*** DEBUG START ***
*** DEBUG END ***

Letters to the Editor

by
15 November 2024

iStock

Makin review and Welby decision

Madam, — The Makin review of abuse by John Smyth QC has now been published, more than four years late, and massively over budget. Eighteen months ago, the estimated cost given to General Synod was £600,000, and that must now be more than £1 million. Please can the Archbishops’ Council give a binding undertaking to publish a full, independently audited breakdown of the gross total cost, to include not just the reviewers’ costs, but also the lawyers, transcriptions costs, theological and psychiatric advisers, and ancillary expenses? Previous answers to the General Synod have been spun out of recognition.

This review has cost an estimated £4000 per page of text. Yet, victims, seven years after the original Channel 4 exposé (and almost 12 years since the first victim came forward), are still without any form of redress — or justice.

NAME AND ADDRESS SUPPLIED


From Dr John Appleby

Madam, — Questions and challenges are being posed about the failures of the Church of England and the Archbishop of Canterbury, in particular, in addressing both the Smyth case and safeguarding generally. There is a general point to be made about why processes take so long, including the Makin report itself.

Anyone who has dealt with complex employment cases, some leading to tribunals and/or legal action, will know that our bureaucratic, risk-averse, and litigious society constantly puts barriers in the way of quick and effective action. Faced with a disciplinary issue or grievance, HR, legal, and insurance advisers insist that no apology can be made (implying liability), that no mediation or pastoral meetings can take place without correct procedure, that no offers can be made without full agreement, and that no steps at all can be made without full HR and legal approval, lest insurance be invalidated.

A lack of accountability in the past, coupled with excessive trust in authority and fatalism among most people, has led to appalling neglect and abuses of power, and must rightly be corrected. Nevertheless, a requirement of complete accountability and zero risk leads in some cases to other failures and risks, as “proper process” take so long, or to the alternative of avoiding risk entirely.

The Church of England has undoubtedly been slow to address some serious challenges, through an innate conservatism and complex processes, and, of course, because of “reputation management”; but it also has a problem with how to reconcile its legal status with civil processes. As a legislative body, it cannot follow exactly the same route as other organisations. I take it that this is why the plan to set up a completely independent body to oversee safeguarding needed more scrutiny than some allowed.

The Archbishop of Canterbury has decided that he should step down and take personal responsibility, but I hope that it will be recognised how hard he has worked on many aspects of safeguarding, and on addressing several significant doctrinal issues, while also facing the additional challenges of poverty, the pandemic, global conflict, and economic turmoil. It’s a very hard job.

JOHN APPLEBY
38 Beech Grove, Whitley Bay
Tyne and Wear NE26 3PL


From the Revd Christopher Etherton

Madam, — So, the Archbishop of Canterbury is hounded out of office by our safeguarding culture. I fear we are in danger of treating those who make errors of judgement on safeguarding procedure in the same way as those who perpetrate abuse.

All that Archbishop Welby has done — all, in this context — is to have made an error of judgement 11 years ago. He made that judgement, at the time, in good faith. He did not, I suggest, make that judgement as a deliberate attempt at cover-up. Hindsight (what a wonderful gift!) has shown that he was wrong. He admits that: he has apologised; he has no doubt learned from that. In an outpouring of righteous anger, clamouring for his resignation, there seems to be a collective forgetting that the Christian faith that we profess has at its core forgiveness.

Where does this lead? The logical outcome is that his successor must be one who has never made an error of judgement.

CHRISTOPHER ETHERTON
9 Parkers Close, Faringdon
Oxfordshire SN7 7BD


From the Rt Revd Dr Peter Selby

Madam, — Calling for a resignation is a bit of an industry now, and it is a fashion that deserves some scrutiny.

People who commit serious offences should not be allowed to resign, but face proper disciplinary action or prosecution. People who intentionally cover up wrongdoing should be dismissed from their responsibilities, not allowed to resign.

People who make mistakes without such an intention should be required to repent of their errors and devote their fullest energies to putting right the situation that their error has created, and not allowed, let alone encouraged, to resign.

Shouting “Resign!” without making these distinctions leads to our being too kind to some and merciless to others.

PETER SELBY
Assistant bishop, diocese of Southwark
Address supplied


From Mrs April Alexander

Madam, — In much has been said about the Smyth case over the past few days, I have heard no reference to the fact that this abuse and its cover-up took place in a conservative Evangelical setting and that, as the Makin report says, the abuse was apparently an “open secret amongst . . . people connected with the Conservative Evangelical (CE) Network”. Familiar names from earlier reports on abuse appear. Further the “(CE) network” mentioned was also referred to in the Thirtyone:eight report on Emmanuel Church, Wimbledon, as a powerful source of protection from scrutiny.

One striking aspect of the report is the almost total absence of women. Professor Jay has the most comprehensive view about this “Lord Williams agreed that misogyny may have impacted negatively upon the effectiveness of safeguarding. . .” Dr Elly Hanson completed a “psychological analysis of John Smyth and his abuse” and concluded: “the beliefs and values of the conservative evangelical community in which John Smyth operated are critical to understanding how he manipulated his victims into it, how it went on for so long, and how he evaded justice.”

The Makin report concludes that its 27 recommendations “reflect similar recommendations in dozens of previous of previous safeguarding reports over 40 plus years that the CofE has chosen to ignore or disregard”. Perhaps the position of women would be a good place to start? From a change in that position could flow accountability to the dioceses and some weakening of misogyny. It would also reduce the power of networks that protect their own.

APRIL ALEXANDER
59 High Street, Bletchingley
Redhill RH1 4PB


From the Revd Dr Philip Goggin

Madam, — However one might interpret the events surrounding Smyth and the Archbishop, one thing is a near-certainty: there will be a doubling down on safeguarding independent of the Church.

While there is majority support for such independence, particularly among victims, independent scrutiny of the process is vital, as was emphasised in the recent Jay report. The obvious sense of injustice reported by your anonymous correspondent (Letters, 8 November) illustrates what can happen when independent scrutiny and accountability is ignored. If, as alleged, three bishops holding relevant evidence believed they could not intervene in a safeguarding process, where is fair scrutiny?

Jay identified many other failures that, one would hope, independent scrutiny would unmask, such as inconsistency across dioceses, inappropriate use of resources, and poor data collection. Further, one might suggest that independent scrutiny would demand a proper evaluation of the effectiveness of safeguarding.

Jay identified as an “egregious issue” the “use of safeguarding to address matters of conduct which had nothing to do with risks to children or vulnerable adults”, and asserted that safeguarding was perceived “as a pretext for removing people on the basis of moral judgements or simply because they were seen as a nuisance”.

Jay also noted, as have others: “For those who were being complained about, the impact of being wrongly recorded as a ‘safeguarding risk’ often placed them on a path that could devastate their lives, in some cases losing their livelihood, their accommodation and their faith community.”

Proper accountability and oversight would mean a more grown-up conversation about how harm is to be defined and measured. (The same applies to the idea of promoting well-being, an explicit focus now in mainstream safeguarding.) These are tricky ethical issues. Simply listing the various identified forms of abuse (physical, domestic, sexual, psychological, etc.) as if they were items on a shopping list is really not good enough, especially in an organisation with a supposed high calling.

PHILIP GOGGIN
4 Valley Road, Wistaston
Crewe CW2 8JU


From Mr Jon Smith

Madam, — The victims’ accounts which 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, and synod members need to read with a sense of shame. And the review has some great recommendations. But the elephant in the room is that most of what is described as C of E shortcomings cannot simply be limited to the safeguarding arena.

If we, as the C of E, have cultural blind spots concerning speaking truth to power, codes of conduct, cover-up, and whistle-blowing, then those cultural issues will go wider than just safeguarding. They will be equally pertinent to financial decisions, risk decisions, people decisions, strategy decisions, and openness on what indicators we share to get insight into what is happening in our day-to-day interactions as a Church.

JON SMITH
13 St John’s Street, Duxford
Cambridge CB22 4RA


From Mr Christopher Whitmey

Madam, — The Makin review of Smyth’s abuse makes very challenging reading and should be carefully read by all safeguarding officers. One of its conclusions is “1.10 There were individual failings by senior clergy, and clergy who subsequently became senior. That grouping includes a former Archbishop of Canterbury, Diocesan Bishops and Canons and Reverends.”

I fail to see why the present Archbishop of Canterbury should be asked to resign when the review identifies so many who failed to take appropriate and timely action. Please could the Bishop of Newcastle and others give clear justification for focusing on the Archbishop of Canterbury?

CHRISTOPHER WHITMEY
Benefice Safeguarding Officer
Oldstone Furlong, Capler Lane
Fownhope, Hereford HR1 4PJ


From Mr Mike Lawlor

Sir, — If there is anything at all that can be learned from the Makin report, it is that people who cover up their own shortcomings should not be so eager to point out the shortcomings of others to the point of threatening the destruction of the unity of our Church. The higher the moral ground that one inhabits, the further one has to fall.

MIKE LAWLOR
The Charterhouse
London EC1M 6AN


Generalisations mar latest racism report

From the Revd Dr Christian Selvaratnam

Madam, — The recently published report Behind the Stained-Glass by the Institute for Educational and Social Equity (News, 8 November) offers much to commend. I am, however, deeply concerned by the assertions made in Table 5.1 on page 51.

This table appallingly suggests that only Liberal/progressive parishes welcome and accept UKME/GMH people at all levels. It portrays High Anglican parishes as viewing UKME/GMH individuals as unworthy or not good enough, Traditional-conservative parishes as suspicious of them, and Charismatic/Evangelical parishes as hostile towards having UKME/GMH people in leadership roles.

It is disappointing that the authors have presented these sweeping generalisations, possibly based on remarks from only a very few individuals, and without critical analysis. While individual observations are valuable, they should have been accompanied by a qualifying disclaimer to provide proper context. Presenting these assertions as findings risks undermining the credibility of the report and the efforts many are making to foster diversity in the Church.

I challenge their suggestion. In my experience, representation and inclusion are influenced by a complex interplay of factors: leadership attitudes, congregational make-up, parish history, local demographics, denomination policy, and emerging thinking. Church style possibly shapes how representation manifests, though it may not be a factor at all.

Contrary to the report’s suggestion — and especially in some of the church traditions it criticises — I see a new wave of racial hope in the Church of England. In many places, diversity is increasing among congregations and ordinands, reflecting a concerted and sincere effort to make disciples and develop leaders from minority groups. Churches across various styles are increasingly engaging with UKME and GMH communities: many are reporting new engagement with minority groups, and some are starting new Christian communities to reach ethno-social groups not currently served by existing churches.

Reports such as this play an important part in helping us work towards the goal of being a Church that reflects the diversity of the people we serve; but it is crucial to ensure the facts are accurate. I urge the authors to reconsider the content of Table 5.1, revise this section, and reissue the report to reflect more accurately the realities within our parishes.

CHRISTIAN SELVARATNAM
Dean of Church Planting
St Hild College
Stocks Bank Road
Mirfield WF14 0BW

Browse Church and Charity jobs on the Church Times jobsite

Letters to the editor

Letters for publication should be sent to letters@churchtimes.co.uk.

Letters should be exclusive to the Church Times, and include a full postal address. Your name and address will appear below your letter unless requested otherwise.

Forthcoming Events

Women Mystics: Female Theologians through Christian History

13 January - 19 May 2025

An online evening lecture series, run jointly by Sarum College and The Church Times

tickets available

 

Festival of Faith and Literature

28 February - 2 March 2025

tickets available

 

Visit our Events page for upcoming and past events 

The Church Times Archive

Read reports from issues stretching back to 1863, search for your parish or see if any of the clergy you know get a mention.

FREE for Church Times subscribers.

Explore the archive

Welcome to the Church Times

 

To explore the Church Times website fully, please sign in or subscribe.

Non-subscribers can read four articles for free each month. (You will need to register.)