Despite spending over £1m on two expert reviews into their safeguarding practices, it seems the Church of England still believes that the bishops know best.
The first review sought to find why attempts to establish an Independent Safeguarding Board (ISB) went so catastrophically incorrect. Sarah Wilkinson, a senior barrister, described “a fancy matrix of reasons” behind the sacking of the ISB members, but laid the responsibility for the “structural reasons” firmly on the feet of the Archbishops’ Council.
Their failure to establish an appropriate process then contributed to the breakdown in the connection between themselves and the ISB members. Their actions showed little understanding of trauma-informed working practices and scarce regard for the wellbeing of survivors.
This weekend, Professor Alexis Jay CBE, the writer of the second review, which set out a path to a safeguarding structure that will be truly independent, explained why such structures were needed. Speaking to General Synod this weekend, she said, “Safeguarding within the Church today, falls below the standards expected in secular organisations, that are required to follow statutory guidance.”
The lead bishop for safeguarding, Rt Rev Joanne Grenfell, accepted this.
“We have failed – over a few years, a long time, centuries – to welcome and protect individuals who needed the Church,” she said.
“We have turned people away from the Gospel of the love and hope we’ve in Christ and grow to be those of whom Jesus said must have a millstone around our necks.”
And yet, lots of the speeches and each vote, showed there was a reluctance to show this handwringing into motion.
The Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, spoke of the difference between blame, responsibility and accountability – but refused to just accept responsibility for anything greater than “being in an excessive amount of of a rush”.
This angered Rev Robert Thompson, who told Synod, “Apology after apology after one other bloody apology is not going to do,” before calling on Archbishop Welby and William Nye, secretary-general of the Archbishops’ Council, to “embody” the apology and resign.
But the have to be less rushed became the excuse needed by bishops and clergy to repeatedly vote against every amendment which called for motion.
Martin Sewell, a lay member of General Synod who has been working with survivors for a few years, wrote on X, of the paradox “that so many bishops find it not possible to conceive of safeguarding improving if they provide up power and control”.
“Power and control are, after all, the first features of all abuse,” he said.
Later, he spoke to Christian Today, saying, “I invited Synod to carry the leadership formally accountable for the errors disclosed by Dr Wilkinson but Synod bottled out.”
Asked why he thought this was, he pointed back to the bishops’ desire to keep up control,
“We speak of putting victims first, yet the views of our diocesan safeguarding advisers, who would face structural reordering [if an independent system was introduced] appear to have been made paramount because their views keep bishops in the sport. There was little empathy for what the victims were making of all that was happening.”
Bishop Joanne finished her opening speech by saying, “This is urgent work. It is just not straightforward. But it deserves thorough, balanced, courageous, and open-hearted consideration, to assist us together to achieve a spot where the Church could be each protected and trusted.”
But plainly having spent a fortune on expert advice that was clear the Church couldn’t be trusted, General Synod would favor a protracted drawn-out process counting on “deep engagement” by “an internal team”.
It seems that the Church of England is decided to fiddle while Canterbury burns.
