Forgive the headline writers

I'm not sure that it was a good use of my time but, for my sins, I did it. I binge-watched all of the Church of England's parliament's (General Synod) two days of debate about safeguarding on Wednesday, which were summed up in media headlines in the BBC and for example the Guardian as "C of E votes against full independence for safeguarding against expert advice". 

This inevitably does not, nor could it represent, the careful and conscientious discussion of all the issues which actually took place in the debates. I noticed a number of points: one was the intense and prolonged silence that followed the relaying of comments by survivors of the abuse of John Smyth - which indicated for me the genuine engagement of the listeners with their suffering. The second was that the Charity Commission had raised problems with churches outsourcing safeguarding because trustees may not delegate their trustee responsibilities. The third was, I believe, that legal snags had been raised by the law firm, Veale Wasbrough Vizards (VWV). The fourth was the complicated situation of cathedral clergy who are also trustees with thousands of visitors as tourists, worshippers and choir schools. It's complex because cathedrals are independent from the central institutions of the Church of England and from dioceses.

All dioceses now have their own professional safeguarding advisors. The model of safeguarding which the Synod voted for (Model 3) retained this local layer, while working for Model 4 (central fully independent safeguarding). If you're interested, the relevant differences between the original (favoured) motion and as it was amended and eventually passed are shown below in paragraph (c). An additional amendment (d) was added.

9  ‘That this Synod:
(a)  thank all those involved in Church safeguarding, particularly the victims and survivors who give so generously of their wisdom and experience, often at great personal cost, and parish safeguarding officers who make sure that safeguarding is a priority in every level and all those who support them in dioceses;
(b)  affirm its commitment to greater independence in safeguarding in the Church of England;
(c)  thank the Response Group for its work for greater independence in safeguarding in the Church of England, endorse model 4 as the direction of travel, and request the lead bishop to engage with the relevant bodies with a view to implementation.’ 

9  ‘That this Synod:
(a)  thank all those involved in Church safeguarding, particularly the victims and survivors who give so generously of their wisdom and experience, often at great personal cost, and parish safeguarding officers who make sure that safeguarding is a priority in every level and all those who support them in dioceses;
(b)  affirm its commitment to greater independence in safeguarding in the Church of England;
(c)  thank the Response Group for its work for greater independence in safeguarding in the Church of England, and, noting the significant reservations around model 4 in paragraph 62 of GS 2378 and the legal advice from VWV dated 31st January 2025, endorse model 3 as the way forward in the short term and call for further work as to the legal and practical requirements necessary to implement model 4.
(d)  lament and repent of the failure of the Church to be welcoming to victims and survivors and the harm they have experienced and continue to experience in the life of the Church.’  

As is clear, the end destination of the amended motion is the same as the original; it was the question of the best road to reach it.

No one, least alone myself, can blame the headline writers for caricaturing rather than fairly characterising the discussions. However it is not fair to say that the Synod voted against full independence of safeguarding. They simply voted for staged greater independence, which obviously must feel like a failure to survivors but in my view is not. 

Andrew Brown has made an interesting comment on the debates. He comments on the flaws of the so-called best of independent safeguarding.

 PS Having watched more proceedings than I should have, I take my hat off and bow deeply to those friends of mine who have actually taken part in the arcane dealings of Synod.

Ruined Church?

Last night as I was going to sleep I saw a picture.  It was of ground covered with medieval masonry as if it was an ancient house recently struck by a missile attack.  The size and nature of the rubble indicated that it might have once been a church.  Then I heard a voice in my head, ‘Do you reckon, human being, that this church can be rebuilt?’

 

And I thought, ‘God knows! But I don’t believe it can be restored to the building it once was.  No amount of human plans and ingenuity would be sufficient to achieve that.’

Then the voice said, ‘Human being, call the wind to blow over these stones.’  

So I prayed, ‘Spirit, please come.’  Then there was a mighty wind, like an earthquake, which shook and seized the rocks — all but one.  That one great stone remained unmoved and stable, and I saw that it was the former foundation stone, the Cornerstone.  

And a voice came from the wind which addressed the shaken stones, saying, ‘See that you love one another; even as He has loved you, you are to love one another.’  And I looked and saw the stones, one by one, course upon course, coming together to create a new building around the great Cornerstone.  There was no longer need of laws and regulations to hold the  stones in place, because in their hearts they were full of love which bound them together.  I knew that this building was different from what it had been before, because its windows were clear, clear as crystal, so that everyone could see inside; its doors were always open.  It was as if there was music from inside, ‘All are welcome, all are welcome, all are welcome in this place.’  Finally I looked up and saw fixed in place a finial on the pitch of the roof.  It was the cross which I had first seen lying among the rubble of the destroyed church.  

And I remembered Jesus’s words to Simon Peter, ‘The gates of Hell shall not prevail against my Church.’

The British silicon valley?

Rachel Reeves

 You might have imagined that, having been privileged to study at both Cambridge and Oxford, I would have been delighted with Rachel Reeves, the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Finance Minister), when last week she announced plans to create a "silicon valley" type corridor between the two university towns. However having been born a Geordie and having spent seven years (including a further degree) north of the Watford Gap services, I'm not entirely a southerner.

Sadiq Khan

She claimed it would add £78 billion to the UK economy - so it must be a good thing, mustn't it? (BBC report 29th January). It reminded me of the Yes Minister episode about why the M40 had been built; the answer was because all the top civil servants wanted a quick route to the feasts at their old colleges. I suppose the proposal for a third runway at Heathrow Airport is connected to the unnecessary development of the already over-developed south of England, despite the claims it would benefit regions as far away as Scootland (40% south-east / 60% the rest). The one thing no doubt the rest of the country should feel grateful for is that Londoners will have to endure the extra air pollution and aircraft noise. No wonder, having done so much to clean up the city, the mayor, Sadiq Khan, does not share Ms Reeves' enthusiasm for the plan.

Instead of pouring further resources into the already well-resourced south, why does not this Labour government which benefitted so greatly from the double collapse of the Tory "red wall" in the north of England and of the Scottish Nationalists north of the border - and it was a matter of collapse rather than of a victory of ideology - why does it not capitalise on their regional advances and invest in those areas? Failure to will, I fear and predict, lose it much of the ground it gained at last year's election. 

There are other academic centres of excellence apart from the privileged élites of Oxbridge. For example, Manchester is at the forefront of technical innovation; Sheffield University hosts pioneering medical research. And further north Scottish universities are no less vigorous. Isn't it time that a Labour government sets the lead in affirming its commitment to levelling up in more than token gestures such as removing charitable status tax relief from private (aka public) schools? Invest in trans-Penine links between Lancashire and Yorkshire, put money (encourage investment in) into developing regional airports, promote northern universities? Forget about Cambridge and Oxford - they don't need more help to swim.