The Bishop, the Son, and the Church’s Accountability Crisis
The Church of England says it is “learning lessons” from repeated safeguarding scandals. Its senior leaders insist that processes are improving and that the voices of survivors are finally being heard. But rhetoric is no substitute for accountability - and in the case of The Rt Revd Dr Steven Croft, Bishop of Oxford, that accountability seems to stop at his own doorstep.
From Soul Survivor to Scotland: The Post-Scandal Path of Andy Croft
The Revd Andy Croft, son of the Bishop of Oxford, once stood at the very centre of one of the most serious scandals to rock modern Anglican evangelicalism.
Andy Croft was senior pastor at Soul Survivor Watford, a high-profile church and festival movement that was itself under intense scrutiny after an independent investigation concluded that its founder, Mike Pilavachi, had abused his authority and engaged in inappropriate behaviour over many years.
As the Church of England’s National Safeguarding Team investigated Pilavachi, Andy Croft was suspended by Soul Survivor trustees amid concerns over how he had handled safeguarding allegations.
A Church report later concluded that his safeguarding practice “fell short” on three separate occasions, including failing to act on allegations disclosed to him, mistakes, he himself acknowledged, may have allowed others to experience pain.
Croft was cleared to return to ministry after completing further training, but he resigned from his senior post at Soul Survivor, saying his family needed to step away and process what had happened.
Now, rather than being removed from leadership entirely, he has been appointed Associate Rector at St Paul’s and St George’s Church in Edinburgh, a significant leadership role in a prominent Scottish church.
What Has the Bishop Said and What Has He Not?
The Rt Revd Dr Steven Croft has spoken publicly about the Church of England’s broader safeguarding failings. He has said the Church must “listen to the voices of survivors” and avoid complacency.
But what he has not done, at least in any public statement available through official channels or media reporting, is address his son’s conduct, the nature of those safeguarding failings at Soul Survivor, or the propriety of Andy Croft’s continuation in leadership roles after that episode.
This silence is not merely personal; it has public consequence. In an institution already struggling with trust, the absence of clear accountability from a senior bishop whose family was directly involved in a major safeguarding investigation is striking.
Survivors Speak And They Say It’s Not Enough
Survivors of abuse within the Church of England have repeatedly criticised the institutional response to safeguarding failures as slow, opaque, and institution-protecting rather than survivor-centred. Though many individual survivors have spoken out privately and publicly, organisations supporting survivors have articulated the broader concerns repeatedly:
Survivor advocates demand independent, transparent processes that are not beholden to internal structures that have repeatedly failed to act.
They say apologies and procedural fixes are insufficient if leadership is not held accountable at every level, including in cases involving clergy families.
Voices from survivor support groups emphasise that leadership behaviour sets the tone for the whole institution: when those closest to power avoid public accountability, it signals that safeguarding might still be secondary to reputation management.
One survivor wrote, “Abuse is a misuse of power and trust and when those entrusted with safeguarding protect structures rather than people, the pain doesn’t end.”
These sentiments are echoed in multiple survivor forums and support networks across the UK, insisting that concrete accountability, not just improved training, is essential.
A Pattern of Silence and Questionable Judgment
This isn’t the first time The Rt Revd Dr Steven Croft leadership record has been questioned. Before he became Bishop of Oxford, survivors protested his elevation, accusing him of failing to act on a rape disclosure they had made to him years earlier. He himself has called that one of his “deepest regrets,” but it remains a wound for those affected that has not been fully addressed.
Now, as he approaches retirement after a decade in Oxford, the silence on his son’s case and its implications for safeguarding credibility feels like a glaring omission.
Is “Learning Lessons” Enough Without Accountability?
The Church of England’s repeated mantra that it is improving safeguarding rings hollow if those with the closest connection to failings are not willing to engage publicly with what happened, why it happened, and how similar failures will be prevented, not only institutionally but personally and pastorally.
Allowing a clergyperson whose safeguarding actions were judged insufficient, even if not legally culpable, to re-enter leadership without clear public accountability sends a message that leadership is still insulated from consequence.
Survivors say they do not just want improved training and formulations of intent. They want transparency, responsibility, and a Church willing to name and wrestle with the real human cost of its failures, even when the uncomfortable truth involves its own senior leaders and their families.
Until that happens, talk of “learning lessons” will feel like little more than institutional self-preservation.