THE Bishop of Newcastle, Dr Helen-Ann Hartley, has termed it “disgraceful” that the General Synod didn’t agree immediately to adopt a recent, independent safeguarding structure. She has linked the difficulty to wider questions of governance within the C of E, including concerns concerning the Living in Love and Faith (LLF) process.
In a wide-ranging interview on Sunday afternoon, Dr Hartley said that she had initially been disenchanted that the Synod had not unequivocally accepted the recommendations of Professor Alexis Jay (News, 24 February).
“Having reflected on it overnight, and among the response to it, I believed, ‘No, it’s disgraceful that Synod can’t embrace this positively,’” she said on Sunday.
She had used the identical term in a social media post on Sunday morning, and in response, the Revd Lizzi Green wrote: “I’m a survivor in addition to a priest. One of the explanations I didn’t pursue anything formally whilst my abuser was alive is since the first person I told, a senior cleric, utterly ignored what I had said . . . So watching its play out in Synod is incredibly painful.”
Dr Hartley said that she hadn’t been expecting to talk in the talk, but had been “quite shocked when it became clear that, while, I feel, there may be an intention to maneuver forward, what got here across was delay and obfuscation through a desire to seek the advice of and to establish a response group.”
An amendment to which Dr Hartley spoke in support asked for a Measure to be drafted that will implement Professor Jay’s proposals. The amendment was carried narrowly within the House of Laity, but lost by a big margin within the Houses of Bishops and Clergy.
Supporting the amendment was a “no-brainer”, she said on Sunday, and expressed disappointment that only seven of her episcopal colleagues had agreed. “The Bishops will likely be seen as failing victims and survivors. And what have we got to be afraid of in following the Jay recommendations?”
Concerns expressed concerning the way through which the recommendations might affect diocesan safeguarding staff weren’t convincing, she said. “My understanding is that there’ll still be an area element,” she said. The diocesan safeguarding adviser in Newcastle had been “very positive” concerning the proposals.
“I get the anxiety around it — but let that not be about delay or having yet one more process for consultation,” Dr Hartley said. “This was an actual opportunity for the Church of England, because the Established Church, to step up and take leadership, after so a few years of failure; and we’ve just blown it. I feel that’s really distressing.”
The LLF process was “one other casualty of governance and leadership challenges”, she said, though she was not without hope on these broad problems with governance: within the racial-justice debate earlier on Sunday (News, 26 February), “we glimpsed the Church as it could actually be: speaking with power, conviction, hope, and justice.
“And yet, we seem unable to do the identical thing with safeguarding and with LLF matters; so there’s a little bit of a disconnect for me when it comes to how we engage with problems with inclusivity and justice.”
On 1 February, Dr Hartley resigned as considered one of the co-lead bishops for the LLF process, citing “serious concerns” concerning the appointment of a recent interim theological adviser to the House of Bishops (News, 1 February).
During her temporary time at the pinnacle of the LLF process, she had the “dawning realisation that, actually, the co-lead bishops I don’t think were really given the chance to co-lead in how I understand co-leading, which is: you’re a part of a process, but you make decisions, and other people provide help to implement those.
“That was not my experience, and I feel that speaks to problems with governance, leadership, and process, and the way we just haven’t got those right still within the Church.”
The strategy of the appointment of the Revd Dr Tom Woolford — who had been outspoken in his opposition to the introduction of blessings for same-sex couples — as interim theological adviser to the House of Bishops was “symptomatic of systemic issues that I alone didn’t have the facility or authority to tackle”.
“It was not a great process in my understanding of appointment practices,” she said, suggesting that it had been unduly informal and ad hoc.
At the time of Dr Hartley’s resignation, the Bishop in Europe, Dr Robert Innes, who chairs the Faith and Order Commission and was involved in Dr Woolford’s appointment, defended the professionalism of the method. The interview panel had been chaired by the secretary-general of the Archbishops’ Council, William Nye, and assurances had been sought that Dr Woolford would act with impartiality in his recent post, Dr Innes said.
“I’m perfectly joyful to live with complexity and difference,” Dr Hartley said on Sunday. “Increasing polarisation” was a challenge, and informed the necessity for the talk to be “reframed” or “reset”, but the method by which the brand new theological adviser had been appointed “derailed what we were attempting to do.
“I just completely lost faith at that time. I believed, ‘I just can’t do that. I won’t do that.’ Actually, it wasn’t ‘I can’t do it’, because I probably could have kept going. I just thought: ‘No, this needs calling out. It’s not acceptable.’”
In Sunday’s interview, she confirmed that she was in favour of “full inclusion of LGBTQIA+ people within the lifetime of the Church”, including the introduction of same-sex marriage.
“I don’t think that that’s incompatible with doctrine. I don’t think it’s incompatible with individuals who don’t share that view. I think that we’re a broad Church, and I don’t think it’s a first-order issue.
“I feel that we are able to live in that space. I’m aware that not everybody agrees with that, even in my diocese, but I don’t imagine that that signifies that I can’t still be their bishop and permit them, with their integrity, to have those views,” she said.
The LLF paper that’s as a result of be debated on Monday afternoon argues for some type of settlement to permit the method to maneuver forward (News, 9 February); but, on Sunday, Dr Hartley said that she didn’t know “what the settlement would appear to be at this point; so I can’t say whether it’s a great or a foul thing.
“I just proceed to carry out hope for the unity of the Church,” she said, echoing comments made by the Bishop of Leicester, the Rt Revd Martyn Snow, who had been co-leading the method with Dr Hartley, and is now fronting it alone, despite efforts to search out one other co-lead.
On Friday, Bishop Snow had responded to the query why a settlement was being considered, although the Synod had voted earlier against amendments calling for some type of structural accommodation for opponents of the introduction of blessings for same-sex couples.
He said: “When I used to be made a bishop, I made a promise to uphold the unity of the Church. That matters to me; that matters deeply. I’m sorry, but I don’t think this body or every other can ask me to do anything [that] asks me to endanger the unity of the Church.”
Some of the votes up to now had been tight, nevertheless, and, he said, he desired to “get to the purpose where we are able to reach a broader agreement for the best way forward”.
That said, the consequence of votes needed to be accepted. “I’ll not have voted for this stuff personally, but I’m very clear that, on taking up this role, it’s to implement the need of Synod.”
He admitted that he felt like a little bit of a “mug” for accepting the job of steering the LLF process, and that alternatives to a co-leadership model were being discussed, including the creation of a “programme board” to guide the method.
“We have to model working together across difference,” he said. “I still imagine there may be the potential for an agreement through which we are able to live together.”
The LLF debate is scheduled to start on Monday afternoon, and to proceed on Tuesday morning. There are suggestions, nevertheless, that an attempt will likely be made to maneuver to next business on Monday evening, before a vote has been taken.
The “key thing” could be what happened at the following group of sessions in July, Dr Hartley said on Sunday. “I suppose the fear is that, if we continuously keep pushing it to the following Synod, then are we ever going to achieve a degree where we draw a line and move on?”
She stays hopeful that this can occur eventually. “But it’s not clear in the mean time what, when, and the way that will likely be.”
