Trust

There is a lack of it in the CofE. Why and what should we do about it?

The recent report on trust noted by General Synod paints a depressing picture of relationships within the Church of England and between the Church and the general public. Any attempt to address this will be unlikely to succeed if it starts with structural reform. We need a better and more widely supported story about who we are and where we are going.

Veronica Hope-Hailey’s account of the lack of trust evident within the Church of England is, to my mind, thorough and concerning.¹ It shows convincingly that distrustful behaviour characterises much church interaction and that this is built on the perception (at least) of the untrustworthiness of others. I do not agree with Angela Tilby that this is inevitable and must be expected (and tolerated).² For reasons set out by David Ford, the conduct and trustworthiness of actors within the church matters intrinsically as a fundamental aspect of the church’s calling under God.³ The report makes a good case that the internal lack of trust is linked to a wider perception of the untrustworthiness of the Church of England in our time. I support Hope-Hailey’s contention that organisations with high trust (internally and externally) are better at managing change and disruption and generally perform better. All in all, I find myself agreeing with Paul Avis that we face a crisis that requires an ethical renewal.⁴ At a basic level it is clear that more constructive behaviour will be required if the Church of England is to cooperate sufficiently to find convincing and sustainable solutions to the problems presented by debates on safeguarding and sexuality. Managing these rather better is in turn critical to restoring trust in the Church of England amongst the general public.

There is a great deal in the report that I recognise. The often nasty tone of social media debate. The cynicism expressed routinely about the national Church. The shameless politicking. The pressures created by urgent issues such as safeguarding, sexuality and decline in attendance. A structure, particularly at the centre, that lacks clarity or coherence, and is particularly unsuited to managing and prioritising an adequate response in a time of change. At the same time, the resentment caused by centralisation and the adoption of programmes and initiatives and priorities by the national Church that the parishes neither understand nor support nor were consulted on. The strong sense that the centre does not trust the parishes. And so forth.

Although the report (wisely I think) does nor offer a remedy but rather recommends discussion of the problem, there are some helpful observations. I agree that better management of the church need not involve either more centralisation or managerialism but also that the nature of the Church of England (both hierarchical and highly devolved) makes finding the right balance challenging.

There is little in the report I dispute but let me offer a few qualifications and observations. The first is that I think the internal problem is largely confined to relations between the parishes and the centre and between individuals and parties in debates on national issues. The report does acknowledge this but perhaps not strongly enough. At the local level everyday relations between ministers and churches are pretty positive. I am a member of a largely evangelical deanery and I regard myself as a very central sort of Anglican, but there is, in my experience, a generally harmonious and collaborative atmosphere. It is true that many clergy express cynicism about ‘the diocese’ but this has been so ever since I was ordained (now a long time ago!). In addition, relations between church and wider community are also mostly positive at local level.

I am not sure the report places sufficient emphasis on the fact that the Church of England has been divided since its creation and that there have been periods of intense distrust and, indeed, violence. Most of the worst of this was gone by the end of the seventeenth century, but the Church of England has always been an experiment in holding together sometimes strongly opposing views. This is almost bound to lead to passionate exchanges on matters of dispute and concern. Furthermore, the structure of the Church of England, incoherent and sclerotic as it is, may well have evolved with the intention (recognised or not) of preventing one party from dominating the Church.⁵ This does give me some pause and leads me to think that there are some dangers in creating a more coherent system. It might simply have the effect of making it easier to create deeper division, or, for that matter, impose the wrong ideas on the wider Church. The challenge is, perhaps, to make the Church coherent and manageable enough to do what is necessary from the centre, but not more.

I think it is also worth noting that the Church of England is not the only body with the behavioural and cultural problems identified in the report, and some of the others have much simpler governance structures. My experience is that charities (for example) quite often have similar problems (though they are not usually played out in public!). My theory about this is that in organisations that attract the ideologically committed, the individual’s sense of commitment to the cause and (often) a specific version of the cause, operates as a justification for behaviour that is destructive for the organisation. Loyalty to the cause outweighs loyalty to the organisation. This might be a justifiable position in itself, but it also quickly becomes a highly convenient excuse individuals offer themselves for what would otherwise simply be characterised as poor behaviour.

What can be done about all this? The obvious solution would be to reform the governance of the Church and strengthen the capacity to make decisions through the system, especially at national level. But, for reasons suggested in my comments above, I would not start there. It probably would not solve the problem and might make things worse. It would be better to focus first on cultural and behavioural improvement. We can all help with that by insisting on good behaviour from others and adopting it ourselves. David Ford provides a helpful account of what kind of behaviour we might seek to adopt: we should aim not merely to be polite and respectful, but committed to one another, patient, attentive and discerning. All this would be a lot easier if we first create an organisational basis for greater trust and sense of common cause. There are some specific steps I think we need to take as a priority. I confess that I have argued for the first three of these before!

Firstly, we need a narrative about the Church of England’s identity and direction that provides sufficient clarity and commands sufficient confidence. This means it must address the challenges of our time, and, at the same time, it must reassure adherents that the Church of England will continue to honour the key elements and strands of its tradition. This will include a commitment to remain a diverse church and to see our diversity as a strength (Ford is convincing on this). This narrative cannot be developed by the centre on its own but must involve participation across the Church. Not everyone will get what they want but they must be heard. This will make it possible for the outcome to be widely owned. Not doing this work was always likely (as I have said before) to cause resentment and suspicion - and it has.

Secondly, we need a new emphasis on constructive and positive conversation and less reliance on formal governance processes and social media exchanges. It’s amazing what emerges if you get the right people together in a room and manage a conversation well. I suggest a useful starting point for such conversations is to build on what we agree on rather than trying to solve what we disagree on. I have on many occasions found that people with quite different theological outlooks can find sufficient common ground to strengthen bonds and underpin active cooperation.

Thirdly, we should have a conversation about the roles of bishops, national officers, clergy, dioceses, parishes and so forth. I have to say that I am with those who feel the system needs a rebalancing of resources and power in favour of the parishes, but that will only work well if there is an understanding of what contributions to the whole will be made at every level of the Church.

Fourthly, I agree that greater accountability is required. It would help if we have a shared understanding of the proper responsibility of role players at all levels suggested above. Then we would at least know if what they are doing is what we all agreed, or not. I am also interested in the idea floated in the report that there could be associations of (for example) parish clergy and of bishops. Perhaps these could develop and adopt codes of conduct to which postholders would commit themselves. This would make expectations visible and abuses more challengeable. This approach seems preferable to me to an accountability developed and enforced hierarchically.

This all sounds rather ambitious, I imagine, but I think it could be done. As a final thought I echo David Ford’s suggestion that some personal - and perhaps corporate - self-examination and repentance is required. Are we truly loving and respecting the others in our church? Are we conducting ourselves in ways that reflect that? Do we share some responsibility for our church’s failures? We all feel strongly about truth and justice as we interpret it, but are we managing our advocacy of our views in a way that reflects the kind of community that Christ calls us to be - a sign, instrument and foretaste of the Kingdom of God? It strikes me that this is at least as great a priority as the defence of any particular stance on the issues currently dividing our Church.

1. Veronica Hope-Hailey, ‘Annex A: Trust and Trustworthiness in the Church of England: Listening and responding to usual and unusual challenges’, Trust and Trustworthiness in the Church of England, July 2026, GS 2457, gs-2457-renewing-trust-addressing-the-challenges-of-trustworthiness-in-the-church-of-england-v2.pdf

2. Angela Tilby, ‘Problem with trust is to be expected’, Church Times, 10 July 2026. https://www.churchtimes.co.uk/articles/2026/10-july/comment/columnists/angela-tilby-problem-with-trust-is-to-be-expected

3. David Ford, ‘Annex B A Theology of Trust and Trustworthiness for the Church of England’, Trust and Trustworthiness in the Church of England, July 2026, GS 2457, gs-2457-renewing-trust-addressing-the-challenges-of-trustworthiness-in-the-church-of-england-v2.pdf

4. Paul Avis, Shaping a Church of Ethical Integrity: groundwork for a church rebuilt, SCM Press, 2026. I plan to discuss the themes of this book more fully in a future blog.

5. This view was expressed to me by Malcolm Brown, the former CofE national officer for mission and public affairs.