Some weeks ago, I chose for our Bible study last week Mark 10. 12-16. Did I do so with some dreadful yet unknown prescience, I wonder? Because verse 14 in the traditional language of the King James version says: ‘But when Jesus saw it, he was much displeased, and said unto them, “Suffer the little children to come unto me.”’
John Smyth was a serial abuser of children and boys. His actions were widespread and deeply harmful. His victims endured severe physical, emotional, and spiritual trauma. The impact of his abuse on them is profound and leaving lasting scars on their lives, in some cases for well over 50 years. Those who have bravely come forward to share their experiences with a predator like Smyth over many years must be at the very centre of everyone’s care and concern, both within the church and beyond. I often feel when scandals like this erupt that many pay lip service to caring for the suffering when all they actually want is the scalp of a public person to crow about. Let’s firstly really show care and compassion for victims. That means really being on their side.
But turning to the Smyth scandal, it’s important to note that in a way, technically, this is not wholly a Church of England scandal, as Smyth was not an employee of the Church, nor were the camps and organisations he was involved with controlled by it. However, Smyth was licensed as a Lay Reader at some point. Furthermore, some Church of England Clergy, including some who were quite influential at the time, served as leaders at the camps where Smyth was abusing victims in the 1970s and possibly earlier. They did not do so in an official Church capacity, but they felt, as committed Evangelicals, that this was God’s work, and they should get involved. In the light of Smyth’s abuse, to think that God was in any way involved was a colossal error of judgment.
Because some leading clergy were involved, the current Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, rightly felt that it was necessary to commission Keith Makin QC (as he was at the time – now, Keith Makin KC) to investigate whether the Church could have taken any steps to prevent Smyth’s abuse and to identify lessons that could be learned. To initiate a review was a courageous move on Justin Welby’s part, especially considering his personal history with Smyth and the camps. Archbishop Justin must have known that there was a good chance that Makin would highlight and be critical of Welby’s own failures.
The review took five years to complete, and the length of this process itself is a regrettable aspect of the situation, although Keith Makin points to the complexities of the case as the reason – it is better to take time and get it right than to rush to judgment and be wrong. The Church, and notably Justin Welby, did great damage to the reputation of Bishop George Bell when they rushed to judgment over dubious allegations that most people now agree are not substantiated. Nonetheless, the victims of John Smyth have had to endure extra time before even getting an apology – not that an apology can ever rectify the wrong done in such cases.
Mr Makin has now published his report, concluding that the Church seriously failed some victims because church officials had chances to prevent and mitigate Smyth’s abuses but failed to act. Mr Makin specifically identifies certain individuals, including the Archbishop of Canterbury, Most Revd Justin Welby, among those accountable.
The fundamental problem is that as early as 1982, Smyth’s activities were definitely known about. A report by Revd Mark Rushton concluded that Smyth was abusing boys and had incontrovertibly committed actions that were crimes at the time. Contemporaneous writings by other clergy agree, but these reports – by Church of England clergy – that could have resulted in a prosecution or at least warned civil authorities were actively covered up.
(This did not include Welby: at the time, he worked for the Elf oil company with no role in the church.)
The information resurfaced from time to time. Had the authorities been made aware at any point, many victims could been spared their ordeal. In his recent statement, the Archbishop of Canterbury acknowledges that he was officially told in 2013 but didn’t tell the police. He thought someone else had done so. It seems he assumed that that was not his responsibility. Welby claims not to have known about Smyths activities earlier, which some victims’ groups take with a pinch of salt – as does Makin.
In recent decades, the church, like many organisations, has undergone a significant re-evaluation of its procedures for safeguarding children and vulnerable adults at risk of harm. This has led to a profound shift within the institution’s philosophy. The fundamental principles of vigilance, reporting, and understanding that safeguarding is everyone’s responsibility have contributed to making the church a much safer environment.
If there is any positive outcome from this sad situation, it is this: we must all recognise that safeguarding is the responsibility of each individual. While we do have Safeguarding Officers, it is crucial that every one of us speaks out when we see someone at risk of harm. It’s not our job to investigate; it’s simply our job to raise a concern. As a guideline, if something doesn’t feel right, it probably isn’t – report it to me, or to our Safeguarding Officers, or the Diocesan Safeguarding team. If the situation is time-critical, if someone is in imminent danger of harm, phone the police. This does not only apply to situations involving the sexual abuse of a child; it encompasses any circumstance in which a person is exploiting a power imbalance to take advantage of another vulnerable individual*—whether that be sexually, physically, emotionally, psychologically, spiritually, or financially.
(*When it involves adults, this only includes those not able to make decisions. A fully compos mentis, adult has the absolute right to be taken advantage of – if they so wish. So you need to get their permission before calling the authorities.)
The improvements made in the church’s safeguarding measures have made past failures more noticeable and painful. A failure in handling a case is profoundly troubling and is something that should be anathema to the church as it is to society. The church has let down many individuals whose lives have been irrevocably impacted. Such failures undermine the significant progress we have made and call into question our credibility as a safe place once again.
It is this that has led to the resignation of the Archbishop of Canterbury. The Makin Report suggests that he, along with others, could have acted differently — and that if they had, many could have been saved from an unspeakable experience of harm.
Justin Welby is right to have resigned. In our culture, it is right and proper that a leader should take the rap for an institution’s failures. It used to be so in all walks of life. Sir Thomas Dugdale, for example, resigned in 1954 over the Crichel Down affair, even though the events that led to the scandal occurred before he took office, during the previous government’s administration.
The doctrine of Executive Responsibility has regressed in our modern age of selfish fulfilment: it seems that today, only the church has the moral leadership to undertake this. In this respect, Justin Welby is to be applauded, although the length of time taken between the publication of the report and his resignation must be decried.
Also to be regretted is that his are not the only failures in this case, but I have yet to see some of the other named Church individuals taking responsibility for their actions or sins of omission. I also don’t hear an outcry against the five Police forces who knew but did not act, nor the schools where some of the abuse took place – Makin identifies individuals at the Schools who knew. Nor is anyone calling for the head of Scripture Union, the umbrella organisation running the camps, to take executive responsibility, nor railing against the Titus Trust, the successor to the Iwerne trust who did appoint Smyth… there were people in all these institutions who apparently knew and failed to protect the boys, including Guide Nyachuru, the boy who died and the others who have subsequently taken their own lives.
The Archbishop of York, Stephen Cottrell, has said that no one else needs to resign – I beg to differ. As Julie Conalty, the Bishop of Birkenhead and one of the church’s lead safeguarding officials, said, The Smyth scandal shows that the church is still not a safe place. Unless he calls for the responsible people to go, Cottrell gives the impression that he is part of the problem – he would rather have a stable church than a safe church.
Justin Welby has had a mixed primacy, bringing profound good in some areas. He has overseen the rise of women to the episcopacy so effectively that there are at least two viable female candidates to succeed him.
Ironically, he has overseen giant steps forward in safeguarding.
On the other hand, in his desire to retain the illusion of church unity, he has allowed the ongoing demonisation of our LGBTQ siblings in pastoral settings.
Justin Welby is clearly a person of singular faith, courage, humility, and integrity, so it is a tragedy that should end like this. The Archbishop has recognised that he cannot continue in his role because, as leader of the body with such institutional failure, he takes responsibility. He cannot continue in his role because the survivors need to hear more than a platitude-filled apology. He cannot continue in his role because of his own mistakes in handling the case. In the end, he has acted with dignity that is a strong example for all of us.
This is a very sad situation. No one is happy about these events and the way Welby’s primacy has ended. It is important, though, that we focus on, listen to and uphold those who have been through profound trauma. If these events have stirred up memories and emotions that are difficult and painful, please talk to me, or at least talk to someone. I am here to listen and present your story to God. I am here to represent God to you and to bring God’s profound love to you. That is the fundamental essence of priesthood.
Suffer the little children? There’s been more than enough suffering. Let’s make the church a safe place for all children and, indeed, for all those who Jesus includes when he uses the word metaphorically.
Basic safeguarding training is available to all of us. Some people are reluctant to undertake the training because it’s mandatory for certain roles, but actually, the training is not dull and boring and whilst no one will enjoy it (sometimes the case scenarios can be challenging), it is interesting and fulfilling. If anyone would like to undertake this, please talk to me.
If we don’t make the Church a safe place to be, we risk it all being torn down by a world that does care. Protecting the institution must never take precedence over protecting God’s children, of whatever age.
Let’s just make the Body of Christ a safe place to be. To paraphrase Mark 10.14 from a modern translation: “Jesus was really cross. Let the children come to me, and let them be safe.”