The major debate at General Synod last week on safeguarding ended for many of us in a disappointing place. Synod decided that the Church of England itself should have another chance to get things right with safeguarding. What came out of the debate was held up to be a compromise between the so-called option 3 and option 4. The latter was an attempt to place the whole safeguarding work of the Church outside the structures and control of the C/E. This was the path preferred by most survivors and those who support them. This was a perspective seen to be increasingly needed over the many years of mistakes, incompetence and even corruption on the part of the church authorities, in their dealings with survivors and their pain. An amendment, argued powerfully by Bishop Philip North, neutralised this path to full independence. Instead of utilising the high levels of secular professional safeguarding expertise right across the country, Synod, in the end, decided to keep much of the status quo by trusting many of the in-house structures. This decision ran counter to the recommendation of Alexis Jay. She had been given the task of researching the issue and making her findings known to Synod.
In this blog I do not propose to argue the detail of the safeguarding debate at Synod in February 2025 beyond this bare outline. For me, what is important is to reflect on how the debate about independence can be seen, at its heart, to be a theological debate about the way the Church understands its access to divine truth. Some Christians teach and preach the notion that truth is something that can be claimed and made known, if only we listen diligently to the inspired words of Scripture and the teaching contained in two thousand years of tradition. The idea that an outside agency in the form of an independent safeguarding body should help make decisions about this part of its life, seems to challenge the idea that the Holy Spirit is leading us into all truth. Turning to secular professionalism, as a way forward in the management of our safeguarding crisis, challenges, even contradicts, for some, deeply held assumptions about Christian ideas of truth. And it is these assumptions that are implicit in a debate on safeguarding independence that I want us to look at.
Over my lifetime I have been a strong upholder of the idea that we are permitted to know Christian truth and to share it with others. My theological studies at university taught me that this was , however, not a straightforward task. For example, the use of ‘clincher texts’ was never for me the way to go in establishing truth statements. The Bible had to be used in a far more nuanced way than this. Exposure to ancient languages opened up even more clearly the insight that language often lacks precise unchangeable definitions. A single word in English can shift in some way in the meaning we give to it over a period of time. The Christian life could never have a ‘once for all’ meaning; changing and maturing in how we understand truth, is a feature of our Christian pilgrimage.
One thing I have learnt over the years is to observe how Christians deal with uncertainty. Some are deeply fearful when they find they do not know something to do with faith and truth. Because the churches they attend use the currency of certainty and truth the whole time, they assume that they are expected to have their faith sorted out and are thus always able to give a good account of what they are required to believe. Others, the fortunate ones in my opinion, are not so threatened by their awareness of uncertainty. They know something about God and Jesus and find something compellingly attractive about the Bible. The darker aspects of faith, those that suggest that they may end up in a place of utter despair and pain if they make a less than a total heartfelt commitment to this God, have never been shared with them. Thus, they are not tempted to see their faith as a cause of gloom or depression through an exposure to a ‘turn or burn’ theology. Rather the Christian faith has been shared with them as an invitation to construct meaning and hope and to make sense of all that is good and beautiful about life. There are, of course, difficult paths to walk and tragedies to face, but that part of life is counteracted by a deep sense of a constant presence as expressed in Psalm 23, ‘for thou art with me, thy rod and staff, they comfort me’.
In debating whether we should allow safeguarding to be undertaken inhouse or seconded to a body outside the control of the leaders and structures of the church, I sense somewhere a discussion similar to the one outlined above. On the one side we have those who see their faith defined by their leaders and teachers. Teachings which centre on assurance and certainty will always have strong appeal to those who are fearful of embracing anything that speaks of uncertainty. Styles of faith which look to others for constant reassurance are found in conservative churches of all kinds. The longing that leaders will always produce safe and reliable answers to faith questions is likely to translate into an expectation that these same leaders will be expected to be right on every topic. If a bishop or leader indicates that he/she teaches the truth in one area of life, he/she can be relied upon to get things right (e.g safeguarding) in other areas.
The Christian who is unafraid of uncertainty will also be unafraid of experts whose skill-set has relevant things to say to areas of life outside the domain of theology. Safeguarding is one of the areas of professional expertise where secular experts clearly have a great deal to teach Christians. A list of relevant disciplines that touch on the area of safeguarding, (law, psychology and sociology to name a few) makes it likely that there will not be many fully trained within these varied disciplines of knowledge among the church people who want to claim safeguarding expertise. The upholders of option 4 seem to be those synod members who recognise two things simultaneously. The first is that the universally bungled management of safeguarding in the C/E over the past ten years or so has been, in part, caused by church having assumed some kind of infallible knowledge in this area. This fact then requires the second stage – the release of control of this part of church activity to those who have relevant experience and skills. An individual Christian or Synod member may believe that the Bible ‘teaches everything necessary for salvation’ or that the Church possesses the ‘faith once and for all delivered to the Saints’ so that nothing can ever be added. This may have the effect of making them unwilling ever to tolerate the idea that a non-believer may, in many areas of knowledge and activity, know best. I am one of those Christians who welcomes, with an enormous gratitude, the insights of those who share their expertise and experience on areas of knowledge that Christians cannot claim privileged insight. We need such expertise and, with it, we enrich whatever theological insight we may possess studying these topics.
Resisting option 4, which pleaded for the insights and expertise of secular authorities to be given to the Church. seems to favour a defensive and fearful approach to safeguarding. The welcoming of true independence is a approach that also welcomes a fearless, open approach to faith which is hope-suffused and open to joy. Wanting safeguarding in any way to be kept in-house is also similar to an approach that seems to thrive on fear and suspicion of the wider world. Further, many Christians seem to have been tainted by the shadow of abuse whether as perpetrator, victim or bystander. For them, there is always going to be some sense of unprocessed guilt and shame, especially if these negative emotions are frequently mentioned in the circles they moved in. Abuse, whether sexual or some other kind, is deeply contaminating and traumatising and it is not surprising that many who have encountered it want to shut it out of awareness as much as possible. Rejecting option 4 ss one way of burying deep pain and distress.
The Church of England in February 2025 is still haunted by the ghosts of past shame. It has shown that it is not yet ready to welcome the cleansing insights of secular knowledge which can do much to purge the institution and make it the honest and healing body that the general public wants to see. Post Makin and post Jay we need to see a new longing from all, the bishops to the folk in the pew, to work for and welcome utter honesty and humility. If independence and option 4 are the ultimate destination for the C/E, may they come quickly.
That they rejected option 4, was no surprise at all, but nevertheless deeply disappointing. Of course external, truly independent scrutiny is deeply feared mainly because there are so many bodies buried, so much that is knowingly wrong , that they cannot risk the truth being exposed.
It would be equally unsurprising if Cathy Newman, and other reputable researchers also continue to maintain their output of deeply disturbing disclosures, hitherto kept concealed. What she and others have shown so far, is widely considered to be the tip of the iceberg. If the Church wants to change this narrative, clean house, and start with option 4.
Independent safeguarding is standard across great swathes of the public sector. No one would want it any other way, or indeed accept anything else.
There can be a risk, at times, of trivia traditionally resolved locally being formalised, and inquiries subsequently being over-elaborate. But that is a tiny Church inconvenience, if it exorcises clay-footed leadership incompetence by Bishops or Archbishops.
A lack of formality and structure around Church investigations has wrecked countless lives: children, adults, interns. The Pilavachi-New Wine-Soul Survivor saga dragged on for a very long time.
The Pilavachi-New Wine inquiry report has just been released. The section on page 37 above the conclusion makes interesting reading. Has ill-treatment of interns been endemic across the Anglican Church and in associated para-Church groups?
Page 34 has an interesting section about ‘the period after 2000’ which carries this line: ‘One person said that he heard another discuss concern about horseplay between Mr Pilavachi and interns at a New Wine event.’ Is there deep seated homophobia within New Wine or Soul Survivor?
Why no urgent separate inquiry, even now, to ascertain if there was a likely homoerotic element (or grooming) to Pilavachi’s behaviour with some interns? An older man in physically intimate wrestling with female interns would have faced immediate sanctions.
Whatever the sexuality status, of Soul Survivor, or New Wine, or other interns, none should have faced being inflicted with intense horseplay or physical intimacy. Have a tiny number of interns expressed concern about the more specifically sexual nature of either wrestling or massages? Why no immediate follow up, by barrister or KC’s, whatever the cost to Church or para-Church groups?
Pass it to the police seems to be a cynical ploy. No action needed, if the police do not prosecute, and pass the issue back to the Church, is a tactic I suspect. But, even if criminal charges are not happening, why not employ senior legal counsel to meticulously examine issues?
Stephen, this is a great blog and much appreciated. But I think you misunderstand the objections to Option 4 and might even be said to get them the wrong way round. The people convinced there is a simple, right, authoritative answer are those in favour of outsourcing safeguarding.
To take the nitpicks first. In the cases I know of where senior legal counsel have examined the issues, the results have not been what the safeguarding lobby assumed and expected. First there was the Carlile report into the case of Bishop Bell, which found (however you dress it up) that the complaint against him was a fantasy.
Not by a trained legal mind, but by a social work professional (who thinks that “incredulous” is a synonym for “incredible”) there is the Lesson Learned review into Matthew Ineson, which makes it quite clear that he is an unreliable witness, one who contradicts himself and all the other accounts by parishioners at that time. See especially pars 10.50 to 10.53
Finally, there is the Wilkinson report into the ISB fiasco. I defy anyone to read it and conclude that it would have been possible to work with the two who were sacked — after consistently refusing even to talk to anyone offered as a mediator in their feud with Maggie Atkinson.
All of the arguments in favour of Option Four assume that outside the Church there is a disciplined professional body of safeguarders who can be trusted to make difficult decisions about responsibility and truth and then to act justly on them. These hypothesised paragons are preferred to the actually existing safeguarders now doing the jobs in dioceses all over the country. And I don’t believe they exist. The unanimous opposition of the existing professionals was simply dismissed as self-interest — as if there were no self-interest on the other side — but it’s usually worth listening to people who are actually doing a job before you come up with grand proposals to improve it.
The supposed experts that the church has actually hired such as Keith Makin and Steve Reeves don’t inspire any confidence at all. Makin’s report is I think slanted and deeply unfair; Reeves managed to work for the Church of England for two years without learning that church law is made by parliament and not by bishops, as his comments on Stephen Cottrell show. I wouldn’t trust them to organise a bin collection.
The absence of ‘independence’ matters. ‘Conflict of interest’ is the ‘ghost in the Anglican machine’ while our Bishops or Diocesan staff self-investigate. That ‘ghost’ must now be exorcised. It has to go, before our churches further empty.
Look at the review of UK death reporting post-Shipman. Coroners need to be distant from the communities they serve. They need to have dual (and credible) clinical-legal abilities.
Problems will be present with any new Anglican system. You are quite right about this. But better to aim for quality, even if the new system needs to evolve over time, or even make some errors.
I reported concern about savagely violent psychological abuse to an Anglican Archbishop, and latterly directed their successor to this. The Archbishop passed my complaint to a Bishop. The Bishop passed it back to the senior local leader of New Wine (now also an Anglican Bishop).
Anglican Safeguarding has been a sick joke for a very long time. Ministry interns in my cohort were brutally ill-treated. Bishops-Archbishops-New Wine leaders have been far too ready to cover up lots of bullying like this.
I saw a female professor and a senior schoolmistress leave the local diocese after feeling crudely and unfairly accused of sexual misconduct. The robust evidence supporting their claims is as yet unaddressed by our Archbishops and Bishops.
I saw two male students (out of only five commissioned in my group) complain about being savagely or sadistically accused of sexual misconduct in crude language (by the same New Wine tutor). Yet no formal inquiry was ever convened.
Recruitment by figures connected to the Church and/or New Wine was ghastly. Credentials and qualifications seemed to matter not a jot. Cronyism and sensationalism were to the fore.
A jailhouse conversion appeared to count for more than years of public service, faithful attachment to the Anglican Church, qualifications or other credentials. We absolutely need full independence into bullying and abuse inquiries.
Andrew Brown,
Stephen’s blog is a relatively safe space, coming here and attacking in fact from my view defaming survivors such as Rev Mathew Innerson and the complainant in the George Bell matter with no evidence beyond hearsay or interpretation of internal enquiries is shameful for a journalist.
If this was Australia publishing this kind of diatribe would result in likely defamation action on behalf of the victim survivors. But as most of us lack both financial means pro bono legal teams and find constantly defending against your melange of conservative disinformation profoundly dis spiriting. I have not seen you comment over the years of this blog that I follow so you have actually attempted a drive by hit on a safe place for victim survivors and our suppirters.
You have defamed Graham on your slow deep bovver blog and now the complainant in the George Bell matter and Rev Mathew Ingerson.
I bid you cease and desist and begone.
Stephen perhaps you might consider judiciously removing Mr Browns scribbling biased poison pen comment and my response.
His troll like drive by comment is deeply disturbing and traumatising
Stephen , I appreciate and agree with much of what you say about theology and professionalism. However, I think you misread what happened at synod.
A number of us had access to a briefing to Synod members by Professor Jay the week before we met which was organised by Andrew Graystone. Some interesting things emerged from that briefing. She told us that when she was approached by ++Welby she was asked to provide a method of “outsourcing safeguarding”, so she had attempted to do just that and had not looked at different potential methodologies of providing safeguarding.
She was asked about the letters that had been sent out by the Charity Commission which bore on the proposals before synod and in particular about the problem that arose because of their requirement that trustees (ie Cathedral Chapters, and DBFs) although they could outsource the provision of safeguarding to a third party (letter of 22.01.25 contained in synod paper GS 2378), must be satisfied that any decisions taken by synod in relation to their legal trustee duties during debate and voting on relevant Synod business … will enable you to comply with your duty to take reasonable steps to keep all who come into contact with your charity safe (letter dated 24.01.25 addressed to “Synod members”).
The problem the combination of those letters posed was that if there was only one national supplier of safeguarding services to the church and the local trustees (eg a cathedral chapter) were not satisfied that it was properly addressing the safeguarding issues in that place, and discussion with the provider resulted in no improvement, they could not take the ultimate step that would be required by their trustees’ duty, of replacing the provider, as the law required them to use that provider.
In the briefing session Prof Jay was asked about that and said that she was aware of the issue. She did not say for how long she had been aware of the issue. I note that there is no reference to the trustees’ duties in her report or the accompanying legal advice, so perhaps it has only recently come to her attention. She asked John O’Brien (formerly secretary to IICSA) and who had assisted her in her work to deal with the question. His response was that we would need to talk with the Charity Commission and he hoped something could be sorted out but if not we would need to talk with the government and ask them to change the law about the responsibility of trustees. That did not seem to many of us to be a satisfactory way forward that could give us confidence that Option 4 was actually achievable.
Another factor on top of that was that at the end of the week before synod met, INEQE had published its annual report. INEQE (as successor to SCIE) is in the midst of carrying out a series of audits of dioceses and cathedrals. Their investigations are very thorough and their reports very detailed, as witnessed by the +Newcastle in her recent open letter to her diocese saying that they “superbly led our Diocesan and Cathedral independent safeguarding audit last year”.
In their annual report they speak of the significant changes that have been made in recent years driven by past moral outrage and public exposure. In an opinion piece attached to the report on their website, their CEO, Jim Gamble, says that it felt odd that they were not asked for an opinion about the way forward by the Response Group. He concludes by saying “It is almost as if there is an inevitability that, whether right or wrong, something needs to be seen to be done to the church. I get that, but from someone who has seen what has been and is being done, and for what it’s worth, here is my opinion: don’t tamper too much with what is actually working now, based on what didn’t work before.”
So for many of us who spoke and voted against Option 4 it was the great uncertainty that we could lawfully do what was proposed coupled with the assurance from those tasked with examining the current state of play that the operational side of safeguarding should at least for now continue as before.
What is also wrong in much of the reporting is to say that we have chosen not to go down the route of true independence. That is simply untrue as Option 3 includes the outsourcing, as recommended by Jay, of the scrutiny function to an independent 3rd party body. Also the transfer of the greater part of the NST work including its investigatory work and its supervision of the operational work in dioceses and cathedrals to a third party body. DSAP chairs (whose appointment will be overseen by the scrutiny body) will be given have new powers of local scrutiny and enforcement.
All of this is a significant step into independence.
Peter Collier writes of Alexis Jay’s briefing “She told us that when she was approached by ++Welby she was asked to provide a method of ‘outsourcing safeguarding’, so she had attempted to do just that and had not looked at different potential methodologies of providing safeguarding.” — but the two press releases issued when she was appointed confuse this.
The church’s own one says she was appointed by the Archbishops’ Council to look at outsourcing scrutiny (Option 3) which is obviously a good idea. I know at least one member of the Archbishops’ Council who believes that is what they had decided to ask her to do. Her own, or her PR people’s, release says she was appointed to look at ways of outsourcing safeguarding itself (Option 4) and now she says that this is what ++Welby asked her to do.
This looks like a significant confusion.
Thank you, Stephen, for your observation that the shelving of Option 4 reflected a distrust of the outside world. The C of E often seems like a sealed biosphere: a world entire unto itself and ignorant of life outside. It’s worse than that, though, because so many who are highly placed in the Church do know a bit of the outside world, but are convinced that we do it better. They’re wrong.
I think the other factor, besides distrust of ‘outside’ and an arrogant but misplaced sense of superiority, is the craving for power. This is the C of E’s besetting sin, probably aggravated by our historical place in the English Establishment. For once our lead safeguarding bishops and the Archbishop of York advocated letting go of some of their power and handing responsibility for safeguarding to a new organisation without all of our baggage. It’s a tragedy that they, along with Prof Jay and others, weren’t heeded.
I am hearing from clergy who, as a result of last week’s vote against Option 4, are wondering if they can continue to be part of the Church of England. I have – not for the first time – wondered that myself.
A partial break, and mothball themselves, is another clergy option. Things can only get better. 2-3 years could see some very big changes. Anglican Anabaptists are one of the fastest growing UK Church groups.
I do wonder if some of the conflicting comments are because some have not had experience of church safeguarding first hand and others have. As a survivor the main issues for me are not addressed in model 3.5 and that is one of consistency across dioceses. Had the ammendment that the independent body could place dioceses into ‘special measures’ been accepted I would have had far greater confidence that what lay behind the rejection of model 4 was honourable. Of course the ammendment didn’t get accepted, so the independent body will in no way parallel Ofsted or CQC and will largely remain ineffectual. Furthermore I had signed up, as anyone could, to give my views on models 1,2, 3 and 4 so when model 3 and 4 were taken off the table in favour of 3.5 the respectful thing to do would be to seek further opinion from stakeholders and bring it back to Synod in July.
The letter from safguarding personnel was hugely unprofessional, and for me spoke only of their fear of losing rather cosy positions. Yes, they have to, by law, be TUPE’d across but there is nothing to stop the new body making them redundant within a few months if they aren’t externally accredited by a recognised professional body and how many of them will that impact!
INEQE sees exactly what it is shown and nothing more and that is always the problem with audits. Personally I think this model will go down the pan but then I think model 4 would as well and the church will simply remain fodder for stand up comedians and children laughing about ‘pervy vicars’ in the playground, which is where it probably belongs.