DBFs; St Andrew’s, Chorleywood; Soul Survivor
From the Chief Executive of the Charity Commission for England and Wales
Madam, — Andrew Brown appears to doubt (Viewpoint, 30 January) that some bishops consider that their diocesan boards of finance are ultimately responsible for ensuring the proper handling of safeguarding concerns of which diocesan officers or trustees are made aware.
That misunderstanding is precisely the concern that the Charity Commission raised in its recent regulatory decisions regarding the dioceses of Chelmsford and Liverpool, where trustees were seemingly not aware of their duties and were not appraised to any extent about allegations made against an influential member of the clergy with a leadership role in their region.
Whether an investigation is labelled by the Church as conduct or safeguarding is rather beside the point: diocesan trustees — just like PCC members — have a duty to take reasonable steps to keep safe from harm all who come into contact with their charity.
The Commission’s guidance is clear on the need for appropriate policies and procedures to ensure that allegations of harm (even against bishops) are properly considered by relevant trustee bodies.
The incoming Archbishop of Canterbury wants to ensure that the Church is “a kind and safe place that cares for everyone”. From the Commission’s perspective — and we dare say that of most parishioners — that commitment to safety and care extends not just to minors or the vulnerable, but to all.
If it takes those whom Mr Brown terms “outsiders” to point this out, as disappointing as that is, so be it. The Charity Commission will not hesitate to work within its remit to hold trustees of church charities to account for failures in governance around safeguarding.
DAVID HOLDSWORTH
Chief Executive
Charity Commission for England and Wales
Liverpool PO Box 211
Bootle L20 7YX
From Mr Gavin Drake
Madam, — Andrew Brown’s column “When everything is ‘safeguarding’ no one is safe” rests on a narrowing of safeguarding which does not reflect how it is understood in charity law or by the Charity Commission. The suggestion that allegations involving adults are “surely a matter for HR rather than safeguarding” also overlooks a structural reality of the Church of England.
HR processes do not operate in the normal way for clergy and bishops. As the Archbishop of York himself has stated in relation to the David Tudor case, bishops may lack the power to remove a priest even where serious safeguarding concerns are known. In those circumstances, HR routes are not an alternative to safeguarding; in practice, they may be unavailable.
Framing safeguarding as something that should retreat once adults are involved risks leaving people unprotected where ordinary employment remedies do not apply. Safeguarding exists to protect people from harm, not to make governance easier or more comfortable for institutions. Abuse is abuse, regardless of the age or vulnerability of the victim.
GAVIN DRAKE
11 Church Street
Kirkby-in-Ashfield
Nottingham NG17 8LA
From Professor Adrian Thatcher
Madam, — I notice that the terms of reference of the listening exercise to be conducted at St Andrew’s, Chorleywood, “will not include ‘evangelical theology and practice, except where directly relevant to patterns of harm or unhealthy leadership behaviour’” (News, 30 January).
A similar omission was made when the Makin review was set up. This “Independent Learning Lessons Review”, Keith Makin wrote, “does not attempt to comment on matters of theology. . . [It] does not offer a whole critique of the bodies and organisations involved, or their theology. . .” (Makin report, 4.5).
So, a listening exercise is set up so that it will not hear the blunt truth that much Evangelical theology and practice leads directly to patterns of harm. The same deliberate mistake was made by the terms of reference of Makin, so that a key lesson to be learned — that much Evangelical theology and practice is abusive — would remain concealed from the outset.
Abusive theology is rife in our Church (see Dr Selina Stone, Analysis, 12 September 2025), from top to bottom. It is why Living in Love and Faith has failed so badly. Independent reviews and listening exercises are set up to ensure that the elephant in the room is not named, recognised, or understood.
ADRIAN THATCHER
29 Oak Tree Park
Plymouth PL6 7JZ
From Miss Vasantha Gnanadoss
Madam, — Canon Gareth Jones (Letter, 30 January) expresses very clearly the reservations that others will share about major strategic funding for a project that will give Soul Survivor a prominent part to play.
In response to a Church Times report (News, 23 January), the Bishops of Bedford and Hertford wrote to clergy and lay ministers in St Albans diocese, saying that Soul Survivor Watford would not receive any funding from the Church of England’s Strategic Mission and Ministry Investment Board (SMMIB) award. Soul Survivor has, however, been “invited to offer volunteer and resourcing support to Christ Church Watford as part of its revitalisation journey. Any such support would only happen at the invitation of the parish and under diocesan oversight, and it would not involve any controlling or governance role for Soul Survivor Watford.”
Similarly, Carl Hughes, chair of the SMMIB, said: “The strategic mission and ministry board is investing £2.3m across a number of projects in the Diocese of St Albans which are focused on developing church leaders, work with children, youth and young adults, and revitalising churches in some of the diocese’s largest towns. This includes a project supported by Soul Survivor Watford. Soul Survivor Watford will not receive any funding from this award.”
An important point made by Canon Jones is that this investment comes too soon after the dark side of Soul Survivor became known. There has been insufficient time for any lessons learned to be implemented. As if to emphasise this point, only this week you report the “call for information” and the “listening exercise” announced at St Andrew’s, Chorleywood, where Soul Survivor was founded in 1993. This is a new opportunity for survivors to submit information and needs time to be effective.
Giving Soul Survivor such a prominent platform so soon is an affront to the survivors. It is an affront also to the parishioners and clergy working hard in the neglected areas in St Albans. The Bishops’ letter fails to clarify the situation, and seems to have a subtext that others do not understand the finer points. This is a further insult to the survivors, clergy and readers in St Albans. It is an insult to the clergy to assume that they can benefit from the advice of a scandal-ridden organisation.
In response to the review by Fiona Scolding KC, the former Bishop of St Albans Dr Alan Smith stated: “As a diocese we are committed to exploring what went wrong and taking meaningful action to minimise the risk of a similar situation happening again.” The present Bishops claim to have learned lessons from the Scolding review. Now they have an opportunity to learn from the survivors of Mike Pilavachi. Funding should be delayed to allow time for the necessary listening and learning.
VASANTHA GNANADOSS
242 Links Road
London SW17 9ER
Project Spire figures
From Mr Jonathan Baird
Madam, — The letter from Bishop Sarah Mullally, now the Archbishop of Canterbury, referred to in your story “Mulllally backs Project Spire” (News, 23 January) said: “I am sure you are aware we are making major investments in local churches and parish clergy — with a record £1.6 billion being allocated over the next three years.”
As the erstwhile chair of the Triennium Funding Working Group, the Archbishop should know that the £1.6 billion included total funding from the Church Commissioners for the current three-year period (2026-28, including £146 million on bishops, £48 million on cathedrals, £40 million on net zero, and £39 million on Project Spire).
The actual net amount that will reach parishes is closer to £150 million-180 million. Indeed, the net figure that reached parishes in 2024 was £45 million (according to the aggregated diocesan accounts for 2024).
In making so misleading a statement, the Archbishop should have known better.
JONATHAN BAIRD
General Synod representative for the diocese of Salisbury
Flint Cottage, Conock
Wiltshire SN10 3QQ
Ephesian Fund: £10m drop in a £671m ocean?
From Dr Gill Frigerio
Madam, — It is important that your readers understand the scale of the Ephesian Fund (News, 30 January). Your story says that almost £10 million was given through the fund last year. This sounds alarming, but contextualising it as a proportion of overall parish-share giving to dioceses (£319 million) and of total diocesan income (around £671 million) might better reflect the extent of the “disquiet” across the whole Church about the Prayers of Love and Faith.
The tactics behind the fund need calling out. The painstaking work of the Living in Love and Faith process since the take-note debate of 2017 means that several motions have been carried in the General Synod to allow clergy who wish to bless same-sex relationships to do so, and have paved the way for clergy to enter into same-sex marriages. Throughout this, care has been taken to protect the conscience of those who feel unable to do so.
Yet the Church of England Evangelical Council is unable to accept these decisions of our governance and to respect the conscience of inclusive Anglicans, hence the Council’s relentless campaign of bullying and resistance.
Taken together, both these facts are indicative that the vast majority of Church of England people are getting on with loving and serving God in their communities, support greater inclusion for LGBTQIA+ people, and are faithfully paying parish share directly, while waiting to enact the decisions of the Synod.
Let’s call this what it is: a small number of wealthy parishes trying to push the rest of us around. How “biblical” is that?
GILL FRIGERIO
General Synod representative for the diocese of Coventry
Address supplied
Welsh getting closure
From Simon Joseph Jones
Madam, — Your feature on church and chapel closures in Wales (30 January) took me back to my youth, when I sat on many pews like the ones in your splendid photographs. It was said that there were two types of people in Aberdare: those who navigated by means of pubs, and those who used chapels. There was one of each not far from most street corners. Indeed, I am reliably informed that, were one to count the available chapel seats in my home town, the number would exceed by some distance the actual population at any given time.
So, I am not sorry to lose the hubris of those ministers who believed that only their own denomination offered the way to true salvation, and thus built over-large premises to accommodate the inevitable procession of souls. People of my valley have always been able to point at a chapel they don’t go to.
These days, I worship with the Religious Society of Friends, no strangers to the complications of old buildings. The Herald of Wales once confidently announced that Quakers would never find any traction in Wales because, as theirs was an “essentially non-emotional” faith, it was “unsuitable to the Welsh mind and taste”. What the closures show is that we don’t much like arrogance, either.
SIMON JOSEPH JONES
(Editor of The Friend)
21 Ashburton Triangle
London N5 1GB
Psychology and division
From Georgia Boon
Madam, — I read with interest the Revd Dr John Prysor-Jones’s article (Comment, 30 January). His reminder to “live in the faith of God’s love, not the certainty of our own position” feels timely. Much discussion of church conflict focuses on the intractability of division. Sadly, when personal needs are unacknowledged and unmet, division can harden very quickly into something far more corrosive than disagreement alone.
There is, however, another side to these troubled waters, one that we all have the capacity to reach. Place for Hope, a charity, exists to equip faith communities to navigate confict well. Its volunteer practitioners, all of whom are trained mediators, remind us that conflict, held well, can become a doorway, not a wall.
GEORGIA BOON
Director, Place for Hope
Address supplied (Stroud, Gloucestershire)
