Safeguarding.
I must be honest: safeguarding is not a word that has featured overmuch in the course of my ministry.
When I was at college, some forty years ago, safeguarding hadn’t been invented. It’s not just that we didn’t do safeguarding training, it simply never occurred to anyone that we ought to do any safeguarding training. Safeguarding hadn’t been thought of.
But over the last forty years – which coincides with my career in the Church of England – safeguarding has come to the fore. Whatever the reason, safeguarding has forced itself onto the agenda. There have been some high-profile cases - Jimmy Saville, Rolf Harris; there have been stories of others in positions of responsibility abusing their positions; and then, of course, there has been the church. But surely the church was safe? The church which exists to be a sanctuary for the needy; the church, which is built upon the principles of love and forgiveness, and offers a welcome to all – surely, safeguarding should never be an issue in church? But stories began to emerge about Roman Catholic priests, firstly in faraway countries, then a bit closer to home, but well, we’re good Anglicans, sexual abuse could never happen in the decent old Church of England, could it?
But along came Peter Ball, and allegations that shook the church’s foundations. Could we ever trust our leaders again?
So, safeguarding has forced itself upon us. And we all filled out our CRB forms, complaining all the way. ‘This won’t do any good’, we said. ‘Those who need to be caught will play the system and still slip through the net.’
In 2012, I went abroad for seven years. I was the Anglican vicar of the ex-pat church in central Bangkok. No safeguarding in Thailand, despite working in a church that was 400 yards from one of the most notorious ‘red light’ districts in the world. I came home in 2019, to discover that the culture surrounding safeguarding had been transformed beyond recognition. Every parish had a safeguarding officer. I was asked to attend safeguarding courses. Fortunately for me, so I thought, covid intervened, and I ‘got away’ with doing safeguarding by Zoom: I have to be honest, reluctantly, and half-heartedly.
So, here I am, having reached the age of retirement, and realising that if I want to play any further part in the upfront ministry of the Church of England, I need to take the issue of Safeguarding seriously. So off to a safeguarding course!
I was struck in the introduction to my Safeguarding Training by a comment from the Archbishop of York: churches should be places of welcome, hospitality and safety. After 38 years of leading churches, I like to think that I know something about welcome and hospitality. If I don’t, then frankly, what have I been doing all my life? But safety? Is safety really one of the top three words that comes to mind when describing the function of the church? What does it mean to have a safe church?
A safe church is surely a place where everyone feels safe, secure and free to express themselves without fear of exploitation, abuse, or ridicule; in short, it is a place where every individual should be free to be the person who God intends them to be. The challenge that the church faces is how do we ensure that the theory becomes the reality?
To put safeguarding into a theological framework: the nature of Christian faith demands that love and forgiveness should be implicit in the DNA of the church. We worship a God of love, who calls us to offer His love to the world, recognising that through faith in Christ we are granted forgiveness and remission of our sins. In the words of Fanny Crosby:
‘the vilest offender who truly believes, that moment from Jesus a pardon receives.’
This forgiveness is available through the redemptive work of Christ to all who turn to God, irrespective of past behaviour. The church is a place where everyone, whatever their past background, should be welcome. But read the Bible and it quickly becomes clear that Jesus has a particular bias towards those in need, ‘‘The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to set the oppressed free, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favour.” (Luke 4: 18 - 19). The church, likewise, has a responsibility to welcome the poor, the weak, the marginalised and the vulnerable.
But this leads to a dilemma. How can the church be a place of forgiveness and welcome to those who have sinned, whilst at the same time be a place of safety to those who are vulnerable and most likely to be the victims of abuse? The church is walking a tightrope. Its task is to proclaim the gospel of salvation; with God there is always another chance. It is also called to protect the most vulnerable members of society. Victims of abuse merit support. Abuse can take many forms. Physical and sexual may be the most obvious and noticeable forms of abuse, but it may also be psychological, emotional, or spiritual. So easily, victims may feel pressurised into damaging forms of behaviour, and be unable to withstand those who abuse them. So when it comes to ‘healing’ or ‘recovery’ from abuse, victims require and should be able to expect, a safe environment is which to be.
So how can the church be welcoming and hospitable whilst also being a place of safety for all? As the reality of past abuses is acknowledged, extreme caution must be applied. Revelations from the recent past appear to suggest that historically, the church has been more concerned about rehabilitating the offender than about offering due concern and care to the victim. How can we overcome this imbalance when basic moral decency dictates that the victim has a far greater case for support and care?
A few thoughts:
Concerning perpetrators of abuse
Repentance is not a blank cheque to continue in sin. As Jesus says to the woman caught in adultery, ‘I forgive you…. Go and sin no more’ (John 8:11). If repentance is genuine, it must involve a recognition of one’s sin and a willingness to accept the punishment and any necessary disciplinary action. Ultimately, we know that Christ has paid the price of sin, and forgiveness for all is freely available, but that does not negate our responsibility for causing harm to other people. There are consequences to sin. In terms of committing a crime, the consequence may involve accepting the punishment metred out by the judicial system. In terms of breaking moral or ethical law, even though no crime in the statute book may have been committed, this may still involve due censorship or a demonstrable act of contrition. If necessary, this may include withdrawal from positions of leadership or responsibility within the church, and in serious cases, may result in withdrawal from public activity in the church. It should also include a willingness to to be held to account and to seek help to live a more godly life.
Concerning victims and survivors of abuse
The church has a responsibility to offer a safe and secure environment for victims of abuse. The ultimate aim must be to assist victims of abuse to become survivors of abuse by enabling them to find healing and peace and to be able to progress beyond their past experiences. This will often be a long and painful process. The church must do everything in its power to support victims and to offer appropriate counselling/ friendship/ opportunities for healing. This will involve recognising where mistakes have occurred within the church, doing everything possible to prevent such mistakes from re-occurring and ‘going to extra mile’ to ensure that victims and survivors of abuse are sheltered from potential abusers. Relevant safeguards, in terms of security checks, accountability and clear lines of authority are essential for all who are given positions of leadership and responsibility within the church.
It must be acknowledged that historically, the church has failed to take safeguarding seriously, and even if it has given lip-service to the issue, often it has not been followed through appropriately. So often, it can appear as if more concern has been given to rehabilitating perpetrators of abuse than it has to supporting victims of abuse, especially when perpetrators have held responsible positions, whilst victims are more likely to be young and vulnerable and therefore less influential and less likely to be noticed. The consequence is that there are victims of abuse whose lives have been seriously damaged. This clearly is an issue for sorrow and repentance, as well as a call to actively seek to offer support to victims. It also highlights the need for safeguarding rules to be rigorously enforced.
The issue of safeguarding is a highly sensitive issue which demands careful and sensitive thought and implementation. The church must not only take safeguarding seriously but be seen to be implementing safeguarding and to strive to be ‘beyond reproach’ in its public and private life.
コメント