The Church of England must take this opportunity to reform

The Church of England is in desperate need of reform
The Church of England is in desperate need of reform

The survivors of the John Smyth abuse scandal should be at the forefront of the Church’s priorities. As the Church of England (CofE) prepares for Justin Welby’s resignation, it is essential to ask what lessons can be drawn from this moment.

The delay in Welby’s resignation underscores a structural problem: the CofE’s lack of accountability at its highest levels and the glaring double standard that exists between the treatment of an Archbishop and a parish churchwarden. This imbalance has harmed the Church’s integrity and diminished its authority.

Meanwhile, Parliament’s supervisory role is reduced to little more than token oversight, as demonstrated in recent comments from Sir Keir Starmer and Ed Miliband.

These statements reflect a misunderstanding of Parliament’s responsibility and a broader trend of withdrawal, leaving ineffective scrutiny that has allowed the established church to mark its own homework. The CofE’s top-heavy hierarchy is organised in a way that largely evades accountability, with no independent mechanism to hold its leaders responsible. This insularity is a profound weakness for a Church meant to serve England’s people.

Since I began covering the Church in 2021, I have witnessed its defensive posture. Initial feedback to my reporting was an attempt to control the narrative, followed by an aggressive response from the Archbishops.

I was dismissed as a “rascally voice”, rather than treated as a critical friend with valuable insights to offer. The Church’s secretive and reputation-driven culture has only served to exacerbate its crises, causing harm in the long run. The defensive response has been counterproductive, stifling meaningful engagement and hindering the Church’s mission.

While media interest in the Church is momentarily heightened, this attention provides an opportunity to reassess the rules of engagement and move beyond Welby’s managerial legacy, which has brought a divisive and centralising approach to the Church’s governance.

We should avoid rushing to appoint a new Archbishop who would merely replicate the Welby model. If anything, recent years have shown the dangers of managerial culture in the Church: it has alienated parishioners, exhausted clergy, and sparked internal division.

Yet media speculation on potential successors reveals a troubling lack of understanding. For example, some have floated the Bishop of Leicester as a likely candidate. Though young and personable, he is currently overseeing a widely criticised reorganisation in Leicester that undermines the parish system and risks setting up a “doom loop”, according to his own implementation team.

Similarly, Graham Usher in Norwich is in the Welby mould. In contrast, only the Bishop of Chelmsford has demonstrated the courage publicly to voice concerns about the Church’s policy direction, which has driven away donors and overwhelmed clergy. Her recent statement stands out as a rare defence of parishioners and their vital role in the Church.

Ultimately, the CofE is its parishes, not its upper management. If the Church is to remain relevant, its leadership must shift focus towards serving the needs of parishioners, communities, and clergy.

Sadly, the current leadership trend favours a “governance review” centralising financial control over funds, which were originally intended to support parish priests, to finance vaguely defined projects with a “Christian ethos”. Bishops are, in essence, vying for control of the £10+ billion managed by the Church Commissioners - money donated to sustain parish life, not fund alternative initiatives.

As someone who has spent decades as a lay volunteer, running village church choirs, food banks, and Sunday Schools, my introduction to the diocesan political hierarchy has been sobering. I have witnessed bishops isolating themselves with paid diocesan officials while simultaneously pressuring volunteers for more support.

Diocesan authorities wield excessive power, largely unchecked, and clergy seem discouraged from dissenting. While I would prefer to continue my work at parish level, the Church’s upper echelons are in such disarray that they need to hear from front liners.

The lay donors and volunteers have been loud and clear: it is not the parish system but the bloated management structure that needs “pruning for growth”. Yet when this point is raised, bishops rely on the very diocesan advisers who benefit most from the current system - effectively asking turkeys to vote for Christmas.

This is tragic for an organisation whose contributions are overwhelmingly positive. The National Churches Trust’s survey, “The House of Good”, recently found that UK parish churches contribute an astounding £55 billion in social and economic value each year, with additional research indicating they save the NHS £8.4 billion annually.

The Church’s focus should be on recruiting and nurturing clergy whose calling is genuinely spiritual - those whose unique selling point is their relationship with God, not political activism or administrative roles.

These are people who embody the Great Commandments to love God and neighbour, who serve humbly, and who radiate Christ’s light in a world that desperately needs it.

Real transformation won’t happen through meetings or media attention; it begins in the quiet work of selfless service, perhaps in a parish hall or even a stable. Now, more than ever, the Church must refocus on what truly matters and rebuild itself on a foundation of genuine love, accountability, and service.