21/04/2026
Why Are the Trustees of St Sava Church Being Criticised – and How Did This Situation Begin?
There has been considerable discussion regarding the separation of powers between the diocesan ecclesiastical role of the recently appointed bishop, Nektarije, and the financial and administrative role of the trustees of Serbian Orthodox Church parishes in the UK. Discussion mostly focuses on St Sava’s Church as the immediate object of the bishop’s attention since it is the largest. It is therefore important to provide context and explain how the current situation developed.
When bishop Nektarije was appointed, he arrived in England aware of the existing administrative structure and financial circumstances of the Serbian Orthodox Church in the UK; organised as it was for legal and financial reasons into independent, self-governing charitable parish trusts, each with their own trustees responsible for the financial and administrative stability of their respective parish.
From the outset, the trustees of St. Sava trust sought to support the Bishop in the fulfilment of his duties. To mention just a few goodwill gestures: the refurbishment of the Church, which cost approximately £20,000, was undertaken to prepare it for his enthronement; the new furniture for his temporary accommodation, purchase of a mattress of his choosing (because he wasn’t happy with the one originally purchased) at the not so humble cost of £1,800; £8,000 spent on larger steps in the church for his convenience and at his request; various other expenses. Tens of thousands of pounds were spent by the parish on redecoration and renovation for his arrival.
We, as trustees were hopeful that a positive relationship could develop with the bishop and have not interfered in his spiritual mission from the start.
However, the bishop, unknown to us was also busy drafting his own statute and rules on other matters by which for example he proclaimed himself owner of all the parish trust properties in his diocese, to include St Sava’s. When we explained that this was neither legally possible nor desirable, it marked a turning point in our relations. Not helped by his frustration when he realised that, due to his tourist visa status and lack of a bank account, his diocese could not receive payments.
Following this, bishop Nektarije began to act against the trustees, dividing parishioners through misinformation and speaking negatively about us, while refusing to meet and discuss matters directly.
Therefore, it is both appropriate and necessary to consider WHY he is seeking to assume ownership of the entirety of the assets of every parish.
This issue constitutes the central point of Nektarije’s dispute with UK parishes. He has created a conflict of interest between the Diocese and parishes by refusing to accept what the UK parish Trust is and how it operates. The way our trust was established from the start does not permit the transfer of church property or other assets to any individual or to the Serbian Orthodox Church in Serbia. The property can only be held by the trustees, preferably no fewer than three, and it must never be alienated from the Trust.
Properties are placed in trusts to protect them and ensure they are used for a specific purpose over the long term.
In simple terms, a trust separates ownership from control:
• The property is legally owned by the trust itself, not by one individual.
• Trustees are appointed to manage it in accordance with the rules set out in the trust deed.
Reasons for using a trust include:
• Protection of assets: It prevents property from being sold, transferred, or taken over by one person.
• Continuity: The property is safeguarded beyond changes in leadership (for example, clergy, committee members, or trustees).
• Clear purpose: It ensures the property is always used for the original intended parish purpose (such as worship in this case).
• Accountability: Decisions must be made jointly by trustees, reducing the risk of misuse or personal control.
• Our parish church is self-sustaining and does not generate profit from which additional or unplanned expenditure could reasonably be supported by the parish. We therefore question why there have been accusations that we are failing to fulfil our legal duties, when at no point have we prevented the Bishop from carrying out his spiritual responsibilities.
We note with concern bishop Nektarije’s determination to move from the spiritual and diocesan realm into the financial and administrative activities of the parish trusts in a way not done by previous bishops. He appears to have permitted an ongoing series of disturbing, offensive and poisonous posts penned by close collaborators which seem deliberately designed to destroy the reputation of our charitable trust despite the fact that it has successfully ensured the financial stability of St Sava’s parish for over seven decades. For example, in one such post he allegedly ‘is trying to prevent the Parish of Saint Sava from becoming the private possession of a group of individuals.’ The bishop need not concern himself with this question because it has already been dealt with by ourselves as trustees of St Sava’s when we changed the land registry deeds for St Sava’s parish to ensure that such a thing could not happen.
The trustees have also faced allegations from some close to this bishop of causing division within the Church. Claims of schism have been made. Yet it is precisely these allegations by his assistants that threaten to create such a schism among our parishioners and in other UK parishes. For this reason, trustees are compelled to pay attention to such behaviour, online and offline, by those close to the bishop who are working in accord with his hostile sermons from the pulpit; attempting to undermine the credibility of this trust and its trustees for whatever purpose.
We wish to state clearly that there has never been any intention to obstruct the Bishop’s spiritual leadership. He is still serving in all churches in the UK freely but is to our dismay openly expressing hostility toward us in his communications with parishioners. In contrast, the trustees remain committed to supporting the Church, its mission, and the unity of the congregation.
At the heart of this matter is the question of clearly defined roles. We all know, Parish administration and Diocesan administration operate separately. They always have done. Each parish would make an annual contribution to the diocese, and this structure has long been understood and respected. It is therefore reasonable to ask why this long-established structure is being disrespected by this particular bishop? Why this attempt by Nektarije to take over parish administration and finances? And to take over property which has always legally belonged to the parish trusts, never to a diocese.
The trustees believe that the focus should remain on unity and the spiritual wellbeing of the community. We hope for a constructive path forward; one that respects established responsibilities and enables all parties to work together, everyone in their respective roles for the good of the Church.
Therefore, we ask once again directly: WHY does bishop Nektarije have a need to control parish assets when his spiritual role has never been restricted? Are his pastoral duties truly dependent on controlling parish finances?
As one of the bishop’s men said, “You can’t serve both money and God.” And we say to him: quite right!
