The Church of England is currently rolling out updated anti-bullying guidance built upon the foundation of intersectionality; by this the guidance means that we are all marginalised or privileged by the intersection of multiple aspects of our personal characteristics and identities such as class, religion, ethnicity.
Flourishing for All was first published in September 2024, and amended in April 2025. The basic theological premise which the guidance is based on is three-fold: (1) we are all created in God’s image; (2) we should love our neighbours as we love ourselves; and (3) that this means we should love every child, regardless of their protected characteristics.
The guidance, as it is currently formulated, has three parts, Parts A-C. 
Part A
Part A lays out the theological and philosophical framework for the other parts of the guidance. It defines human flourishing as allowing every child to fully explore and experience whatever their protected characteristic entails. This means promoting that a same-sex attracted pupil should live out the fullness of their sexual orientation or promoting that a gender questioning pupil should live out the fullness of being transgendered.
The problem is that the Church of England fully divorces human flourishing from its Christian meaning, which is living out God’s purpose for our lives. It does not mean encouraging children to embrace every life choice that comes into their heart, particularly those which are contrary to Church doctrine or the children’s best interests. Nor does it mean teaching other children how to encourage them in this vein.
The Church of England has fully disregarded their moral duty to raise children in accordance with Church doctrine and church teaching; instead opting to become the personal cheerleaders for whatever life choices their pupils decide to embark on.
Part B
Part B of the guidance deals with homophobic and transphobic (HBT) bullying. The guidance states that addressing HBT bullying proactively and effectively must take precedence over debates around human sexuality and gender that can be found within the Church of England and beyond. This is nothing more than justification for closing the theological debate and giving cover for their intersectional approach to education. This approach requires the mainstreaming of these themes through religious education, collective worship, staff training, pastoral care and the curriculum.
The position is audaciously arrogant. It suggests that it’s good and fine for Christians to have biblical views about gender ideology and homosexuality, but they shouldn’t bring those views beyond the school gates. Behind those school gates, it is the Church of England’s way or the highway; and the Church of England’s way is LGBT affirming and unashamedly so.
The guidance suggests that parents need to be mindful that Church of England schools are protecting gender questioning and same-sex attracted children, and that the strong views of parents are misplaced when they may affect a child’s school life. This is a red herring. I doubt that any parent takes issue with children being protected from bullying. What they oppose is the lack of transparency many church schools have when they begin socially transitioning pupils or when they make LGBT advocacy and education a dominant part of the school environment.
The previous guidance was so bad that it was used in court against Christian teachers
The guidance appears to suggest that the shockingly high level of self-harm and suicide among children who identify as gay or transgender is due solely to a lack of love and understanding from their peers. They appear to completely rule out that other factors, like childhood trauma, sexual abuse, comorbidities with mental disorders, peer pressure to fit in, social media, or lifestyle choices may be the main culprits. They go nowhere near the question of whether something inherent in life choices may be a triggering factor; which for a major Christian denomination is simply gross misconduct.
Part C
Part C deals with race-based bullying. As if the Church of England sought to out-politically correct itself, Part C somehow manages to be even more progressive than Part B. Part C is replete with things like critical race theory, minority stress theory, talk of microaggressions and righting historical wrongs.
The guidance’s intersectional approach argues that white British national children are privileged, while all other children (including white Eastern and Central European children) are victims within a hierarchy of victimhood topped by those with the most minority characteristics. Far from supporting human flourishing, raising children to believe themselves to be victims or oppressors has the opposite effect. Telling pupils and parents that being “colour blind” is part of the problem is ignoring the fact that we are all the progeny of Adam and Eve, one family created in God’s image as the bible teaches.
Perhaps most counter-productively, educating lower-middle class or impoverished white British children to feel shame over their skin colour or to tell them they are privileged likely risks multiplying any racial anger those children may feel. Attacking the problem by propagating shame and apportioning blame for aspects of a child’s life that were never in their control as the root cause of racism is foolhardy.
Woke Factory
The guidance does not shy away from discussing its intended purpose: to eliminate bullying through a full fledged educational and environmental framework aimed at turning their pupils into advocates for LGBT and anti-racism causes. Staff should be trained in DEI. Chaplains are to be taught to be welcoming and accommodating of children’s desires to follow whatever lifestyle choice they choose. Pupils are to be taught inclusive language and how to be social justice warriors for racial and LGBT causes.
History of Parental Rights Abuses
As grim as the guidance is, the Church of England’s identity politics approach to education is nothing new. The Christian Legal Centre has been at the forefront of supporting those affected by the Church of England’s aggressively progressive policies. In 2017, Nigel and Sally Rowe, in the Isle of Wight, began the school year to find out their children’s primary school would be socially transitioning to young boys and treating them as females. When the Rowes queried the school, it wrote back after receiving advice from the Portsmouth Diocese, that any parent or child who couldn’t view biologically male children as female were transphobic and that the school would do their best to eradicate such prejudices from their pupils.
In 2019, a similar scenario played out in another Church of England Primary School, where information was being withheld from parents about the planned social transitioning of a child and accompanying transgender affirming education. The school brought in controversial campaigning group Mermaids to train teachers, and gave a presentation replete with misinformation about legal requirements surrounding gender questioning pupils. The result was that two school governors, Rev. John Parker and another, resigned their positions in protest at the school’s dogmatic approach.
Also in 2019, Rev. Dr. Bernard Randall who was dismissed from his role as school chaplain by his employer Trent College in Derbyshire and reported to the government’s terrorist watchdog, Prevent, for a balanced and instructive sermon he gave at the school on identity politics, at the request of the pupils. In January 2024, Dr Randall, supported by the Christian Legal Centre, was cleared by the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) after malicious referrals by his former employer. He was also cleared by Prevent and the Teaching Regulation Authority (TRA).
In 2022, Christian parents Calvin and Nicola Watts were shocked to discover that their 8-year-old daughter was being taught radical transgender ideology, including being taught that a 3-year-old can be non-binary. Despite expressing their opposition to LGBT teaching being given to their daughter, transgender affirming ideology was introduced to the pupils at St Michael’s Church of England Primary School in Kent without prior consent or forewarning. The Watts’ subsequently removed their daughter from the school.
In 2023, Glawdys Leger was dismissed from her employment as a teacher at the Bishop Justice Church of England School in Bromley, Kent for expressing her Christian beliefs to her students about transgenderism and homosexual behaviour during a religious education lesson. The school also reported her to the Teaching Regulation Agency. Glawdys had become increasingly concerned about the level of promotion of LGBT alliance, gender ideology and DEI at the school. When the curriculum dictated that she weave these themes into religious education and into the classroom environment, she raised her concerns with colleagues and took steps to minimise the impact of controversial material on her pupils, like refusing to show an LGBT themed video during class which she viewed as objectionable. Her challenge of the TRA’s findings is now before the Court of Appeal.
The previous guidance, Valuing All God’s Children, which focused primarily on HBT bullying, was so bad that it was used in court proceedings and by the TRA multiple times against Christian teachers who sought to justify actions they took on the basis of freedom of religion.
Amazingly, Flourishing for All could actually be worse than its predecessor. The only policy shifts the new guidance has taken towards a more conservative or Christian approach was out of legal necessity; that being the changing of law or practice because of updated government guidance or caselaw. It took a Supreme Court decision on safe spaces and the definition of sex as based on biological markers for the Church of England to stop referring to pupils as transgender, instead opting for the moniker of LGB/GQ (lesbian, gay, bisexual/gender questioning). This is evident if one views the draft guidance before it was amended last month following the landmark judgment. The fact that secular government (the courts and the Department for Education) are the ones pushing the Church’s guidance towards a more Biblically accurate pastoral approach is damning. Even then, the Church of England still appears to be doing all it can to minimize the impact of the change in laws on how it applies its policies. In one notable instance, the guidance seemingly disapplies the government’s draft guidance on gender questioning children to pupils who have already begun to social transition.
Conclusion
The Church of England educates more than 1 million pupils across the UK. It has been my lived experience at the Christian Legal Centre, that most of the parents who contact our organisation had no idea that their children were being educated in a manner wholly inconsistent with their own views, beliefs or desires for how they wanted their children educated. For all those parents concerned about their children’s education, this guidance is must read. If it is the stated intention of the Church of England to protect pupils from bullying with this approach, the bigger question is who will protect these pupils from the Church of England and the political and moral indoctrination this guidance entails.
