The Church of England finds itself at a critical juncture, facing potential crises that could further erode the trust of its congregation and the public. As the former head of a national inquiry into child sexual abuse states, the urgency for a comprehensive, independent safeguarding system is now more pressing than ever.

During the upcoming General Synod, members will deliberate on two significant proposals aimed at overhauling the Church’s safeguarding processes. The first option proposes the establishment of an independent central safeguarding team, while the second option suggests that church safeguarding officers nationwide become integrated within this independent body. Both models aim to ensure external scrutiny of safeguarding work, reflecting the long-overdue need for accountability in a system that has historically been criticized for its lack of transparency.

Prof. Alexis Jay, a leading authority on child protection, argues vehemently that only the latter model, which emphasizes full independence, is appropriate. Drawing from her extensive inquiry published in October 2022, which examined a myriad of abuse cases across various institutions, she noted that current safeguarding standards within the Church fall below those of secular counterparts. In her words, “the Church must face up to its responsibilities and do what they need to do.” The statistical evidence supporting her stance is profound; a 66-page document disclosed that it would take a minimum of two years to legislate for a scrutiny body, highlighting the immediate need for reform.

Dame Jasvinder Sanghera, a survivor advocate, echoed these sentiments, emphasizing that the Church’s existing safeguarding system fundamentally fails to prevent abuse and often facilitates cover-ups. Her scathing critique points towards a culture of deference that hampers progress within the Church. As an institution that has been forsaken by many because of its mishandling of abuse allegations, the Church’s commitment to a transparent and accountable model is not just preferable; it is necessary.

The potential consequences of not adopting a rigorous independent safeguarding model could lead to further crises and renewed calls for radical reforms. Prof. Jay warned that neglecting to implement a more comprehensive model would likely result in additional scandals, urging decision-makers at the Synod to recognize the gravity of these implications.

As the Church of England grapples with its tumultuous past and seeks to redefine its future, it stands at a crossroads. The proposed reforms present a chance to rectify wrongs and restore faith in a system that should prioritize the safety and well-being of its most vulnerable members. Advocates for reform stress that the Church can no longer afford to manage safeguarding as it has in the past; an independent regulatory body must be instituted to ensure safety protocols withstand scrutiny.

The outcome of this Synod debate will reveal whether the Church is ready to embrace a future of accountability and protection for all its members. The many voices calling for change represent a broader societal commitment to safeguarding the vulnerable, emphasizing that this reform will not only serve the Church but society as a whole.