It nearly played out as expected. Despite pleas from victims for a fully independent body to oversee safeguarding in the Church of England, the General Synod (its national assembly) last week opted for a compromise—enhancing oversight but stopping short of complete independence. Members of the Church’s parliament voted in favour of new measures to handle abuse complaints, a move aimed at rebuilding trust after multiple scandals. But for survivors who have long called for real accountability, the decision will likely feel like yet another case of the Church protecting its own.
The five-day Synod meeting unfolded against the backdrop of an unprecedented crisis for the Church of England. The abuse scandals have deepened an already severe loss of public confidence, compounding multiple crises that threaten the Church’s future. For centuries, it has presented itself as Britain’s moral compass—but its failure to protect vulnerable individuals has shattered that image. To many, the Church’s actions reek of hypocrisy, especially given its firm stance on issues, such as sexuality and marriage.
Years Of Silence
In November, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby (the Church’s senior most figure), stepped down amid a damning report that found that he failed to act on allegations of child sexual abuse within the Church of England. The independent inquiry into the late John Smyth, a barrister and evangelical leader, exposed decades of unchecked abuse of over 130 boys in the UK and Africa. The report stated that Welby “could and should” have formally reported the abuse when he first became aware in 2013, but instead, Church leaders displayed a “lack of curiosity” and allowed the matter to be minimised. Smyth was able to continue his alleged abuse due to systemic failures within the Church, which ignored warnings as far back as 1982. The scandal has deeply damaged the Church’s moral authority, with an NGO, The Children’s Society, even refusing a donation from Welby, citing its inconsistency with their values.
With Welby’s resignation, the leadership of the Church of England has been trying hard to regain public trust. Efforts are on to find a successor. The Church’s responsibilities have been divided by some key insiders. The process of appointing a new Archbishop is expected to take months. It could be a challenging job as the next Archbishop will inherit a Church struggling with a credibility crisis, declining membership and growing divisions over social issues.
‘Religion As Cloak’
One of the most high-profile cases of abuse involved Bishop Peter Ball, who was sentenced to prison for a series of offences against teenage boys and young men. The court was told that Ball used “religion as a cloak” to carry out the abuse between the 1970s and 1990s. What was shocking was that Bishop Ball had received support from a member of the Royal Family and other establishment figures as he attempted to evade charges in the early 1990s, when allegations of sexual abuse against young aspiring priests first surfaced.
The abuse allegations against high-profile church figures, such as John Smyth, are not an isolated case. For years, the Church of England has been rocked by multiple abuse scandals, with damning reports revealing systemic failures in handling cases of sexual abuse, which also involves children. The most significant investigation was the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA), which in 2020 exposed how Church leaders repeatedly prioritised protecting the institution’s reputation over safeguarding victims.
Here are a few key findings from the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA) 2020 regarding the Church of England:
- Failure to Protect Victims: The Church of England prioritised its reputation over the safety of children, often shielding clergy accused of abuse instead of taking decisive action.
- Institutional Cover-Ups: Senior church figures, including bishops, were found to have ignored or downplayed allegations, allowing abusers to continue working within the Church.
- Inadequate Safeguarding Measures: The Church’s internal safeguarding systems were deeply flawed, with inconsistent reporting procedures and a lack of independent oversight.
- Victim-Blaming and Poor Support: Survivors were often met with dismissal, scepticism, or hostility, exacerbating their trauma instead of offering them justice and pastoral care.
The IICSA report concluded that the Church leadership had enabled a culture of secrecy and inaction. Even after public revelations, the Church’s safeguarding policies remained inconsistent.
Why The Church Of England Matters
The Church of England still matters in this country. Britain presents a constitutional paradox: it is a largely secular society, yet it has an official state religion. In contrast, India is a secular republic with no state religion. The Church of England holds a unique legal and constitutional status, despite the UK being a pluralistic nation where religious practice is in steep decline. Also, the Church and the State have a historic bond. Founded in 1534 by King Henry VIII after breaking from the Roman Catholic Church, the Church of England has been intertwined with the British state from its inception. The monarch—now King Charles III—is not just the Head of State but also the Supreme Governor of the Church of England. At coronations, the monarch takes an oath to uphold the “Protestant Reformed Religion”, cementing the Church’s place in state traditions.
Law And Politics
Unlike most secular democracies, the Church of England retains direct influence in Parliament. The House of Lords includes 26 bishops (called the ‘Lords Spiritual’), who can debate and vote on legislation. This grants the Church a formal role in lawmaking. The Archbishop of Canterbury plays a central role in state ceremonies, from royal weddings to Remembrance Day, reinforcing the Church’s presence in national life. For many, the monarchy and the Church of England symbolise Britain’s historical continuity. While secular campaigners push for disestablishment, there is little public demand for change. Even among non-religious Britons, the issue does not generate strong opposition. It must be added that the Church is like a soft power too, as one-third of state-funded schools in England are Church of England institutions. It remains a key player in social justice, engaging in issues like homelessness and asylum seeker support.
A Global Problem
We must bear in mind that scandals within religious institutions are not confined to the Church of England. Across faiths and fraternities, allegations have surfaced in the Roman Catholic Church, Evangelical megachurches, Orthodox Jewish communities, and Islamic institutions. There appears to be common patterns of systemic cover-ups, a reluctance to hold perpetrators accountable, and a prioritisation of institutional reputation over victims.
The Catholic Church’s scandals, spanning many countries, remain the most notorious, with investigations exposing decades of hidden misconduct at the highest levels. Meanwhile, Evangelical and Protestant churches, particularly in the US, have also faced serious allegations of abuse. Unlike the Church of England, which has a central authority, these religious institutions are often unable to act against abuse because of their decentralised structures, which make oversight difficult. Similarly, ultra-Orthodox Jewish communities have been criticised for discouraging victims from going to secular authorities. Abuse allegations in Islamic institutions often go under-reported due to cultural stigmas. In all these cases, institutions have been accused of shielding abusers rather than protecting victims.
In any case, the lesson for the Church of England is clear. Both its well-wishers and critics agree that it must embrace transparency, hand oversight to an independent body and implement survivor-centred reforms. As a state institution, the Church of England has a unique responsibility to lead by example. Failure to act decisively will only deepen public scepticism not just towards itself but towards faith-based institutions in general.
(Syed Zubair Ahmed is a London-based senior Indian journalist with three decades of experience with the Western media)
Disclaimer: These are the personal opinions of the author