The Church in the United Kingdom has not had a particularly good week. Many people are still reeling after the Archbishop of Canterbury's resignation in response to the Makin report. Has image protection taken precedence over the safety of the vulnerable and abused? According to the national press, it might indeed seem so. The Church of England still has some way to go, and further reforms are needed, including, in my view, the urgency of implementing an independent safeguarding process.
Some non-conformists and independent churches may be relieved that they are separated from the institutions. However, those who look in from an unchurched background may not understand the complexities of our ecclesiastical distinctions and lump us together, making all churches guilty by association.
It is not my place to speculate on why what transpired went unchallenged for so long but suffice it to say that the demons of power, control, and self-gratification were at work. We also need to remember that this occurred under the umbrellas of evangelicalism, youth work, and leadership development, terms many of us are familiar with and proudly use regularly.
Our response should not be to simply ‘tusk’ and shake our heads, pretending that we, too, would never succumb to such failures within our fellowship. Nor should we seek to distance ourselves from our sisters and brothers in the Anglican church. They need our prayers, our love, and our support at this time. We must never label and generalise, nor should we ever forget the victims of these crimes.
Over my ministry, I have lost count of the churches, chapels and mission halls that I have visited whose safeguarding policies are pinned to a dusty corner of the building and show little sign of being read or, indeed, updated. When a new visitor shows interest in helping, do we undertake due diligence and ensure that we comply with our protection policies, or are we just excited that ‘someone with a pulse’ has offered to help regardless of their gifting or knowing much about them? Equally, do we accept that because we have known a person for some time, that safeguarding policies are not needed? Worse still, and I have witnessed this first-hand, is there a suspicion around such policies usually followed by, “We never needed this in my day” to justify their redundancy in a particular church?
In my reading this morning, I was reminded through Luke 17 and the healing of the lepers how Jesus spent so much time with those on the margins: the poor, the sick, the forgotten, the migrants… Friends, this, too, is where we should be. However, we, too, need to protect those we minister amongst by following the recommended policies regarding young people and vulnerable adults. Unfortunately, many chapels and churches could also fall into the description of ‘being unsafe’ because they are not implementing the appropriate safeguarding policies.
So, I want to request we each do three things this weekend. Firstly, in our intercessory prayers, we pray for those who have been victims of abuse in wider society. Their wounds will be deep, often requiring specialist counselling and help. Let us pray that Christ would meet them in their brokenness and begin the process of healing. Secondly, we confess on behalf of ‘The Church’ our silence on such matters when we should have spoken up and done something. Thirdly, we commit to reviewing and updating our safeguarding policy by using our denomination's safeguarding trainers and processes or by seeking an external policy provider who can provide training on the subject.
Adapting Dorothy Day's words, "We pray for the most vulnerable among us - the poor, the homeless, the imprisoned, the undocumented, the discriminated against - all too easily forgotten. May God grant us the grace of hearts that yearn, hands that work for fairness, and policies that safeguard us all from harm."
At Rural Ministries, we use thirtyone:eight for all our safeguarding needs. Why not contact them to conduct a Safeguarding Audit of your church?
Simon Mattholie
CEO, Rural Ministries
Comments