our data is not safe in the hands of the diocese, which, quite frankly, comes as no great surprise. Yet the diocese still insists on collecting our personal data to allow us to have any kind of role or ministry (even if we are just talking about the team making the tea and the coffee).
I can foresee a day when anyone who does anything in church can expect to be vetted and trained. At that point, the only way to avoid such unwarranted personal intrusions and this overbearing scrutiny will be to promise that you will make no contribution whatsoever to “every member ministry”. Increasingly, that is the vocation beginning to stir in me. If any readers can offer advice or share experiences on how we can manage this going forward, we’d be grateful.
An excellent article!
It clearly shows the muddle and confusion in safeguarding in the C/E. and, as described by Anon, reminiscent of the Tower of Babel. It makes itself a laughing stock, not to be taken seriously.
It reminds me of the sham pastoral letter 2018 written three weeks after the IICSA hearing when the victims and abused were ignored. I refer you to the Surviving Church link:
https://survivingchurch.org/2018/03/25/survivors-reply-to-archbishops-pastoral-letter/
Nothing changed as a result of this letter, consciences were not spiked and that was eight years ago.
Anon asks for advice. My advice is to do your own thing in your own way. The description of your congregations show them to be Christian, kind, caring and compassionate. You all seem to have plenty of common sense which the C/E safeguarding patently lacks.
I should like to ask a question which may have a simple answer. The question is: ‘why does it take at least 18 months to appoint a new clergy person?’
I so agree. Because of a few serious incidents, which should have been picked up much earlier (John Smyth for example), we now get lumbered with a load of bureaucracy which make Health and Safety a doddle. DBS etc only proves that a perpetrator hasn’t yet been found out! I doubt if anyone without a clear DBS would dare to apply. I’ve lost count, unless I dig through my filing cabinet, of how many DBS certificates I have.
On the vacancy time length, I rejoice that ours was less that 3 months from vacancy to appointment, but then there was the notice period!
There’s plenty of evidence available for example with Soul Survivor and J Fletcher that doesn’t seem to have been considered. I’m sure they had clear DBS checks?
We have to consider risk, and stand up to popular celebrities and bullies. That’s the difficult bit.
I agree.
Well I have hears it said that if the new vicar comes in too quickly comparisons are made with the old one. The consensus almost always is that the new one isn’t as good.
If people get used to the interregnum the comparison is made that the new vucar is, on balance, better than nothing.
We were told by the diocese that the team that does the catering every week needs DBS and safeguarding training because they deal with children running round the church hall. They are mostly elderly ladies. Our larger, neighbouring evangelical church does lots of Alpha, home groups and all sorts of youth outreach events. Do those leading those things need DBS vetting and safeguarding training? Apparently not. The diocese turns a blind eye to them, either because they’re evangelical and so must obviously be well behaved. Or perhaps the diocese leaves them alone because they’re paying a good wad of quota, and the powers that be don’t want to risk upsetting this particular church by burdening them with administration when they are clearly doing such important work for the Lord. The whole CofE safeguarding culture is just daft and dangerous.
An excellent article from ‘Anon.’ I am sure it articulates the thoughts of many laity in our parishes. I am so impressed at the hard work of many laity, so much of it done despite the incompetence or interference of beauracritic church authorities.
In addition to Susan Hunt’s excellent question, above, I would like to ask another question:
Why does it take well over six months for an Archdeacon to respond to a pertfectly straighforward request for clarification?
I am sure Dave, like me, you want an answer.
My question certainly was not rhetorical and I genuinely would like an explanation from anyone who has any idea.
Sadly, we cannot ask your Archdeacon since, as you say, it has taken him/her over six months to respond to a straightforward request for clarification.
I sometimes wonder whether there is a sense of not really being “allowed” to ask questions. It’s as if as laity we are a subspecies, and to ask a question is an impertinence. I recall being told (by a leader) at New Wine, that we should obey our leaders. This was around the time that its National Leader had resigned over adulteries. Both these men were also Anglican vicars. These types of instructions tend to have the opposite effect on me, but maybe I’m unusual in not kowtowing to the top brass?
But certainly looking back there does seem to have been a sense of some clergy taking very seriously their respective anointing, whilst disproportionately displaying little practice evidence of love, wisdom or other indications of the holiness of their orders, and being completely unaware of this blatant disparity.
At the same time, many diligent priests work quietly away behind the scenes, honouring their Lord and serving His children.
My experience on a New Wine training programme was ghastly beyond words. Two out of five students complained how they faced false and wild allegations of sexual misconduct, which were delivered with savagery by a tutor.
A Cambridge-educated professor was a witness of one victim’s mental decompensation, after a meeting with a New Wine tutor. A senior teacher noted the same. As a recently retired NHS medic, I timed the victim sobbing uncontrollably for well past 60 mins in my living room.
Several days later the victim phoned to thank me for support. He said the language during his ordeal had been horrible: “Any of us might fancy a change of breasts”. The recovered victim advised me how the enraged New Wine tutor had boasted about their plan to bar me from ever getting any ministry positions after training.
A few weeks later the same tutor called me to a meeting, accused me of sexual misconduct, and wanted to evict me from the ministry placement programme. They told me I was “living in sin” and that my “presence would defile a pulpit”. They appeared to make every effort to reduce me to tears and inflict pain.
The scale of bullying and abuse from New Wine was staggering. People with connections to New Wine shamelessly inflicted savage ill-treatment on innocent people, and when they were caught, and a dire crisis was flagged up, they just wanted to cover it all up and blame the victims for being troublemakers.
I reported the problem to Archbishop level. The Archbishop took no action and passed the matter to the diocese. The diocese seem to have passed the crisis back to New Wine. Four innocent adults felt unfairly accused of extramarital sex. Three left the local diocese. One eventually returned to Church.
My clear impression is how New Wine people, connected to savage bullying, and to attempts to keep it all covered up, received promotions to senior Church positions. There appeared to be minimal respect for victims.
Steve, I am sure you are right in what you say at the beginning of your comment.
In the C/E the laity is treated as a subspecies and the evidence of this is all around us. The suffering of the Smyth victims for all the years must rank as one of the most unchristian persecutions ever in modern day England.
Regular readers of SC know the problems I have had in six years of supporting my friend and seeking justice. Formal complaints with substantive evidence, questions and emails, all totally ignored. Exactly the same as those supporting the Smyth victims who wrote to the hierarchy and organisations in the C/E who were there ostensibly to help but didn’t.
When my friend was allowed to return to the Cathedral on Easter Sunday after two years of forced absence, I went to support him. The Dean used the occasion to shout at me. I remained calm and pointed out that he was unwarranted in what he was saying. The result was that he shouted more violently and louder (in the Cathedral too and on Easter Sunday).
Steve you are not unusual in not kowtowing to ‘top brass’. It is what we have all been doing in supporting the victims and top brass don’t like it. They feel threatened as the Dean did on that Easter Sunday.
I too, should like to acknowledge the priests who are sincere in their calling and mean such a lot to the people they serve. How much we need them. It is the power crazed ones who overshadow them that cause the harm to the C/E.
Clergy aren’t allowed to ask questions either. Not unless they’re the questions bishops and archdeacons want asked, such as, ‘Can we give the diocese more than our quota?,’ or ‘Would you like me to take on another two or three parishes?’
Thanks, Anon, an excellent reflection! Lots of Anglicans have simply had enough, and have already left. Many who stay registered are very wary of contributing much money, or much time.
Trainees have become fed up with savage bullying or harassment. The ruthless maltreatment of countless other people is shameful. The cover up of this is a satanic disgrace.
Innocent people have been stitched up, and sadistic bullies or abusers protected. Church structures present what increasingly looks to me like a sham quasi-democratic form. There is a demand for parishioners’ money often without fuller accountability.
Our UK society is profoundly shaped by Christian principles, and the Anglican Church has historically been a positive force. But the cover up of BAH (bullying abuse harassment) and maltreatment of VWW (victims-witnesses-whistleblowers) is a disgrace.
It always strikes me as really odd, the way in which Anglican parish members are rarely asked what they might wish to see happen or develop. Let’s end with something positive! Things can only improve.
It’s shocking to hear regularly the impact New Wine leadership “training” has had on you James. I’m so sorry. When I first attended the festivals two and a half decades ago, apart from the music (which was captivating) and the children’s work (very helpful for a parent) it was the Leadership work they were doing which I found particularly inspiring.
A cross-church organisation, New Wine embraces many churches which aren’t Anglican, so I never specifically conflated leadership with Anglican ordination. However on joining one of the NW leadership conferences, one of my clergy acquaintances expressed derisory surprise at what I was doing there. I logged the attitude, but it didn’t particularly put me off. At the time it was also remarkable how broken many of the delegates appeared to be, their Anglican world not living up to their hopes, I wondered? It struck me that the best place to grow as a potential leader was unlikely to be as an ordinand.
The man who lead this particular retreat, seemed to be pretty good, but subsequently was ousted from the Leadership Stream, and I never came across him again. I’m struggling to recall his name. Senior moments again.
Bill Hybels from Willow Creek, a vast American Church network, I found particularly influential, as his literature on leadership seemed to make a lot of sense. Many churches in the U.K. (Anglican or otherwise)are affiliated to his network. Unfortunately his fall from grace for abusing women and the trust of his thousands of followers, rather negates his teaching, and I’ve had to go right back to the drawing board on what I understand leadership to be. For clarity, if you’re hurting people, that’s NOT what leadership should be, obviously.
Yes, Steve, the scale of problems with New Wine people seems immense. BBC (in Northern Ireland) have just posted this 8.6.26 article: ‘Church of Ireland ‘safeguarding failings’ over pastor’s criminal record’. BBC Spotlight also have a documentary on tonight-‘Faith and Failings’-which is already accessible online via BBCNI website. I have long felt Bishop David McClay is an incompetent and immoral clerical bully, who has blasphemously disregarded biblical principles of natural justice, plus UK law and Anglican Church rules. Abuse and bullying has not been properly addressed. Innocent people have faced unfair charges, and villains have not been dealt with properly. But what comes out in the BBC Spotlight report leaves me even more shocked about McClay. Crass leadership incompetence and satanic immorality might appear to be present. The BBC allege how one victim or whistleblower was to potentially be ‘offered money’ to leave the area. That seems to be the plain message from one interviewee. McClay should consider getting his bags packed, and resigning ASAP, before he endangers any more innocent Church members.
I have had no dealings with either the Church of Ireland or New Wine. But James’s comments do raise the question as to how closely New Wine in NI works with its counterpart in England. Is there much cross-fertilisation or mutual accountability, or do they largely function separately?
BBC1 (NI) Spotlight documentary on 9.6.26-‘Faith and Failings’-is 37 mins long. DARVO-VWWT syndrome [‘deny-attack-reverse-victim&offender’/ ‘victims-witnesses-whistleblowers are troublemakers’] crosses Anglican or New Wine regional boundaries. Satanic immorality and crass incompetence have reaped predictable consequences. Has Bishop David McClay enough brains or manners to do the wise thing ,and to resign in disgrace after issuing an apology to innocent victims?
I have just watched the programme and it is horrific. It also reminds one of John Smyth where masochism, sex and violence are intermingled. The dynamics of putting the institution before victims is clearly exposed. I hope readers of SC will watch it. It is as though we are going back 20 years in safeguarding terms. Bishops need to get wise to the way that lively churches can be the places where dark things can happen. I hope the people of power in the C of I will do something to recover the situation. People with actual power in the Church need to be the people of integrity. O/W the whole thing collapses.
Here is the link: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m002x9xx
Do we now have an Irish Anglican equivalent to-‘John Smyth QC’? And is the abuser’s prominent cathedral grave marked-PRIEST SHEPHERD FRIEND-in front of our National Primate’s nose by his own Armagh Cathedral seat? A section of the grounds to avoid for photos of the summer 2026 ACC-19 global Anglican conference for senior leaders!
So did Bishop McClay and his team fix up an NDA preventing Neely being named as an abuser? And does this mean the Irish National Primate, John McDowell, is stuck with a dignified gravestone by his cathedral celebrating a notorious abuser. This does not look like ‘joined up’ thinking-unless you happen to be an occultist.
Thank you both for that. As many people as possible should see the film and get to grips with what has been happening for years and years.
It concerns me greatly that I did not know anything about abuse in the C/E until 2020 when I began supporting my friend. Perhaps now, after all the publicity, including C4 interviews people are more aware but not enough I fear.
It is indicative of general ignorance when a life long member of C/E said to me, “I feel sorry for Justin Welby. Why can’t they leave him alone?” In my friends’ church the congregation actually sent him a signed card saying they were sorry he had resigned! It is probably significant that this was from a Cathedral with an appalling track record in the Diocese of Safeguarding practices.
Perhaps this documentary and other similar ones will make people aware. The frustration is that one made about the C/E being the Post Office at prayer was never screened. The reason for this is where the questions should be asked, loud and clear.
Intended to be the reply to Stephen and Janet.
There’s more to come. The BBC plans to screen a documentary on the NOS scandal after Chris Brain’s retrial in September. He was convicted on, I think, 15 charges of sexual abuse last year, but the jury was undecided on a further 5 counts, including rape. As per usual, senior clergy knew of allegations and did nothing.
Re Justin Welby, he’s very very good at playing for the sympathy vote. And it works with some people – but not, obviously, with survivors.
How many home group leaders/hosts, catering providers, church cleaning volunteers, and that person who hires the coach for the youth group outing, have ever been exposed as perpetrators of serious abuse on any significant scale?
A very good point! And therein is a huge problem. The Safeguarding industry in churches can look sophisticated, and it can also eat up resources. But it can fix up what feels like a police state, where someone giving out ice cream twice a year to families needs certificates. The BBC Spotlight ‘Faith and Failings’ programme 9.6.26 tells an important part of all this. Where a group of senior leaders want to hide extreme abuse, then this can generally still be achieved. Even when horrors are exposed, leaders’ cowardice will prevent an honest apology to Church members, a full inventory of how much church members’ money has been abused in NDA’s or cynical cover up measures, and leaders will refuse to resign. But fixing up safeguarding certification processes for minions is fine, provided the senior leadership are kept out of any difficulty!
Well, there’s John Smyth. He was a lay reader and volunteer at (very exclusive) youth camps.
BBC (NI) 13.6.26 post is entitled: ‘I kept the abuse a secret for half a century – but now I’m ready to talk about it’.
Wonder if anything can be done at the English or national media end, to encourage the Anglican Archbishop of Armagh, and the whole Irish House of Bishops, to see the game is finally up on Rev Canon Dr W G Neely.
Why can they not settle with this latest victim, forget about more NDA use, and open a discussion on what to do with the abuser’s complimentary tombstone, which is close by the entrance of a major cathedral?
The abuse testimony referred to here allegedly included prolonged beatings. Is this Irish Anglicanism’s -‘John Smyth QC’-moment?
Any specific victim supports available or relevant?
… which is detailed in the Makin Review. But the Makin Review’s Terms of Reference set out that its scope was explicitly limited to the Church of England’s handling of allegations, and not an investigation into new abuse incidents – if any – occurring in the UK during the 1990s or 2000s.
The writer does though make an effort to highlight the regular visits in those decades to the UK, and approximately the locations where they are.
The Review was commissioned to answer: “What did the Church know, when did it know it, and what did it do?” Its mandate was to evaluate the failings in safeguarding processes and the cover-up of the historical abuse (1970s–1982) that allowed Smyth to flee and re-offend abroad.
So the Terms of Reference did not empower the Review to investigate or adjudicate on specific allegations of abuse – if any – committed by Smyth inside the UK after 1983. Consequently, while the Report documents various regular visits to the UK in the 1990s and 2000s, it does not contain findings on whether abuse occurred during these visits because it was outside its scope.
As such the idea that it is only (very exclusive) youth camps seems an unsafe assertion to be making. Is there a particular reason to think that a person capable of abuse would only abuse in one country and not another?
So maybe there is some value in this safeguarding approach after all.
Yes I would like to know how many coffee and tea ladies and gentlemen and flower arrangers are responsible for abuse!
The hierarchy of the church should subject the leaders of the church to stringent checks and listen carefully to any comments and complaints made against any leader. They could send people undercover to investigate scandals etc But of course they don’t need to do anything just plead ignorance and defend the good name of the church.
A bit of good news. A further development on the Irish abuse cover up case. BBC (Northern Ireland) has this 13.6.26 post: ‘I kept the abuse a secret for half a century – but now I’m ready to talk about it’.
Will Ireland’s Anglican Primate finally pull the plug on 50 years of abuse cover up, and issue an unreserved apology-plus compensation-to this victim?
Let’s hope so James. We will have to watch for developments.
Maybe I’m wrong – but Anon depicts a situation which I can see developing; a church body which pays lip service to the doctrine of ‘body ministry’ or ‘every member ministry’ as laid down in the NT, but which puts so many obstacles in its way that the ordinary congregation members and the Holy Spirit are effectively excluded from doing anything.
Then, as the parishes merge and the buildings become redundant, and the people and the Spirit go elsewhere, the heads of the organisation bleat ‘But why did they leave? Look how zealously we sought to safeguard them. Where did THEY go wrong?”
Incidentally, our Parish Safeguarding Officer told me this morning she’s quitting……