OVERWHELMING support for a motion of “no confidence” in the Archbishops’ Council’s oversight of safeguarding — carried by 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 life of our Church, it does indeed feel like we are sheep without a shepherd, because the national leadership of our Church is failing to lead us into such a time of repentance, which is the only path that can bring us to a place 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 necessary reforms to restore trust, safeguard the vulnerable, and uphold the Church’s moral and legal responsibilities”.
A total 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 latest in a series of reports that reveal profound failings in safeguarding across the Church”. He referred to “issues of governance, accountability, and the prioritisation of institutional reputation over the needs of the vulnerable”.
The motion did not call for resignations, he said, “nor does it prescribe specific solutions — those are not our roles as a Synod.” It called for action by the Archbishops’ Council, “the primary executive body tasked with leading and overseeing safeguarding”, with “a particular responsibility to set the example and address these failings”.
Dr Gibbs said that the Makin Review and earlier reports had “revealed both personal and systemic failure in the life 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 also of those countless people, clergy and laity alike, who have been working so hard at diocesan and parish level to improve the quality of safeguarding in the life 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 were other bishops who did the same, because I spoke with some of them”. He had decided to make this public now, he said, in the wake of the Archbishop’s “deeply ill-judged speech in the House of Lords” (News, 6 December).
Dr Gibbs understood, he said, the “frustration” that motivated the synod motion. “So far, all we have had from the [Archbishops’] Council is the outline of what feels like a bureaucratic process to consider the evidence presented in the Makin Review about the alleged failures of certain individuals (News, 5 December).
“Now of course any such process needs to be both fair and thorough, but my concern is that this is missing the point, namely that we as a Church have failed in this crucial area of our life and there needs now to be a time of profound reflection leading to deep repentance and a fundamental change of heart and mind in our collective life. . .
“Whether or not the processes that have been set up lead to disciplinary action of some kind, there is here a deeper question of moral responsibility, not only for our actions but for the wider 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” among his “highly-respected colleagues” in the National Safeguarding Team and the Archbishops’ Council.
He regretted this, he said, and wanted to stress his “support and confidence in what they are 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 think they are doing everything they can.”
His concern was that “we haven’t really, at a national level, addressed the anxiety and anger that people in 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 understand better their concerns and to explain more fully how the Archbishops’ Council and the National Safeguarding Steering Group are actively responding to the important recommendations of the Makin review”. This included “ongoing support for victims and survivors of abuse, who must 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 loss of confidence in the structures responsible for accountability and reform”. The aim was “not to cast blame but to plead for meaningful change across the Church”.
Mr Ward offered some reflections “in a personal capacity”, he wrote. “I do not believe that resignations are the answer. While understandable in some circumstances, they can often undermine mechanisms of accountability, which is precisely what the Church needs to improve.”
Setting out three “next steps”, he suggested that the General Synod commit, at its February meeting, to making safeguarding operationally independent within six months and to establishing fully independent safeguarding within 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, some of them for many years now; so they have had plenty of time.”
He spoke of discerning a pattern in the Archbishops’ Council’s response to safeguarding failures, of commissioning reports, then commissioning further work to decide what to do about 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 not to resign, “simply because in the secular world, when it comes to safeguarding, if someone offers their resignation when there are allegations, it shouldn’t be accepted, because you should follow a due process and if someone needs to be removed from post, they should be removed from post, not be allowed to resign. . . People need to be held to account.”
The Clergy Discipline Measure (CDM), he said, was “not fit for purpose”. “Many institutions have been in this place and they seem to respond a lot swifter than the Church of England.” He acknowledged that there had been “profound failings” in both 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 to dark times. . . There hasn’t been a single institution, to my knowledge, that has made this statement in such a clear way.” If a substantive response to the motion was not received, he suggested that the next step would be to approach the Second Church Estates Commissioner.