BISHOPS must be free to criticise the Archbishops’ Council, or risk confirming suspicions of “the Church’s national leadership being a closed shop dedicated to self-preservation”, the Bishop of Rochester, Dr Jonathan Gibbs, has said.
He was replying to the Council’s secretary-general, William Nye, about Rochester diocesan synod’s vote of no confidence within the Council’s oversight of safeguarding (News, 13 December). Any suggestion that diocesan-synod members were “perhaps acting in ignorance is each inaccurate and unlucky”, the Bishop writes.
In his response to the vote, Mr Nye wrote that the diocesan synod might “have been unaware” of how the Archbishops’ Council and others were “actively responding to the recommendations of the Makin review” (News, 3 January).
The vote was, Dr Gibbs writes, “indicative of the profound disconnect that individuals within the parishes feel with the Church of England’s senior leadership over the handling of abuse cases and particularly our conduct towards victims and survivors. . .
“I feel it is crucial that Bishops and others must be free to criticise the actions of the Council, when essential, otherwise we simply confirm people’s suspicions in regards to the Church’s national leadership being a closed shop dedicated to self-preservation. Transparent disagreement and open debate in regards to the issues are essential to our common life.”
Dr Gibbs reiterates earlier assurances that his support for the motion was not “intended to be a criticism of the work of the National Safeguarding Team or indeed the lead bishops for safeguarding”. But he argues that the Makin review in regards to the abuser John Smyth, and other reviews, “revealed in stark terms” how survivors had been “failed each by individuals within the Church and systemically by the Church as an establishment.
“The Archbishops’ Council will not be solely liable for these systemic failures — we’re all (and particularly bishops) responsible in a method or one other — however the Council is the manager body which has responsibility for and oversight of the Church’s central safeguarding functions, including a serious role in resource allocation. As I even have said elsewhere, I feel that the Council’s response to the Makin Report (which it commissioned, in spite of everything) was significantly lacking” (News, 13 December).
He suggest that the Council has “didn’t take account of the enormity of the crisis that the Report would precipitate and the conflict of interest that might arise in consequence of the Archbishop of Canterbury being personally criticised within the report”. The Council, because the commissioner of the report, “could as an illustration have led, along with the House of Bishops, a national response of repentance and prayer to display our commitment towards profound systemic and cultural change.
“Instead, given the absence of such a response, victims and survivors felt betrayed and the Church on the national level was perceived by many as lacking each transparency and sensitivity towards victims and survivors.”
Dr Gibbs writes that he has change into “convinced that the national governance arrangements for the oversight of safeguarding within the Church of England are unsustainable. The overlapping roles of the Archbishops’ Council, the National Safeguarding Steering Group, the House of Bishops and the National Safeguarding Panel are confusing and never fit for the aim of driving organisational and cultural change in a fancy and dispersed institution just like the Church of England.
“At the identical time, all of those bodies, including the Council, are compromised by each their instinct and their remit to guard and serve the needs of the Church of England. That is inevitable given the character of the role of trustees and our shared loyalty to the Church.”
The chairs of the Houses of Laity and Clergy of Rochester diocesan synod have also replied to Mr Nye. They express the hope that the motion “draws the eye of the Council to the deep concerns of those within the diocese of Rochester and across the Church of England for the necessity for a fundamental change of culture, not only around safeguarding but in addition around transparency and accountability in leadership and governance”.
The General Synod will vote next month on proposals to extend the independence of safeguarding within the Church of England (News, 16 December). National governance structures are also on the agenda in the shape of the revision stage of the National Church Governance Measure (News, 12 July).
