Psalm 77
Your ways, God, are holy.
What god is as great as our God?
14 You are the God who performs miracles;
you display your power among the peoples.
15 With your mighty arm you redeemed your people,
the descendants of Jacob and Joseph.
16 The waters saw you, God,
the waters saw you and writhed;
the very depths were convulsed.
17 The clouds poured down water,
the heavens resounded with thunder;
your arrows flashed back and forth.
18 Your thunder was heard in the whirlwind,
your lightning lit up the world;
the earth trembled and quaked.
19 Your path led through the sea,
your way through the mighty waters,
though your footprints were not seen.
Luke 8, 22-25
22One day Jesus said to his disciples, "Let's go over to the other side of the lake." So they got into a boat and set out.
23As they sailed, he fell asleep. A squall came down on the lake, so that the boat was being swamped, and they were in great danger.
24The disciples went and woke him, saying, "Master, Master, we're going to drown!"
He got up and rebuked the wind and the raging waters; the storm subsided, and all was calm.
25"Where is your faith?" he asked his disciples.
In fear and amazement they asked one another, "Who is this? He commands even the winds and the water, and they obey him."
I read with interest this week that the Church of England does not allow gluten free bread to be used for Communion. I read it in both the Guardian, and the Daily Mail, so surely one can assume it to be true?
When I say I read it, I didn't actually purchase a copy of either paper, I just saw the headlines online. There was a lot of comment online, with people expressing strong opinions both for and against the ruling of the church concerning gluten free Communion bread.
When I say, 'I read with interest,' that's not quite true either. I would have been more interested if it was true. I have been blessing gluten free wafers for people who need them for years, and I knew this was all media generated nonsense.
General Synod has been meeting this past week. We have Parochial Church Councils that run parishes, and Deanery Synods that run Deaneries, and Diocesan Synods that run Diocese, and the General Synod that runs the Church of England. When I say 'run', I mean in partnership with the clergy; so the PCC and the Incumbent work together, as does the Deanery Synod and the Area Dean, and the Diocesan Synod and the Diocesan Bishop, and the General Synod and the Archbishop; and all have to work within boundaries set by 500 years of Church Law, and within the relevant National Legislation, and according to Charity Commission regulations, and in cooperation with organisations such as Heritage Groups, Charities, Ecumenical Forums, and Multi Faith Bodies.
That's just a thumb nail sketch, the reality is much more intricate and complex.
So when I say, 'run,' it's a wonder anything ever gets done.
Anyway, according to the news Media, and Social Media, gluten free bread at Communion had been banned by General Synod.
Except it hadn't. For people who have a gluten allergy ecclesiastical suppliers produce communion wafers with such a low level of wheat that they are considered gluten-free, and such products are even approved by the Coeliac Society. General Synod did not change this, but it was mentioned that the bread for communion must be made with wheat flour, even if it is so small an amount as to be negligible. There was no story there, or at least there was no story here unless you misrepresented the facts.
This is not an isolated case of misreporting on the Church of England. It may be a small thing, but during the time Justin Welby was considering resigning as Archbishop of Canterbury, the BBC, and other media organisations, often refereed to him as the 'Chief Executive of the Church of England.' I can understand the need to use terms the general public understand, but this is just misleading. A chief executive will make high-priority decisions, set strategic direction, and oversee plans to achieve organisational goals. A chief executive can instruct lower ranking executives to act, whereas an Archbishop can not instruct other Bishops to act, and a chief executive does not have to work with an elected Synod. Despite the big hat, an Archbishop can not on his own make high-priority decisions, set strategic direction, or oversee plans to achieve organisational goals; these things have to be done in partnership with the General Synod, and with other Bishops, and through that labyrinthine process I outlined a moment ago. To refer to the Archbishop of Canterbury as the Chief Executive of the Church of England is to attribute agency to him that he just does not have. Also, it's just plain wrong headed, the Archbishop is a Pastor, not an executive. You wouldn't seriously refer to me as a 'Branch Manager,' would you?
One of the matters General Synod was debating this week was changing safeguarding procedures, there were two models of change under consideration. I wasn't there, but from reading reliable accounts, here is my understanding of what occurred, and again, it's a thumb nail sketch.
The first Model, confusing labelled Model 3, proposed Safeguarding remain within each Diocese, but with an external organisation to provide monitoring.
The second Model, confusing labelled Model 4, proposed that safeguarding be outsourced to an external, independent, non-church organisation. I think that is what most people expected to be the outcome.
The advantages of outsourcing safeguarding are that it could help restore public confidence, it would also provide a unified national approach, and it should remove suspicion of bias in dealing with safeguarding cases. The disadvantages are, it may mislead clergy and churches into thinking safeguarding is ‘someone else’s job,’ and not our our responsibility, it also may dismantle good work done by Diocesan Safeguarding Officers, and those Officers may have to be re – employed or loose their jobs, and most complicated of all, it may well require Parliament to change the law to allow the Church of England to be regarded as one organisation, rather than as separate Diocese.
Joanne Grenfell, the Safeguarding Bishop, argued that both options would require lengthy and detailed work, but that the second option would necessarily take more time.
Bishop Philip North then proposed an amendment, which he called ‘Model 3.5.’ This would begin by appointing an external organisation to monitor safeguarding, as in Option One, and then work towards appointing an external body to administer Safeguarding, as in Option Two. This had the perceived advantage of doing what could be done now, whilst working on the feasibility of independent safeguarding.
In the end Synod voted for Bishop Philip’s amendment. Some think this a sensible compromise, others a fudge, and yet others a delaying of a decision that should have been taken now, but what it was not is what it has been widely reported as - that the Church of England rejected the idea of having an independent Safeguarding body. As with the gluten free bread, there has been mischief made in the media, and also by some Politicians.
It would be useful if there was an independent assessment of Safeguarding, so we could act on evidence rather than perception. For instance, do we have a worse record than other comparable organisations? One would think so from the media coverage.
I was considering all this when I then read that an independent body had done a report on safeguarding in the Church of England. Ineqe ( that's I – n – e – q – e, & pronounced Ineek ) is a safeguarding consultancy service, and recently it has published an audit of safeguarding in the Church of England. You can read it on their website. The chief executive of Ineqe is Jim Gamble, who was a senior Police Officer, and the head of the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Command. By the way, that is a correct use of the term, 'Chief Executive.'
The report is based on audits of ten Dioceses and nine Cathedrals. The following account of the report is from a Church Times article...Jim Gamble, writes that his organisation has seen “compelling evidence” of improvements, and that the “systems in place are demonstrably better” than they were in the past. “The Church of yesterday is not the Church of today. Moral outrage and public exposure have driven significant change,” he writes, acknowledging that “for many years, the Church and its community were profoundly let down.”
Things had changed, he argues: “Those on the front line of safeguarding are more aware, and the Church’s blended safeguarding teams — comprised of credible safeguarding professionals with previous experience from statutory or equivalent services — are driven by a safeguarding-first philosophy that is constantly evolving and improving.”
In an opinion piece published separately to the report, Mr Gamble wrote that, when he started the process, he was “initially deeply cynical about the Church’s capacity to learn from past failures.” He also suggested that it was “odd” that INEQE had not been asked to engage with the response group convened to recommend the next steps for Church safeguarding. “It is almost as if there is an inevitability that, whether right or wrong, something needs to be seen to be done to the Church. Adding, “For what it’s worth, here is my opinion: don’t tamper too much with what is actually working now, based on what didn’t work before.”
The report did recommend increased funding to help Diocesan safeguarding teams build capacity, and suggested this should be funded by the Church Commissioners rather than by Dioceses.
I doubt any of this will be reported in the news, or social media.
So what do I think?
I think anyone who deliberately harms a child, or vulnerable adult, should be reported to the police. If a person with an official ministry deliberately harms a child, or vulnerable adult, they should no longer be permitted to represent the Church of England. If there are legalities that prevent us doing this we should work with Parliament to change them. I think because we are Christians the protection of children and vulnerable adults must be a priority, in the Kingdom of Heaven the weakest come first. Survivors of abuse should be heard, offered restoration, and be able to see justice done.
I also think the Church of England is routinely misrepresented in the news media, and on social media. I think this is partly because our church is antiquated, and counter cultural, and bureaucratic, and so difficult to understand, and to present in 'news bites.' But we should not be naïve, there are people both in the media, and in politics, who seek to discredit the Church of England. I see how hard, and with what commitment, parishioner's work to keep their local church going, and it angers me to see their efforts tarnished by both the mistakes of the national church, and by malign misrepresentation in the media, and in what politicians say. However, the best we can do is concentrate on getting our little corner of the Church right, and not be dispirited.
Do not be alarmed by the wind and the waves, for Jesus is in our boat with us, and his
path leads through the sea, his way through the mighty waters, though his footprints are not seen.
Amen.
Comments