AFTER unhappiness about changes to the membership of the Church Army Mission Community, which is able to exclude many current members, leaders of the Church Army can be holding conversations to think about how best to satisfy the “highest possible standards of safeguarding”, the interim CEO has said.
An earlier letter, setting out the proposed changes, had acknowledged that they is perhaps “distressing for some people, and maybe deeply so”. They had initially included an instruction that evangelists without an energetic commission couldn’t wear the Church Army uniform, and that those that weren’t members of the Mission Community couldn’t use the title “Sister” or “Captain”.
The Church Army became an Acknowledged Religious Community within the Church of England in 2012, after a motion to vary its 130-year structure was approved by greater than 90 per cent of members (News, 25 November 2011). The then chief executive, Mark Russell, spoke of a desire to be “an inclusive movement of evangelists, lay people, ordained, full-time, part-time, young, old — all of whom are committed to changing our nation.”
Individuals needed to make a public commitment on becoming a member of the Church Army Mission Community (CAMC), and a rule of life was established. Different pathways into the community were available: Commissioned, Covenanted, Companion, and Co-worker.
Those Church Army evangelists commissioned before the inception of the CAMC could select whether or not to hitch. Even in the event that they selected to not, they may decide to remain members of the Society of Church Army, retaining all the advantages and rights related to that membership. All evangelists commissioned after the inception of the CAMC joined as a part of their commissioning, in the event that they weren’t already members.
In 2019, the General Synod carried Amending Canon No.40, drafted in response to a request for a framework for religious life within the Church of England (News, 12 July 2019). This followed the report of the Independent Inquiry on Child Sexual Abuse on Peter Ball, which drew attention to the the anomaly surrounding the relationships between Religious Communities, including their office-holding and ordained members, and the broader structures of the Church, and called for the introduction of safeguarding guidance for religious communities.
The latest Canon provided for the House of Bishops to declare communities to be religious communities within the Church of England. Communities must now meet criteria set out in regulations made by the House of Bishops, who took responsibility for safeguarding guidance. In the next years, Church Army worked with the National Safeguarding Team to grasp the implications for the organisation as an acknowledged religious community that also deploys evangelists to publicly authorised ministry.
In a letter sent to all members of the CAMC, and all Church Army evangelists, in February, the then CEO, the Ven. Peter Rouch, and the director of community and vocations (now interim CEO), the Revd Jude Davis, said that, in the sunshine of changes made by the General Synod to the canon governing Religious Communities, the Church Army “must make some changes to maintain our registered status as a Religious Community”.
Membership of the CAMC would should be limited to certain categories of individuals, who would want to either apply for or renew their membership, and meet a variety of requirements. These are: commissioned evangelists who hold a bishop’s licence and/or permission to officiate, or who’re energetic in ministry or working in a non-Anglican ministry and may meeting safeguarding checks; Church Army evangelists in training; or Church Army employees whose role includes an occupational requirement to have an energetic faith in Jesus Christ. Commissioned evangelists have to be members of the Mission Community.
Many current members of the CAMC weren’t within the type of ministry that might allow them to belong to the CAMC in its latest form, but could turn out to be a Church Army Mission Partner.
There were some Church Army evangelists, originally admitted to put ministry by the Archbishop of Canterbury, who “cannot or won’t want to do what is required to belong to the CAMC in its latest form”, the letter said. “These people will not give you the chance to carry an energetic commission.” The National Safeguarding Team (NST) was initially “unwilling for his or her association with the Church Army to be acknowledged publicly”, the letter said. But, in response to “protest” from Church Army, the NST had agreed that those that had a Commission from the Church Army, but were not ready to exercise energetic licensed ministry, could style themselves “CA Emeritus”.
The letter concluded: “We know that this alteration could also be distressing for some people, and maybe deeply so. We regret hurting our brothers and sisters who’ve sacrificed themselves in following Christ within the Church Army. Yet we hope you’ll give you the chance to grasp the crucial safeguarding needs that make such changes mandatory.”
The letter asked people to reply by the tip of May, but a spokesman said last week that the Church Army has since retracted this deadline and arranged a series of meetings to hearken to people’s views and consider one of the simplest ways forward. A follow-up communication has advised that retired Church Army evangelists and not using a licence or PTO can proceed to wear their uniform and use their titles when attending Church Army events, and in contexts where they should not indicating to others an energetic commission.
Shortly after the letter, at the tip of February, Mr Rouch announced that he could be leaving the Church Army to take up his latest position as secretary-general of the Mission to Seafarers (News, 8 March).
Last week, the interim CEO, Ms Davis, said that the Church Army was “committed to the best possible standards of safeguarding in the way it undertakes its work and forms its common life.
“Over the summer, I and other senior leaders in my team can be hosting conversations with Church Army evangelists and other members of the Church Army Mission Community to think together about how best we’d do that. We welcome all Church Army evangelists and other members of our Mission Community to attend considered one of these events, and we’ll rigorously hearken to and reply to the questions and concerns raised.”
There were “some ways to be an element of Church Army”, she said, including becoming Mission Partners.
Among those that have raised concerns concerning the changes is Philip Johanson, who was chief secretary of the Church Army within the UK and Ireland from 1990 to 2006, before becoming the primary international secretary for Church Army International.
“The Church Army Mission Community was established to incorporate individuals who work with, financially support, and pray for Church Army evangelists as volunteers,” he said last week. “It has enabled them to feel fully included and involved. The latest direction of travel will exclude such people.”
One way forward could be to maneuver away from being an Acknowledged Religious Community of the Church of England subject to its rules, he said, and to “arrange a strategy of ensuring appropriate safeguarding to be covered by employing Safeguarding Officers in the best way that the Church Mission Society has done”.
Paul Boyd-Lee, a Church Army board member from 1999 to 2014, said: “I find it a tragedy to the Church generally that the Church Army, which in effect has for years worked as a united family with a typical purpose of upholding the love of God to a broken world, is now to be fragmented for reasons that seem like quite
unnecessary. . . A big variety of the now marginalised Community members appear to independently meet the factors that the Chairman is citing to exclude them, akin to being licensed to officiate, having satisfied DBS checks and having safeguarding certificates.”
While dialogue had been offered, the Church Army “doesn’t currently appear to be negotiating the difficulty in an encouraging way,” he said last week.
