This statement is issued at 1615 on Thursday 7 November on behalf of a number of victims and survivors of John Smyth QC. It is a response to the publication by the Church of England of the Makin Review. Bracketed references refer to that review.
It draws attention to the fact that the publication of the review has been brought forward, undoubtedly making things harder for survivors who had planned around a particular schedule. Do we know why? Presumably there was a leak somewhere.
My cynicism suggests that the publication of the review was brought forward because the news was dominated by Trump’s election. No doubt it was a ‘good day to bury bad news’. Again, reputation management coming ahead of pastoral care?
I’ve probably become a cynical old man, Simon, but if I wanted to seize an opportunity to manage the timing of the release of this bad news, and I was senior in the Church of England, I would be very tempted to do it by leaking and C4 News would be the obvious recipient.
I agree Paul. Who benefits from this leak? Who suffers and dare one say is abused by this premature publication? In Government there would be a leak enquiry, and those responsible tracked down. Mr Speaker is assiduous in condemning leaking. Who is there for victims and their public relations- credit to Andrew Graystone and the ‘little people’ (those like Alan Bates, Jo Hamilton etc victims of the Post Office under Rev Paula Vennells) for their persistance. Rev Welby appears to continue to ‘take advice’ from senior colleagues rather than a conscience informed by the example of Christ.
Or maybe, Paul, someone was just frustrated about the long delay in this coming to public attention. If there was any intention to bury it, that hasn’t worked; it was front page news in Metro so everyone on the Clapham omnibus will have seen it. Certainly several of my fellow passengers on a similar London bus were reading about it this morning. In response to what someone has said below, I hardly think this sort of leak in Government would lead to a leak enquiry. Would the report itself lead to rows and resignations? I’ll leave that to others to… Read more »
Simon, A cynic would suggest that the explanations from you and Alwyn Hall immediately above might not be in conflict, but be two sides of the very same Coin? While I accept that is speculation, it is a fact that survivors are on the record for insisting that the release not be in the week of the US elections for this very reason. C4 News ran it as a minor item on Thursday. If publication had been next Wednesday as intended, it seems likely that it would have been the lead feature. ’Follow the money’, metaphorically not literally, was the… Read more »
See my reply to Paul Roberts. Although not the lead item, I would hardly characterise the C4N coverage as a minor item. Once the leak had occurred and become known, it seems to me the decision to advance the publication date was a correct one, regardless of the history behind the original choice of date.
It is also worth noting that the timetable with regard to publication had been set to enable those survivors who chose to do so ‘to read the document in advance in a timely manner and with support on request’ – see the press report ‘Makin to report in November’ on page 7 of the Church Times, 25 October 2024. This was a quote from the statement issued by the NST on Tuesday 22 October, giving 13 November as the publication date. Strangely, though, this statement, together with earlier update statements by Keith Makin or the NST explaining the continuing delay… Read more »
Interestingly, a quick glance at a W H Smith’s news stand this morning suggested that the daily press had relegated it to an inside page. They were more concerned with Trump and other national news.
The BBC did have a good article about it on their news website last night, but don’t seem to have carried the story forwards. Mind you, I’ve been rather too occupied with personal ‘internal issues’ (the news stall was in our local hospital) to look too deeply into it.
Controversial view- – – maybe it’s ok for it to be buried in the mainstream media? Is it really likely that a critical eye for longer (in terms of duration on front pages) from outside the church will be a net positive overall? Will it instead morph into a simple “god followers are silly” narrative rather than the technical “does the church have a good reporting system in place yet?” I think it was never going to be forgotten about in terms of e.g. General Synod – – likely will cause a few questions at Diocesan Synods.. On balance I… Read more »
Jon Smith
13 days ago
The accounts from the victims that Makin’s review reports on are harrowing: – on what happened to them; the life altering effects of the abuse; on respect for those victims who have shared what happened; on respect for those victims who don’t want to share. They are accounts that all clergy, church officers & synod members need to read with a sense of shame for how our CofE allowed this to happen, and a ruthless determination to address the many mistakes of the past. And the review has some great recommendations. But the elephant in the room is that most… Read more »
Adrian Clarke
13 days ago
A good day to bury bad news.
#churchtoo
13 days ago
An excellent statement
Surely the only reasonable responses are:
– C of E safeguarding to be taken entirely outside of the organisation and done independently and in line with all statutory bodies (schools, hospitals etc), which are so very much more skilled and trauma aware than church
– Justin Welby to resign
Prayers for the survivors mentioned here – along with solidarity and actual ACTION.
From:
A Safeguarding officer in a church
Survivor of church abuse
X
Janet Fife
12 days ago
What a powerful and moving statement.
However, ‘Dean Robert Warrington’ should read ‘Dean Robert Waddington’.
Absolutely. But it’s important to make the correction, for the sake of any Robert Warringtons there may be. It’s not a criticism of Smyth survivors or of Andrew Graystone.
Peter Baron
12 days ago
I was a leader at Iwerne Minster Holiday Camps for much of the John Smyth era and even though I ran a Christian Union at a public school from 1982-1991, it is extraordinary that I knew nothing about the John Smyth abuses – I only experienced the effective omerta which the report clearly identifies as part of a grotesque and alarming cover-up. However, one point I don’t understand in the victims very full and, I think, largely very fair response is this: “the Church of England is seen as a soft touch for abusers”. This comment would make sense if… Read more »
Most of the abuse happened through Smyth’s connection with Winchester College, with an eminently Anglican history & ethos, daily CoE chapel, an Anglican Priest as Chaplain, etc. etc. The camps extended his network into Cambridge and young adult’s lives.
I’ve only just started reading the report though I know the broad outline. The camps may have operated outside of any formal CofE structure but as he was an LLM once the abuse was known there was a responsibility to act on it.
Well said! At last, someone has named that this type of authoritarian, self-regulating culture is not typical of the whole of the Church of England. I say this not to excuse the C of E, but rather to ensure that challenge is made, and change is expected, in certain groups and sub-cultures. The Archbishop of Canterbury may have further questions requiring an answer; but so does the Titus Trust and others who maintain the culture that enabled Smyth to act, and protected him for years. That said, I hear no acknowledgement of involvement or responsibility from them, nor is it… Read more »
Yes – – I think the “disconnected” structure of the CofE and “church-things” in general is part of the problem. With Soul Survivor as well – – to what extent was that ever a CofE thing or an independent thing – – it was a separate charity after all. Granted parish-churches are also separate charities, but ancient laws link them in a more meaningful way than Soul Survivor ever was – or the Iwerne camps. I think the disjoint nature of these church things gives people an excuse to think “it’s not for me to investigate much”. Maybe Titus Trust… Read more »
Yes – I am so glad that someone has said this. Iwerne was proud to stay apart from the C of E, whilst also pushing their stars to become clergy. The perpetrators of the abuse were John Smyth himself and then the Iwerne hierarchy who did all they could to hide the abuse from the outside world. Justin Welby does not deserve the opprobrium.
Justin Welby knew about the abuse and did not act either to hold John Smyth to account, or to meet with and support Smyth’s victims. And the Main Report makes it clear that Welby also lied about what he knew, and when. Welby has disciplined other bishops and archbishops for less. So yes, he deserves the criticism.
I am yet to see a good case for him resigning – – I am open to being proved wrong. From my reading of the report (and I confess I have not delved as deeply as I could but tried to read through timelines at the very least). 1- Justin went to the camps; there is no mention that he was abused (for which is lucky, but not everyone was abused so I think on probability it’s more likely he wasn’t abused than was). Also no suggestion that he was involved in doing any abuse. 2 – There is a… Read more »
If you had watched Cathy Newman’s interview of ++Welby on Ch 4 news, it would be pretty clear why Welby needs to resign. He admitted having knowledge he didn’t act on, and promising to meet Smyth survivors but failing to do so. HIs resignation wold be a clear signal to other bishops that their failures in safeguarding will be taken seriously.
Having said that, Welby’s removal will not change structures which are systemically corrupt. We need rot and branch reform.
I’ve just watched it again, I still don’t see a reason. He didn’t have the ’82 report in 2013 – he was told in 2013-14 that the police were handling things and that was why he couldn’t talk to survivors. You would hope someone takes seriously advice “don’t do that because the police say so/ it will harm their investigation” The advice was wrong but I dont see why he should have known. Had South Africa responded to the bishop of Ely’s safeguarding officer (I recall reading the bishop tried “bishop to bishop communication” and even that failed ) had… Read more »
Absolutely right! A rabbit in the headlights! An embarrassing and incoherent response; does he no longer have a communications advisor who could have prepared him better?
As I see it the reason why ++Justin needs to resign is that he has lost the confidence of large swathes of the church and many survivors in particular.
As +Julie Conalty, +Joanne Grenfell and +Helen-Anne Hartley testify, whether using words or not. More reliable spokespeople for the church and God than are advisors on reputation management. Voices crying out for repentance. Advent coming, heralding a new church year, a new era, a fresh start, a fresh expression of leadership?
Thanks Peter. As an ex-women helper at Iwerne, etc, I agree. It was the culture of the Iwerne network that enabled this, and it is the network (or those in it that did nothing), that bears the main responsibility. In particular, it was those involved in Smyth leaving for Africa. Once it had happened, they should also have given proper help & compensation to the victims here in England. Iwerne’s male-worship culture (let’s honestly now name it as that), that excluded meaningful input from women, was a contributing factor. We still see and condone this dysfunctional culture sailing on, in… Read more »
It is dispiriting for victims that already some Con Evos in GS & elsewhere are already trying to downplay the significance to the C of E as a whole of the Makin Review. if you read every word of the 250 page report & every word of the 250 page appendices, and recall that Makin’s ToR were deliberately constructed to exclude as much material as they included (take 2 Diocesans in the Southern province, one of whom sits in the HoL just for starters, neither an Archbishop FAOD) you will see that the perniciousness of the cover-up has extended well… Read more »
“Utterly bemused US evangelicals” — as someone who has lived in a number of different cultures (including the UK) it does shed some light on how unique the English culture appears to those outside its ‘folkways and mores.’ The use of the term ‘evangelical’ in respect of Episcopalians, in my growing up, was fairly rare. Low-church was more likely. That is in part due to the fact ‘evangelical’ was a term already at home in the major denominations and church bodies outside TEC. The two hosts are noting the specific context that is associated with English Evangelicalism, which being in… Read more »
Evangelical obsession with gay sex can hardly be described as being “in thrall to sexual liberation”. It is their desire to oppress sexual minorities and forcing a so-called ‘biblical” morality on others that leads to perversion, scandal and abuse. If evangelicals stopped obsessing about sex, many problems would disappear.
“Oddly enough, to my mind, this cultural squeamishness and misshapen focus on sexuality, leads to the Iwerne phenomenon on one side, but also a kind of thrall around sexual ‘liberation’ being the key to personal thriving.”
By the latter group I refer to all the English excitement about being sexually alive as the key to liberation from cramped granny’s age. And whoopee, Jesus loves it too!
I don’t think evangelicals are obsessed with sex, there is just a lot of it around and they try to negotiate it as best they can using the bible as a guide. Where the bible is clear on the subject you can hardly blame them when they say so. If we weren’t moral beings, then of course many problems would disappear!
The big question seems to be whether or not the Bible is that clear – and that seems to depend on whose Bible you read. Or, more importantly, which language, ancient Greek, Hebrew or English you read it in!
As for Mr Smyth, have we heard anything from the National Viewers and Listeners Association on this issue yet?
It is highly unlikely that the NVLA will make any comment, as the organisation was closed down and dissolved as a company on 7 September 2021 (according to Wikipedia).
The Bible is clear that when a man dies without offspring, his brother should marry – or at least sleep with – the widow. I take it you think this practice should still obtain today?
Actually Janet – though I absolutely agree with you over the real and key points you are making the Bible is NOT clear with regard to the brother’s wife issue. Here’s the paragraph I wrote on this subject as part of a chapter on ‘Anglican views of the Bible’ in a WCC book that explored different Christian traditions views on scripture: Before moving on from the early years of the Reformation there is one final intriguing detail to note about the biblical issue – Henry’s “guilt” about having married his dead brother’s wife – that had provoked the initial split… Read more »
Ruth is a good instance of just this unclarity (see the final chapter), but the point to take away is that it carries along just fine in registering its message anyway (so too, the genealogical lineage of Joseph). God used Ruth (and Tamar!) to reverse the sorry state of affairs in Judges, and to ease us toward the Hannah of Magnificat hope.
Just saying the OT says this or that and why aren’t we doing it too? has never been a serious Christian hermeneutic. The conjunction of two testaments in One Christian Scripture affects how we now hear both parts.
Why is gay sex their main biblical preoccupation? Jesus never mentions it. There are many subjects to choose. But evangelicals pick gay sex to be obsessed about.
It appears to have been a settled matter at the time of Jesus until the mid 20th century. It has only recently become an issue. If Jesus wished to challenge Judaism’s interpretation of the OT he could have as he did over Sabbath, but chose not to instead preferring to uphold traditional customs on marriage.
We don’t know this. There are references [to John] as “the disciple Jesus loved”. Upon His death rather than asking his brother James (who wasn’t even there) to take care of His mother, He asked John. That says a lot about their relationship. Maybe there was teaching to go with that. Maybe Jesus did speak in favour of same sex relationships but James and Paul took over the church, sidelining John. Politically any teaching which promoted John would be de-emphasised and lost. John wasn’t special as a disciple – that was Simon Peter and Mary Magdalene. Whatever there was between… Read more »
At the time, for women, it was regarded as the done thing to be attached to a man in some way, as daughter, husband or mother. For a women to be independent, and perhaps to be financially independent, was a bit suspect.
And yet these independent scandalous women are the very ones that Jesus gathered around himself, such as Mary Magdalen.
So I am not sure he can be said to have upheld traditional customs on marriage.
Like in Kate’s excellent post on the disciple Jesus loved (below), please pay attention to Jesus’ actions as well as his words.
Simon Peter said to him, “Let Mary leave us, for women are not worthy of life”. Jesus said, “I myself shall lead her in order to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every woman who will make herself male will enter the kingdom of heaven – Saying 114, Gospel of St Thomas “Jesus never mentions it”. Without getting into whether the Gospel of Thomas is genuine, one thing it does illustrate is that Jesus might indeed have mentioned sex, identity or sexual orientation but it was subsequently suppressed and omitted… Read more »
You did not understand my point, which had to do with the cramped “No Sex Please, We’re British” becoming “Sex is Identity and Life.” On the other end of the spectrum (not English evangelicals).
Their brethren in USA are about to get their wishes in terms of the suppression of trans people and elimination of LGTQIA equality more generally. I fear for how those on these shores could be emboldened.
I am not sure what you mean by it ‘infected much of the evo wing of the C of E’. There is no evidence of this abuse spreading beyond Smyth, or that it was institutionalised. The cover up was appalling, but this is similar to cases of abuse in other wings of the C of E and indeed elsewhere in society to protect the institution, rather than the abused. I attended HTB in 1979-81 and there was no indication of a John Smyth cult at that time.
I still don’t understand specifically what Justin should have done differently / what he did “wrong” to the extent that it’s resign/sackable. Please can you explain? From my reading, He went to camps. Wasn’t abused and wasn’t implicated as being part of abuse. He came as a student after Smyth had been there so wasn’t part of enabling. Then he was given a vague warning in Paris – while he was a young man and not in any church synod or position of power so why would he have looked more to ask what that meant. He inferred the priest… Read more »
Very simple one, sir, as I’ve said previously. With failure by the church, and deliberate cover up on this scale – the buck stops with the head of the organisation. It’s called personal responsibility, accountability, and a little thing called integrity – which don’t seem to matter any more.
I don’t think you would call for his resignation if a single vicar was found to have abused people secretly – and an investigation by police had led to nothing (either because of the secret nature or for other reasons the police didn’t think they had enough evidence or public interest to look into it).
Probably a bit of a tangential contribution, but the state of safeguarding nationally was pretty ripe in 2013. I had an issue crop up – a registered sex offender whose partner was working with the youth group. This was discovered by accident when someone from his previous place of residence recognised him locally, and the info was passed on to me. Straight on the phone to the DSA (we only had one in those days), who told me in no uncertain terms that I had to go round to the house immediately with the text of an offender management agreement,… Read more »
I used to work as an enforcement officer for a gentleman called the Traffic Commissioner, responsible for issuing bus drivers’ and operators licences. We very quickly discovered that possession of child molesting convictions had a habit of inspiring severe and selective amnesia….. Child sex convictions are ‘non endorsable offences’ so far as the DVLA are concerned – they don’t appear on a driving licence, and the onus lies with the offender to declare them to the Commissioner if he/she holds or wants to hold a PSV driver’s licence. Thus talking themselves out of a job. We had several such cases,… Read more »
Francis James
10 days ago
I am concerned that many within CofE still do not comprehend the extreme level of brutality & violence exercised by Smyth. For comparison I decided to look at flogging in the navy of Nelson’s time, & was interested to note that Smyth would have grossly exceeded the limits of what was legally acceptable even in that far from liberal service & era. As an aside I may say that Nelson, son & brother of clergymen, was not on the liberal wing as regards using the lash, whereas his friend Collingwood, who had no clergy connections, disliked it intensely & prided… Read more »
Peter Baron
9 days ago
Please excuse another contribution from me! I was a leader at Iwerne from 1975-1992 and helped to run a Christian Union at a private school from 1982-1992. I disagree with some particular points expressed below: please note Makin hasn’t included my submission written from the schoolteachers’ perspective (my belief here is that the narrative has fundamentally switched in a certain direction). These are the points I would ask your forum to consider: The evangelical wing of the C of E is emphatically not the C of E. This is why they don’t follow canon law on clerical dress, using prayer… Read more »
I agree that there was a tension between charismatic evangelical Anglicans and those evangelical Anglicans who disagreed with charismatic phenomena. However, both groups (cf. HTB v All Souls Langham Place) held conservative theological views, and there was an overlap of public school culture which was embedded in both traditions. So, for example, you see John Smyth attending Stewards Trust summer house-parties (as I did) which were very much populated by HTB members and championing charismatic expression. Both groups were populated by many people from the upper echelons of society and many of them (as Smyth was) in the Church of… Read more »
I don’t wish to hijack the conversation around John Smyth’s criminal violence and its cover up, but can I thank you very much for your insight, which tallies with my (and many others’) suspicions re the HTB project. They termed it ‘the evangelisation of the nation’ but it may now be seen as ‘the evangelicalisation of the national church’. I profoundly disagree with the theology of St Helen’s Bishopsgate et al but at least they have always been open about their exclusionary position, as part of the curious diversity of the CofE. Until very recently HTB preferred to remain aloof… Read more »
Say what you like about St Helens: they were forthright about what they believed about sexuality and also the roles of women in the Church. I probably should have referenced them as a kind of 3rd force of evangelicalism in the Church of England. They were the City in Prayer, and to be fair they drew business people to them in lunch breaks. I also owe a debt to Dick Lucas for giving me a precious hour where he persuaded me step-by-step in his affirmation of infant baptism. However, in those days I was a (very) conservative evangelical. Looking back… Read more »
It does feel like moving that way – – But what happens then; will change happen? Very interestingly in the C4 full interview, he says that a large number of the ‘professionals’ (i.e. Safeguarding officers &etc) do not think there should be more independence in safeguarding but he thinks there should be. Surely that is a more pressing question – and will have more impact on the church (and survivors ) in say 10 years time than whether the Justin goes now or in 12 months time. I fear that it will be overlooked – – and if he does… Read more »
Sorry that’s not good enough he has to go for the sake of the abomination that was Smythe and those who suffered at his hands . If others follow in his wake so be it.
My question seems more pressing now; and I think you overlooked it because you thought I was trying to defend him with that comment.
Now he is gone – what about the rest of the systems in the CofE?
The safeguarding professionals who oppose safeguarding independence. Why? What can be done to change this (assuming as I do – that they are wrong to oppose it).
And very importantly – what can be done to make change more quickly than the usual snail-pace.
Jeremy Pemberton
9 days ago
I have read the whole report and the appendices. It is terrible. Welby on Channel 4 compounds the awfulness – I simply don’t believe he knew nothing until 2013. This horror was whispered about in evangelical circles long before that. I don’t think I knew about Smyth then, but I certainly knew about Jonathan Fletcher’s predilection for young men by about 1980. Anne Atkins is an old friend, and she knew about Smyth, so maybe I had heard. And there was the fellow of an Oxford College who was part of the whole coterie who loved to invite undergraduates out… Read more »
In case you missed it – they have just published a longer version of that interview. Archbishop of Canterbury extended interview on John Smyth scandal and resigning However you raise “I simply don’t believe he knew nothing until 2013″. But you don’t have evidence – only a suspicion that anyone associated would have known. If you really knew enough to report something in the past they why didn’t you? Presumably you didn’t actually believe you had information that needed to be reported, yet you assume he knew what you did and should have done more than you did? Keep in mind… Read more »
Susannah’s post is very moving and also very revealing . You were brave to have written it.
We none of us can know the Archbishop’s heart or conscience. My reason for feeling that he needs to be held accountable for the current situation is not based on what/ whether he knew of Smyth’s sadistic abuse prior to 2013, but what he did and failed to do after that point.
We are now at the end of 2024.
I want to be clear – – I do take Safeguarding very seriously. To peel back the curtain – – Bishop Ruth was not meant to be the Acting Bishop of Coventry; it was another person that Bishop Christopher had nominated. I was on Bishop’s Council at the time – – and thought I should do my own checking of this person “just in case”… I did some digging and found allegations on this other person that while he wasn’t involved in any abuse directly – he had not responded to a report of abuse in his diocese seriously enough… Read more »
I would be tempted to assume that his wife was guilty to some extent – – but I think it’s possible that she has lived most of her life in fear of John so was a victim in some sense.
Nevertheless it is a question that should be investigated – – and one would assume a proper investigation by police will reveal others who were in on it and who thus need to be charged….
I have no idea, but note that a charge of assisting an offender can only be brought by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions [Criminal Law Act 1967, s 4 (4)]. It’s well known that proceedings were commenced for the extradition of Smyth from South Africa and it may well be that the decision not to prosecute Mrs Smyth was taken then.
A correction to my earlier reply to Tim P below. The decision not to prosecute Anne Smyth was taken by the Crown Prosecution Service. This information was helpfully and reliably given by David Lamming on the ‘Surviving Church’ web, 1st November 2020.
Furet Rouge
8 days ago
Was the real reason for the cover-up in 1982 that in those days the conservative evangelical network didn’t see much wrong in principle with Smyth’s conduct? Did they view it as just scripturally based fatherly chastisement? All that might be wrong would be (i) Smyth wasn’t really in loco parentis and (ii) he went a bit too far.
The evangelical leaders’ discussion of possible criminality recognised that Smyth had indeed crossed a line, but not by very far.
This is the sea all the evangelical bishops (not just the Archbishop) were swimming in when they were young.
Ann Brumfit
12 hours ago
Channel 4 News tonight: A barrage of leading questions from Kathy Newman. Are we seeing the start of an uncontrolled witch-hunt?
A powerful response.
It draws attention to the fact that the publication of the review has been brought forward, undoubtedly making things harder for survivors who had planned around a particular schedule. Do we know why? Presumably there was a leak somewhere.
Indeed a very good response layout the continued pattern through the years. (I wish though that they could spell Savile)
My cynicism suggests that the publication of the review was brought forward because the news was dominated by Trump’s election. No doubt it was a ‘good day to bury bad news’. Again, reputation management coming ahead of pastoral care?
It seems to me most likely that the date of publication was brought forward as a direct consequence of the leak of the report to Channel 4 News.
You’ve just confirmed my own suspicions as to what happened. Panic management.
I’ve probably become a cynical old man, Simon, but if I wanted to seize an opportunity to manage the timing of the release of this bad news, and I was senior in the Church of England, I would be very tempted to do it by leaking and C4 News would be the obvious recipient.
I have no view as to WHO instigated the leak
I agree Paul. Who benefits from this leak? Who suffers and dare one say is abused by this premature publication? In Government there would be a leak enquiry, and those responsible tracked down. Mr Speaker is assiduous in condemning leaking. Who is there for victims and their public relations- credit to Andrew Graystone and the ‘little people’ (those like Alan Bates, Jo Hamilton etc victims of the Post Office under Rev Paula Vennells) for their persistance. Rev Welby appears to continue to ‘take advice’ from senior colleagues rather than a conscience informed by the example of Christ.
Or maybe, Paul, someone was just frustrated about the long delay in this coming to public attention. If there was any intention to bury it, that hasn’t worked; it was front page news in Metro so everyone on the Clapham omnibus will have seen it. Certainly several of my fellow passengers on a similar London bus were reading about it this morning. In response to what someone has said below, I hardly think this sort of leak in Government would lead to a leak enquiry. Would the report itself lead to rows and resignations? I’ll leave that to others to… Read more »
Simon, A cynic would suggest that the explanations from you and Alwyn Hall immediately above might not be in conflict, but be two sides of the very same Coin? While I accept that is speculation, it is a fact that survivors are on the record for insisting that the release not be in the week of the US elections for this very reason. C4 News ran it as a minor item on Thursday. If publication had been next Wednesday as intended, it seems likely that it would have been the lead feature. ’Follow the money’, metaphorically not literally, was the… Read more »
See my reply to Paul Roberts. Although not the lead item, I would hardly characterise the C4N coverage as a minor item. Once the leak had occurred and become known, it seems to me the decision to advance the publication date was a correct one, regardless of the history behind the original choice of date.
It is also worth noting that the timetable with regard to publication had been set to enable those survivors who chose to do so ‘to read the document in advance in a timely manner and with support on request’ – see the press report ‘Makin to report in November’ on page 7 of the Church Times, 25 October 2024. This was a quote from the statement issued by the NST on Tuesday 22 October, giving 13 November as the publication date. Strangely, though, this statement, together with earlier update statements by Keith Makin or the NST explaining the continuing delay… Read more »
The press release issued on 22 October is available here on the Church of England website and there is a copy on this site.
Interestingly, a quick glance at a W H Smith’s news stand this morning suggested that the daily press had relegated it to an inside page. They were more concerned with Trump and other national news.
The BBC did have a good article about it on their news website last night, but don’t seem to have carried the story forwards. Mind you, I’ve been rather too occupied with personal ‘internal issues’ (the news stall was in our local hospital) to look too deeply into it.
Controversial view- – – maybe it’s ok for it to be buried in the mainstream media? Is it really likely that a critical eye for longer (in terms of duration on front pages) from outside the church will be a net positive overall? Will it instead morph into a simple “god followers are silly” narrative rather than the technical “does the church have a good reporting system in place yet?” I think it was never going to be forgotten about in terms of e.g. General Synod – – likely will cause a few questions at Diocesan Synods.. On balance I… Read more »
The accounts from the victims that Makin’s review reports on are harrowing: – on what happened to them; the life altering effects of the abuse; on respect for those victims who have shared what happened; on respect for those victims who don’t want to share. They are accounts that all clergy, church officers & synod members need to read with a sense of shame for how our CofE allowed this to happen, and a ruthless determination to address the many mistakes of the past. And the review has some great recommendations. But the elephant in the room is that most… Read more »
A good day to bury bad news.
An excellent statement
Surely the only reasonable responses are:
– C of E safeguarding to be taken entirely outside of the organisation and done independently and in line with all statutory bodies (schools, hospitals etc), which are so very much more skilled and trauma aware than church
– Justin Welby to resign
Prayers for the survivors mentioned here – along with solidarity and actual ACTION.
From:
A Safeguarding officer in a church
Survivor of church abuse
X
What a powerful and moving statement.
However, ‘Dean Robert Warrington’ should read ‘Dean Robert Waddington’.
Janet,
I imagine that this & similar typos might result from having to bring your statement forward 6 days?
Absolutely. But it’s important to make the correction, for the sake of any Robert Warringtons there may be. It’s not a criticism of Smyth survivors or of Andrew Graystone.
I was a leader at Iwerne Minster Holiday Camps for much of the John Smyth era and even though I ran a Christian Union at a public school from 1982-1991, it is extraordinary that I knew nothing about the John Smyth abuses – I only experienced the effective omerta which the report clearly identifies as part of a grotesque and alarming cover-up. However, one point I don’t understand in the victims very full and, I think, largely very fair response is this: “the Church of England is seen as a soft touch for abusers”. This comment would make sense if… Read more »
Most of the abuse happened through Smyth’s connection with Winchester College, with an eminently Anglican history & ethos, daily CoE chapel, an Anglican Priest as Chaplain, etc. etc. The camps extended his network into Cambridge and young adult’s lives.
I’ve only just started reading the report though I know the broad outline. The camps may have operated outside of any formal CofE structure but as he was an LLM once the abuse was known there was a responsibility to act on it.
Well said! At last, someone has named that this type of authoritarian, self-regulating culture is not typical of the whole of the Church of England. I say this not to excuse the C of E, but rather to ensure that challenge is made, and change is expected, in certain groups and sub-cultures. The Archbishop of Canterbury may have further questions requiring an answer; but so does the Titus Trust and others who maintain the culture that enabled Smyth to act, and protected him for years. That said, I hear no acknowledgement of involvement or responsibility from them, nor is it… Read more »
Yes – – I think the “disconnected” structure of the CofE and “church-things” in general is part of the problem. With Soul Survivor as well – – to what extent was that ever a CofE thing or an independent thing – – it was a separate charity after all. Granted parish-churches are also separate charities, but ancient laws link them in a more meaningful way than Soul Survivor ever was – or the Iwerne camps. I think the disjoint nature of these church things gives people an excuse to think “it’s not for me to investigate much”. Maybe Titus Trust… Read more »
Hello Robert,
Isn’t it?
Yes – I am so glad that someone has said this. Iwerne was proud to stay apart from the C of E, whilst also pushing their stars to become clergy. The perpetrators of the abuse were John Smyth himself and then the Iwerne hierarchy who did all they could to hide the abuse from the outside world. Justin Welby does not deserve the opprobrium.
Justin Welby knew about the abuse and did not act either to hold John Smyth to account, or to meet with and support Smyth’s victims. And the Main Report makes it clear that Welby also lied about what he knew, and when. Welby has disciplined other bishops and archbishops for less. So yes, he deserves the criticism.
I am yet to see a good case for him resigning – – I am open to being proved wrong. From my reading of the report (and I confess I have not delved as deeply as I could but tried to read through timelines at the very least). 1- Justin went to the camps; there is no mention that he was abused (for which is lucky, but not everyone was abused so I think on probability it’s more likely he wasn’t abused than was). Also no suggestion that he was involved in doing any abuse. 2 – There is a… Read more »
If you had watched Cathy Newman’s interview of ++Welby on Ch 4 news, it would be pretty clear why Welby needs to resign. He admitted having knowledge he didn’t act on, and promising to meet Smyth survivors but failing to do so. HIs resignation wold be a clear signal to other bishops that their failures in safeguarding will be taken seriously.
Having said that, Welby’s removal will not change structures which are systemically corrupt. We need rot and branch reform.
I’ve just watched it again, I still don’t see a reason. He didn’t have the ’82 report in 2013 – he was told in 2013-14 that the police were handling things and that was why he couldn’t talk to survivors. You would hope someone takes seriously advice “don’t do that because the police say so/ it will harm their investigation” The advice was wrong but I dont see why he should have known. Had South Africa responded to the bishop of Ely’s safeguarding officer (I recall reading the bishop tried “bishop to bishop communication” and even that failed ) had… Read more »
Absolutely right! A rabbit in the headlights! An embarrassing and incoherent response; does he no longer have a communications advisor who could have prepared him better?
As I see it the reason why ++Justin needs to resign is that he has lost the confidence of large swathes of the church and many survivors in particular.
As +Julie Conalty, +Joanne Grenfell and +Helen-Anne Hartley testify, whether using words or not. More reliable spokespeople for the church and God than are advisors on reputation management. Voices crying out for repentance. Advent coming, heralding a new church year, a new era, a fresh start, a fresh expression of leadership?
Thanks Peter. As an ex-women helper at Iwerne, etc, I agree. It was the culture of the Iwerne network that enabled this, and it is the network (or those in it that did nothing), that bears the main responsibility. In particular, it was those involved in Smyth leaving for Africa. Once it had happened, they should also have given proper help & compensation to the victims here in England. Iwerne’s male-worship culture (let’s honestly now name it as that), that excluded meaningful input from women, was a contributing factor. We still see and condone this dysfunctional culture sailing on, in… Read more »
It is dispiriting for victims that already some Con Evos in GS & elsewhere are already trying to downplay the significance to the C of E as a whole of the Makin Review. if you read every word of the 250 page report & every word of the 250 page appendices, and recall that Makin’s ToR were deliberately constructed to exclude as much material as they included (take 2 Diocesans in the Southern province, one of whom sits in the HoL just for starters, neither an Archbishop FAOD) you will see that the perniciousness of the cover-up has extended well… Read more »
“Utterly bemused US evangelicals” — as someone who has lived in a number of different cultures (including the UK) it does shed some light on how unique the English culture appears to those outside its ‘folkways and mores.’ The use of the term ‘evangelical’ in respect of Episcopalians, in my growing up, was fairly rare. Low-church was more likely. That is in part due to the fact ‘evangelical’ was a term already at home in the major denominations and church bodies outside TEC. The two hosts are noting the specific context that is associated with English Evangelicalism, which being in… Read more »
Evangelical obsession with gay sex can hardly be described as being “in thrall to sexual liberation”. It is their desire to oppress sexual minorities and forcing a so-called ‘biblical” morality on others that leads to perversion, scandal and abuse. If evangelicals stopped obsessing about sex, many problems would disappear.
“Oddly enough, to my mind, this cultural squeamishness and misshapen focus on sexuality, leads to the Iwerne phenomenon on one side, but also a kind of thrall around sexual ‘liberation’ being the key to personal thriving.”
By the latter group I refer to all the English excitement about being sexually alive as the key to liberation from cramped granny’s age. And whoopee, Jesus loves it too!
I don’t think evangelicals are obsessed with sex, there is just a lot of it around and they try to negotiate it as best they can using the bible as a guide. Where the bible is clear on the subject you can hardly blame them when they say so. If we weren’t moral beings, then of course many problems would disappear!
The big question seems to be whether or not the Bible is that clear – and that seems to depend on whose Bible you read. Or, more importantly, which language, ancient Greek, Hebrew or English you read it in!
As for Mr Smyth, have we heard anything from the National Viewers and Listeners Association on this issue yet?
It is highly unlikely that the NVLA will make any comment, as the organisation was closed down and dissolved as a company on 7 September 2021 (according to Wikipedia).
Not at all, all bibles are equally clear in every translation in every language.
The Bible is clear that when a man dies without offspring, his brother should marry – or at least sleep with – the widow. I take it you think this practice should still obtain today?
Actually Janet – though I absolutely agree with you over the real and key points you are making the Bible is NOT clear with regard to the brother’s wife issue. Here’s the paragraph I wrote on this subject as part of a chapter on ‘Anglican views of the Bible’ in a WCC book that explored different Christian traditions views on scripture: Before moving on from the early years of the Reformation there is one final intriguing detail to note about the biblical issue – Henry’s “guilt” about having married his dead brother’s wife – that had provoked the initial split… Read more »
Ruth is a good instance of just this unclarity (see the final chapter), but the point to take away is that it carries along just fine in registering its message anyway (so too, the genealogical lineage of Joseph). God used Ruth (and Tamar!) to reverse the sorry state of affairs in Judges, and to ease us toward the Hannah of Magnificat hope.
Just saying the OT says this or that and why aren’t we doing it too? has never been a serious Christian hermeneutic. The conjunction of two testaments in One Christian Scripture affects how we now hear both parts.
Thanks Clare, that’s fascinating.
Of Course not, you have to read the bible in its context, In every context the bible is clear about same sex.
Not at all clear, if you look at the historical and social context.
Why is gay sex their main biblical preoccupation? Jesus never mentions it. There are many subjects to choose. But evangelicals pick gay sex to be obsessed about.
It appears to have been a settled matter at the time of Jesus until the mid 20th century. It has only recently become an issue. If Jesus wished to challenge Judaism’s interpretation of the OT he could have as he did over Sabbath, but chose not to instead preferring to uphold traditional customs on marriage.
We don’t know this. There are references [to John] as “the disciple Jesus loved”. Upon His death rather than asking his brother James (who wasn’t even there) to take care of His mother, He asked John. That says a lot about their relationship. Maybe there was teaching to go with that. Maybe Jesus did speak in favour of same sex relationships but James and Paul took over the church, sidelining John. Politically any teaching which promoted John would be de-emphasised and lost. John wasn’t special as a disciple – that was Simon Peter and Mary Magdalene. Whatever there was between… Read more »
At the time, for women, it was regarded as the done thing to be attached to a man in some way, as daughter, husband or mother. For a women to be independent, and perhaps to be financially independent, was a bit suspect.
And yet these independent scandalous women are the very ones that Jesus gathered around himself, such as Mary Magdalen.
So I am not sure he can be said to have upheld traditional customs on marriage.
Like in Kate’s excellent post on the disciple Jesus loved (below), please pay attention to Jesus’ actions as well as his words.
Simon Peter said to him, “Let Mary leave us, for women are not worthy of life”. Jesus said, “I myself shall lead her in order to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every woman who will make herself male will enter the kingdom of heaven – Saying 114, Gospel of St Thomas “Jesus never mentions it”. Without getting into whether the Gospel of Thomas is genuine, one thing it does illustrate is that Jesus might indeed have mentioned sex, identity or sexual orientation but it was subsequently suppressed and omitted… Read more »
You did not understand my point, which had to do with the cramped “No Sex Please, We’re British” becoming “Sex is Identity and Life.” On the other end of the spectrum (not English evangelicals).
Nonsense. Sex is not identity. Being human is. And the oppression of minorities by evangelicals is inhumane.
Their brethren in USA are about to get their wishes in terms of the suppression of trans people and elimination of LGTQIA equality more generally. I fear for how those on these shores could be emboldened.
I am not sure what you mean by it ‘infected much of the evo wing of the C of E’. There is no evidence of this abuse spreading beyond Smyth, or that it was institutionalised. The cover up was appalling, but this is similar to cases of abuse in other wings of the C of E and indeed elsewhere in society to protect the institution, rather than the abused. I attended HTB in 1979-81 and there was no indication of a John Smyth cult at that time.
What about Jonathan Fletcher?
https://www.change.org/p/a-call-for-justin-welby-to-resign?recruited_by_id=b7b9b1b0-9ec9-11ef-b623-cd5425101642&utm_source=share_petition&utm_campaign=psf_combo_share_initial&utm_term=psf&utm_medium=copylink&fbclid=IwY2xjawGcms5leHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHTl4Kt2RoDOMukk8NkNv6z_wqpMlkN9IIXqZNzbCCJFaRatWqQi8__fH2Q_aem_cFgpWZHy5nztpcgdE2GcUQ
Welby’s position is untenable. He needs to go.
I still don’t understand specifically what Justin should have done differently / what he did “wrong” to the extent that it’s resign/sackable. Please can you explain? From my reading, He went to camps. Wasn’t abused and wasn’t implicated as being part of abuse. He came as a student after Smyth had been there so wasn’t part of enabling. Then he was given a vague warning in Paris – while he was a young man and not in any church synod or position of power so why would he have looked more to ask what that meant. He inferred the priest… Read more »
Very simple one, sir, as I’ve said previously. With failure by the church, and deliberate cover up on this scale – the buck stops with the head of the organisation. It’s called personal responsibility, accountability, and a little thing called integrity – which don’t seem to matter any more.
So because someone else failed he should resign?
I don’t think you would call for his resignation if a single vicar was found to have abused people secretly – and an investigation by police had led to nothing (either because of the secret nature or for other reasons the police didn’t think they had enough evidence or public interest to look into it).
So why draw the line here?
Probably a bit of a tangential contribution, but the state of safeguarding nationally was pretty ripe in 2013. I had an issue crop up – a registered sex offender whose partner was working with the youth group. This was discovered by accident when someone from his previous place of residence recognised him locally, and the info was passed on to me. Straight on the phone to the DSA (we only had one in those days), who told me in no uncertain terms that I had to go round to the house immediately with the text of an offender management agreement,… Read more »
I used to work as an enforcement officer for a gentleman called the Traffic Commissioner, responsible for issuing bus drivers’ and operators licences. We very quickly discovered that possession of child molesting convictions had a habit of inspiring severe and selective amnesia….. Child sex convictions are ‘non endorsable offences’ so far as the DVLA are concerned – they don’t appear on a driving licence, and the onus lies with the offender to declare them to the Commissioner if he/she holds or wants to hold a PSV driver’s licence. Thus talking themselves out of a job. We had several such cases,… Read more »
I am concerned that many within CofE still do not comprehend the extreme level of brutality & violence exercised by Smyth. For comparison I decided to look at flogging in the navy of Nelson’s time, & was interested to note that Smyth would have grossly exceeded the limits of what was legally acceptable even in that far from liberal service & era. As an aside I may say that Nelson, son & brother of clergymen, was not on the liberal wing as regards using the lash, whereas his friend Collingwood, who had no clergy connections, disliked it intensely & prided… Read more »
Please excuse another contribution from me! I was a leader at Iwerne from 1975-1992 and helped to run a Christian Union at a private school from 1982-1992. I disagree with some particular points expressed below: please note Makin hasn’t included my submission written from the schoolteachers’ perspective (my belief here is that the narrative has fundamentally switched in a certain direction). These are the points I would ask your forum to consider: The evangelical wing of the C of E is emphatically not the C of E. This is why they don’t follow canon law on clerical dress, using prayer… Read more »
I agree that there was a tension between charismatic evangelical Anglicans and those evangelical Anglicans who disagreed with charismatic phenomena. However, both groups (cf. HTB v All Souls Langham Place) held conservative theological views, and there was an overlap of public school culture which was embedded in both traditions. So, for example, you see John Smyth attending Stewards Trust summer house-parties (as I did) which were very much populated by HTB members and championing charismatic expression. Both groups were populated by many people from the upper echelons of society and many of them (as Smyth was) in the Church of… Read more »
I don’t wish to hijack the conversation around John Smyth’s criminal violence and its cover up, but can I thank you very much for your insight, which tallies with my (and many others’) suspicions re the HTB project. They termed it ‘the evangelisation of the nation’ but it may now be seen as ‘the evangelicalisation of the national church’. I profoundly disagree with the theology of St Helen’s Bishopsgate et al but at least they have always been open about their exclusionary position, as part of the curious diversity of the CofE. Until very recently HTB preferred to remain aloof… Read more »
Say what you like about St Helens: they were forthright about what they believed about sexuality and also the roles of women in the Church. I probably should have referenced them as a kind of 3rd force of evangelicalism in the Church of England. They were the City in Prayer, and to be fair they drew business people to them in lunch breaks. I also owe a debt to Dick Lucas for giving me a precious hour where he persuaded me step-by-step in his affirmation of infant baptism. However, in those days I was a (very) conservative evangelical. Looking back… Read more »
Interesting…
Why on earth has the ABC not resigned yet…? Surely he can’t last much longer?
Hubris
It does feel like moving that way – – But what happens then; will change happen? Very interestingly in the C4 full interview, he says that a large number of the ‘professionals’ (i.e. Safeguarding officers &etc) do not think there should be more independence in safeguarding but he thinks there should be. Surely that is a more pressing question – and will have more impact on the church (and survivors ) in say 10 years time than whether the Justin goes now or in 12 months time. I fear that it will be overlooked – – and if he does… Read more »
Sorry that’s not good enough he has to go for the sake of the abomination that was Smythe and those who suffered at his hands . If others follow in his wake so be it.
My question seems more pressing now; and I think you overlooked it because you thought I was trying to defend him with that comment.
Now he is gone – what about the rest of the systems in the CofE?
The safeguarding professionals who oppose safeguarding independence. Why? What can be done to change this (assuming as I do – that they are wrong to oppose it).
And very importantly – what can be done to make change more quickly than the usual snail-pace.
I have read the whole report and the appendices. It is terrible. Welby on Channel 4 compounds the awfulness – I simply don’t believe he knew nothing until 2013. This horror was whispered about in evangelical circles long before that. I don’t think I knew about Smyth then, but I certainly knew about Jonathan Fletcher’s predilection for young men by about 1980. Anne Atkins is an old friend, and she knew about Smyth, so maybe I had heard. And there was the fellow of an Oxford College who was part of the whole coterie who loved to invite undergraduates out… Read more »
In case you missed it – they have just published a longer version of that interview. Archbishop of Canterbury extended interview on John Smyth scandal and resigning However you raise “I simply don’t believe he knew nothing until 2013″. But you don’t have evidence – only a suspicion that anyone associated would have known. If you really knew enough to report something in the past they why didn’t you? Presumably you didn’t actually believe you had information that needed to be reported, yet you assume he knew what you did and should have done more than you did? Keep in mind… Read more »
Susannah’s post is very moving and also very revealing . You were brave to have written it.
We none of us can know the Archbishop’s heart or conscience. My reason for feeling that he needs to be held accountable for the current situation is not based on what/ whether he knew of Smyth’s sadistic abuse prior to 2013, but what he did and failed to do after that point.
We are now at the end of 2024.
I want to be clear – – I do take Safeguarding very seriously. To peel back the curtain – – Bishop Ruth was not meant to be the Acting Bishop of Coventry; it was another person that Bishop Christopher had nominated. I was on Bishop’s Council at the time – – and thought I should do my own checking of this person “just in case”… I did some digging and found allegations on this other person that while he wasn’t involved in any abuse directly – he had not responded to a report of abuse in his diocese seriously enough… Read more »
Should John Smyth’s wife face criminal charges?
That is a good question.
Some form of investigation to determine to what extent she (and the rest of the family) where victims vs partners – is an open question.
The fact the police haven’t jumped at that is a bit worrying.
I do think the slowness of the Police to act is an overlooked part of the story.
sorry “were they victims” not “where”.
I would be tempted to assume that his wife was guilty to some extent – – but I think it’s possible that she has lived most of her life in fear of John so was a victim in some sense.
Nevertheless it is a question that should be investigated – – and one would assume a proper investigation by police will reveal others who were in on it and who thus need to be charged….
On the contrary, the police indicated long ago (sorry I can’t readily provide the date) that there was no intention to prosecute Anne Smyth.
Presumably they [I see you mention CPS taking the decision in another post] believe she was more of a victim then; hence no action.
I have no idea, but note that a charge of assisting an offender can only be brought by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions [Criminal Law Act 1967, s 4 (4)]. It’s well known that proceedings were commenced for the extradition of Smyth from South Africa and it may well be that the decision not to prosecute Mrs Smyth was taken then.
A correction to my earlier reply to Tim P below. The decision not to prosecute Anne Smyth was taken by the Crown Prosecution Service. This information was helpfully and reliably given by David Lamming on the ‘Surviving Church’ web, 1st November 2020.
Was the real reason for the cover-up in 1982 that in those days the conservative evangelical network didn’t see much wrong in principle with Smyth’s conduct? Did they view it as just scripturally based fatherly chastisement? All that might be wrong would be (i) Smyth wasn’t really in loco parentis and (ii) he went a bit too far.
The evangelical leaders’ discussion of possible criminality recognised that Smyth had indeed crossed a line, but not by very far.
This is the sea all the evangelical bishops (not just the Archbishop) were swimming in when they were young.
Channel 4 News tonight: A barrage of leading questions from Kathy Newman. Are we seeing the start of an uncontrolled witch-hunt?