OVERWHELMING support for a motion of “no confidence” within the Archbishops’ Council’s oversight of safeguarding — tabled at Rochester diocesan synod — had the backing of the Bishop, Dr Jonathan Gibbs, the diocese reported on Saturday.
In a presidential address delivered before the vote, Dr Gibbs, who was lead safeguarding bishop for the Church of England from 2020 to 2023, revealed that he had urged the Archbishop of Canterbury to resign last month. “In terms of the national lifetime of our Church, it does indeed feel like we’re sheep with out a shepherd, since the national leadership of our Church is failing to guide us into such a time of repentance, which is the one path that may bring us to a spot of healing and renewal.”
The motion, brought by the Vicar of St Margaret’s, Rainham, the Revd Nathan Ward, called for the Archbishops’ Council “to take the obligatory reforms to revive trust, safeguard the vulnerable, and uphold the Church’s moral and legal responsibilities”.
A complete of 51 members voted in favour. Five — including Conservative Evangelical members — voted against and nine abstained.
In his introductory speech, Mr Ward described the Makin review into abuses perpetrated by John Smyth (News, 7 November) as “only the most recent in a series of reports that reveal profound failings in safeguarding across the Church”. He referred to “problems with governance, accountability, and the prioritisation of institutional repute over the needs of the vulnerable”.
The motion didn’t call for resignations, he said, “nor does it prescribe specific solutions — those should not our roles as a Synod.” It called for motion by the Archbishops’ Council, “the first executive body tasked with leading and overseeing safeguarding”, with “a specific responsibility to set the instance and address these failings”.
Dr Gibbs said that the Makin Review and earlier reports had “revealed each personal and systemic failure within the lifetime of the Church at every level. Evil has been covered up, the plight of victims and survivors has been played down or ignored, and this has felt like a betrayal not only of the victims of abuse but additionally of those countless people, clergy and laity alike, who’ve been working so hard at diocesan and parish level to enhance the standard of safeguarding within the lifetime of our Church.”
He revealed that he had written to the Archbishop of Canterbury last month to call for his resignation, and that he was “sure there have been other bishops who did the identical, because I spoke with a few of them”. He had decided to make this public now, he said, within the wake of the Archbishop’s “deeply ill-judged speech within the House of Lords” (News, 6 December).
Dr Gibbs understood, he said, the “frustration” that motivated the synod motion. “So far, all we’ve got had from the [Archbishops’] Council is the outline of what seems like a bureaucratic process to think about the evidence presented within the Makin Review in regards to the alleged failures of certain individuals (News, 5 December).
“Now in fact any such process must be each fair and thorough, but my concern is that that is missing the purpose, namely that we as a Church have failed in this significant area of our life and there needs now to be a time of profound reflection resulting in deep repentance and a fundamental change of heart and mind in our collective life. . .
“Whether or not the processes which have been arrange result in disciplinary motion of some kind, there’s here a deeper query of ethical responsibility, not just for our actions but for the broader consequences of our collective failure, most of all in relation to the terrible and life-long impact of abuse on victims and survivors.”
On Tuesday, Dr Gibbs told the Church Times that he was aware that the motion, and his vote, had “caused some anxiety and distress” amongst his “highly-respected colleagues” within the National Safeguarding Team and the Archbishops’ Council.
He regretted this, he said, and wanted to emphasize his “support and confidence in what they’re doing. In no sense was this 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 the whole lot they will.”
His concern was that “we haven’t really, at a national level, addressed the anxiety and anger that folks within the pews, victims and survivors above all, and clergy, are all feeling.”
On Tuesday, a spokesperson for the Archbishops’ Council said that it was “engaging directly with Rochester diocese to grasp higher their concerns and to clarify more fully how the Archbishops’ Council and the National Safeguarding Steering Group are actively responding to the necessary recommendations of the Makin review”. This included “ongoing support for victims and survivors of abuse, who should always remain our priority”.
In a letter to the Secretary General of the Archbishops’ Council, William Nye, sent after his motion was passed, Mr Ward said that the vote reflected “a collective lack of confidence within the structures accountable for accountability and reform”. The aim was “to not forged blame but to plead for meaningful change across the Church”.
Mr Ward offered some reflections “in a private capability”, he wrote. “I don’t imagine that resignations are the reply. While comprehensible in some circumstances, they will often undermine mechanisms of accountability, which is precisely what the Church needs to enhance.”
Setting out three “next steps”, he suggested that the General Synod commit, at its February meeting, to creating safeguarding operationally independent inside six months and to establishing fully independent safeguarding inside three years.
Second, the Archbishops Council should, he said, set out its responses to the recommendations made in a series of safeguarding reviews. Third, support for survivors must entail “a proactive approach to communication, pastoral support, and implementing trauma-informed practices”.
ON TUESDAY, Mr Ward, who has only recently been elected to the diocesan synod, told the Church Times that his motion was not born out of frustration but “pure logic of reading reports and asking ‘what next?’ . . . The reports have been around, a few of them for a few years now; so that they have had loads of time.”
He spoke of discerning a pattern within the Archbishops’ Council’s response to safeguarding failures, of commissioning reports, then commissioning further work to come to a decision what to do in regards to the recommendations. “That is the bit that has just eroded confidence,” he said.
Before ordination, Mr Ward worked as a manager for G4S, the private outsourcing company that ran the Brook House detention centre and contributed to a BBC Panorama undercover exposé of its conditions (News, 4 January 2019).
Having experienced safeguarding in other sectors, he had written to the Archbishop of Canterbury telling him to not resign, “just because within the secular world, in terms of safeguarding, if someone offers their resignation when there are allegations, it shouldn’t be accepted, because you need to follow a due process and if someone must be faraway from post, they ought to be faraway from post, not be allowed to resign. . . People must he held to account.”
The Clergy Discipline Measure (CDM), he said, was “not fit for purpose”. “Many institutions have been on this place they usually seem to reply lots swifter than the Church of England.” He acknowledged that there had been “profound failings” in each his parish and the diocese of Rochester.
Other dioceses may now follow suit to the Rochester motion, he suggested. Survivors had told him that the motion “brings a light-weight to dark times. . . There hasn’t been a single institution, to my knowledge, that has made this statement in such a transparent way.” If a substantive response to the motion was not received, he suggested that the subsequent step can be to approach the Second Church Estates Commissioner.
