It's about community and individuals: not church structures.

'The church must be reminded that it is not the master or the servant of the state, but rather the conscience of the state.  It must be the guide and critic of the state, and never its tool.  If the church does not recapture its prophetic zeal, it will become an irrelevant social club without moral or spiritual authority.'

Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.

I have written before that the major task of the church is to advance the teaching attributed to Jesus to love our neighbour and therefore assist individuals at point of need and press governments for systemic change to achieve social justice.  It is in this context I commend the following passages:

'It is a source of shame that food, warmth and shelter — the basics of life — are now routinely being provided by churches and voluntary organisations. That should never have become normal. It represents a profound failure of the state.

Where I think the tension sits is here: the institutional church itself has become part of the stabilising machinery of government. It is protected, sanctioned, and relied upon precisely because it absorbs social strain without fundamentally challenging the system that produces it. That protection comes with limits.

As an institution, the church is not structurally free to drive systemic change. Those within it who try to do so — who name root causes, challenge policy, or threaten stability — tend to become liabilities. They are managed, marginalised, or pushed out. Not because they lack faith or compassion, but because institutions prioritise continuity and survival. In that sense, the absence of a dynamic for real change in the churches is not accidental. It is structural.

That doesn’t diminish the gospel. It clarifies the difference between the church as an institution and the body of Christ.

Biblically, justice, care for the poor, and truth-telling are non-negotiable. But historically, those movements have rarely been led by protected institutions. They have emerged from communities of believers acting beyond institutional control — people willing to risk security, status, and approval in order to follow Jesus faithfully.

So the question may not be “why aren’t the churches driving change?” but “where is the body of Christ willing to act without institutional cover?”

Real hope lies there. In organised communities of conscience. In believers who refuse to let charity replace justice. In people prepared to hold power to account even when it costs them position or protection.

That, to me, is what it means to follow Jesus now — not waiting for institutions to move, but becoming the church in action, aligned with the poor rather than with power.'

Peter Hobbs

I commend the following passage from an article by Colin Coward.

'The problem I perceive the Church of England to have is, if you like, an absence of truly woke priests and people who transform lives and worship by being as communally creative as possible, an energy that is repeatedly engaging with and challenging the institution and bishops and leaders. It’s incredibly demanding. Until the groups campaigning for true diversity and inclusion understand that change happens when we model and live it, rather than when we persuade the institution and General Synod to vote for change, progress towards full equality for women LGBTQIA+ people and equal marriage is going to be painfully slow.'

In the Church of England meaningful, lasting change will only come from the grassroots, from within parishes, by actions of individuals embracing and acting upon progressive theological concepts.