Makin report and Archbishop Welby’s resignation
From Professor Peter Sidebotham
Madam, — Keith Makin and colleagues are to be congratulated for producing a thorough and challenging review of the abuses carried out by John Smyth and how those were handled by the Church (News, 15 November). As a paediatrician who has been directly involved in child-protection and safeguarding practice reviews over more than three decades, and currently researching safeguarding in the Church of England, I am concerned that the review itself and subsequent events may not achieve the intended outcome: “to enhance and improve [the Church’s] response to allegations of abuse and, thereby, ensure the Church provides a safer environment for all”.
It seems to me that the primary questions asked by the review, “(1) what did the Church of England (i.e. relevant officers and institutions) know about alleged abuse perpetrated by John Smyth, and (2) what was the response of the Church of England to those allegations”, were about attributing blame rather than learning lessons. This was setting, from the start, a trajectory that could result only in resignations.
Mr Makin has produced what was asked of him: the victims have been given an opportunity “to describe their experiences”; and he has documented in great detail both what was known about the abuse within the Church and what was or wasn’t done in response.
It is positive, though long overdue, that the victims of Smyth’s abuse have been given the opportunity to describe their experiences. As a Church, we must pay attention to those experiences and what the survivors are telling us. In my opinion, though, the voices of the survivors become lost in the repetitive and long descriptions of all that happened. Within the secular child-protection world, there is an emphasis on reviews being concise, timely, focused on analysis of both practice and system-leadership issues, with “enough information to provide a clear context for the learning and recommendations and to reflect the perspective of the child and the family, and the views of practitioners”; “recommendations should be few in number and focused on improving practice, rather than simply increasing bureaucracy with more procedures and rules, monitoring and control” (Child Safeguarding Practice Review Panel guidance for safeguarding partners, HM Government, 2022).
This report concludes with 27 recommendations, not all of which are meaningful or achievable. In my opinion, a more concise summary of the facts, combined with clear reflection and analysis and three or four carefully crafted recommendations would have given the Church a much better basis for learning from this review and improving safeguarding.
In spite of the commitment of the reviewers to avoiding hindsight bias, the length of time since these events took place has made this almost impossible. The failings identified in the Makin review are serious and need to be taken seriously. They also need to be considered, however, alongside the very positive work carried out by the National Safeguarding Team and others, improving the procedures and training around safeguarding. There is still much to be done, but that needs to build on rather than dismiss what has been achieved so far.
The abuses carried out by Smyth and the way in which these were handled by the Church raise pertinent issues around the culture of the Church and its theological and sociological understanding of abuse and safeguarding. Makin identifies some of these issues, but, understandably, does not explore them in detail.
This report gives us, as a Church, the opportunity to reflect much more deeply on these. It is that deeper reflection rather than any superficial tinkering with structures and processes, or reactive blaming and recriminations, that will help ensure that the Church provides a safer environment for all.
PETER SIDEBOTHAM
Emeritus Professor of Child Health
1/89 Coronation Road
Auckland 2022, New Zealand
From Mr Graham Jones
Madam, — You report the horror of Dr Thabo Makgoba, Archbishop of Cape Town, and that details of the Smyth abuse “made him feel sick” (News, 15 November) and the Archbishop of York said that he was shocked when he read the Makin review. Where have they been? The first Channel 4 documentary made quite clear the full horror, the brutality of the abuse. It was detailed at much greater length by Andrew Graystone’s 2021 book Bleeding for Jesus, which included the text of the Ruston report.
I am a victim of John Smyth and am appalled by these unconvincing outpourings of horror. The time for horror and for action was 2017 (if you ignore how many knew in 2013). Dr Makgoba has announced a review. This is starting seven years too late, as is any disciplinary process for the myriad people who knew in the UK before 2017. It has taken the much-delayed Makin review to kick start all of this, when they could no longer ignore it. But why have they ignored it for seven years?
GRAHAM JONES
Address supplied
From the Revd Martin Cox
Madam, — There are not many stipendiary clergy in the Church of England who have also been employed in statutory social-services child-protection teams. I am one of them. As both a practitioner and manager, before ordination, I took very difficult decisions, in consultation with others, to protect children and teenagers from abuse. Each decision has quite rightly left its mark. I have, sadly, also called out grooming behaviour in the church at great personal cost. So, I find myself also experiencing a deep sense of sorrow and shame after the publication of the Makin review.
We must move at pace and scale to establish an external body to oversee safeguarding practices in the Church of England. There are at least two national statutory organisations (CAFCASS and the CQC) that have been established in the past 25 years and model how this could be achieved. Yes, this will be costly. Yes, this will require a realignment of responsibilities and relinquishing of power. But there can be no more excuses.
We must do so for the well-being of the individuals in our care who engage with us. We must establish such a body to ensure that we regain and retain the credibility to proclaim the gospel afresh in this generation. I believe that we have a God-given responsibility to put this body in place. I would hope to contribute to conversations going forward, if invited to do so.
MARTIN COX
Newchurch Rectory
Jackson Avenue, Culcheth
Warrington
Cheshire WA3 4ED
From Dr Andrew Purkis
Madam, — As one who worked at Lambeth Palace for a previous Archbishop in the 1990s, I recall the team urging the Archbishop, in the desperate battles over priorities, to stick to what only the Archbishop of Canterbury can do (and leave to others what they can do). Otherwise, the job becomes even more exhausting, impossible, and potentially dysfunctional (and others are annoyed and demoralised). This is an aspect of the Archbishop’s moral and personal responsibility.
Hence, when told in 2013 that serious abuses (but not the full horrors that emerged later) by Smyth were being dealt with by the Bishop of Ely and the Ely Safeguarding Officer, that the police and local authority had been informed, and that the Bishop was informing his counterpart in Cape Town, there was good reason for leaving them to take the lead.
Makin makes much of the fact that the contacts between Ely and the Cambridgeshire police were not formal enough to generate a crime number, as if that might have transformed the situation, but with the information then available to the police, they regarded the probability of a successful prosecution as low, and when the case was transferred to the Hampshire police, they took the same view and closed the case.
Later, even when there was more evidence from the 1982 Ruston report and a crime number was generated, the police did not proceed to make charges. So, how much culpability rests on the Archbishop for not himself raising the case with the police in 2013 when it had already been raised?
Subsequently, when the Archbishop did intervene publicly in interviews after the Channel 4 exposé, he raised expectations among survivors which he could not fulfil, because he was then advised that he shouldn’t talk to survivors while the police investigation was continuing, and his few contacts with survivors caused consternation in the National Safeguarding Team Core Group, because it was their responsibility to co-ordinate and lead the church response, including contacts with victims. Truly, he was damned if he did, and damned if he didn’t.
The Archbishop has acknowledged that he could have done more, especially perhaps by using his contacts with the Archbishop of Cape Town to ensure that the Church in South Africa was doing enough to protect Smyth’s potential and actual victims there, when the persistent efforts of the Bishop and staff of Ely produced no response. But the Makin report gives little context, as it focuses on one tiny fraction of the Archbishop’s ministry. Even within the field of safeguarding cases alone, there is no effort to quantify the many cases passing over the Archbishop’s desk, each of them with its suffering victims.
In real life, tsunamis of demand pour into Lambeth Palace from every corner of the Church of England itself, from the worldwide Anglican Communion, from ecumenical and interfaith partners, from politicians, the government of the day, the Royal Family, the world of business and trade unions, hundreds of charities, and the media. Perhaps this helps to explain why the Archbishop did not follow up this case that was being dealt with by others?
As the report recognises, the Church of England is an untidy association of semi-autonomous units over which the Archbishop has little power. Despite this, the Archbishop has resigned (News, 15 November), not principally, in my view, because of personal culpability, but because the Church as a whole rightly feels intense shame, anger, and guilt at the letting down of so many victims of abuse. He has chosen to take upon himself the sins and failures of the whole. Perhaps that really is one thing that only the Archbishop of Canterbury can do.
ANDREW PURKIS
Secretary for Public Affairs to the Archbishop of Canterbury 1992-97
44 Bellamy Street
London SW12 8BU
From the Revd Oliver Harrison
Madam, — It seems to me, as a mere parish priest, that being Archbishop of Canterbury is an impossible job: the brief is simply too big. May I propose breaking it up thus:
1. Appoint an ABC as the overseer — in reality, more of a symbolic figurehead — of the whole Communion, and probably comes from it. He or she should not, however, also be a diocesan bishop. So:
2. Make the Bishop of Dover the diocesan bishop (“Ordinary”) for Canterbury. Then:
3. Make the Archbishop of York the Primate of both English provinces (in fact, abolish them and create one new all-England see). Basically, he or she would be the Archbishop of England, but would not be a diocesan bishop as well. So:
4. Appoint a diocesan bishop for York (perhaps Bishop of Whitby as Ordinary for York, given Whitby’s historical importance?).
Four distinct jobs done by four different people.
OLIVER HARRISON
64 Glascote Lane
Tamworth B77 2PH
Madam, — Those who wonder whether Archbishop Welby’s personal failings in the Smyth case were sufficient to require him to resign are completely missing the point. Without substantial change of personnel in the Church’s upper echelons, nothing would change. I had never understood why things such as the Independent Safeguarding Board catastrophe and the avoidance of scrutiny by the General Synod kept happening — but, reading Makin, I do now.
I choose to believe that the Archbishop did his best, but others, for reasons of personal or institutional reputation, dislike of change, personal guilt, or some other reason, sought to frustrate progress. The only way forward is the appointment of an Archbishop with great strength of character, independence from vested interests within the Church, and — above all — the specific mandate to eliminate toxic opposition to good safeguarding and put this shameful period behind us.
We are not looking for anything special, just the kind of best-practice safeguarding leadership achieved years ago by just about every other institution in our land.
NAME AND ADDDRESS SUPPLIED
From Mr Alastair Jackson
Madam, — I am grateful to the Bishop of Newcastle, Dr Helen-Ann Hartley, for her decision to publish an exchange of letters concerning her withdrawal of permission to officiate from the former Archbishop of York Lord Sentamu (News, 15 November).
The last sentence of Lord Sentamu’s objection to the findings of the 2023 lessons-learnt review relating to Trevor Devamanikkam is that “Church Law sets the boundaries for Diocesan Bishops and Archbishops.” These boundaries are why, he says, it would have been wrong of him as Archbishop to show any interest in whether a disclosure of abuse to a bishop was being properly handled by that Bishop.
The recent letter to Dr Hartley from the Archbishops of York and Canterbury expresses sympathy for this position. “[Lord Sentamu] undoubtedly has a point about how the reviewer approached the terms of reference, the conclusions that were reached and the application of contemporary standards to a past context.”
They go on to say that the reviewer “is offering an opinion on what she thinks he should have done, not on what the letter of the then guidelines said he should do”.
The Archbishops’ argument is that church law prevented Lord Sentamu’s merely enquiring about the steps that a bishop was taking to address an apparent safeguarding failure. If so, could they explain how is it that the same church law does not prevent their placing overt pressure on another bishop to reverse her decision to withdraw the permission to officiate? Absent this explanation, this is a case of church law being applied in one way to impede victims of abuse who ask for justice, but in a quite different way when it comes to protecting the status of the friends of church leaders.
These double standards are part of the reason that victims of abuse in the Church of England do not believe that the Church is willing to address that abuse. We have heard our church leaders repeat so many times that they regret past mistakes. We are still waiting to see the change of behaviour and the humility that would demonstrate that lessons are, indeed, being learnt.
ALASTAIR JACKSON
20 Stoughton Drive North
Leicester LE5 5UB
From Mr Trevor Cooper
Madam, — Last week, the Bishop of Newcastle published a letter that she had received from the two Archbishops. She stated that one reason for her releasing the letter was its use of what she “experienced as coercive language”. Clearly private, the letter contained considerable detail about a named third party whom she has suspended from officiating.
In most professions, such as the law, medicine, or social services, the publication of this letter would be a very serious disciplinary offence. Yet, to the best of my knowledge, no senior church person has found it necessary to comment on this breach of trust. I fear that the Bishop’s flock will now think twice before writing to her on sensitive matters.
TREVOR COOPER
Address supplied (West Sussex)
From the Revd Dr Barry A. Orford
Madam, — As speculation mounts about a successor to Archbishop Welby, it is necessary to point out that by tradition an Evangelical Archbishop should be followed by a Catholic. This is urgently needed to begin righting the balance of the Church’s outlook. But where might such a Catholic be found? Under Archbishop Welby, Catholic clergy have mostly been excluded from episcopal office, as have serious scholars.
Could it be time to pass over predictable candidates, to think the unthinkable, and to consecrate a learned and experienced Catholic priest for Canterbury? Ecclesiastical bureaucrats might deride the notion, and yet why should it be deemed impossible if the person chosen has able support, and is determined to concentrate on renewing churches and parishes in this country and to refrain from globetrotting like an Anglican pope? Sometimes, asking seemingly simplistic questions can open up new ways forward.
BARRY A. ORFORD
Flat B, 8 Hampstead Square
London NW3 1AB
Governance review is an antidote to groupthink
From the Dean of Bristol
Madam, — May I offer some words of comfort to Canon Angela Tilby (Comment, 8 November) with regard to the work currently being undertaken to streamline and simplify the work of the national church institutions?
First, a reminder that the project is primarily concerned with governance and not with the outworking of the Church’s mission and ministry in parishes. While we might agree that the name of the new charity, Church of England National Services, is neither glamorous nor inspiring, it does what it says on the tin: it serves the national Church. It will do this by creating simpler, more transparent, and more accountable decision-making frameworks.
I write as someone who worked for the national Church for 18 months, as Interim Director of Ministry, and during that time was never entirely sure that I understood the make-up of the funding that flowed through my department. I am equally sure that no member of the General Synod did. I spent a great deal of my time in that post trying to manage a decision-making matrix that separated spending from strategy, thanks to the complex relationship between the Archbishops’ Council, the House of Bishops, and the General Synod. I also spent too much time replicating reports to different parts of the bureaucratic system.
The proposals that are being put forward, and which have been widely accepted by the General Synod, will in future make it very much clearer how much money is available to be spent, where it is coming from, and on what basis decisions about spending are being made.
The proposed legislation is currently undergoing the scrutiny and revision process. I can assure Canon Tilby that the “awkward squads” are fully involved, and that proper attention is being paid to their concerns. If the legislation is passed, it provides for the vision and strategy of the Church of England, ultimately a matter for the House of Bishops in Synod, to be subject to both consultation and scrutiny on the floor of the Synod — not a prophylactic against groupthink, but perhaps a healthy antidote?
It is my profound hope that this process will do exactly what Canon Tilby wants, which is to address those issues that currently clog up diocesan and parish life, by clarifying governance and funding streams, and so enabling people, primarily parish clergy and diocesan officers, to do what they do best, in the myriad diverse ways that make up the genius of the Church of England.
This process is not a partisan one, quite the opposite: it is a neutral one, which is focused forensically on improving our governance, reducing bureaucracy, and increasing transparency.
May I encourage Canon Tilby and all your readers to engage with the process through their General Synod representatives?
MANDY FORD
Member of the Governance Programme Board, Steering Group, and Revision Committee
Bristol Cathedral
College Green
Bristol BS1 5TJ
Questions raised about the life of Erik Routley
From Dr Nancy L. Graham
Madam, — The Revd Professor Ian Bradley, reviewing the book The Unfractured Faith of Erik Routley: From Brighton to Princeton (Books, 9 August), poses three very important questions. Here are the answers.
First, Erik Routley was solidly a beacon of Congregationalism until the merger with the English Presbyterians to form the United Reformed Church in 1972. After his preparatory education at Fonthill School and Lancing College, he went up to Oxford, fully intending to continue to ministerial training at Mansfield College after he earned his degree at Magdalen. In 1965, he was awarded a Fellowship of the Royal School of Church Music for his contributions to hymnology and worship music in the wider Christian community. He was the first non-Anglican to be so honoured. The cover photo was an editorial decision, based on his lasting experiences there. A close look at this section reveals that he and the few other Nonconformists were often uneasy in their surroundings. The sensitive attention of their tutors and resident clergy got them ready for the world. Becoming a member of the Church of England was never part of his trajectory.
Second, in a very real sense, all of us involved in a Christian worshipping community are Routley’s legacy, and, beginning with the front matter, examples of this appear steadily throughout the book. For specifics on his plethora of compositions, sermons, publications, and accomplishments, I suggest the comprehensive final section of his festschrift, Duty and Delight (Hope Publishing, 1985), edited by Robin Leaver, James Litton, and Carlton Young. This was published after Routley’s untimely death in 1982.
Third, Routley’s theology is widely available through his nearly 40 books, many of which are on our shelves. There is a forthcoming guide to examining his theology of music and music of theology.
The book is a look at Routley in his roles as minister, husband, father, friend, tutor, chaplain, and worship leader, and how he managed all this by applying his faith, intellect, and sense of humour. A biography of this type was specifically requested by the Routley family to fill a lacuna regarding the seemingly disparate facets of his life.
NANCY L. GRAHAM
275 Park Terrace, Mobile
Alabama 36604, USA
Homogeneity of thought is sometimes necessary
From Mr Roger McFarland
Madam, — Does Canon Angela Tilby realise the implications of her argument in the article “Badenoch is antidote to groupthink” (Comment, 8 November)? Her suggestion that the leaderships of the Civil Service, the media, universities, and the Church of England are possessed of an “ideological sameness” is exaggerated, in my experience of all four. More importantly, though, isn’t “sameness” of outlook and opinion sometimes a good thing, or even necessary? Substitute “theological sameness” for “ideological sameness” and the weakness of her argument against homogeneity of thought becomes apparent.
The problem with advocating greater “freedom of speech” on issues such as equalities, diversity and inclusion, and approaches to immigration is that it can easily lead to an undifferentiated pluralism, in which all opinions are regarded as equally legitimate, and none of them as better than the others. This is neither correct nor, may I say, Christian.
Seen in the light of the gospel imperative to love all our neighbours as ourselves, there are issues and situations in which some attitudes clearly are better than others; where some actions are right, and others are wrong. To the extent that the ideological consensus, such as it is, means that texts such as Matthew 25.34-40, Galatians 3.28, Hebrews 13.1-2 and 1 John 3.17 are reflected in the way in which we are governed and how we treat one another, in our Church and in our society, this is something that, as Christians, we should surely applaud and not criticise.
ROGER McFARLAND
79 Humber Road
Chelmsford CM1 7PF
Making comparisons between Russia and Israel
From the Revd Jonathan Frais
Madam, — Canon Oestreicher likens Israel’s aggression to that of Russia (Comment, 8 November). Differences can also be found. Unlike Russia, Israel did not launch the latest invasion. Unlike Russia, Israel warns civilians of attack so that they can get out of the way. Unlike Russia, Israel (roughly the size of Wales) is the tiny state, facing up to Iran and its proxy armies. Unlike Russia, Israel is facing a foe bent on its annihilation. Unlike Russia, Israel has offered to forgo land in exchange for true peace (e.g. under Ehud Barack and Ariel Sharon).
Unlike Russia, Israel is a proper democracy. Unlike Russia, Israel has a free press. Unlike Russia, Israel has LGBT rights. Unlike Russia, Israel has biblical and archaeological evidence for its existence going back millennia. Unlike Russia at its BRICS summit in Kazan, Israel cannot get the Secretary-General of the UN to stand by its President.
JONATHAN FRAIS
11 Coverdale Avenue
Bexhill-on-Sea TN39 4TY
Pain management and the Leadbeater Bill
From Dr George Harrison
Madam, — Lord Carey is reported to support assisted dying on the grounds that there is “nothing sacred about suffering, nothing holy about agony” (News, 1 November). So, what is his answer to the problem of the many thousands of people who have to live with chronic pain for which no cure has been found, and may have that condition for years, if not decades? If this law is passed, how easy would it be to extend the criteria to include people suffering from intractable pain?
What is needed is better support for pain services in the NHS, better support for hospices (as expressed by the Bishop of London in the same edition), and more research into how to manage chronic pain and end-of-life care. Only then should we consider passing legislation to legalise assisted dying.
GEORGE HARRISON
Retired consultant in pain medicine
11 Hollister Drive
Birmingham B32 3XG
Hearts and treasure
From Mr G. M. Lyon
Madam, — The Ephesian Fund is clearly biblical (Comment, 15 November) in that it represents an example of the truth universally acknowledged, and particularly noted by Jesus, that a person’s “treasure” is found where his or her “heart” is (Matthew 6.21).
That various Anglicans, individually or collectively, now redirect or withhold some or all of their treasure in the light of contentious Church of England innovations might be regrettable, but is surely scriptural. Those who see the introduction of Prayers of Love and Faith or women bishops or reparations as “conforming to this world” and its current ideologies rather than as God’s perfect will for his Church (Romans 12.2), cannot realistically be expected to go on putting their treasure where their hearts are not.
G. M. LYON
13 New Acres, Newburgh
Wigan, Lancashire WN8 7TU
Third in two respects
From Dr Penny McClean
Madam, — In the obituary for Viscountess Brentford (Gazette, 15 November), it is stated that she was the first woman to hold the position of Third Church Estates Commissioner. When I was elected to the General Synod in 1980, the post was held by the redoubtable Dame Betty Ridley, who made a point of introducing herself to new members in the ladies’ cloakroom. As a newbie, I had no idea what the title meant, but soon found out. Dame Betty was succeeded in 1989 by Margaret Laird, and Gill Brentford followed her. So, she was actually the third female Third Commissioner.
PENNY McCLEAN (formerly Granger)
17 Scotland Road
Cambridge CB4 1QE