Abstract
This article examines, by using principles of critical discourse analysis, the safeguarding policy of the Church of England as presented in the policy document Promoting a Safer Church. Overall, the document provides a succinct and comprehensive outline of the Church of England’s safeguarding policy, setting out a broad and whole-church approach to safeguarding that encompasses activities from prevention through to response and taking seriously the concerns of those who have been abused within the institution of the Church. However, the analysis also reveals some weaknesses of definition and accountability and an ongoing need, as highlighted by the recent Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse report, for a change in culture and behaviour within the Church.
Keywords
Introduction
In October 2020, the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA) published its report on sexual abuse within the Church of England and the Church in Wales. 1 The inquiry identified significant failings by the Church ‘to take seriously disclosures by or about children or to refer allegations to the statutory authorities’. 2 The report also identified a culture that, in some ways, allowed the abuse to happen and to go unnoticed, and presented barriers to disclosure.
Over the past two decades, the Church of England has taken significant steps to put in place the structures and processes for safeguarding. This has included the publication of policy documents, the establishment of a National Safeguarding Panel with an independent chair, and reviews of past cases. In spite of this, the IICSA was still able to conclude that there is a need for culture change within the Church to reinforce ‘the abhorrent nature of child sexual abuse and the importance of safeguarding in all of the Church’s settings’. 3
As part of a wider study of the theological framework for safeguarding within the Church of England, I have undertaken a critical review of the Church’s safeguarding policy statement to explore the extent to which this reinforces ‘the abhorrent nature’ of abuse and the importance of safeguarding in all of the Church’s settings.
Methods
A key element of this research has been to identify and critique what the Church of England is currently saying about child maltreatment and safeguarding and the theological understanding behind that. Drawing on principles of critical discourse analysis, 4 I used a staged approach to analyse the 2017 policy document Promoting a Safer Church: safeguarding policy statement for children, young people and adults, 5 appraising the structure and content of the text, the organization of the discourse within the text, and the language used to refer to social actors and interactions, and then identifying and coding explicit themes and subthemes within the text. These themes were then organized into an interpretive framework and appraised in relation to the wider sociological and theological context. In this article, I present the findings in relation to the overall structure and content, the social actors and their interactions, before moving on to a consideration of the challenge posed by the IICSA. This analysis is thus one part of a wider, full critical discourse analysis of the current Church of England literature on safeguarding.
Findings
Promoting a Safer Church is produced as a 24-page A5 booklet, also available as a downloadable PDF, published by Church House Publishing in 2017 ‘for the House of Bishops of the General Synod of the Church of England’. After a preface setting out the scope of the document, the main policy is presented in four sections: an introduction; foundations; policy commitments; and putting the policy into action.
Social actors and their interactions
I identified 186 references to social actors throughout the document. These were grouped within a framework of abusers, the abused and others; and the Church and the world (see Figure 1). Four primary social interactions were identified: abuse (two references), survival (two references), safeguarding (five terms, 28 references), and Christian mission/ministry (five references).
Social actors and their interactions
Abusers
Abusers or potential abusers are referred to in the document both as ‘those that may present a risk to others’ (p. 6, 9) or ‘people who are dangerous’ (p. 14), and in the context of ‘those who are the subject of concerns or allegations of abuse’ (p. 6). Nowhere does the document refer to abusers directly as abusers or perpetrators of abuse; the use of the term ‘those that may present a risk’ presents some ambiguity in terms of who they are, to whom they may present a risk, and how.
A clear distinction is made between those who are the subject of concerns or allegations and those who may pose a risk to others. For the former, the policy commitment is focused on caring pastorally, with ‘a legal presumption of innocence [being] maintained during the statutory and Church inquiry processes’ (p. 21). For the latter, the emphasis is on managing risk, though still with the offer of pastoral care and support: ‘It will therefore endeavour to offer pastoral care and support to any member of the church community whom [sic] may present a known risk’ (p. 22).
The abused
Those who have been abused are referred to primarily as ‘survivors’, but also as ‘victims’ (though always in conjunction with ‘survivors’), and ‘those who suffer [or have suffered] as a result of abuse’. Prominence is given to the needs of those who have been abused in policy commitment 4: ‘Caring pastorally for victims/survivors of abuse and other affected persons’ (p. 20). Within this policy commitment, there are three primary commitments: The Church will endeavour to offer care and support to all those that have been abused, regardless of the type of abuse, when or where it occurred. The Church is committed to continuing to learn how to respond in a supportive and healing way to the needs of those who have suffered abuse. Those who have suffered abuse within the Church will receive a compassionate response, be listened to and be taken seriously.
The experience of abuse and survival
There is very little reference to the experiences of or interaction between abusers and those who are abused and no direct references to the nature of abuse or what is involved in abuse, nor to what is meant by survival or the different forms and experiences that may take. While survivors are mentioned, the only references to their experiences come in two quotations emphasizing a commitment to learning from the past: And many here, have been deeply affected, as well as the survivors who have so rightly brought us to this place. Many other people here have been deeply affected and badly treated. (p. 15) History cannot be rewritten, but those who still suffer now as a result of abuse in the past deserve this at least, that we hear their voices and take action to ensure that today’s safeguarding policies and systems are as robust as they can be. (pp. 15–16)
Others affected by or involved in responding to abuse
There are 20 references in the document to others who may be affected by or involved in responding to abuse. This includes individuals and groups, church bodies and external agencies. There is, however, a considerable overlap between this category and the wider categories of the Church and the world.
Most prominent within this context of ‘others’ are those people who are in some way deemed to be vulnerable or at risk of abuse, including children and young people, and vulnerable adults.
6
In this document, children are invariably referred to in conjunction with young people and vulnerable adults. For example: The care and protection of children, young people and vulnerable adults involved in Church activities is the responsibility of the whole Church. (p. 5) It will ensure that processes are in place that listen to and advocate on behalf of children, young people and vulnerable adults within the knowledge that they will be cared for. (p. 18)
The Church
The ‘Church’ makes up the largest category of social actors with a total of 98 references under 21 different terms. The Church, in this document, is referred to variously as an institution and as a worshipping community.
The institutional framework is laid out in the document, and it is clear that all levels of the hierarchy carry responsibilities, with the policy applying to ‘all Church Bodies and Church Officers’ (p. 6). Authority would appear to rest with the House of Bishops, and reference is made to the House of Bishops’ policy and practice guidance.
Within the foundations set out in the document, various elements of good safeguarding practice are outlined to ‘help Church bodies promote and maintain a safer culture that protects and promotes the welfare of children, young people and vulnerable adults’ (p. 13). These include a safeguarding policy; ‘a clear line of accountability within the Church’; and ‘Clear roles for Church Officers’ (p. 13). Those with responsibilities include all church officers, particularly clergy, but also lay workers, churchwardens and parochial church councils, all of whom are required to ‘have “due regard” to safeguarding guidance issued by the House of Bishops’ (p. 7).
The overlap between the Church as an institution and as a worshipping community creates some ambiguity, particularly when it comes to outlining responsibilities. The document is clear that the responsibilities go beyond the institutional context to involve the whole Church. However, any ability to hold others to account relates only to church bodies and officers and not to the wider church community. This ambiguity potentially creates particular problems in relation to safeguarding.
There is ambiguity, too, in places where the term ‘the Church’ is used without clarification as to which aspects of the Church are referred to. For example: The Church recognises the personal dignity and rights of all children, young people and adults. (p. 11)
Safeguarding
The main emphasis throughout the document is on the safeguarding activities of the Church and how these are being developed and promoted. While there were 28 specific references to safeguarding, there were many more references to other activities that may fall within the broader remit of safeguarding. An overview of what is involved in safeguarding is provided in the introduction: Safeguarding means the action the Church takes to promote a safer culture. This means we will promote the welfare of children, young people and adults, work to prevent abuse from occurring, seek to protect those that are at risk of being abused and respond well to those that have been abused. We will take care to identify where a person may present a risk to others, and offer support to them whilst taking steps to mitigate such risks. (p. 9)
Some further elaboration on the nature of safeguarding activities is found within two of the core foundations set out in the document, 7 foundations three and four, which are presented as two lists of principles and features that ‘underpin the Church’s approach’ and ‘help Church bodies promote and maintain a safer culture’ (p. 12, 13).
The concept that safeguarding is something that the Church, its officers and its members should take seriously is expressed repeatedly in the scope and introduction to the document as well as within the underpinning foundations. This is set out as a sense that the whole Church carries responsibility for safeguarding and for the care and protection of those who are vulnerable: The care and protection of children, young people and vulnerable adults involved in Church activities is the responsibility of the whole Church. Everyone who participates in the life of the Church has a role to play in promoting a Safer Church for all. (p. 5) The Church of England affirms the ‘Whole Church’ approach to safeguarding. This approach encompasses a commitment to consistent policy and practice across all Church bodies, Church Officers and that everyone associated with the Church, who comes into contact with children, young people and adults, has a role to play. (p. 9) The Church of England, its archbishops, bishops, clergy and leaders are committed to safeguarding as an integral part of the life and ministry of the Church. (p. 9) All parts of the Church of England must adopt or take account of this Policy Statement within their own safeguarding policy. The Policy Statement must actively underpin all safeguarding work within the Church and the drive to improve safeguarding practice. (p. 23)
Christian mission and ministry
One unique aspect of the social interactions described in the document is that these are set within the context of Christian ministry. The introduction expresses the Church’s commitment to safeguarding ‘as an integral part of the life and ministry of the Church’ (p. 9). This is most clearly expressed in the first of the five foundations spelled out in the document, ‘Gospel’: The Church is called to share the good news of God’s salvation through Jesus Christ. The life of our communities and institutions is integral to how we address this task. The good news speaks of welcome for all, with a particular regard for those who are most vulnerable, into a community where the value and dignity of every human being is affirmed and those in positions of responsibility and authority are truly trustworthy. Being faithful to our call to share the gospel therefore compels us to take with the utmost seriousness the challenge of preventing abuse from happening and responding well where it has. (p. 11) The Church will take appropriate steps to maintain a safer environment for all and to practice [sic] fully and positively Christ’s Ministry towards children, young people and adults; to respond sensitively and compassionately to their needs in order to help keep them safe from harm. (p. 9) This work is an essential and prior Gospel imperative, for any attempts we make to grow the Church, to seek the common good, and to reimagine the Church’s ministry. (p. 16)
Discussion: understanding and developing safeguarding
As its main policy statement, Promoting a Safer Church provides a succinct and comprehensive outline of the Church of England’s safeguarding policy. It sets out a broad and whole-church approach to safeguarding that encompasses activities from prevention through to response and taking seriously the concerns of those who have been abused within the institution of the Church. In spite of this, my analysis has identified some key areas in which the policy fails to meet the challenge to reinforce ‘the abhorrent nature of child sexual abuse and the importance of safeguarding in all of the Church’s settings’.
Nowhere in the policy document is abuse defined. Thus, while the scope of the document is on safeguarding those who are vulnerable, it is not necessarily clear what they are being safeguarded against. It is, perhaps, particularly notable in a church document that there is no reference to the horror or tragedy of abuse, nor to the devastating and lasting impact it has on individuals’ lives. There is no reference within the document to sin or evil, which might be assumed to be Christian doctrines for understanding the abhorrent nature and impact of child abuse.
In relation to abusers, the references are oblique. The recognition that there are people who ‘may present a risk to others’ or who ‘are dangerous’ does not explain in what way they may be dangerous or present a risk. The failure to name abuse and abusers for what and who they are, within the Christian context of sin, leaves a gap that potentially undermines the efforts being made by the Church to create a safer environment for all and to offer redress for those who have suffered as a consequence of abuse in the Church.
In relation to safeguarding itself, the document repeatedly stresses the importance of safeguarding and the responsibility all within the Church must take. This is rightly seen as a responsibility of all members of the Church – both clergy and laity. A range of different activities both directly and indirectly support this work of safeguarding, and it is helpful that the document defines what is included within the scope of this activity. There are, however, two dangers inherent in the way this has been portrayed.
First, the very broad scope of safeguarding, while on one level being very helpful, runs the risk of detracting from the need to ensure that children and other vulnerable people are safe within the institution of the Church. In emphasizing the ‘importance of safeguarding in all the Church’s settings’, it is crucial to ensure that the specific requirements of ensuring that individuals are safe are not neglected while still addressing the broader aspects of promoting the welfare, well-being and welcome of all.
Second, there is the danger that, by portraying safeguarding as everyone’s responsibility, no one actually takes responsibility. In the opening statement of the ‘Scope’, the ‘care and protection of children, young people and vulnerable adults involved in Church activities’ is considered ‘the responsibility of the whole Church’ (p. 5). This is in line with the secular national approach, promoted through statutory guidance, that ‘safeguarding is everyone’s responsibility’. 8 As has previously been pointed out in relation to similar commitments in domestic abuse work, the absence of any clear lines of accountability can result in such work becoming marginalized or fragmented: ‘it is typically everyone’s responsibility so no one owns it’. 9 It is striking that there are no references to any of the national safeguarding bodies and just two references to safeguarding advisers/officers. This lack of reference to those within the Church specifically charged with safeguarding responsibilities seems to reinforce the sense that the lines of accountability are not clear and the risk that any real accountability could get lost by making the responsibility too broad and general.
In carrying out this analysis, I have deliberately restricted myself to analysing the text of this one, brief policy statement. I am aware of a multitude of other guidance, documents and templates available on the Church of England website, including two more detailed policy documents. 10 Some of the gaps I have identified are, indeed, addressed in these other documents. Nevertheless, as the ‘front page’ policy statement, it is my view that these gaps represent significant omissions.
Conclusions
The final foundation in this policy statement, ‘Learning from the past’, expresses the commitment to listening to survivors and to the reports and independent reviews into abuse within the Church. This echoes a thread that runs throughout the document of wanting to learn and improve. In spite of this commitment, my analysis suggests that there is still a way to go in turning this into reality and meeting the challenge posed by the IICSA report.
In the section on learning from the past, the document quotes Archbishop Justin Welby speaking to the July 2013 synod: So we face a continual challenge and reality … There has to be a complete change of culture and behaviour. (p. 16)