The Church of England’s General Synod recently encountered a pivotal moment as it deliberated on the future of safeguarding practices within the church. Convened in Westminster, just a stone’s throw from the Houses of Parliament, the governing body faced a significant proposal: the outsourcing of abuse response from dioceses and cathedrals to an independent safeguarding organization.
This proposal garnered support from abuse survivors and several bishops, who emphasized the urgency of implementing new systems to rebuild trust amid a barrage of abuse revelations that have rocked the church. One London priest articulated the sentiment, stating, “We need to send a very clear signal to Parliament and the public that we are serious about change.”
However, the Synod ultimately voted to postpone the proposal, calling for further examination of the legal and practical implications of transferring operations outside the church. This decision left many survivors feeling disheartened. Jane Chevous, cofounder of the advocacy group Survivors Voices, expressed her disappointment online, stating, “Survivors are devastated. We feel betrayed by the church, who again have not listened to us. Trust is not restored but further broken.”
The urgency of reform is underscored by a recent report detailing abuse perpetrated by John Smyth, an evangelical lay preacher, which has led to increased scrutiny on the church’s handling of abuse cases. The report’s revelations have contributed to a climate of outrage among members of Parliament and concern among church leaders, who warn that the church is at risk of losing public confidence.
High-profile cases have compounded these concerns, including a BBC investigation into Blackburn Cathedral, where a clergy member was quietly removed after being deemed a risk to children. The church’s response to such allegations has been criticized, with many calling for a more transparent and accountable approach to safeguarding.
The Church of England has made strides in recent years to bolster its safeguarding measures, including the establishment of a National Safeguarding Team and mandatory training for clergy and laypeople. Nonetheless, the current practice remains inconsistent across the 85 separate charities that comprise the church’s dioceses and cathedrals.
The proposal to establish an independent safeguarding body was initially supported by a review led by Professor Alexis Jay, whose findings highlighted the need for a more cohesive and effective response to safeguarding issues. Critics of the Synod’s decision to delay the proposal argue that the existing structures foster confusion and mistrust, urging church leaders to seek expertise beyond their walls.
As discussions continue, concerns linger about the church’s ability to rebuild trust with survivors and the public. The decision to postpone the proposal has raised questions about the church’s commitment to safeguarding and whether it can effectively address the systemic issues that have led to its current crisis.
With the Church of England preparing for the appointment of a new Archbishop of Canterbury, safeguarding remains at the forefront of church deliberations. Many within the church community are hopeful for meaningful change, yet wary of the potential for further allegations of abuse to emerge. As one evangelical member of the Synod aptly put it, those who have failed to uphold safeguarding protocols are “utterly unsuitable for senior appointments within our church.”
For more information on safeguarding practices within the Church of England, visit the Church of England’s official safeguarding page. As the church grapples with these pressing challenges, the hope remains that it will emerge stronger and more accountable in its mission to protect the vulnerable and restore faith within its community.