After summarising the tumultuous events of last week in relation to the Bishop of Liverpool, in this article I set out what is currently known in relation to the CNC process that led to his nomination. Two further sections outline the allegations of sexual assault and sexual harassment made by two women and how they were handled. Each section presents a short chronology before identifying some key concerns and questions.

In relation to the CNC process, three concerns which have been raised are unfounded but three others are explored: the fact three votes were taken in order to secure the 10 votes needed for nomination and the proposal now is to reduce the threshold to 9 votes; much more seriously, that there were concerns raised in relation to his suitability in relation to safeguarding; and evidence that some members felt coerced and bullied by the Archbishop of York and Bishop of Oxford to set safeguarding concerns aside and support his nomination. These are set in the context of proposed changes to CNC processes coming to General Synod.

The handling of the two initial disclosures (January to September 2023) lead to at least five areas of concern:

  • Bishop John’s continuation in ministry during investigation
  • Whether proper processes were followed
  • Why his installation and start of public ministry was not postponed
  • The understanding of, and interaction between, Safeguarding, Vulnerability and Misconduct
  • The CDM process

Four additional areas of concern are noted in the period from September 2023:

  • Bishop John’s voluntary interview under caution
  • The decision not to grant permission for Bishop Bev’s out-of-time CDM complaint
  • Bishop Bev’s stepping back from episcopal ministry for over 500 days
  • The lack of details about a recently constituted review of processes.

Last week saw three shocking reports from Channel 4 News (Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday) relating to the Bishop of Liverpool, John Perumbalath, and to his appointment process. In the months leading up to his April 2023 installation, an allegation of sexual assault was made against him in January 2023 by a woman in his previous diocese of Chelmsford. Then, two months later, there were concerns raised about the process of handling this and a further disclosure of sexual harassment. These came from an originally anonymous woman bishop who later identified herself as the other bishop in the diocese of Liverpool, the Bishop of Warrington and, at that time, Acting Diocesan Bishop, Bev Mason. 

On Thursday 30th January, John Perumbalath announced his retirement from active ministry in the Church of England while making clear that “Since those allegations were made I have consistently maintained that I have not done anything wrong and continue to do so” and “this is not a resignation occasioned by fault or by any admission of liability”.  His resignation followed senior non-episcopal leaders in the diocese writing letters expressing concern (Tuesday) and then calling on him to step aside from all ministry in the diocese as his position was “currently untenable” (Wednesday).

Major questions have arisen about the process by which Bishop John was nominated to Liverpool and how these complaints have been handled particularly in relation to the role of the Archbishop of York as his Metropolitan. These follow earlier concerns about the handling of the case of a priest guilty of sexual offences against minors, David Tudor, by the Archbishop of York when he was Bishop of Chelmsford. Subsequent further evidence that he had twice renewed Tudor as Area Dean (2013 and 2018), made him an honorary canon (2015), and described him in 2018 as a “Rolls Royce priest” revealed the misleading nature of the Archbishop’s initially self-justifying statement in response to the case becoming public. It is also important that the Archbishop has had a long working relationship with Bishop John and was central in his appointment to all three senior posts he held before retirement (Archdeacon (2013) and Area Bishop (2018) in Chelmsford, then Bishop of Liverpool in 2022). 

What follows set outs details of the evidence relating to the Liverpool Crown Nominations Commission (CNC) process and then the allegations and the responses to them, including the treatment of the Bishop of Warrington. 

It is important to recognise that much still remains unknown and further details may satisfactorily answer questions and concerns raised in what follows or, alternatively, prompt further questions and deepen concerns.

The Liverpool CNC & John Perumbalath’s Nomination

Chronology

16th May 2022Shortlisting CNC meeting for Bishop of Liverpool
21st-22nd June 2022CNC interviews of shortlisted candidates for Liverpool by 14 members
18th October 2022John Perumbalath announced as Bishop of Liverpool
25th November 2022Elected by the College of Canons of Liverpool Cathedral
20th January 2023Confirmation of Election making him legally bishop

In the light of reports by Channel 4 News and the Telegraph it is important to clarify three areas where unfounded concerns have been raised and highlight three areas—two of them very significant—where there are genuine concerns and serious questions which are as yet unanswered.

Three unfounded concerns

  • The allegations that have now gone public were not withheld from the Liverpool CNC as they were not reported until over six months after the CNC met (see below). 
  • Bishop John did not fail to secure the necessary two-thirds support of CNC members; it simply took three votes to achieve this.
  • The fact that there were further votes after Bishop John failed to secure the necessary two-thirds majority is not unusual on CNCs because of the super-majority required (10-4). This process is therefore not (as some have suggested) like the French or Danish referendums in relation to the EU where failure to get the desired result on a vote should have been accepted but was not and then overturned in a subsequent vote. If there were not repeated votes then CNCs would much more often fail to nominate. 

First concern: Number of CNC votes

Voting in CNC occurs by successively eliminating the candidate with the least votes until only two remain. At that point a candidate requires not a simple majority (8-6) of the 14 members of CNC but a two-thirds majority (10-4) if they are to be nominated. It is reported that (presumably at that final stage) Bishop John had the support of 9 members (the Archbishop and Bishop of Oxford and 7 of the 12 other members), one short of the number needed to be nominated. 

There followed a second vote at the suggestion of the Archbishop as Chair which secured the same 9-5 result. Then a central member of the CNC supportive of Perumbalath suggested a third vote in which the necessary 10 votes were achieved. It is reported that a female member later disclosed she had “laid aside her concerns over safeguarding” and changed her vote.

It is not known how many times a CNC repeatedly votes to see if a candidate can secure two-thirds and whether proceeding to a third vote after two 9-5 votes failed to reach the threshold is unusual. Repeated votes would normally not follow immediately after each other but only after further discussion of the candidates and prayer to enable discernment. It is, therefore, important to recognise, given proposals coming to Synod, that it was the requirement of 10 votes (which it is being proposed is reduced to 9) that would have enabled the minority’s concerns to be aired repeatedly in the CNC discernment over the course of three votes rather than being set aside after securing 9 votes on the first ballot.

Second concern: Safeguarding

Prior to interview by the CNC, all short-listed candidates are interviewed one-to-one by the Head of Safeguarding who writes a report for the CNC to consider. If a candidate fails that interview they are not called to the CNC for interview. It is clear that Bishop John passed that safeguarding interview although it appears that some concerns may have been raised. A statement from the Archbishop said

Like all other candidates for this role, Bishop John Perumbalath was interviewed by the national safeguarding team who found no concerns about his operational safeguarding experience and recommended some development work for him as he took on additional strategic safeguarding responsibilities—which is commonly the case for new diocesan bishops  

It is not clear whether “commonly the case for new diocesan bishops” refers to the need for him to take on additional strategic safeguarding responsibilities or also to the recommendation for “some development work”.

During the CNC interview there is always a question relating to safeguarding asked of candidates. This, like the preceding interview, has been widely understood also to be a “pass/fail” question given the importance of safeguarding. It would appear that his answer to this question was not viewed as satisfactory by some of the CNC members. 

One CNC member, believing there was “an abuse of process”, has decided the seriousness of the matter justifies them breaking their oath of confidentiality and effectively whistle-blowing. They report that “It was suggested that the safeguarding issue identified regarding John Perumbalath was a basis to reject the candidate”. In response it was, however, claimed that the Diocesan Safeguarding Team would provide support to the bishop. Both the Archbishop of York and Bishop of Oxford (standing in for the Archbishop of Canterbury) therefore urged Perumbalath remain under consideration. The CNC member who has given a report to the media wrote:

But Stephen Cottrell urged members to keep him in the process. Steven Croft agreed…I was shocked by this attitude to safeguarding, effectively that a candidate identified as a safeguarding risk is acceptable because Stephen Cottrell says so….

It is deeply concerning that it would appear that significant safeguarding concerns had been raised in the discussion and yet still the candidate was considered, with further votes increasing pressure on the five members who were concerned in order to try to shift the vote of at least one of them, despite the safeguarding nature of their concerns. The Bishop of Newcastle has stated about the alleged “failure in the safeguarding-assessment process for Liverpool” (and before the detailed account from the whistleblower appeared) that

I was told repeatedly that failure in this area would mean automatic disqualification from being considered for a diocesan role. I am therefore personally dismayed by that aspect of the Channel 4 reporting.

Third concern: Coercion and bullying

It is alleged by one of the CNC members present that undue pressure was put on members that amounted to bullying:

I was concerned that I had witnessed bullying of two [women on the committee]. I was very concerned but did not know which way to turn. 
I believe there was bullying of the elected members.
This appeared to me as evidence of coercion by Stephen Cottrell and Steven Croft.

Although the Archbishop has rejected this allegation (as has the Bishop of Oxford), his claim that “the CNC’s ballot process ensures that no one knows how others voted, specifically to prevent coercion or undue influence” fails to acknowledge that pressure experienced as bullying or coercive could be put on Commission members collectively (e.g. stressing the serious consequences of not making a nomination to a diocese with significant challenges and so leaving it without an appointment for another year or more). It is also likely in the discussion to have been clear which members were unhappy to nominate Bishop John and so pressure could be put on them individually in conversations (as has been alleged to have happened at a now long past CNC with the memorable statement of Colin Slee, “At a critical point in voting ++Sentamu and three other members simultaneously went to the lavatory; after which the voting pattern changed”). 

In addition, this report (and the defence above about the current voting process) shows the danger in the proposal being brought by the bishops to General Synod to remove the secret ballot and even more the proposal that the Archbishop chairing CNC be given an extra, casting, vote to secure the necessary majority when it is not achieved under one member, one vote.

Any experience of coercion or bullying is a serious matter and especially so when the pressure being applied is in relation to concerns being raised about safeguarding and it seems likely, given the reports, that discussion before each of the three votes would have included airing of safeguarding concerns on the part of CNC members unwilling to vote for him.

Conclusion

There are major concerns that serious reservations were raised concerning John Perumbalath in relation to safeguarding ability at the CNC but the Archbishop of York as Chair and the Bishop of Oxford not only did not see these as rendering him unappointable but used the multiple voting, their power as a bishop and Archbishop, and perhaps private conversations with members, to change one member’s vote, setting aside her safeguarding concerns, and secure his nomination. 

This is important background for understanding the Archbishop of York’s response when the allegations against Bishop John were raised in early 2023. He was one of very few people who knew that (one hopes uniquely) the reason Perumbalath’s nomination had struggled to secure two-thirds support at the CNC was because of serious safeguarding concerns on the part of a minority of CNC members but that he had persisted, from the Chair, to push for and ultimately secure his friend’s appointment.

Disclosures and their handling (January 2023–September 2023)

Chronology

March 2019-January 2023A woman in Chelmsford diocese alleges that during this period, on 3 (or more) occasions, including in the month he was shortlisted for Liverpool, she was sexually assaulted by Bishop John.
16th January 2023Announced that the Bishop of Stepney would take up the role of lead safeguarding bishop from the Bishop of Rochester at the end of March.
20th January 2023Bishop John’s confirmation of election as Bishop of Liverpool.
24th January 2023After reporting the latest incident to her husband and vicar, the woman met with the Archdeacon who had been informed of her disclosure.
17th February 2023Concerns were referred to the National Safeguarding Team (NST) and a “core group” set up.
26th February 2023Bishop John said farewell to Chelmsford diocese.
6th March 2023Bishop John paid homage to the sovereign
15th March 2023Woman writes letter to the Archbishop of York, whom she knew personally, informing him of her disclosure.
24th March 2023Archbishop replies by email and says, “I did know that an allegation had been made against JP but, rightly, I didn’t know who had made it until I received your letter. Your letter does contain new information which is relevant to the case. I will have to share that with the NST as it will help them build a picture of what has happened and what should be done as a result to ensure that behaviours like this are properly dealt with and learned from”.The Church Times has reported that the Archbishop “recused himself from any involvement when her complaint came to light, because he knew both Dr Perumbalath and the woman herself”.
March 2023 (date unknown)Bishop Bev Mason made her own disclosure concerning Bishop John. In her letter to the diocese she stated, “In March 2023, when, as your acting diocesan bishop, I was advised of a complaint raised against the Bishop of Liverpool and a subsequent investigation by the National Safeguarding Team, I raised what I believe were significant concerns, which included my own disclosure. The focus of my concerns centred around due process”.
13th April 2023NST report on Bishop John: “The NST concluded that there was not sufficient evidence to bring a safeguarding-related complaint under the Clergy Discipline Measure (CDM) itself but offered the woman support if she wished to do so”. The NST also recommended reflective learning by Bishop John on maintaining professional boundaries and the Church of England has stated that he “fully engaged” with this “learning outcome” (on this terminology and how it might be more bluntly stated see the comments of Andrew Brown).The Church of England also funded therapy for the woman for a year.
22nd April 2023Bishop John installed as bishop in Liverpool Cathedral and begins public ministry in diocese.
10th May 2023A senior church woman in Chelmsford responding to the first woman’s concerns about Bishop John (which included the bishop’s indiscretion with information that was acknowledged as a “well known” characteristic of him) told her that “we can argue that he should have had some sanctions but they have apparently tried to address his unboundaried behaviour”.
20th July 2023Bishop Bev’s disclosure passed to NST and a further “core group” convened.At some point this group reported that it had been “assessed not to be a safeguarding matter but a matter of alleged misconduct”.
September 2023Bishop Bev withdraws from active ministry as Bishop of Warrington

There are at least the following five areas of concern from this chronology and reports relating to these events.

First Concern: Continuation in ministry?

It is unclear what action the Diocese of Chelmsford (and/or the Archbishop of York given Bishop John was by then legally Bishop of Liverpool) took in relation to Bishop John, having referred serious allegations against him of sexual assault to the NST. His farewell service continued as planned just over a week after the referral. In most other professions there would be a suspension with no implication of guilt during a time of investigation and assessment. It seems unlikely that no action would be taken against a parish priest facing such serious accusations (given the actions taken against some clergy on much less serious charges) and, in the words of Bishop Bev in her letter:

A bishop cannot be above the law. A bishop cannot be dealt differently from a priest. If anything, a bishop must be held to greater scrutiny. This is a biblical imperative.

Second Concern: Proper Process?

Bishop Bev is clear that her own disclosure was in the context of raising in March “what I believe were significant concerns…The focus of my concerns centred around due process. Throughout these past 510 days I have remained consistent and persistent in my pursuit of proper and appropriate ecclesiastical judicial process”. Originally relating to the first complaint these questions also arise about the response to her own disclosure including the apparent delay of four months before it was referred to NST and the subsequent events explored below.

Third Concern: Bishop John’s Installation

It is clear that in the month before Bishop John began his public ministry the Archbishop 

  • knew the concerns that had been raised by a number of CNC members about his safeguarding ability
  • was already aware of allegations of sexual assault against him (he was told at some point in March that a ‘core group’ had been set up) 
  • was discovering “new information…relevant to the case” (his email of 24th March)
  • had been alerted to significant process concerns and a new personal disclosure by the Acting Diocesan Bishop with safeguarding responsibilities in the diocese
  • was still awaiting the NST verdict which only came less than 10 days before the planned installation and was, inevitably, very narrow in its scope (see below) yet raised concerns, on the basis of the first disclosure, about maintaining boundaries.

This raises the obvious question as to whether consideration was seriously given and requests made to postpone the start of his public ministry until matters had been fully investigated and his innocence and safety established.

Fourth Concern: Safeguarding, Vulnerability and Misconduct

It is noteworthy that the evidence was deemed not sufficient to bring a safeguarding-related complaint under the CDM in relation to the first complaint and “assessed not to be a safeguarding matter” in the second. We know that Bishop Bev’s complaint was classed as one of “alleged misconduct” and given it has been described as “sexual harassment” and the initial complaint related to a number of alleged sexual assaults it seems clear that the Chelmsford disclosure too must have been a matter of alleged misconduct.

Under Canon C30 where a safeguarding risk assessment takes place, including of a bishop, it is as to “whether there is a significant risk” of harm to a child or vulnerable adult (Canon C30.2(3)). Here “ ‘vulnerable adult’ has the same meaning as in the Safeguarding and Clergy Discipline Measure 2016” (Canon C30.6). That meaning is

a person aged 18 or over whose ability to protect himself or herself from violence, abuse, neglect or exploitation is significantly impaired through physical or mental disability or illness, old age, emotional fragility or distress, or otherwise; and for that purpose, the reference to being impaired is to being temporarily or indefinitely impaired.

It has been suggested that neither of the women were judged to be vulnerable adults despite the power imbalance and the second complainant being expected to serve as the suffragan bishop when the man she had made a disclosure about was the incoming diocesan bishop.

It is also the case that

The aim of an Internal Church Investigation is to establish whether or not there are ongoing safeguarding concerns and whether the respondent is suitable to fulfill a Church role which carries the potential for engagement with children, young people and/or vulnerable adults. The aim is NOT to establish the guilt of the respondent.

There appears to be the real possibility that it was thought that a safeguarding assessment was the only way of addressing this issue and that if it was judged there was not a significant safeguarding risk then there was nothing more that could, or perhaps even should, be done by the Archbishop as the one who “has throughout his province at all times metropolitical jurisdiction, as superintendent of all ecclesiastical matters therein, to correct and supply the defects of other bishops, and, during the time of his metropolitical visitation, jurisdiction as Ordinary, except in places and over persons exempt by law or custom” (Canon C17.2)

Fifth Concern: Clergy Discipline Measure

Although the first woman was offered support by the NST if she wished to bring “a safeguarding-related complaint under the Clergy Discipline Measure”, the woman has now spoken of how she “was deterred from pursuing a CDM” by what she was told about the CDM process by the NST. That process will shortly be replaced but this highlights another major problem that contributed to the failings in this case.

Disclosures and their handling (September 2023–January 2025)

Chronology

September 2023Bishop Bev withdraws from active ministry as Bishop of Warrington
November 2023Chelmsford woman reports sexual assault to police
January 2024Channel 4 has reported that the Archbishop and his Chief of Staff had a pastoral meeting with Bishop John about his behaviour in which is said to have “acknowledged how his actions could be perceived”.
March 2024Bishop John voluntarily interviewed under caution by the police in relation to the alleged assaults
25th March 2024Announcement at diocesan Chrism Eucharist that “with the permission of the Archbishop of York and the Bishop of Liverpool”, Bishop Mason “remains away from the diocese of Liverpool and is not carrying out any engagements”.
5th April 2024Church Times reports the diocesan announcement noting that “Her absence is not thought to be health-related”.
April 2024 (date unknown)Archbishop of York informed of Bishop John’s interview under caution.
April 2024 (date unknown)Police decide to take no further action against Bishop John.
Unknown date Bishop Bev raises a CDM (the day following the first C4 report the page giving details of members of the Clergy Discipline Commission was updated to record that the Bishop of Liverpool ceased to be a member on 17th October 2024)
Unknown dateDeputy President of Tribunals refuses permission to bring CDM after the one year deadline.
28th January 2025First Channel 4 News report breaks news leading to letter from Senior Leadership of Liverpool Diocese
29th January 2025Second Channel 4 News report leading to further letter from Senior Leadership saying Bishop John should step aside as his position “currently untenable”
30th January 2025Announcement of retirement of Bishop John and responses from Archbishop of York and Senior Leadership Pastoral Letter from Bishop Bev Third Channel 4 News report with more details about CNC

First Concern: Interview under caution

The Essex police investigation led to the Bishop of Liverpool being voluntarily interviewed under caution by the police in March 2024. The Archbishop was made aware of this development the following month which was also when the police decided to take no further action. It would therefore appear there was some time between Bishop John being called for interview and being interviewed and the Archbishop being made aware of this, during which time the first public announcement was made about Bishop Bev’s absence.

Again there are questions as to whether this response would be acceptable and normally followed were a parish clergyperson to be in a similar situation. There is also an interesting historic episcopal parallel in the case of Bishop Michael Perham. He was similarly interviewed under caution in August 2014 also in relation to claims of sexual assault where it was ultimately concluded by the police there were no grounds for action. This situation quickly became public as a result of him stepping back from ministry, suddenly as soon as he was interviewed, only months in advance of his already announced retirement.

Second Concern: Clergy Discipline Measure

The Archbishop of York supported Bishop Bev when she applied for permission to bring a CDM after the one year deadline. There are quite narrow conditions under which this can be granted but cases exempt from the limitation period include alleged misconduct which is of a sexual nature and where the judge is of the opinion that the adult complainant was vulnerable at the time of the alleged misconduct. However

Even if the President decides that the complainant was not vulnerable at the time of the alleged sexual misconduct, the President may nonetheless grant permission for the complaint to proceed

(summarising section 9(4)). Here again questions arise as to how “vulnerable” is defined. There is also a process (Section 37A) for “suspension of bishop or archbishop pending determination of application to bring proceedings out of time” and it is unclear whether this process was attempted but failed at this stage or not undertaken by the Archbishop of York. 

Third Concern: 510 days (and counting)

In her letter to the diocese, Bishop Bev refers on a number of occasions to “these past 510 days”. Given the date of that letter, this refers back to 8th September 2023. That would therefore appear to be the date at which she stepped back from her ministry as Bishop of Warrington. This would have been seven weeks after her disclosure was finally passed to the NST and therefore presumably this stepping back happened in the light of receiving the NST assessment and how the Archbishop of York responded to it.

The Archbishop of York has stated that “Nobody asked or required the Bishop of Warrington, [and] ­certainly not me … to take some extended sabbatical leave”, and that she had said that “what she needed was space”.  

This raises one of the most shocking and distressing elements of the official handling of the case: 

  • a woman bishop makes a disclosure of sexual harassment against her incoming diocesan bishop and raises concerns about the handling of an earlier disclosure of alleged sexual assault against another woman
  • she is informed her complaint has been “assessed not to be a safeguarding matter but a matter of alleged misconduct”
  • the alleged misconduct against the senior male bishop is not now properly investigated by the Archbishop
  • Instead, she is effectively given a choice between continuing to work with the bishop whose conduct had led to her disclosure or to withdraw from exercising her episcopal ministry. 

Sadly, many clergy, and massively disproportionately women clergy, have experienced harassment, bullying and other forms of misconduct in ministry. The way in which this case appears to have been handled only increases existing deep concerns about systemic institutional failures in this area.

This raises multiple questions that urgently need to be answered including:

  • the processes that were being followed and why they were used, 
  • how this response and outcome fits with a focus on victims,
  • how this self-evidently unsustainable situation in the diocese was allowed to continue for so long, 
  • how it was going to be resolved (presumably the hope was that Bishop Bev would at some point give up pressing her concerns) and
  • how it was thought the true details of the context of her departure from ministry and the handling of the two complaints was going to be kept secret rather than becoming public and so causing a scandal as it has now done.

Fourth Concern: Reviewing what happened

According to the Bishop of Dover speaking on Channel 4, a review of the handling of these matters by a barrister was instigated recently by the Archbishop of York. It is not clear exactly when and why this happened but it is possible it was only when it became clear the story was likely to become public, a week before it did. No further details have as yet been made public as to the nature and terms of reference of this review or with whom its findings will be shared.

Conclusion

The series of events described above has led to two women victims being unable to have their complaints properly examined and dealt with by the Church of England, in part because the NST judged them not to be a matter of safeguarding. One of those has also been unable to exercise her episcopal ministry for over 500 days as a result. In addition, the male bishop against whom the complaints were made has now taken early retirement while denying all charges and complaining of trial by the media. It is clear that the whole process has been a disaster and further eroded trust in the Church of England’s structures and in the handling of matters such as this by senior leadership.

Bishop Bev has been clear that throughout she has been “consistent and persistent in my pursuit of proper and appropriate ecclesiastical judicial process” and Bishop John has written that he shares her concerns about the process and that “the process, if there was one, failed me and my colleague”.

The Archbishop of York (“I won’t quit over abuse crisis. I’ll bring change”) has admitted “I have made mistakes” and also blamed the need “to live with the constraints and inadequacies of our systems”. He is clear in his belief that “because God has put me into this position as well as the church, then I believe I have an opportunity this year”. The question is whether, given all the issues raised now in relation to the appointment of, and accusations against, the former Bishop of Liverpool and the treatment of the Bishop of Warrington (following so soon after the details of his handling of David Tudor in Chelmsford) the wider church continues to have anywhere near the level of confidence and determination that he clearly has that he must “play my part in making this change happen”.

In discerning the way forward what is now needed is genuine corporate lament and repentance, public accountability regarding what has happened, radical reforms, and renewed hope in God and, as Bishop Bev has witnessed to, the goodness of God. In her words,   

I regret we as a church have not properly and satisfactorily addressed concerns that have been raised. My prayer is that now things have been brought into the light, there will be no more defendedness but an honest scrutiny of what we are doing, how we are doing it, where the gaps sit and how we address them. Our aim as an institutional church should be to work together across disciplines and departments to ensure our church is a safe, grace-filled, Christ-centred, flourishing environment/workplace for all.
There are many questions that I have as a result of this very difficult experience. These are now being raised and I trust, will be listened to and engaged with by senior leaders from within the national church. This, I hope and pray, will be a kairos moment for the church—a time of honesty, humility, repentance, unity, hope and blessing—a time when we can tear down the idols that have disoriented us and raise up again the incarnate God, who was crucified, is glorified and who is the Lord of the Church—the Lord of all.

Revd Dr Andrew Goddard is Assistant Minister, St James the Less, Pimlico, Tutor in Christian Ethics, Westminster Theological Centre (WTC) and Tutor in Ethics at Ridley Hall, Cambridge.  He is a member of the Church of England Evangelical Council (CEEC) and was a member of the Co-Ordinating Group of LLF and the subgroup looking at Pastoral Guidance.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR