Further responses to Makin and subsequent events
From Mrs Anne Atkins
Madam, — Pace Andrew Brown (Press, 22 November), others of us did speak in defence of Archbishop Welby: I, for instance, both on Newsnight (18 November) and in the Independent (19 November).
I’ll say again what I said then. Nothing would have made any difference in 2013. How can I know with such certainty? Because our daughter walked into a police station after I blew the whistle on Smyth (Mail on Sunday, 2012) with my article in her hand and tried to give them his identity. The police were not interested. They refused even to log it.
As late as 2017, they weren’t: which is why (I was told at the time) Channel 4 News approached Smyth unilaterally, thus alerting him to flee the country. Police had repeatedly done nothing. A close friend gave very similar evidence that same year, and police still couldn’t recognise criminal activity: it took several years and a different force to take the matter forward to prosecution.
As for suggesting that anyone would have taken the slightest notice in the 1980s: “Indeed, sir? You wish to report schoolboys being beaten? And would you also like to tell us that fish swim in the sea?”
The reason that I wrote in 2012 and not before was because, post-Savile, we were all more aware. We had started to recognise things that we hadn’t seen before. If I had pitched the same article a few months — let alone years — earlier, it wouldn’t have got past conference.
Why do we need all these endless, pointless (and, in the case of Makin, invidiously speculative and perhaps actionable) “reports”? Because we are too stupid, too cowardly, and too historically amnesiac to face the blindingly obvious: Smyth did very wicked and terrible things, most people who knew him had no idea, and police didn’t act when they could have done.
And now some very good people have been vilified for being in the wrong place at the wrong time and reacting as any of us might have done.
ANNE ATKINS
Observatory House
6 The Crescent
Bedford MK40 2RU
From the Revd Dr David Heywood
Madam, — Professor Veronica Hope Hailey (Comment, 22 November) demonstrates convincingly that restoring trust in the Church requires radical reform. The Makin report echoes several previous reports in lamenting the lack of accountability which allowed those in authority to overlook and minimise the effects of abusive behaviour.
Would it, therefore, be an opportune moment to point out that no diocesan bishop is subject to any effective means of accountability? The Church’s patriarchal and paternalistic culture (little changed since the days of male-only bishops) allows and expects each to function as a little king or queen in their own diocese.
Surveying the hierarchical systems of his own day, in which people in power were often looked up to and viewed as benefactors, Jesus was succinct in his response: “It shall not be so among you” (Luke 22.26). It would seem that repentance is long overdue.
DAVID HEYWOOD
5 Scholars Walk, Quedgeley
Gloucester GL2 4SQ
From Dr Margaret Wilkinson
Madam, — While our thoughts are quite rightly with those who have experienced church-related abuse as children, we must also acknowledge the problems faced by adults who do not meet the criteria for vulnerability, but who, nevertheless, experience church-related abuse. This may have been domestic abuse, spiritual abuse, sexual abuse, or other forms of abuse.
Those who have suffered encounter the now well-documented problems faced by survivors of church-related child abuse, including reluctance to accept that such abuse occurs, obfuscation, failure to act, and lack of accountability.
The Church as an institution appears reluctant to recognise the need to respond to such situations, despite the well understood problems that arise from the abuse of power and of deference.
MARGARET WILKINSON
27 River Grove Park
Beckenham
Kent BR3 1HX
From the Rt Revd Dr Peter Selby
Madam, — In your leader comment (15 November), you impute rather dubious motives to bishops who did not join the Bishop of Newcastle in calling for the Archbishop of Canterbury’s resignation; she herself has spoken of them even more negatively. I think it more likely that they trusted the Archbishop, through his prayers, and the private support and advice that he will have received, to reach the right decision, even if he couldn’t make public the stages of his reflection.
And, unlike the Bishop of Newcastle, they will have had regard to the principle that publicly attacking fellow bishops, let alone calling for their resignation, is a freedom that you give up when you accept office as a diocesan bishop; and you certainly don’t make public their private letters to you. Such action by survivors who experienced Smyth’s abuse and the Church’s neglect is completely justified; bishops acting in that way will certainly not make the Church a safer place: quite the opposite.
That is even more the case when the Bishop of Newcastle cites the “reputation” of the diocese of Newcastle as a reason for denying Lord Sentamu permission to officiate, when among the most telling criticisms of the Church’s handling of cases of abuse is precisely that it has given priority to reputation over justice and care for individuals.
As Lord Sentamu’s bishop for seven years, and then later as bishop of the diocese neighbouring his, I had the privilege of gaining much from his extraordinary combination of wisdom, courage, and friendship. When he and Lady Sentamu decided to move to Berwick, I was delighted to think that a diocese in which I had served, and its bishop in particular, would benefit from such a remarkable resource.
Sadly, Dr Hartley’s unjust treatment of Lord Sentamu, and her intransigence in the face of requests to reconsider the matter, while inflicting hurt primarily on him, bring with them, if she but knew it, a serious loss to her and to the diocese, including, of course, harm to its reputation.
PETER SELBY
Assistant bishop, diocese of Southwark
Address supplied
From Mrs Pam Walker
Madam, — After a long career in safeguarding, and in response to last week’s correspondence, I would like to point out three fundamentals of safeguarding, which I fear some in the Church have failed to grasp.
First, there is no excuse for abuse, for enabling abuse, for denying and minimising abuse, for hiding evidence of abuse, for choosing not to deal with abuse.
Second, safeguarding is everyone’s responsibility, no matter how important or unimportant their part in an organisation.
Third, safeguarding is not an agenda item that can be moved down the agenda as other issues take precedence. Instead, it should underpin everything that an organisation — in this instance, the Church — does.
PAM WALKER
The Tower House
Hartburn, Morpeth NE61 4JB
From Canon Stephen Mitchell
Madam, — The Bishop of Guildford may be right in saying “Abusers espouse all theologies and none” (“Reckoning time for Evangelicals”, News, 22 November); but that doesn’t let theology off the hook.
A theology that robs people of self-worth, agency, curiosity, and experiences of God outside the confines of church is abusive. Priests who seek to mirror their all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-loving God fail to give their parishioners strength to resist abuse. Theories of atonement which portray God as an abusive father are no comfort to victims of abuse.
Safeguarding practice must include a review of theology.
STEPHEN MITCHELL
93 Bantocks Road
Great Waldingfield, Sudbury
Suffolk CO10 0XT
The State of Israel and interfaith relations
From Revd Robin Paterson
Madam, — The Revd Jonathan Frais (Letters, 22 November) discusses the similarities between the warring nations Russia and Israel. He turns Canon Paul Oestreicher’s arguements (Comment, 8 November) around, claiming that there are very few similarities.
He claims: Israel did not launch the latest invasion. This flies in the face of news reports over the past 12 months or so. Israel has invaded Lebanon, as it has before, not to mention Gaza over the years. Israel warns civilians of impending attack: the Israel Defense Force’s cynical warnings are made in the knowledge that you can’t just up sticks and move your elderly and children suddenly. Then the IDF creates casualties of whom most are women and children.
Israel is a tiny state: it is a nuclear state, size is irrelevant when you are backed by the United States and the UK. Israel offered to forgo land: over the years it is has been consuming territory in the West Bank, removing generations of landowners and destroying agricultural land.
Israel is a proper democracy with a free press. Really? It has just censored its own well-established Haaretz newspaper and had previously banned Al Jazeera from reporting within the country. It is a plus that LGBT rights are protected, but, as for Israel`s claim to have biblical and archaeological evidence for its existence, the Bible also tells us that the Israelites achieved that by driving out the occupants of the land that they invaded, not to mention getting rid of foreign wives from exile. Nothing has changed.
ROBIN PATERSON
22 Manston Way
Leeds LS15 8BR
From Roger Backhouse
Madam, — There indeed is a case for Israel’s democracy and comparatively free press, as made by the Revd Jonathan Frais. Attacks by Hamas were indeed barbaric and gave Israel worldwide sympathy.
Unfortunately, Israel was established using terrorist methods, including hostage-taking, assassinations, and violence driving Arabs from their homes. As is well documented in the Church Times, Israel’s forces currently encourage land grabs and expulsion of inhabitants, including Christians, in the West Bank and Negev. Anywhere else and by any other country, that would be called ethnic cleansing, if not genocide. Freer democracies, however commendable, lose credence when they busily oppress others.
I am no theologian, but the argument that there is biblical and archaeological reason for Israel’s present existence is rather thin. That “This land was given to us by God,” which I have heard from Jewish friends, and which Mr Frais presumably consider a reason for Israel, begs the question that if God gave the land, why should he not also take it away? At least two ultra-orthodox groups argue, logically enough, that the establishment of modern Israel was an anti-messianic act and one that is sinful.
ROGER BACKHOUSE
11 Orchard Road
Upper Poppleton
York YO26 6HF
From the Revd Nathan Eddy
Madam, — The Jewish festival of Chanukah, marking the rededication of the Jerusalem temple in the second century BCE, begins this year on the evening of the 25 December. This Advent, as we in the Church ponder the coming of the Prince of Peace and the mysteries of God’s ways, we do well also to remember our Jewish neighbours — and neighbours of other faiths — in a time of polarisation, increased prejudice, and unprecedented strain on faith relations. Good relations aren’t just for Christmas — but they are certainly important this time of year, of all years.
NATHAN EDDY
Co-director
The Council of Christians and Jews
St Andrew’s House
16 Tavistock Crescent
London W11 1AP
Church and the Bomb
From Mr David Pybus
Madam, — Your report of Lord Harries’s finding nuclear deterrence awesome to support and then linking it to cyber threats (News, 8 November) prompted me to look up the debate in Hansard on 31 October. For such an important issue, I was surprised that it lasted less than an hour and only 11 peers spoke, all in favour. I wondered where other church voices were.
In 2018, the General Synod carried a motion recommitting the Church to peacemaking and calling for the elimination of nuclear weapons (News, 9 July 2018). Is this still the thinking and will of the Church of England as a whole and, if so, what has it been doing about it?
DAVID PYBUS
84 Wildlake
Orton Malborne
Peterborough PE2 5PQ
Heavens to Betsy
From Canon Christopher Hall
Madam, — Correction of a correction! Betsy Howarth succeeded Dame Betty Ridley (Letter, 22 November) as Third Church Estates Commissioner in 1981, serving until 1989, making Viscountess Brentford the fourth woman to hold the post (Obituary, 15 November).
CHRISTOPHER HALL
The Knowle, Deddington
Banbury OX15 0TB