Theology

Safeguarding often appears to be practice in search of theology. Much of the theological work on safeguarding grounds good practice purely in theological anthropology. 1 Peter, while clearly not about safeguarding, offers a serious reflection on power and motivation for ministry, set within an ecclesiology which is both eschatological and publicly engaged. Good practice in safeguarding should also be an expression of ecclesiology: an activity of the Church which is to be a priestly presence in the world, demonstrating publicly observable goodness.

This article, written by a former diocesan safeguarding officer, argues that, despite two decades of talk about better safeguarding, the Church of England has failed to protect children and young people under its care, failed to respond appropriately to abuse allegations, and failed to provide adequate safeguarding policies and practices. It illustrates this failure from the author’s direct experience of senior clergy responses to the abuse of adolescents by David Smith and Bishop Peter Ball – responses identified as a spiritual sickness linked to institutional narcissism.

This article is written by a law professor who is also a survivor of sexual abuse by the Anglican priest Meirion Griffiths. In her attempt to get restitution, she recounts her experience of the adversarial tactics used against sexual abuse claimants by the Church of England through the Ecclesiastical Insurance Company. She argues, from her own experience, that the reliance on rape myth, the defence of limitations and the use of biased ‘expert’ medical witnesses are deeply offensive, especially when used by the Church.

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.

The Sheldon Community collaborated with Aston University to undertake the first ever systematic survey into the lived experience of the Church of England Clergy Discipline Measure 2003 (CDM). Criticisms of the CDM have already been well rehearsed, and this research has contributed to the fact that the measure is now believed to be formally slated for replacement. However, the impact of the CDM’s flaws on the research participants needs to be understood if the scope of its replacement is to be adequately framed. The research highlights a subgroup of clergy who went through the ‘informal’ stages of the CDM, or an associated process such as safeguarding assessment. The psychosocial impact of these experiences was found to be on a par with those of the formal stages of the CDM. The results deserve to be considered carefully by those tasked with creating a new system for complaints against clergy.