The results are now official: I have been re-elected to General Synod to represent the clergy of the Diocese of London. Thank you to everyone who voted for me, whether as a first preference or further down the ballot. I am grateful for your trust, and will do my best to honour it. Congratulations, too, to my fellow representatives. I also want to be honest. My first-preference vote was considerably lower than last time. I cannot know all the reasons, but I suspect my tendency to say plainly what I think has something to do with it. Diplomacy is not always my strongest suit. Some people will feel that I am too critical of bishops, or that my criticism becomes too personal. I need to take that seriously. But bishops are individuals exercising considerable institutional power, within structures where meaningful accountability is too often weak. Their decisions have consequences for real people. We must be able to scrutinise those decisions, name failures and ask who takes responsibility. Criticism should be fair and specific. Episcopal office cannot confer immunity from it. There is considerable continuity in this result: eight of the twelve were also elected for London in 2021. But I am deeply disappointed that the new clergy delegation appears to have no Black or other minority-ethnic members. In a diocese like London, that is a serious failure of representation, whatever combination of circumstances has produced it. I serve in a neighbourhood where white residents are a minority, and with a majority-Black congregation whose life is deeply shaped by West African and Caribbean communities. These are people I love, learn from and am privileged to serve. Their faith, theological understanding and experience of racism belong at the heart of the Church’s deliberations. I will work vigorously to ensure that what I hear and learn in our parish informs what I say and do in Synod. But my advocacy cannot substitute for Black people being there themselves, speaking, shaping decisions and exercising power. We need to ask what must change. I am also particularly sad that Amatu Christian-Iwuagwu has. It been returned even if we differ theologically on much. His voice was eloquent, searching and he has achieved much. On LGBTQIA+ inclusion, London’s result still looks like something of a stalemate. Yet the question remains: why can those of us who want to affirm and celebrate queer lives not be given the freedom to do so? Why must our ministry remain constrained by convictions we do not share? We are repeatedly asked to honour diversity within the Church. That must include space for congregations and clergy who believe that the love of same-sex couples can reveal the grace and faithfulness of God. What is it about queer people that makes our relationships, our vocations and our place in the Church the point at which diversity becomes intolerable? These debates concern people sitting in our pews, serving at our altars, raising families and wondering whether the Church will ever receive their lives with joy. I also want to thank those who stood with Together for the Church of England and were not elected especially Francesco Aresco, Brandon Fletcher-James, Ann Lynes and Martine Oborne. Thank you for offering your time, energy and convictions in the service of a more inclusive Church. I also extend my thanks to the unsuccessful Save the Parish candidates for their commitment to sustaining parish ministry. These are causes whose work continues well beyond an election, and I look forward to continuing that work together. I return to Synod grateful for the opportunity to serve, conscious of my own limitations, and determined to keep bringing the realities of parish life into the room. There is much to love in this Church. There is also much that must change.

The appointment of Heather Baucher as Appeal Authority for the @churchofengland Redress Scheme has prompted my friend @seaofcomplicity to ask questions the Church must answer. He raises concerns about her previous work in insurance litigation, her endorsement of an Evangelical Alliance publication, and how spiritual abuse will be understood in the appeals process. These are matters for transparent explanation, not assumptions about how she will judge. His call for a meeting with survivor representatives deserves a serious response. But his challenge goes beyond one appointment. He describes survivors feeling unheard and increasingly disillusioned with a scheme intended to offer recognition and repair. Survivor involvement must mean more than a seat at a table where others retain all the power. “Independent” is a claim to be tested. Who sets the rules? How are conflicts of interest addressed? How can survivors challenge decisions? Who answers when the process itself causes harm? The Church has no right to demand trust. It must earn it through transparency, accountability and repair. Survivors should not have to exhaust themselves extracting what we have already promised. We proclaim a crucified Christ. We cannot make those we have wounded carry the cross of our institutional self-protection. Read Gilo’s article in @GuardintheFlock guardingtheflock.com/post/re…