In regard to Martin Sewell and David Lammy’s Open Letter to General Synod
Dear Martin and David,
Regarding your recent Open Letter to members of General Synod.
It was my privilege to work with you in seeking amendments to the General Synod motion in February regarding Safeguarding. While our own amendments were not allowed I believe the final motion laid a foundation for General Synod and the structures of the church to pursue stronger safeguarding policies as well as, vitally, true justice for survivors of clergy abuse. That seems a world away, and it must be our hope and firm intent that the inevitable challenges to our church as a result of the Covid19 pandemic and its impact will not result in anything other than a speedy response to the unanimous will of synod. I look forward to continuing to work with you on that.
I do however find that I must separate myself from the argument you employ in your recent open letter in regard to the referral of the case of the Dean of Christ Church Oxford to the church’s National Safeguarding Team (NST). ( C of E is ‘being used’ in campaign against Dean of Christ Church)
In disagreeing with you I must be very clear on several things:
Based on what I have read I have been personally supportive of Martyn Percy’s case and deeply regret the way the college have pursued him. My point is that now a case has been put to the NST I do not believe it appropriate to interfere. I will argue more on that below.
Can I add that now that that the Charity Commissioners have referred the case to mediation I would, as a mediator myself, suggest it is in the best interest of all involved to cease the clamour from the sidelines. For mediation to be successful it is essential that emotions from observers are lessened so as to allow the case itself to be examined without extraneous factors.
In disagreeing with your argument I cannot be clear enough – I am totally committed to see thorough review of the way safeguarding is managed by the church, and for the work of the NST to be as accountable as is feasible in such difficult issues to General Synod as the governance of the church.
It is clear from the cases of Jonathan Fletcher and John Smythe, Iwerne, and Titus Trust, there needs to be tightening up of the grey zones where exercise of the church’s authority is in question. This grey zone allows the potential for case by case decisions that are open to error or wrong influence. Royal Perculiars and non-royal perculiars such as Christ Church Oxford are one such grey area. So too proprietary chapels such as Emmanuel Wimbledon. So too organisations like Iwerne and Titus Trust that trade off their relationship with the Church of England yet escape its disciplines. And so too the informal and often ecumenical religious communities that fall outside the rules we have recently placed on religious communities including neo-monastic communities.
You may recall I did in fact fortuitously ask a question on this area in February. The Lead Safeguarding Bishop at the time answered Qn 66:
We are only able to extend the Church’s safeguarding provisions to officers who fall within the formal structures of the Church of England. Under section 5 of the Safeguarding and Clergy Discipline Measure 2016 all authorised clergy, bishops, archdeacons, licensed readers and lay workers, churchwardens and PCCs must have 'due regard'to safeguarding guidance issued by the House of Bishops. …. The National Safeguarding Team does investigate allegations of a safeguarding matter or refer them to the relevant Diocesan Safeguarding Advisor for investigation, where groups may be affiliated to the Church of England
I believe it is vital that we continue to seek to remove such grey zones. As I concluded in my question it is vital that often ‘admirable projects sitting in ”safeguarding no man’s land” are suitably safeguarded.’
Finally, in separating myself from your case it is not to in any way to withdraw any of the support I have previously offered to the survivors of abuse who have been arguing Martyn Percy’s case. I particularly note Gilo’s support for Percy. It remains my total commitment, as I wrote above to ensure survivors, including Gilo, receive full justice.
Each of these points are important matters in their own right, which is why I have sought to highlight them. However, I fear you are making a mistake in arguing for what I believe to be “special pleading” for a case has been referred to the NST. I believe it to be essential that as members of synod we seek to ensure all cases that go to NST are investigated, just as we ensure the rules of operation of NST are fully adhered to -- even if it is our considered view they need revising. I am clear as argued above, that the NST must be more accountable to the governance of the church. However for now we must abide by the rules we have.
A part of the accountability of the NST to synod means there should be no place for special pleading. Special pleading relies on powers of rhetoric, extraordinary giftedness and charisma. It relies on important people pulling strings. The case of Peter Ball demonstrates how these were exercised in plenty. As the church of God we must allow no such exceptions to law and justice.
The letter in the Church Time this last Friday (26th June 2020) by the Bishop of Huddersfield, lead Bishop for Safeguarding, states that despite Martyn Percy’s position in an institution outside the regulation of the NST, as a church officer within the definition of the House of Bishops practice guidance he is subject to it. I cannot see how any senior clergy in the church of England should legitimately fall outside the regulations of safeguarding. Again, the answer to my question (66) in February underlines that:
Under section 5 of the Safeguarding and Clergy Discipline Measure 2016 all authorised clergy, bishops, archdeacons, licensed readers and lay workers, churchwardens and PCCs must have 'due regard'to safeguarding guidance issued by the House of Bishops.
You argue yourself that “abuse of our processes by well-connected persons raises an important matter of principle.” No one should be able to circumvent our rules and processes. If they are not clear enough, or we feel they are wrong, let’s seek to clear that up by action in General Synod, rather than allow special pleading, however much we feel an individual deserves it.
The final point on which I would separate from your position is in your open letter is not about Martyn Percy but over our relation as General Synod to the NST. We may not be happy at the way the NST has been operating, We may seek to change that. As I have sought to be clear throughout this, I am with you in that. However as members of synod I believe it is wrong that we target members of the NST, including its director, with whom we have disagreement. The incorporation of an image of the director of NST, Melissa Caslake, on the article covering your letter on the Archbishop Cranmer blog is on that basis I would suggest out of order. It quite wrongly personalises the argument. Can I suggest most strongly for that image to be removed please? I believe the changes we seek from the NST are best accomplished by a good relationship with NST and its officers through the lead Bishop on Safeguarding who answers to synod. I believe we left synod in February with such a renewed relationship, and we should be seeking to develop that, especially in this challenging season.
I conclude with assuring you of my hopes and prayers for an early resolution of this matter, of ensuring all we hoped for in the February GS motion to become reality, and for a fruitful future collaboration with you both as well as the whole of General in this and other business.
Best wishes,
Peter Adams
(General Synod member for St Albans Diocese 392)