Church of England says its own teaching on marriage is a ‘safeguarding risk’ as it continues to blacklist chaplain for sermon
27 July 2025 Issued by: Christian ConcernNew revelations have raised serious concern over the ongoing blacklisting of the Rev. Dr Bernard Randall, for a sermon in which he said it was ok for children to debate and disagree with gender identity teaching.
Dr Randall, who is being supported by the Christian Legal Centre, was dismissed as chaplain at Trent College in Derbyshire and then referred to the UK’s counter-terrorism programme, Prevent, after delivering a sermon in a CofE chapel in a CofE school on the CofE’s teaching on marriage.
The sermon followed the invitation of discredited and controversial group Educate and Celebrate into the Christian school to promote, in their words, the need to ‘smash heteronormativity’, to even nursery aged children.
In the latest horror story surrounding Educate and Celebrate, just last week one if its patrons, Stephen Ireland, was jailed for 24 years for a series of sex offences against children, which included rape.
Despite the scandals that continue to envelop the group, the CofE and the Bishop of Derby, the Rt Revd Libby Lane, have been silent on the issue, and instead continues to blacklist Dr Randall as a safeguarding risk to children.
Following his dismissal, and with no evidence that he ever has or ever would harm a child, the Church of England denied him a licence to preach and has barred him from ministry ever since.
If he were to deliver a sermon in a CofE church, he could face legal sanction.
Dr Randall has been told by Prevent, the Teaching Regulation Agency, the Disclosure and Barring Service, and the Local Authority Designated Officer for Safeguarding (LADO) that he has no safeguarding case to answer.
At General Synod this month, the Archbishop of York, Stephen Cottrell, was asked: “In the light of the treatment of the Revd Dr Bernard Randall, can the Bishops confirm that teaching Church of England doctrine on marriage and the place of sexual intimacy is not a safeguarding risk?”
The Archbishop replied: “The House of Bishops has not considered this particular case, or the specific question asked.”
After Dr Randall pursued legal action over the blacklisting, over a year ago, the then Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, had little choice but to have Derby diocese review all its safeguarding procedures, and for the process that led to the blacklisting of Dr Randall “commenced again from scratch by persons who are independent of the Diocese.”
A legal review of Dr Randall’s complaint, by Gregory Jones KC and then President of Tribunals, Dame Sarah Asplin, had found the Church’s handling of the case to be “egregious,” “flawed,” and “highly unsatisfactory.”
Senior legal figures concluded that the Diocese of Derby had departed from statutory safeguarding guidance, and failed to provide any justification.
The Archbishop of Canterbury was told twice by the same legal officer that he was ‘plainly wrong’, had ‘misdirected himself’ and had ‘misunderstood the scope of his powers’ after he said there was no disciplinary case for the Bishop of Derby to answer over the process which led to the blacklisting.
Evidence also suggested Dr Randall had been discriminated against by members of the diocese’s safeguarding team because he allegedly held a ‘certain theology.’
CofE restarts safeguarding investigation
Yet more than a year since the review was ordered, 6 years after the sermon was given, instead of reinstating Dr Randall, the CofE has continued to drag its feet. Rather than restart the safeguarding process from scratch, they only went back one step, and continued without presenting any evidence, complainant, or allegation of abuse.
As part of the ‘new’ safeguarding process and investigation into Dr Randall, a meeting was held in June with ‘independent’ CofE safeguarding adviser, Lee Elliot, and Bishop of Repton, Rt Revd Malcolm Macnaughton, the Bishop of Derby’s deputy.
The purpose of the meeting was for the CofE to put their allegations to Dr Randall and allow him to provide a formal response. Although this meeting is a basic part of Church safeguarding processes, Dr Randall repeatedly had to request that it even happen.
Bishop Malcolm read a statement to Dr Randall where it was claimed Dr Randall remains a risk based on what he might say in future sermons. It was suggested his sermon and beliefs could cause emotional and spiritual harm.
When pressed for evidence and justification for this, Mr Elliot cited a now-overturned employment tribunal ruling that had been declared “unsafe” due to anti-Christian bias.
Following the statement read to him, Dr Randall asked what the nature of the alleged abuse is and who the victim is.
Mr Elliot said: “There is no named victim…the school has not supplied that.”
Dr Randall asked: “So how do we know there is a victim?”
Mr Elliott also referred to Dr Randall’s Christian beliefs as ‘your views.’
Dr Randall responded by saying that his sermon reflected official Church of England doctrine, not personal opinion:
“These are not my views… they are the teachings of the Church of England”, he said.
Mr Elliot said: “My understanding is that there are different parts of the Church of England that have different views and beliefs around the various sexual orientations.”
Elliot further claimed that saying “things that are controversial … could significantly lead to harm”. When challenged on how controversial views could be a safeguarding issue Mr Elliott brought the discussion to an abrupt close. Mr Elliott also went on the record as not answering questions.
The meeting concluded with an opportunity for Dr Randall to make a response. He highlighted the failure to specify anything which could amount to abuse. He also referenced the Independent School Standards guidance, which explicitly allows schools to teach their faith’s view on Christian marriage.
Concluding, he said it would be: “Extraordinary, if the Secretary of State for Education permitted the teaching of things which the Church of England is regarding as somehow harmful and evidence of a safeguarding concern.”
He added: “There just doesn’t seem to be any actual substance to any of this… there is no safeguarding allegation here… no evidence has been offered… that brings the matter to a close.”
‘Treated as a danger for believing Church’s teaching’
The toll on Dr Randall has been severe. After the meeting, in his formal statement in response to the ‘allegations’, he described the impact on his mental, physical, and spiritual health as “devastating.”
Citing prolonged isolation and loss of vocation, he also warned that the Church’s actions are repeatedly portraying its own doctrine as harmful.
Summing up his treatment, Dr Randall said: “For six years, I have been subjected to a safeguarding process that has lacked transparency, fairness, and compassion. I have been treated as guilty without accusation or evidence, and pressured to renounce my beliefs to be deemed safe.
“I have endured a prolonged safeguarding process marked by procedural irregularities, lack of due process, and coercive pressure to abandon my theological convictions. Despite no complainant, no evidence, and no allegation of misconduct, I have been treated as a risk. This has caused profound harm to my health, livelihood, and vocation. The Church’s failure to follow its own guidance has left me without recourse or protection.
“I have remained faithful to the teachings of the Church, yet I have been treated as a danger for holding to them. The safeguarding process I have endured has not been pastoral but punitive and isolating me from the very community that should offer support.
“This has been six years of silence, shame, and spiritual exile. I have been punished not for wrongdoing, but for believing. The Church’s safeguarding process has become a tool of coercion, not care. I am speaking out now because I know I am not alone, and because no one should suffer in silence for staying true to their faith.
“The present safeguarding process is repeating all the mistakes of the previous one, despite knowing about those mistakes.
“The situation is made all the more perverse by the fact that I have been referred to, and cleared by, no less than four secular safeguarding and regulatory bodies. Two of them reached their conclusions even though they relied upon the Employment Tribunal decision before it was voided on appeal. Only the Church considers further investigation necessary, yet it cannot provide any appropriate basis for what it has done or is doing. It is time for this to end.”
‘Bernard must be restored to ministry’
Andrea Williams, chief executive of the Christian Legal Centre, said: “Rev. Dr Bernard Randall has been cleared by every statutory safeguarding authority, yet the Church of England continues to treat him as a risk without presenting any evidence or allegations.
“This is a clear abuse of process and a violation of his rights under both ecclesiastical and civil law. The Church must now act to correct this injustice and restore his ministry.
“Bernard Randall is a faithful minister who has suffered deeply for simply preaching the Gospel. The Church’s continued refusal to reinstate him, despite his vindication, is a failure of pastoral care and Christian witness. We urge the Church to show compassion, humility, and justice by restoring Bernard to fellowship and ministry.
“It is heart breaking to see a man of faith and integrity suffer so profoundly for doing what he was called to do. Bernard Randall has been vindicated time and again, yet the Church continues to punish him. How much longer must he wait for justice?
“This has not been safeguarding, it is censorship. If the Church continues to refuse to reinstate him, they must be held accountable not only for the injustice, but as a serious safeguarding risk themselves to their own clergy.”
