LAST week’s meeting of the General Synod was, by all accounts, an intense and exhausting few days. “I’ve never known a Synod like this one, exposing so many raw nerves in so many people,” one seasoned Synod watcher told us. “Even the debates I anticipated as benign or routine turned into battlefields.”
It was no surprise that Tuesday’s debate about the future of safeguarding was particularly fraught. In the weeks beforehand, legal concerns had been raised about liability, if the Church moved to Model 4, and more than 100 safeguarding professionals argued that outsourcing their work would be highly disruptive and create extra bureaucracy (News, 5 February). Yet Model 4 came with the imprimatur of Professor Alexis Jay, and was also the stated preference of the lead bishop for safeguarding, the Bishop of Stepney, Dr Joanne Grenfell.
In the end, after hours of impassioned discussion, the Synod compromised on something in between, supporting an amendment from the Bishop of Blackburn, the Rt Revd Philip North, which means that the NST will be outsourced while further work will be done on how diocesan teams might follow later. Bishop North presented this as a pragmatic move, arguing that, given the difficulties presented by Model 4, it would have been irresponsible to vote for something that could not reasonably be implemented.
Readers will have their own views on the outcome. But it is perhaps worth reflecting on the undercurrents swirling around this debate. At one level, Synod members were grappling with the nuts and bolts of making sweeping changes. As things stand, there are 85 different employers of safeguarding officers and advisers in the Church of England, and outsourcing this to an external body would be no mean feat.
At another level, it was all about perception. Supporters of Model 4 argued that anything less would be interpreted as yet more evidence that the Church of England could not be trusted. A visibly cast-down Dr Grenfell said that the Church had missed an opportunity “to send a message to victims and survivors that we hear their concerns about trust and confidence” (News, 14 February). Predictably, the outcome of the vote has been widely reported as a kick in the face for them.
The predicament was well illustrated the day before, at the start of an item reflecting on the Makin report, when statements from four Smyth survivors were read aloud. The diversity of their perspectives was notable, showing just how hard it is to do right by those who have suffered at the hands of abusers. It is too easily assumed that survivors are a homogeneous group, with a united view of how things should change, and that this should always prevail. Of course their voices should be heard, with humility and compassion. But the debate showed that there are other considerations, too — such as practicality — that are also crucial in securing a robust outcome. In the end, the Synod came to a decision, and the die is cast. It is probably a matter of months and years before we will truly know how sound a way forward this offers.
Podcast: Reflections on a long and difficult General Synod
