The last few weeks cont......
Three quick points
This Is Not the Way to Handle Safeguarding
I suspected there might be more to come, and now it has. Allegations have surfaced that the Archbishop of York mishandled a safeguarding case involving one of his clergy. For some, this situation has desended into a witch hunt. Partial facts have led to accusations of wrongdoing, while others, including members of the College of Bishops, have asserted that nothing more could have been done, and thus he can remain in his role. The outcome seems to hinge on public pressure—if it subsides, he stays; if it escalates, he goes.
This approach to safeguarding is unacceptable. Why not revert to medieval methods—trial by water: if he sinks, he’s innocent; if he floats, he’s guilty?
If the matter isn’t criminal and poses no immediate risk to children or vulnerable individuals, it should be addressed through a robust safeguarding process. Allegations should be examined by someone with the authority and expertise to investigate, all parties must be properly heard, and the process should be completed within a reasonable timeframe—ideally three weeks, with an additional week for appeals, if necessary. Longer timelines may sometimes be justified, but efficiency should remain a priority.
A good process should lead to one of the following outcomes:
The allegation is recorded but not upheld.
The matter was mishandled, necessitating retraining or an organisational learning exercise.
A deliberate attempt to cover up wrongdoing is found, warranting censure or resignation.
The tendency to interfere with due process—offering commentary based on partial facts, denying accusers and accused the chance to be fully heard, and failing to provide clear decisions— is what undermines trust in the Church of England's systems. These flaws are glaringly visible here and are the root of media criticism and perceptions that the Church handles safeguarding poorly.
This erodes confidence among survivors, those who see something they regard as suspicious might be made cautious of reporting it, the accused may not be given a chance to properly defend themselves, fostering the belief that they won’t be treated fairly. Consequently, the system breaks down. If the Church wants to change its safeguarding culture, it must commit to doing safeguarding well—through reliable processes.
Should the Archbishop resign? That’s a question only a completed process can answer.
Could He Have Done More?
This case highlights a classic HR dilemma familiar to organisational leaders. It mirrors the situation in Blackburn last August and isn’t as simple as following legal advice. Should a senior leader dismiss a disruptive or problematic individual outright for the organisation's good? Or is it better to manage the situation and allow it to resolve itself over time to minimise damage?
Legal advice is crucial but often focuses narrowly on the individual—evaluating the risks, benefits, and potential fallout of specific actions. However, it doesn’t always account for the broader organisational implications. Only senior leaders, like the CEO or a bishop, can make these "big picture" decisions.
It is complicated by Freehold which is a form of tenure of office which is intended to last for ever or at least till the age of 70. It is to all intents a purpose a property freehold into the vicarage or rectory and to the church building shred with the Bishop. So it is much more complex than a simply contract of employment.
In this case, two key questions arise:
Does safeguarding trump freehold?
Has safeguarding law evolved enough to justify removing someone from a freehold? The advice appears to have been that it hasn’t. Any attempt to do so might result in costly compensation claims and the eventual restoration of the freehold. If similar cases exist, could this have been an opportunity to test legal boundaries in court—especially if the situation was as "horrible and intolerable" as described?To challenge or not to challenge?
Would it have been better to fight and lose than not to fight at all? Courageous leadership sometimes demands taking a stand, even at the risk of failure. A court ruling could have provided clarity beyond Church processes, demonstrating that the organisation pursued justice to the fullest extent possible.
Whether these considerations were weighed should form part of any review.
Is This Really Though About Rooting Out a Dysfunctional Church Culture?
Is the underlying issue the centralisation and personalisation of power within the Church of England and how it has now become highly dysfunctional. Over the past decade, the Archbishops of Canterbury and York have accumulated levels of decision-making power that rival those of corporate CEOs.
While the Church of England has always involved a degree of patronage and relational power, the centralisation of finances—moving wealth from dioceses to bodies like the Church Commissioners and the Pension Board—has compounded this. Add to this the frequent use of the rhetorical device, "there is no alternative," which silences dissent, and we see how this concentration of power has come about.
Lord Acton, he of "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely," fame, also said, “There is no worse heresy than that the office sanctifies the holder of it.” That concentration of power can numb leaders to other voices and foster the belief that they alone know best. This is personal power, but it is not about the personalities of the Archbishops, but rather the structural dynamics of the Church and the way its culture now works. The danger of appointing a new archbishop into this dysfunctional structure is that it simply replicates the dysfunction.
In the Church of England—an organisation historically marked by dispersed, relational power—such centralisation is particularly harmful. Powerful individuals operating with limited accountability inevitably create dysfunction. Many working within the Church of England feel undervalued and disillusioned, as they often tell me.
Top-down cultures disempower people, erode trust, complicate communication, and limit opportunities for growth. Ironically, these are the very issues the centralised structures were intended to address. Perhaps this situation reflects a broader rejection of the current culture and its dynamics. There is certainly a growing desire to return to a more relational model of leadership, rooted in mutuality and accountability. Maybe this is a coup?