THE Church of England is facing “one in all the largest existential crises . . . because the Reformation”, within the wake of the Makin Review into abuse perpetrated by John Smyth, the Bishop of Rochester, Dr Jonathan Gibbs, said on Tuesday.
Speaking after voting in favour of a diocesan synod motion that expressed no confidence within the Archbishops’ Council’s oversight of safeguarding (News, 10 December), he suggested that the dearth of a national, pastoral response to the strength of emotion elicited by the report had been a “significant omission”.
“In many individuals’s views, and I feel I might share it, that is one in all the largest existential crises that the Church of England has faced because the Reformation,” he said. “For that reason, I feel there may be an actual need for what I might call a pastoral response, acknowledging that hurt and pain, particularly of victims and survivors, but that so many individuals are feeling.”
This was happening at a diocesan and native level, he said, but required a national response, too. “I feel we’re going through a period of collective trauma over this, above all for victims and survivors but additionally for the entire Church, and I feel it’s a shame that there hasn’t been that broader response from the Archbishops’ Council.”
Speaking from a gathering of the House of Bishops, he confirmed that there was an intention to make such a response. But he regretted that it had not come sooner: “My feeling is that was a major omission.”
He had been “torn” before the talk at diocesan synod on Saturday, uncertain of how he would vote, he said. “But I assumed it was necessary to support my sisters and brothers within the diocese, in articulating concerns, especially on behalf of victims and survivors but additionally on behalf of the entire church community, to say ‘We need a greater response’.”
The response should start with “an acknowledgement of the anger and hurt individuals are feeling, and a commitment to listening to their concerns,” he said. “It should include a call to prayer and repentance across the Church, resulting in a period of deep reflection on the sort of cultural change that is required in any respect levels with a view to creating the expansion of secure and healthy culture the primary priority in every area of the Church’s life.”
Dr Gibbs was the Church’s lead safeguarding bishop from 2020 to 2023, and has spoken of how childhood trauma partly explained his decision to tackle the post (News, 3 April 2020). During this time, he was a non-voting attendee of the Archbishops’ Council, and chaired one in all its committees, the National Safeguarding Steering Group.
During his tenure, he spoke candidly of the Church’s history of failing survivors, and of the necessity to fund redress adequately, commenting in 2020 that “whatever it costs, the cash might be found” (News, 23 October 2020). In the identical yr, he announced the creation of what became the Independent Safeguarding Board (ISB), which was intended to carry the National Safeguarding Team to account — taking up this responsibility from the Archbishops’ Council (News, 23 October 2020). The ISB was disbanded and its members sacked in 2023, shortly after Dr Gibbs’s three-year term ended (News, 23 June 2023). The Archbishops’ Council subsequently referred itself to the Charity Commission.
The Wilkinson Review into the debacle, commissioned by the Archbishops’ Council, concluded that the “extreme time pressure” under which the ISB was designed — “imposed principally by the Archbishop of Canterbury” — was a contributing think about a scarcity of clarity and effective governance hampering its functioning. In June, survivors who were awaiting reviews by the ISB — generally known as the “ISB 11” — said that little progress had been made on their cases (News, 11 June).
On Tuesday, Dr Gibbs said that his intervention on the diocesan synod on Saturday marked the primary time that he had spoken publicly on national safeguarding matters since completing his three-year term. “I didn’t need to be getting in the best way of my successor, [the Bishop of Stepney] Joanne Grenfell, who I feel is doing a unbelievable job,” he said. His vote was “in no sense . . . intended to be a criticism of the work of the National Safeguarding Team or indeed the lead bishops for safeguarding. . . I feel they’re doing all the pieces they will.”
Recent years had seen a “significant amount of change” in safeguarding, he said, from changes to training to the strengthening of the work of diocesan safeguarding teams. “The reality of the Church of England is that things do take a major period of time due to complex nature of the Church and the entire legislative process that sometimes must be followed,” he said.
But the Makin report was a “watershed moment”, he suggested, which had coincided with the “crucial discussion” on safeguarding independence, set to return to the General Synod in February (News, 12 July). This can be followed by a vote on final approval of the National Redress Scheme, which was “incredibly complex” and had taken “far longer” than he had imagined (News, 12 July).
“In terms of our response to victims and survivors, in fact there continues to be an enormous amount of anger and frustration that more hasn’t been done sooner,” he said. But 2025 can be “very significant”.
An update on implementing the recommendations of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA), which the Archbishops’ Council accepted in full (News, 1 April 2021), is ready out within the Council’s latest annual report. It speaks of “good progress”, including the roll-out of a national casework management system.
Other national safeguarding developments, set out in a paper for the General Synod in July, include altering the role of Diocesan Safeguarding Adviser to Diocesan Safeguarding Officer (with casework decision-making taken by this skilled and never by the bishop, as was previously the case) and the delivery of an independent safeguarding audit programme by the INEQE safeguarding group. Following an IICSA suggestion, the Clergy Discipline Measure is to get replaced with a latest Clergy Conduct Measure (News, 1 April 2021).
The central suggestion of the Jay Review (commissioned by the Archbishops’ Council) — the creation of two independent safeguarding bodies — stays subject to review, with safeguarding professionals amongst those articulating reservations (News, 12 July). A final plan for methods to reform safeguarding structures is as a consequence of be brought back for approval on the February meeting of the General Synod. Among the recommendations of the Wilkinson Review was that “The arrange of any latest safeguarding body must not be rushed.”
This was “a crucial lesson to be learned”, Dr Gibbs said on Tuesday. There was a danger that “we jump to what we hope is the answer, after we haven’t worked through all of the implications”. Safeguarding should be “embedded” within the lifetime of the Church of England, he said. “We cannot abdicate responsibility for that. And yet there may be a necessity also, clearly, for closer oversight and scrutiny of what we’re doing.”
Against a “fraught” backdrop, the important thing query was: “What will help make us the safest, healthiest culture that we are able to possibly be?”
