New Wine, Loose Threads: Prayer Ministry Beyond Canon and Consent

New Wine, Loose Threads: Prayer Ministry Beyond Canon and Consent

In many New Wine Anglican churches, the openness to Spirit-led ministry creates a participatory atmosphere. Lay people are often encouraged to pray with and for one another, and this can be seen as an expression of the priesthood of all believers.

However, when individuals begin to minister regularly outside the discerned structures of licensed Lay Ministry or ordained oversight, a quiet shift can occur - one that risks forming an informal hierarchy of spiritual influence. This echoes C.S. Lewis’s warning in his famous essay “The Inner Ring”, where the existence of an unspoken circle of insiders can subtly erode integrity and accountability.

Lewis describes how an informal network can exist, and in a New Wine context, this would be where those seen as spiritually significant or especially gifted can be part of an informal network without office, and recognition within that informal “inner ring” without responsibility. In a church context, this can lead to certain individuals becoming de facto lay ministers, not through discernment or commissioning, but through social proximity or perceived charisma. The result is often a blurring of lines: between vocation and visibility, between calling and clique.

This dynamic also raises serious safeguarding concerns. When prayer ministry is offered by those outside formal structures, without clear oversight or training, the church becomes vulnerable - not only to spiritual confusion, but to emotional or pastoral harm. Without proper boundaries, consent protocols, or accountability, well-meaning ministry can become intrusive or even manipulative. Safeguarding is not just about preventing abuse; it is about creating a culture of safety, clarity, and trust for all who come seeking prayer.

Canon law in the Church of England requires that all public ministry - including prayer ministry - be exercised under the oversight of the incumbent and within authorized structures. Informal or unsupervised ministry risks breaching both ecclesial order and safeguarding responsibilities. In New Wine Anglican contexts, where lay participation in prayer ministry is often encouraged, it’s vital to remember that Canon Law is not suspended by charisma or spontaneity.

To honour both the movement of the Spirit and the dignity of the Church’s ministry, there exists a proper protocol for lay participation which ensures that all who minister do so within a framework of discernment, training, and oversight. This protects the vulnerable, affirms those called to serve, and resists the quiet pull of the inner ring. True spiritual authority is not claimed - it is entrusted. And the Church flourishes not through hidden circles, but through visible, accountable service rooted in love.

So to recap on safeguarding obligations: All ministry - especially involving vulnerable individuals - must comply with national safeguarding policies. These includes: (1) ensuring lay ministers are known, trained, and accountable (2) avoiding unsupervised or spontaneous prayer ministry by individuals not formally recognized (3) maintaining clear boundaries and consent protocols

When prayer ministry is offered by those outside these structures, even with good intentions, it can undermine the discerned authority of licensed ministers, create confusion about who is acting in a pastoral role and importantly, breach safeguarding expectations, especially if vulnerable individuals are involved.

Canon law exists not to stifle the Spirit, but to protect the dignity of ministry and the safety of the flock. It ensures that all who minister do so with clarity, accountability, and communal trust.

Background Notes:

The New Wine Practice Guide (2025) states: “We have an expectation that prayer ministry would be offered at every possible opportunity.”

New Wine’s theology supports lay involvement in prayer ministry, and many Anglican churches affiliated with the movement do include non-licensed individuals in ministry settings. However, this must always occur under proper oversight from the incumbent, with clear safeguarding, and without undermining the integrity of licensed ministry.

Safeguarding training is mandatory for licensed lay ministers, but for non-licensed individuals involved in prayer ministry, oversight must ensure they’ve completed appropriate training—even if not publicly listed. Displaying safeguarding status on church noticeboards is not required, but clear internal records and visible team identification are strongly recommended.

The Political and the Pastoral

“There are still no plans to publish a report into how the Jersey church handled an allegation of sexual abuse of a vulnerable person by a churchwarden, despite a delegation from Jersey meeting the Archbishop of Canterbury earlier this month.”

“Chief Minister Ian Gorst met the Archbishop along with Lieutenant-Governor General Sir John McColl and Bailiff William Bailhache in Canterbury at the start of the month to try to resolve the issue – Senator Gorst has previously said that he wants the Steel report to be published”

(Bailliwick Express)

My first thought on reading that story last week was incredulity that the Chief Minister – a political role – should be involved in Anglican Church politics. I know the Dean sits in the States (and is remunerated for his time in the Assembly), but I have disquiet that the Chief Minister seems to have gone on a private jaunt, not at the bequest of the States (no vote or proposition was made), and yet gone as Chief Minister, rather than in a private capacity as Mr Gorst.

Someone has to pay for that little jaunt, and I wonder who is. I have put in a request to find out, as it seems to be of interest to the taxpayer, who will probably pick up the tab.And now have the results

What the travel costs of this journey were? And how they were apportioned?:

Chief Minister Ian Gorst £251.34 (funded by the Chief Ministers Department)
Lieutenant Governor Sir John McColl £281.54 (funded by Office of the Lieutenant Governor)
Bailiff William Bailhache £281.54 (funded by the Bailiffs Chambers

So it was not funded privately by the individuals concerned in from their own purse. It does seem a rather casual attitude to departmental expenses which are, after all, for official States business, and this does not exactly seem to fit that remit.

Ian Gorst on BBC Radio Jersey was saying how the terms of reference included publishing the final version, suitably redacted, in the public domain. He suggested that all parties involved in drawing up the terms of reference had agreed to that.

However, he failed to mention that the lady at the centre of the report had not been privy to drawing up terms of reference, and did not wish to revisit a very traumatic time in her past by having it published.

That is very important, because it suggests that the Bishop of Winchester might have pastoral reasons for keeping the report under wraps, because it could damage a vulnerable adult. Even if he doesn't have those reasons, they are still good reasons for not publishing. The pastoral card should always trump the political one, at least if you read the New Testament, Jesus acts that way.

That is something also not mentioned by the Dean of Jersey when he was speaking on BBC Radio Jersey.

Church people in positions of authority – clergy, churchwardens, lay readers etc in Jersey have just finished safeguarding training, and are presently rolling out safeguarding materials to websites and church notice boards also mention this, and there and leaflets are also being put at the back of churches.

Just a few churches, the last time I checked, were somewhat dilatory about getting these notifications about safeguarding done, but many had done so, and more were due to, and almost certainly have done. Training has also been done. This is good news and should be welcomed.

Now one of the things mentioned in the safeguarding policy is the care which needs to be taken with vulnerable adults. This is quite an important section, and was carefully drafted.

And yet, despite the damage that the Steel report being made public could do to a vulnerable adult, the Dean seems determined to press ahead with the call for publication! It seems that double standards apply, or at the very least, that what putting safeguarding in practice has not been thoroughly thought through. It is not enough just to have the policy: it should be put into action, even if that means putting the Steel report aside. Church politics should not take precedence over pastoral care. Safeguarding must not just be tick-boxes.

Of course, reason for restricting publication would be legal matters or data protection issues. If the report was likely to face a legal challenge, for example, from the author of the Korris report, that might well delay publication until the legal issues could be resolved. After all, it could cause professional reputations to be damaged, and that is the sort of matter which could lead to a writ for libel – defamation of character.

And as it is a UK report commissioned by the Bishop of Winchester, it should be probably be subject to "Maxwellisation". This is a procedure in current British legal practice where individuals due to be criticised in an official report are sent details of the criticism in advance and permitted to respond prior to publication. It’s meant to stop any factual errors – or misinterpretations – getting into the public domain.

This means that in principle any interested parties should have been sent a copy of those parts concerning them for comments. And, of course, this has almost certainly not been done.

It was interesting that despite the case being pressed for the report going to the public domain, the Dean appeared to intimate, on BBC Radio Jersey, that he would at present be quite happy for the report to be just sent to a privileged number of people – the Chief Minister, the Bailiff, maybe one or two others - and of course himself.

“I’d rather like to read it”, he said, giving the impression in his tone that nothing he wanted more to do was to sit down with a mug of cocoa in an comfy armchair by the fireside one evening, and peruse it.

But the way in which reports have a very nasty habit of leaking out – a letter from the Bishop to the Dean being one example – shows that this approach is simply not safe. One senior layman - Sir Philip Baihache - (brother of the Bailiff) was criticised for reading confidential files on a plane trip in view of others on the plane, who were shocked by that lack of care. And leaks are selective: usually designed to damage. That's not good as an example of pastoral practice.

The Church in Jersey has shown in the past that it is not to be trusted with confidential information. I’m not saying the Dean would leak it, but in all likelihood be leaked by someone, probably believing they acted for the best intentions, but selectively. The road to hell may well be paved with well intentioned leaks.

And does it really matter? We are told that churchgoers are concerned, but I have yet to meet many who are. For most, the orderly routine of church services continues as before, and if the prayers now include the Bishop of Dover rather than Winchester, that is hardly a major or disruptive change.

I notice that Christenings, Weddings, Funerals, Family Services and Communion continue very much as they have done. It begs the question: is it really that important in the grand scheme of things? Isn't it time to just forget about it and move on? 

Jerseys Anglican Church: Some Problems with Safeguarding

Safeguarding

Clergy and senior lay leaders in Jersey's Anglican Church have had training in protecting islanders from abuse, the Bishop of Dover said. The Right Reverend Trevor Willmott said new safeguarding measures are in place to reassure everyone in the church. It follows a decision by the church's governing body - the Synod - that improvements must be made. Bishop Willmott said there was no question in his mind that "God's people are safe in this island".

-- BBC News

What would be useful to know, in the interests of transparency, would be the enhanced policies and procedures. I’ve had a look at the Town church website, and the only thing remotely connected is in the diary where there are “safeguarding training and lunches”.

There is no safeguarding officer to contact in the list of contacts, no safeguarding policies on the website, and no indication of these new improvements at all, no links to safeguarding elsewhere (such as Dover) - or, for that matter, what training consisted of, or what they had for lunch!

Now pretty well any club or organisation which deals with children and vulnerable adults has a policy on their website, but the Anglican Church in Jersey does not. We have no idea how complaints will be handled, whether minutes of meetings will be kept, whether it will be ensured that vulnerable adults will have someone they trust in attendance.

[As an insert, I have been informed that St Brelade's Church will be making a copy of the policy available at the back of the church on the notice board.]

It is also not clear how the church would act to implement the policies anyway. Part of the problem, both locally and in the UK, has been the way that in local communities, it is difficult to find someone outside and independent to look into these matters.

As one English survivor, called CF, said of her case:

"An abuse policy that does not have a clearly stated process of implementation is effectively worthless. A vulnerable person or an abused person by definition has no power in the Church. This means that someone with power has to make a decision to implement the policy, but to do this they have to suspend their total and complete faith in the priest or other person concerned."

There is a link to the Canons of the Church of England in Jersey on the Town Church website, and it is here that some interesting notes on safeguarding arise as the local Canons differ from the English Canon Law.

Let us look at changes to Canon Law to improve safeguarding in England:

On 16 February 2015, David Pocklingtom reported on changes taking place to Canon Law in England. This is what he noted:

At General Synod on 12 February, Mr Geoffrey Tattersall introduced the main provisions of the Draft PCCs: There was agreement that the disqualification and suspension provisions for PCC members should mirror those in relation to churchwardens. Furthermore, a bishop should also be empowered to suspend PCC secretaries and treasurers who are not PCC members.

(GS 1952A) and the draft Amending Canon No.34 (GS 1953A) – Draft Measure and draft Amending Canon for Revision. The main points identified in his speech are summarized below, and the Report by the Revision Committee is available as GS 1952-3Y.

The main provisions of the draft Measure are:

Suspension of a priest: Section 36(1) of the Clergy Discipline Measure already provides for the suspension of a priest or deacon when disciplinary proceedings are commenced or he/she is arrested on suspicion of committing a criminal offence, is convicted of certain offences, or included on a barred list.

Clause 1(1) of the draft Measure adds a power to suspend where the bishop is satisfied on information provided by the police or local authority that a priest or deacon presents a significant risk of harm – as defined in clause 1(2) – but before suspending the bishop is required to consult at the very least the diocesan safeguarding advisor. Such suspension continues for 3 months but may be renewed.

Churchwardens: The current clause 2 of the draft Measure provides for the disqualification and suspension of churchwardens. Mr Tattersall highlighted that:

Although the initial draft provided for a waiver of disqualification, the Revision Committee was persuaded that any such waiver required further clarity. Consequently clause 2(2) provides that before giving any waiver the bishop must at the very least consult the diocesan safeguarding advisor, and must give reasons for any such waiver, and that any such waiver will be of unlimited duration and have effect in every diocese;

As to suspension, the Committee agreed that a bishop should not only have power to suspend a churchwarden in the circumstances set out the present clause 2(5) of the draft Measure: i.e. if arrested on suspicion of committing a Schedule 1 offence, but also if the bishop was satisfied that the churchwarden presents a significant risk of harm.

And the draft Measure states this:

A relevant person must have due regard to guidance issued by the House of Bishops on matters relating to the safeguarding of children and vulnerable adults.

(2) Each of the following is a relevant person—
(a) a clerk in Holy Orders who is authorised to officiate in accordance with the canons of the Church of England;
(b) a diocesan, suffragan or assistant bishop;
(c) an archdeacon;
(d) a person who is licensed to exercise the office of reader or serve as a lay worker;
(e) a churchwarden;
(f) a parochial church council.

(1) In this Measure, “child” means a person aged under 18.
(2) In this Measure, “vulnerable adult” means a person aged 18 or over whose ability to protect himself or herself from violence, abuse, neglect or exploitation is significantly impaired through physical or mental disability or illness, old age, emotional fragility or distress, or otherwise.

Given that part of the reason for the split between Jersey and Winchester arose from a complaint made by a lady called HG about a churchwarden, these changes in England’s Canon Law - which mention churchwardens - need to be replicated in Jersey.

Remember what the report said about the Churchwarden (EY):

"E.Y.'s behaviour towards women had been a matter of concern at St X for some time with comments about it coming from various sources. In a telephone call to the Safeguarding Advisor J.F. in December 2008 the Dean R.K. says that E.Y. had been spoken to about the fact he is too tactile, stands too close to women, touches too much/inappropriately. His manner was deemed to be inappropriate to such an extent that he was chaperoned within the church when in close proximity to women. This was an informal but explicit policy of the parish and at interview the Dean of Jersey acknowledged that it was known to him."

What is missing, therefore, from the Bishop’s statement is:

1. Policy and procedure documents available online in the public domain, including contacts and how to report a complaint.

2. Changes to Jersey Canon Law to bring it in line with England’s new safeguarding measures.

3. Clearly the informal policy described above should not be tolerated, but it would be good to have that made explicit as well.

Without those changes, the statement by the Bishop of Dover, that "God's people are safe in this island" seems rather hollow. It leaves significant gaps which still need to be rectified if that statement is to be made good.