[22 March 2025] Diocesan Synod meetings come around quite frequently, or so it sometimes seems to me. But it always surprises me how much appears to happen in the intervening weeks between one meeting and the next. This time is no exception. Since we last met in November 2024, a mere three months ago, a great deal seems to have happened, sands have shifted once more, in the world and in the Church. Before I spend a little time reflecting on recent events, let me remind us all of the exhortation by St. Paul’s to the Philippians:

Do not worry about anything, but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God. And the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus (Philippians 4. 6-7).

So, with these words of comfort ringing in our ears, let’s turn our attention to the world around us. The swearing in of Donald Trump as 47th President of the United States of America on 20th January, has recalibrated global affairs somewhat, including through such decisions as the imposition of trade tariffs and the manner in which diplomatic relations are carried out in seeking to negotiate peace in areas of conflict. The world is holding its breath to see what the implications might be of some of these extraordinary tactics which many fear are undermining what we have hitherto considered to be international norms. Meanwhile, violence has broken through the fragile ceasefire in Gaza, guns are still sounding in Ukraine and, indeed, in Sudan, The Democratic Republic of Congo, and elsewhere.

But it’s not just world politics that might concern us. Closer to home in Europe, in the recent elections in Germany the far right AFD party won over 20% of the vote, dividing the country geographically along similar lines to the election that saw the Nazi party come to power in 1933. The success of the AFD reflects a pattern we have seen in numerous elections across the continent, and the response of the traditional and mainstream political parties to the emergence of populist and divisive politics can sometimes be deeply concerning in itself. For example, in this country we have the Conservative Party now suggesting that the Human Rights Act should no longer apply in immigration decisions. They are calling for a change in the law that would stop anyone being able to challenge their deportation on human rights grounds – in effect undermining an Act that has at its very core the notion that human rights apply to each and every person regardless of who they are and what their circumstances might be.

So let us not kid ourselves. These are dangerous times for democracy and also for some basic human values such as courtesy, kindness, justice. If we want these values upheld in society, and indeed in the church, then we cannot be passive bystanders. We have to speak and act when we can, use our vote whenever possible, and be mindful of our own conduct and how we relate to one another, especially when we disagree. It doesn’t take long for patterns of behaviour amongst political leaders beyond the borders of this country to impact British society and trickle down to the grass roots, which includes the church. We each as individual Christians, and collectively as a church, must make deliberate choices if we are to avoid the erosion of our common life. How each one of us speaks and acts in every situation, how we build Christian communities, seeking to encompass difference and diversity – these things matter. We have the opportunity, if we choose to use it, to model a different, a better way of being, demonstrating to the world that it is possible to listen carefully to those with whom we disagree, to be gentle in managing our differences, to celebrate our diversity, and seek to occupy the middle ground that respects nuance and complexity and resists polarised opposites with their tendency to demonise the other.

In Anglican ecclesiology, we are a diocesan family. Families argue; they fall out and experience conflict. So we shouldn’t be surprised when there are disagreements amongst us. But families also have choices about how to resolve their differences, whether to assume the best or worst of one another, whether to allow wounds to fester or learn to compromise and forgive, whether to pursue individual claims that can in the end tear apart or work for peace and seek reconciliation.

With all that as a back drop I want to offer some reflections on the recent decision by General Synod about the future of safeguarding. There has been an awful lot of rhetoric about the direction of travel that’s now been set; some of it true, much of it not. So, I want to share with you my own understanding, in the hope that you will take some encouragement.

In recent times, probably the past year or so, and following several high profile scandals, there has, rightly, been a huge amount of work done on how we might improve safeguarding in the church. But along the way there have also been some misunderstandings. I often hear people say, for example, that Professor Alexis Jay recommended to the church whole scale independence in safeguarding, and that it’s scandalous we haven’t followed her advice. In reality, Professor Jay was not asked for her opinion on whether full independence was the right way ahead, rather she was asked to outline how it would be possible to achieve. This is a significant difference, often forgotten. Her remit was to tell us how independence could be achieved, not whether it should.

In any case, on the back of her report, work began to explore the best possible way forward. A steering group was formed which included consultation with victims and survivors and, eventually, two possible models were presented to General Synod a few weeks ago in February – model 3, advocating for independent scrutiny of all aspects of Church of England safeguarding and independent operation for the National Safeguarding Team, whilst leaving diocesan safeguarding teams within diocesan structures; and model 4, advocating for full independence operationally involving the transfer of over 80 charities operating within 42 dioceses and cathedrals, into one overarching charity, overseeing the whole safeguarding operation for the Church of England.

These two models were presented to synod on the basis that both were good and both would mark a significant step in the right direction. Synod was told that the steering group could not agree on which their preference was and, though the majority of victims and survivors consulted preferred model 4, they also were not unanimous. Because of the Standing Orders and the way that Synod works, it wasn’t possible to present us with both models and allow us to choose. Instead, one had to be presented, with the other put forward as an amendment. I am in no doubt that everyone at Synod was of one mind, eager to see progress made towards a better, more accountable system. But there were disagreements over which model offered the better way and there was a very good debate in which differences of perspective were aired.

So I was dismayed at the response after Synod eventually voted for model 3 (modified with an amendment committing to further exploration around model 4 and full independence). Somehow, amid the clamour of voices condoning and criticising the decision, we lost the opportunity to present a good news story about what is in fact a huge and significant step forward. Synod made an informed decision, based on cogent arguments including a strong case made in an open letter written by a large majority of Diocesan Safeguarding Officers across the country in favour of model 3, and the findings of an initial report by INEQE (an independent quality assurance body that is auditing safeguarding practice in all dioceses), which, notwithstanding several recommendations, has found that significant improvements are already in place and has encouraged the Church of England to continue the trajectory it is on.

I’ve spent a long time detailing the General Synod decision, because I think clarifying that decision here – in our Synod – is really important.  And none of this is to say we should ever be complacent about safeguarding or that we shouldn’t continue listening to and learning from victims and survivors, and reviewing our processes. But it is to encourage you to be hopeful about the future of safeguarding and to join in telling a different, more positive story. There have been appalling failures in the past, and because we are a human institution we can never claim that the church is 100% safe. But it’s OK to say that the church is now much safer than it ever has been, that our processes are more transparent and that there is greater accountability. Yes, there is still some way to go but across our parishes and in every level of the diocese, I perceive a commitment to wanting to improve, to undertake appropriate training, to learn from mistakes and improve our culture and our processes.

We have an excellent Diocesan Safeguarding Team, professionals with vast amounts of experience, who have invested in building healthy and robust relationships with parishes and senior staff. We should, I believe, be wary of putting distance between them and the diocese by pressing for the operational independence of model 4. The relationships that have been forged form a strong foundation for building trust and respect, not to be taken lightly. Furthermore, the independent safeguarding charity proposed by model 4 would only deal with those cases that met their definition of safeguarding, whereas our Diocesan Team deal with many calls and situations that are not – strictly speaking – safeguarding cases, such as issues concerned with conduct. This is why many argued that model 3, in fact, makes for a safer church than model 4. We should also be wary of launching into full independence without fully exploring the immense legal complexities and even impediments of such a move. No other organisation comparable to ours in size and complexity has a model of full independence – we need to think very carefully about whether we are best placed to be those who experiment with an untested model.

As I draw to a close, I want to come back to where I started, a reflection on the challenge to us, as those who are joined together as one family through our baptism in Christ, to travel well together (to coin a phrase), even when we disagree and even when others may behave unkindly or harshly towards us. It’s something I’ve spoken of often and some of you may be getting weary of hearing it. But it’s only because I believe profoundly, that in the current times, our primary calling is to be people of peace, even as we preach and teach the good news of the Word made flesh. Increasingly, I hear Christians, including those in leadership, clergy and bishops, criticising ‘the church’ as if they themselves are outside the church rather than part of it, bound together as brothers and sisters. Of course, there must be space for challenge and robust debate between us, as there was at Synod, but, ultimately, we are all part of the body of Christ, whether we like it or not, called to build up, not tear down, to speak in love, resisting the urge to judge, or ever imagining that individually we have the whole truth ourselves.

And so, in a moment, I want to finish by quoting from a recent article by Ed Kessler, Founder and President of the Woolf Institute which specialises in building understanding and relationships between Christians, Jews and Muslims. Ed is Jewish himself and a remarkable man who I’ve come to know a little over the past few years since we worked together as members of the Commission for the Integration of Refugees.

In his article in the Tablet, Ed is writing about the situation in Israel and Palestine, but his words carry a resonance not just for that troubled part of the world or, indeed, for those involved in interfaith relations. But they speak with a potency to us as Christians as we journey through difficult times, embattled by divisions and disagreements, whilst still striving towards the unity to which Christ calls us, and seeking to build peace in the church and beyond. This is what Ed says,

“Lasting peace can only be achieved when we are reminded that being human means truly seeing others as humans, like us; when we appreciate their history, their community and their values. Only in this way [do we] avoid the trap of demonising those whom [we] don’t know truly.

” A better future can only be achieved by “each side learning not to define themselves by themselves but to define themselves in the presence of the other.”[i]

As we pray those words for Israel and Palestine, let us pray them also over the Church of England and our differences; over this diocese and our life together, over each one of us and the communities we are part of.  And let us remind ourselves once more of the words of St. Paul to the Philippians, that the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding, will guard [our] hearts and [our] minds in Christ Jesus.

+Guli Chelmsford