*** DEBUG START ***
*** DEBUG END ***

Bishop defends Rochester no-confidence vote in letter to William Nye

13 January 2025

Geoff Crawford/Church Times

The Bishop of Rochester, Dr Jonathan Gibbs, addresses the General Synod in London, in February 2023

The Bishop of Rochester, Dr Jonathan Gibbs, addresses the General Synod in London, in February 2023

BISHOPS should 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 in the Council’s oversight of safeguarding (News, 13 December). Any suggestion that diocesan-synod members were “perhaps acting in ignorance is both inaccurate and unfortunate”, 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 people in the parishes feel with the Church of England’s senior leadership over the handling of abuse cases and especially our conduct towards victims and survivors. . .

“I believe it is essential that Bishops and others should be free to criticise the actions of the Council, when necessary, otherwise we simply confirm people’s suspicions about the Church’s national leadership being a closed shop dedicated to self-preservation. Transparent disagreement and open debate about 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 concerning the abuser John Smyth, and other reviews, “revealed in stark terms” how survivors had been “failed both by individuals in the Church and systemically by the Church as an institution.

“The Archbishops’ Council is not solely responsible for these systemic failures — we are all (and especially bishops) responsible in one way or another — but the Council is the executive body which has responsibility for and oversight of the Church’s central safeguarding functions, including a major role in resource allocation. As I have said elsewhere, I believe that the Council’s response to the Makin Report (which it commissioned, after all) was significantly lacking” (News, 13 December).

He suggest that the Council has “failed to take account of the enormity of the crisis that the Report would precipitate and the conflict of interest that would arise as a result of the Archbishop of Canterbury being personally criticised in the report”. The Council, as the commissioner of the report, “could for instance have led, together with the House of Bishops, a national response of repentance and prayer to demonstrate our commitment towards profound systemic and cultural change.

“Instead, given the absence of such a response, victims and survivors felt betrayed and the Church at the national level was perceived by many as lacking both transparency and sensitivity towards victims and survivors.”

Dr Gibbs writes that he has become “convinced that the national governance arrangements for the oversight of safeguarding in 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 not fit for the purpose of driving organisational and cultural change in a complex and dispersed institution like the Church of England.

“At the same time, all of these bodies, including the Council, are compromised by both their instinct and their remit to protect and serve the needs of the Church of England. That is inevitable given the nature 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 attention of the Council to the deep concerns of those in the diocese of Rochester and across the Church of England for the need for a fundamental change of culture, not only around safeguarding but also around transparency and accountability in leadership and governance”.

The General Synod will vote next month on proposals to increase the independence of safeguarding in the Church of England (News, 16 December). National governance structures are also on the agenda in the form of the revision stage of the National Church Governance Measure (News, 12 July).

Browse Church and Charity jobs on the Church Times jobsite

Forthcoming Events

Women Mystics: Female Theologians through Christian History

13 January - 19 May 2025

An online evening lecture series, run jointly by Sarum College and The Church Times

tickets available

 

Festival of Faith and Literature

28 February - 2 March 2025

tickets available

 

Visit our Events page for upcoming and past events 

Welcome to the Church Times

 

To explore the Church Times website fully, please sign in or subscribe.

Non-subscribers can read four articles for free each month. (You will need to register.)