Decades of abuse scandals and patriarchal cover-ups have taken their toll on the Church of England. In an attempt at redress, on 28 January this year, the Right Reverend and Right Honourable Dame Sarah Mullally DBE was confirmed as the 106th Archbishop of Canterbury during a ceremony at St Paul’s Cathedral.
Appointing a woman as the head of the church after more than 1,400 years of male domination is a largely symbolic gesture. But, by all accounts, the church has already put in place a raft of “safeguarding” measures that are designed to ensure all those employed by it, and those who are part of the wider congregation, feel safe and protected in its embrace.
“Safeguarding” here refers to the duty of institutions such as schools, hospitals, charities etc., to protect and empower vulnerable members of the community. And a glance at the Church of England’s official website (its face to the outside world) tells you that it takes safeguarding very seriously.
The image of a lighthouse prominently displayed at the top of the church website’s safeguarding page is intended to project an image of concern, responsibility and compassion to all.
In England, lighthouses ring the coastline warning sailors of hazards at sea by shining a light on danger but also acting as a beacon of hope, a refuge during a storm. In the Christian tradition, Jesus declares: “I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.”
The light from the lighthouse illuminates the dark and welcomes the flock into its sanctuary. As a finishing touch, the lighthouse is shown in red and white, the colours of the English flag.
The imagery is quite potent but does safeguarding actually make the church a safer place? If it helps uncover or, better still, prevent predatory behaviour and abuse, then of course, it should be welcomed. But, clearly, abuse still occurs even after vigorous guardrails have been put in place. On 6 February, just a week after Dame Sarah was appointed, a Christian summer camp leader, Jon Ruben, was convicted of sexually abusing numerous boys, several younger than 13-years-old, over a period of two decades. The judge in the case told Ruben it was the “supreme irony, [that] you were the safeguarding lead.”
Following the conviction, the Bishop of Southwell and Nottingham, whose diocese Ruben was an active member of, issued the following statement:
I am profoundly shocked by the terrible abuse of children admitted by Jon Ruben… The abuse of trust and harm to the vulnerable is horrific in any setting, but it is especially shocking when it happens in a context that should have been safe and nurturing.
This is not just a problem for the Church of England, any institution, large or small, that is tasked with policing its own behaviour can be compromised. When concern for the welfare of vulnerable becomes institutionalized, it is the institution and the structures built around it that can take precedence. An institution’s first priority is to protect itself, and it will seek to prevent individuals within its remit from taking any action that could harm its image or reputation.
For example, carers looking after the elderly or vulnerable at home are often told not to attempt any medical procedure, even something as minor as cleaning a wound or applying a band aid, but rather report the incident and wait for a “professional” to arrive. Many carers have first aid training but even so, they have to follow set procedures.
Every time you sit down for a meal at a restaurant here, you are immediately asked by the staff if you have any food allergies or dietary restrictions. Is this really out of concern for the customers or is it merely a precaution to safeguard the business? And shouldn’t it also be the responsibility of the customer to alert staff to any issues?
Safeguarding, which only became established and enshrined in government policy in the mid-2000s, is all-pervasive now. Every institution or organization however small feels obligated to devise their own safeguarding policy. It is easily done, as there are numerous templates for all types of organization to choose from online.
If an organization such as a charity working with vulnerable people does not have a strict safeguarding policy it can see its funding dry up pretty quickly as foundations will be unwilling risk association with it.
Because of its institutional basis, safeguarding can become an administrative, box-ticking, exercise, a procedure to demonstrate care and concern for the vulnerable that reduces human action to mere statistics.
The Church of England boasts, for example, that over the last two years, it has;
Worked with 166 victims and survivors who participated in policy design, communications, training improvements… Rolled out two Codes of Practice… Designed and developed the National Redress Scheme, with victims and survivors involved in over 160 policy decisions… Over 68,000 individuals completed our Basic Safeguarding Training, and over 35,000 individuals completed our Domestic Abuse Awareness training in 2025 alone.
If safeguarding becomes even more institutionalized, there is a risk that the original intent of the initiative, to protect and uplift to the disadvantaged, will vanish into a bureaucratic labyrinth.
When everyone has mandatory training and a clearly defined set of procedures to follow, the compassion and simple good judgement of individuals can be side-lined. Certainly, training can raise people’s awareness of the needs of the disadvantaged but it can also foster resentment at being told how to think and act.
Rather than simply developing guidelines and protocols, it is far more important to instil a sense of empathy, understanding and kindness in the wider community. I don’t have the answer to how this can be done in these politically-charged and divisive times but I hope we can start by gradually moving away reliance on impersonal organizational structures and get back to positive individual human connectivity.