Sounds like it was a hell of a gamble calling this consultant in ha ha!
On a more serious note you see this safety mission creep in other areas of public life. Many consultants do good work, but others use your fears to make money. For example, I’m the director of a small property company with 12 flats. We regularly get ‘ recommendations’ from fire alarm companies for expensive changes to our system. The last company I had in recommended work that would have cost many thousands, including work they had already done. When I asked for an explanation for each item I got very evasive replies. The next company I got in to check the system didn’t highlight any of the same ‘issues’ but recommended a new system as the existing one was ‘old’ even though it functions perfectly well. I’ve asked them if it’s in fact unsafe and have had no reply.
Safety is vital but it’s also a real magic money tree.
Yes, it's always a challenge when you bring in an outside expert/consultant. The implication is that you should defer to what they say as they are by definition the expert, but as you note it's not always that straightforward and sometimes it might be wise to push back. Particularly when it comes to the church which is an unusually complex and broad institution with a dizzying array of interlocking and eccentric elements. Not at all obvious how to apply an outsider's deep but narrow safeguarding expertise to the church. But that would probably look, to the outsiders, as special pleading and defensiveness.
I agree with you on concerns about concept creep in the application of safeguarding. Safeguarding as a framework has a specific purpose, and it should be improved alongside addressing other issues such as racism and bullying. The fact that concept creep is such an issue for the CoE illustrates its failings to address these separate issues, and they should be addressed with greater seriousness.
However, I disagree with your view on the INEQE's statements about the need for the CoE to make safeguarding the center of its work. I think they are using secular language to describe things that are clearly laid as priorities for Christians, and thus the Church. Particularly:
1. "Love your neighbour as yourself".
2. "Do not be a stumbling block", particularly as used in 1 Corinthians and Romans as admonishments to Christians who behave in ways that prevent non-believers and new believers from engaging with the Church.
3. "Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven" - it can't be literally applied, but it should be noted that repeatedly in Christ's mission there is an emphasis on creating a welcoming and accepting place for the vulnerable, including children and those with disabilities.
For me, the CoE's approach to safeguarding, and the historic failings of the wider Church to address these issues, is a fundamental violation of all of the points above. We have to ask ourselves, what is the point of a church? And if safeguarding, or whatever the secular language used to describe treating vulnerable people with dignity and respect in the future, is not at the core of that mission, are we fullfilling the basic commandments Christ gave us?
Hi Sarah, thanks for your thoughts. I agree that safeguarding is secular language for God's clear commands to love our neighbours as ourselves, and in particular protect children and the vulnerable from harm. This is and always has been fundamental to the church's mission. But it is only one part of the story, not the whole thing. There are lots of other equally important parts of the church's mission which cannot be subsumed under safeguarding, even in its Biblical/theological guise: evangelism, reconciliation/peace-making, much of social justice, worship, discipleship and more. These things are the 'point' of the church. Of course we have to engage in evangelism or worship or social justice in a way which is 'safe', i.e. does not raise risks of harm to children or vulnerable adults. But that doesn't mean safeguarding, in my view, is the centre of the church's work. For instance, we must always engage in evangelism, worship, discipleship etc in a way which is responsible with the finances God has given us. But no-one would suggest this means financial prudence is the centre of the church's mission. That would be the tail wagging the dog, as I fear sometimes happens with safeguarding.
I work in education, so I have a bias in terms of my own perspective and in my knowledge of safeguarding. In my experience, safeguarding processes, once you have a functional framework, are not a particularly difficult burden. The framework is important to get right, but once you do, it allows people to do all those other activities while keeping those core principles in mind.
So, let's say the CoE does say "safeguarding is at the core of everything we do". What does that look like? All activities follow safeguarding guidelines, which are built to protect the at-risk person and the staff/volunteers. Programmes that cannot meet these guidelines are stopped - which generally means protecting volunteers and staff as much as it means protecting those at risk. Staff and voluteers are trained on how to recognise signs of abuse, and conmect someone with the resources to help. Those who try to hide behind the cross to abuse others see consequences for their actions. The CoE demonstrates to the wider world that it has repented for past bad action and has made a genuine change to avoid a re-occurring sin.
Are other activities like financial prudence also part of the key mission of the Church? If it comes down to how we treat others, yes. The Protestant Reformation was started in large part as a reaction against selling of indulgences to raise funds for the construction of St Peter's Basilica. Different monastic movements, like the Franciscans, were started as a rejection of the wealth other monastic orders acquired. If financial prudence = not exploiting our neighbour and not using the power of the Church for material gain, then absolutely that is a key part of the Church's mission.
All of it comes down to how we treat our neighbour. If money, or how we treat the vulnerable, etc are fundamentally broken to a degree that we harm our neighbour, can we worship effectively? Can we evangelise to others in a sincere way? I'd say no.
I've not yet read the INEQE report in full. I'm pleased to see the progress they note. From my background working in the NHS, the criticism of the church's claims to exceptionalism really do ring true. Yes the CoE is big and complex, yes it's not one organisation but made of up the dioceses, but lots of organisations are big and complex, it's not an excuse for slow progress in safeguarding. The second half of the "bad apples" phrase needs remembering here too - it's not that a few bad apples means things are mostly ok, but that a few bad apples have the potential to spoil the whole barrel.
By the way the comment about the church commissioners' charitable objectives and the importance thereof made me chuckle.
The point about everything and nothing being safeguarding is actually illustrated very well by the part of your post about St Andrews Chorleywood. The business of debate between conservatives and progressives about sexuality isn't directly INEQE's business, but a church leadership which informs a young person that they are demon-possessed by virtue of being LGBTQ+ makes clearly abusive behaviour such as that described, more possible. Similar observations could be made about racial justice - if we as a church care about racial justice, then we'll note that, for example, Black girls are often thought to be older than they are, and so are often treated differently to white girls when they raise a concern.
It's important that harm and risks are dealt with proportionately, but having an eye to safeguarding concerns in everything makes this more possible. It's not about the CoE becoming a safeguarding organisation with a bit of a worshipping community on the side, but in integrating that awareness and thoughtfulness into all the things we do.
Hi Gill, thanks for your thoughtful comment. I agree that from INEQE's perspective the claims of the C of E's unusual nature or exceptional complexity etc will sound like special pleading. And no doubt having done dozens of these audits INEQE do understand in a deep way how the church really works on the ground. I think I have more sympathy for dioceses which are delaying on implementing INEQE's sweeping recommendations on their local safeguarding teams while they wait to find out what the national church ultimately decides on safeguarding independence. That's not special pleading, that's just common good sense - why spend lots of time and money ripping up your diocesan safeguarding team, recruiting new staff members under new job descriptions as INEQE want, when in a year's time it may well be that local safeguarding is taken out of the hands of the diocese entirely by a national level overhaul?
I guess I ultimately think that the 'bad apples' complaint, and indeed, aphorism, is unhelpful. A small number of bad apples may ruin a barrel, but I'm not sure there is good evidence that a small number of bad diocesan officials are ruining the church. I don't agree that the primary issue in C of E safeguarding is a handful of blockers in senior roles who are holding up progress. In fact as INEQE themselves state, lots of positive progress is being made. And there are a whole raft of reasons, some good, some less good, why a diocesan secretary, for instance, might decide not to immediately implement one of INEQE's recommendations. That doesn't make them the core blockage to systemic change. Reducing progress down to ridding the church of this small group of individuals is reductionist and slightly facile, in my opinion.
Your point on St Andrew's Chorleywood is a good one, and I absolutely agree that safeguarding should run through all the church's business like a stick of rock. We have to engage in evangelism with safeguarding in mind, and in worship with safeguarding in mind, and in discipleship with safeguarding in mind, for all the reasons you point to. But that's not the same as raising up safeguarding itself to a core mission of the church, and that is where INEQE seem to be heading. The C of E has already long accepted that all its activity must be undergone with a safeguarding assessment. That's why we have policies on safer recruitment, policies on how to do everything from synod to social action safely. Nobody is resisting that, rightly. But the church does not exist to protect children and vulnerable adults from harm. The church exists to do a whole bunch of other things, and in so doing those things they must also bear in mind how to reduce the risk of children/vulnerable adults coming to harm. That is a subtle but important difference in my mind.
Sounds like it was a hell of a gamble calling this consultant in ha ha!
On a more serious note you see this safety mission creep in other areas of public life. Many consultants do good work, but others use your fears to make money. For example, I’m the director of a small property company with 12 flats. We regularly get ‘ recommendations’ from fire alarm companies for expensive changes to our system. The last company I had in recommended work that would have cost many thousands, including work they had already done. When I asked for an explanation for each item I got very evasive replies. The next company I got in to check the system didn’t highlight any of the same ‘issues’ but recommended a new system as the existing one was ‘old’ even though it functions perfectly well. I’ve asked them if it’s in fact unsafe and have had no reply.
Safety is vital but it’s also a real magic money tree.
Yes, it's always a challenge when you bring in an outside expert/consultant. The implication is that you should defer to what they say as they are by definition the expert, but as you note it's not always that straightforward and sometimes it might be wise to push back. Particularly when it comes to the church which is an unusually complex and broad institution with a dizzying array of interlocking and eccentric elements. Not at all obvious how to apply an outsider's deep but narrow safeguarding expertise to the church. But that would probably look, to the outsiders, as special pleading and defensiveness.
Very wise summary of my concerns too.
I agree with you on concerns about concept creep in the application of safeguarding. Safeguarding as a framework has a specific purpose, and it should be improved alongside addressing other issues such as racism and bullying. The fact that concept creep is such an issue for the CoE illustrates its failings to address these separate issues, and they should be addressed with greater seriousness.
However, I disagree with your view on the INEQE's statements about the need for the CoE to make safeguarding the center of its work. I think they are using secular language to describe things that are clearly laid as priorities for Christians, and thus the Church. Particularly:
1. "Love your neighbour as yourself".
2. "Do not be a stumbling block", particularly as used in 1 Corinthians and Romans as admonishments to Christians who behave in ways that prevent non-believers and new believers from engaging with the Church.
3. "Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven" - it can't be literally applied, but it should be noted that repeatedly in Christ's mission there is an emphasis on creating a welcoming and accepting place for the vulnerable, including children and those with disabilities.
For me, the CoE's approach to safeguarding, and the historic failings of the wider Church to address these issues, is a fundamental violation of all of the points above. We have to ask ourselves, what is the point of a church? And if safeguarding, or whatever the secular language used to describe treating vulnerable people with dignity and respect in the future, is not at the core of that mission, are we fullfilling the basic commandments Christ gave us?
Hi Sarah, thanks for your thoughts. I agree that safeguarding is secular language for God's clear commands to love our neighbours as ourselves, and in particular protect children and the vulnerable from harm. This is and always has been fundamental to the church's mission. But it is only one part of the story, not the whole thing. There are lots of other equally important parts of the church's mission which cannot be subsumed under safeguarding, even in its Biblical/theological guise: evangelism, reconciliation/peace-making, much of social justice, worship, discipleship and more. These things are the 'point' of the church. Of course we have to engage in evangelism or worship or social justice in a way which is 'safe', i.e. does not raise risks of harm to children or vulnerable adults. But that doesn't mean safeguarding, in my view, is the centre of the church's work. For instance, we must always engage in evangelism, worship, discipleship etc in a way which is responsible with the finances God has given us. But no-one would suggest this means financial prudence is the centre of the church's mission. That would be the tail wagging the dog, as I fear sometimes happens with safeguarding.
I work in education, so I have a bias in terms of my own perspective and in my knowledge of safeguarding. In my experience, safeguarding processes, once you have a functional framework, are not a particularly difficult burden. The framework is important to get right, but once you do, it allows people to do all those other activities while keeping those core principles in mind.
So, let's say the CoE does say "safeguarding is at the core of everything we do". What does that look like? All activities follow safeguarding guidelines, which are built to protect the at-risk person and the staff/volunteers. Programmes that cannot meet these guidelines are stopped - which generally means protecting volunteers and staff as much as it means protecting those at risk. Staff and voluteers are trained on how to recognise signs of abuse, and conmect someone with the resources to help. Those who try to hide behind the cross to abuse others see consequences for their actions. The CoE demonstrates to the wider world that it has repented for past bad action and has made a genuine change to avoid a re-occurring sin.
Are other activities like financial prudence also part of the key mission of the Church? If it comes down to how we treat others, yes. The Protestant Reformation was started in large part as a reaction against selling of indulgences to raise funds for the construction of St Peter's Basilica. Different monastic movements, like the Franciscans, were started as a rejection of the wealth other monastic orders acquired. If financial prudence = not exploiting our neighbour and not using the power of the Church for material gain, then absolutely that is a key part of the Church's mission.
All of it comes down to how we treat our neighbour. If money, or how we treat the vulnerable, etc are fundamentally broken to a degree that we harm our neighbour, can we worship effectively? Can we evangelise to others in a sincere way? I'd say no.
I've not yet read the INEQE report in full. I'm pleased to see the progress they note. From my background working in the NHS, the criticism of the church's claims to exceptionalism really do ring true. Yes the CoE is big and complex, yes it's not one organisation but made of up the dioceses, but lots of organisations are big and complex, it's not an excuse for slow progress in safeguarding. The second half of the "bad apples" phrase needs remembering here too - it's not that a few bad apples means things are mostly ok, but that a few bad apples have the potential to spoil the whole barrel.
By the way the comment about the church commissioners' charitable objectives and the importance thereof made me chuckle.
The point about everything and nothing being safeguarding is actually illustrated very well by the part of your post about St Andrews Chorleywood. The business of debate between conservatives and progressives about sexuality isn't directly INEQE's business, but a church leadership which informs a young person that they are demon-possessed by virtue of being LGBTQ+ makes clearly abusive behaviour such as that described, more possible. Similar observations could be made about racial justice - if we as a church care about racial justice, then we'll note that, for example, Black girls are often thought to be older than they are, and so are often treated differently to white girls when they raise a concern.
It's important that harm and risks are dealt with proportionately, but having an eye to safeguarding concerns in everything makes this more possible. It's not about the CoE becoming a safeguarding organisation with a bit of a worshipping community on the side, but in integrating that awareness and thoughtfulness into all the things we do.
Hi Gill, thanks for your thoughtful comment. I agree that from INEQE's perspective the claims of the C of E's unusual nature or exceptional complexity etc will sound like special pleading. And no doubt having done dozens of these audits INEQE do understand in a deep way how the church really works on the ground. I think I have more sympathy for dioceses which are delaying on implementing INEQE's sweeping recommendations on their local safeguarding teams while they wait to find out what the national church ultimately decides on safeguarding independence. That's not special pleading, that's just common good sense - why spend lots of time and money ripping up your diocesan safeguarding team, recruiting new staff members under new job descriptions as INEQE want, when in a year's time it may well be that local safeguarding is taken out of the hands of the diocese entirely by a national level overhaul?
I guess I ultimately think that the 'bad apples' complaint, and indeed, aphorism, is unhelpful. A small number of bad apples may ruin a barrel, but I'm not sure there is good evidence that a small number of bad diocesan officials are ruining the church. I don't agree that the primary issue in C of E safeguarding is a handful of blockers in senior roles who are holding up progress. In fact as INEQE themselves state, lots of positive progress is being made. And there are a whole raft of reasons, some good, some less good, why a diocesan secretary, for instance, might decide not to immediately implement one of INEQE's recommendations. That doesn't make them the core blockage to systemic change. Reducing progress down to ridding the church of this small group of individuals is reductionist and slightly facile, in my opinion.
Your point on St Andrew's Chorleywood is a good one, and I absolutely agree that safeguarding should run through all the church's business like a stick of rock. We have to engage in evangelism with safeguarding in mind, and in worship with safeguarding in mind, and in discipleship with safeguarding in mind, for all the reasons you point to. But that's not the same as raising up safeguarding itself to a core mission of the church, and that is where INEQE seem to be heading. The C of E has already long accepted that all its activity must be undergone with a safeguarding assessment. That's why we have policies on safer recruitment, policies on how to do everything from synod to social action safely. Nobody is resisting that, rightly. But the church does not exist to protect children and vulnerable adults from harm. The church exists to do a whole bunch of other things, and in so doing those things they must also bear in mind how to reduce the risk of children/vulnerable adults coming to harm. That is a subtle but important difference in my mind.