BY STEPHEN KUHRT
Following its recent high-profile scandals, there is now an overwhelming consensus about the need for safeguarding reform within the Church of England. This includes a growing recognition of the role of culture.
This, however, can be misunderstood. For some time, it was common to hear bishops solemnly declaring that the culture of safeguarding within the Church of England needed to change. Now, thankfully, there is a deeper recognition that the overall culture of the Church of England itself needs to be transformed, if its safeguarding is ever to improve.
This is the focus of my recent book Safeguarding the Institution: How the Culture of the Church of England facilitates abuse.
Terror about cultural change
The terror of many of the current bishops and archdeacons in the Church of England is because they know that this challenge particularly involves them. Much of what I wrote in Safeguarding the Institution and have written before and since its publication, targets the way that so much of the habitual practice of those in these positions has made the Church of England far less safe than it should be.
There are some outstanding exceptions, with the Bishop of Newcastle, Helen-Ann Hartley, most notable among them. I have also gained an archdeacon in recent times who is brilliant in her ability and transparency. Sadly, such appointments are not the norm.
The call for a clear-out of the current cohort of bishops that my book concludes with, is unlikely to happen. The next best thing, therefore, is ‘to hold their feet to the fire’ over the cultural changes required. The final chapter of my book is entitled: ‘Tough on Safeguarding, Tough on the Causes of Safeguarding’. It forms a detailed manifesto of the practical changes needed at parish, diocese, theological colleges/course and national levels, if any genuine change to safeguarding in the Church of England is going to happen.
Such change, however, needs to include those further down ‘the food chain’. The prevailing culture of the Church of England, with all of its disastrous impact, has not only been maintained by bishops, archdeacons and diocesan secretaries. Equally essential to this agenda, has been the role of the numerous ‘Captain Darlings’ within it.
Captain Darling
Captain Darling was a fictional character appearing in Blackadder Goes Forth, a comedy first broadcast in 1989 and set during the First World War. Its six episodes centred upon the efforts of Captain Edmund Blackadder (played by Rowan Atkinson) to escape from the trenches and the certain death awaiting him otherwise.
Much of the humour was provided by the idiocy of his colleagues, the upper-class Lieutenant George (played by Hugh Laurie) and the working-class Private Baldrick (played by Tony Robinson). Looming large over Blackadder’s predicament is the even greater insanity of his commanding officer, General Melchett (played by Stephen Fry).
A further key role, however, was that of Captain Darling, played by Tim McInnerny. Reinforced by his name, Darling has managed to avoid front line duty by obtaining a staff post with General Melchett. His position has been facilitated by feeding off the stupidity of the overall culture that has brought people like Melchett to their position. Darling’s nervous twitch, particularly in the face of regular insults from Blackadder, betrays anxiety about his potential exposure.
This becomes overt in the episode focused on the Royal Flying Corps. Challenging Blackadder’s application to join as an attempt to escape the trenches, Darling is confronted about whether he has ever tried to work ‘a cushy number’ for himself. His rattled and revealing response is to shout: ‘There’s nothing cushy about life in the Women’s Auxiliary Balloon Corps!’
‘Cushy numbers’ in the Church of England
Within the Church of England, it is not just the General Melchetts (ie the bishops and archdeacons) who uphold its cultural status quo. Just as crucial, are the Captain Darlings – the numerous clergy who have escaped ‘front line service’ and, in some cases, avoided it altogether. Within dioceses, the most obvious examples of such roles include ‘Bishop’s Chaplain’, ‘Dean of Fresh Expressions’, ‘Dean of Estates Ministry’ and ‘Canon Chancellor’.
Some of those who most fiercely defend the status quo in the Church of England occupy such positions. Or aspire to them. Within the latter group are those who see their best chance of ‘leaving the trenches’ ie parish ministry brought by taking on roles that form a stepping stone to such positions.
Such motivation often appears present in those most ready to become ‘Area Deans’ or take on more minor institutional tasks, such as being the ‘Bishop’s-surrogate’ for marriage licences or ‘helping out’ with annual church inspections. Or being prepared to conduct a ‘review’ of the ministry of another member of the clergy who has rocked the boat and needs to receive a measure of ‘gentle threat’ to bring them in line. All of these form ways of showing you’re ‘a good chap’ (or ‘chapess’) deserving of ‘preferment’.
Patronage
Knowing its importance, bishops jealously guard the patronage by which ‘Captain Darling’ positions are allocated. This is why so few of these posts are properly advertised. Much of the aim behind their existence is to foster personal loyalty to the bishop and equal investment in the institutional status quo. A ‘tap on the shoulder’ at diocesan synod and the suggestion of coming over ‘for a coffee to discuss your future’ is still the way that much of the system works.
More structural forms of encouraging investment in the institution also exist. Clergy who get ordained relatively late, for instance, can use the ten to fifteen years of their active ministry to build up a significant nest-egg for their retirement, through the renting of a property they own while they live in the provided vicarage. This and the numerous other ‘life-choices’ this facilitates, ensures further loyalty to the institution.
The impact of this institutional ‘buy in’
‘Knowing what side their bread is buttered’ is an effective means of securing the acquiescence of such clergy, with a pedestrian and ‘slowing-down’ approach to the actual ministry involved in their post often part of the deal.
I’m aware that such comments might seem cruel and unnecessary. If the impact of the culture that they point to wasn’t so devastating, I would agree with this. The terrible impact, however, is twofold. In the first place, it is devastating for ministry and mission since encouraging a culture where clergy are so invested in the institution causes them to become concerned about ‘rocking the boat’ in any situation. The courage needed for almost any ministry and mission to be truly effective is seen as too risky, with opportunities for this then constantly missed.
Catastrophic for safeguarding
But, more importantly, the same factors are truly catastrophic for the church’s safeguarding.
Again and again, safeguarding scandals emerge in the Church of England where large amounts of clergy have been aware of what has occurred and have not acted upon this information. In fact, it is difficult to think of a single example of a safeguarding scandal in the church where clerical collusion has not been present.
In the cases of Peter Ball, John Smyth, Jonathan Fletcher, Mike Pilavachi and David Tudor, numerous people knew what was going on. It is a deeply misleading shorthand to say that all of them from George Carey, Justin Welby and Stephen Cottrell down to the countless ‘Captain Darlings’ serving beneath them, were acting out of a misguided attempt ‘to protect the church’.
They were acting to safeguard their vested interest in the institution. In the case of the ‘Captain Darlings’, they were protecting the organisation that was providing their ‘nest-egg’ or ‘cushy number’. It is horrific to see what supposedly committed Christians are prepared to turn a blind eye to, if there is any danger of their possession of such benefits or progress towards receiving them, being placed in any kind of jeopardy.
Redemption for the Captain Darlings
This article is a challenge to the host of Captain Darlings in the Church of England to recognise the significant danger that their roles and positions bring to its safety. It would be bad enough if the presence of such posts only led to incompetence and dysfunctionality within the church’s ministry and mission.
But as this article and my book tries to show, it is much worse than this. The ‘Captain Darling culture’ of the Church of England is perhaps the most significant factor in its safeguarding remaining atrocious, with no genuine signs of this situation changing. Improving processes and procedures is clearly good but compared to such cultural factors, almost entirely insignificant for improving actual safeguarding.
The final episode of Blackadder Goes Forth won plaudits for the skill with which it used comedy to portray the awfulness of the Western Front during the First World War. It was particularly powerful when Captain Darling found himself posted to the front line. Part of the considerable pathos was to see the measure of redemption that Darling received in resuming proper service, even when it involved his almost certain death.
The stakes of course are much less high for the numerous ‘Captain Darlings’ currently ‘serving’ in the Church of England. The impulse of being desperate to ‘keep safe’ and ‘get through the whole show’, however, is probably very similar. But the overall culture and the countless ‘cushy numbers’ created to bring investment in it, must be swept away if ‘safeguarding the institution’ is ever going to be replaced by the establishment of genuine safety in the Church of England.
Discover more from Safeguarding the Institution
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Safeguarding the Institution 
As my wife was reading the newspaper this morning I spotted an article about a complaint against Sarah Mullally, the incoming Archbishop of Canterbury, regarding her past handling of an abuse allegation. What caught my eye was that the acting Archbishop, Stephen Cottrell will be assessing if the complaint merits a formal response or not.
I have wondered over recent months why the church’s response to the allegations against Stephen Cottrell himself have been so muted. If you remember he was Bishop of Chelmsford before he became Bishop of York. During that tenure he was responsible for the management of a priest called David Tudor. I was a bit light on the detail of it all so I listened to this File on Radio 4 investigation carried out a year ago just before Steven Cottrell was appointed acting Archbishop of Canterbury.
I am sure you are busy getting ready for Christmas as I am but if you listen to this you cannot be but moved and saddened by the story told on Radio 4 on 17. 12.2024
The abuse survivors calling on archbishop of York to resign
File on 4 Investigates
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m00260xs
If it does nothing else it will tell you that the issues Stephen Kuhrt has been profiling in his recent campaign are about a great deal more than a personal crusade.
Stephen Cottrell has apologised for not doing enough in retrospect but in his defence it has been pointed out that the legal advice he received prevented him from suspending David Tudor until a fresh complaint, albeit historical, was made in 2019. If you listen to the File on 4 programme above you will hear that there is a way of holding a special meeting even if no new evidence is forthcoming when the safeguarding risks of a priest continuing to practice are significant. As the Bishop of Newcastle points out it is a choice between acquiescing or running the personal risk of being sued for deformation, a risk which in similar circumstances she said she would have taken.
Established institutions all have legal advice channels to ensure that the institution is acting within the confines of employment law. This is to ensure that employees are treated fairly and in doing so the institution is also protected against legal claims made against it. Employment law gives employees certain rights and is generally a protective mechanism.
However when advice is received by the directors of an organisation not to take action against an employee it does not necessarily mean that wrongdoing has not taken place – it can just as easily be because there is not enough evidence to prove the case in court. In my own social work career I came across countless cases where it was known from the children’s accounts that abuse had taken place but there was not enough evidence to support a criminal prosecution.
In David Tudor’s case he did serve a 6 month prison sentence for his offences but on appeal the conviction was overturned because the judge had not correctly guided the jury. The substance of the conviction was not in dispute. The case the church has to face now is why David Tudor was allowed back into ministry. An independent report on the case is due out in2026.
Aside from all the self-preservation cultural pressures which organisations experience, the very fact of legal advice being there means that lawyers will always advise in favour of the institution – that is what they are paid for. Victims, as the case concerning David Tudor graphically illustrates, suffer as a result.
In my comment of 9.11.25 I suggested this:
The Church of England could set up and fund a helpline for anyone alleging harassment or abuse – it could be run by independent professionals who would have the discretion to refer cases on to the Police and Social Services as well as liaise with the relevant diocese and church- the fact of its independence from the structure of the Church of England would hopefully demonstrate some measure of commitment to victims compared to the in house ‘management’ which to date has simply made them feel that the church is protecting its own.
Even if the culture of the church did not protect itself in the way Stephen Kuhrt has described, its legal advisors still would. Institutions use employment law in a different way to employees – institutions want to limit their liability whilst employees want their rights fully met. That, in short, is why an independent body for victims is desperately needed.
Nathan Driscoll
LikeLike