The Makin Report into the abuse of John Smyth QC was published last week. It contains 250 pages of harrowing evidence and damning analysis, and that is without the appendices.
Many, overwhelmed by the severity of the abuse and the extent of the cover-up, have poured out their anger on the Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, who today has announced his plans to resign. In his statement he explained, “It is very clear that I must take personal and institutional responsibility for the long and retraumatising period between 2013 and 2024.”
There is a danger that after the initial shock of both the Makin Report and Justin Welby’s resignation, the church, both institutionally and personally, will go back to business as usual.
If there is to be real change, it will require a change of culture and for that to happen everyone has to play their part.
It is nearly five years since the Director of Anglican Futures gave her last speech at the General Synod of the Church of England in the February 2020 discussion of the IICSA Report. Since then, Anglican Futures has had the privilege of walking with more than a hundred survivors of different kinds of abusive and bullying behaviour relating to nearly thirty different church and parachurch settings.
The original speech was written in haste and unwittingly drew on the pledge of the safeguarding charity, thirtyone:eight, part of which had been sent to her that morning by a friend. The speech stands the test of time, and along with the pledge itself, is a good starting point for those wishing to learn the lessons of Makin.
Listen to the survivors
Take time to read their different accounts – not just the snippets that have been quoted in the press or online.
- Child victims (Section 6.2)
- Seriousness of abuse (Section 6.3.1-3)
- Lasting effects of the abuse (Section 6.3.15 -31)
- A father figure (Section 8.6.7)
- The grooming process (Section 11.3.9 –12)
- The physical abuse (Section 11.3.16-66)
- The disclosure (Section 12.1.11-21,47,56-58,95,
Survivors’ experiences are not monochrome and it is important to hear the voices of all, while being aware that some survivors have chosen not to share their stories and some, like Guide Nyachuru, who, “died in suspicious circumstances at one of Smyth’s camps in Zimbabwe,” cannot (p4).
Speak Up
“The silence around issues of abuse can be deafening, often leaving those that have been abused to be the sole voices speaking out. We will use our voice and our influence to publicly and privately speak up about the injustice of abuse and the need for change.” (thirtyone:eight pledge)
The Makin Report, itself “was triggered in large part by the actions of several victims, who relentlessly lobbied for the truth and learning in this case to be revealed.” (2.2) In contrast it describes the “distinct lack of curiosity shown by these senior figures and a tendency towards minimisation of the matter.”(14.1.1)
Speaking up about abuse is spiritually exhausting and it should not be left to those who have experienced abuse themselves. It will take time. Time spent reading, learning and asking questions. It will be difficult. Challenging people when they seek to minimise, trivialise or normalise abusive behaviour will not be easy. It will be portrayed as divisive and judgemental.
But the Makin Report has shown that is far better to speak up quickly than to have to justify years of silence.
Put Survivors First
“Too often we see cases where victims and survivors have not been believed, have been silenced or have been further abused by the response they have received. We will listen to victims and survivors and ensure we put their needs at the heart of any response.” (thirtyone:eight pledge)
Makin notes,
(d) The evidence from the time, which includes a great deal of contemporaneous correspondence between the people shown the Ruston Report, shows, clearly, that there were several possible reasons for the non-disclosure:
(i) To protect the reputation of the Iwerne movement.
(ii) To protect the wider reputation of Conservative Evangelicalism.
(iii) To protect the reputations of the individuals involved with Iwerne.
(iv) To protect the reputations of the victims’ parents.
(e) In an interview with us, David Fletcher said: “I thought it would do the work of God immense damage if this were public.” (12.1.10d-e)
This kind of thinking is not limited to the past. The Scolding Review into the more recent abuse by Mike Pilavachi notes:
“It would have been difficult for any person to challenge this success or the structures underpinning it. If something is that successful, who would want to upend it by querying the person who was the leader of that movement?
The religious context is likely to have compounded this sense of wilful blindness. The success of the venture would have been attributed by many to God’s favour, both on the movement and upon Mr Pilavachi. Someone who was perceived to have been favoured by God to that extent would have been even harder to challenge: to challenge Mr Pilavachi’s approach was almost to challenge God’s work.” (p78)
Putting survivors first means putting aside prior allegiance to any network, church, ministry or minister. It requires the humility to accept that ‘heroes’ can, and do, commit terrible crimes. It means never responding to allegations by saying, “That’s just Mike…” or “We know he could be a bully, but…”. It means thinking first and foremost, “How can I best love and support this survivor?”
Putting survivors first requires a posture of pastoral concern rather than personal defence when responding to the allegations.
Back in 1982, when a select group met at the Carlton Club to discuss Mark Ruston’s findings, Makin notes, “It is clear in the review of the agenda that this includes no victim focus and, astoundingly, starts off on the premise that John Smyth still has a future with them.” (12.1.73)
It is heartbreaking to note that the next generation of conservative evangelical leaders made a similar mistake as they sought to manage the allegations of abuse against Jonathan Fletcher. In April 2019, as it became inevitable that Jonathan Fletcher’s abusive behaviour would become public, three ‘Iwerne boys’ wrote to the regional leaders of the ReNew Conference to warn them that, Rev Jonathan Fletcher,
“… should not be invited to minister or be permitted to do so. In the circumstances, Jonathan’s lack of PTO could have adverse disciplinary and gospel consequences for the ministry of any clergy who invite him.”
There was no mention that some had been damaged by his behaviour and no concern that amongst those they were writing to could be other victims. Instead, the focus was on the importance of protecting ongoing ministry.
Putting survivors first means putting the survivor’s pastoral and spiritual needs before those of the perpetrator or any other part of the church. When those around a survivor minimise, cover-up or deny that what an individual has experienced is abusive or worthy of investigation, it causes further trauma to that individual. It prevents them from processing what has happened to them in a healthy way and leads to survivors blaming themselves:
“Victims have reported mixed and complex feelings because of the abuse, including feelings of worthlessness, ‘Why me?’, guilt ‘Did I encourage this in some way? Am I to blame?’ and shame ‘How could I have let this go on? Why did I go back?’” (6.3.16)
Conceal Nothing
“When abuse is discovered it is important that it is fully brought into the light so that justice can be served and those that have been affected can receive the help they need. We will not cover-up or collude but be open, transparent, and truly repentant about what has happened.” (thirtyone:eight pledge)
Take the time to read the Key Findings of the Makin report (1.3-1.12). They are a catalogue of missed opportunities:
1982-3:
“Different – and we strongly suspect better, for subsequent victims – outcomes would have followed had appropriate reports to the police and other statutory authorities been made then.” (1.5)
1984-2001:
“Church officers knew of the abuse and failed to take the steps necessary to prevent further abuse occurring.” (1.8)
2012-2017:
“John Smyth should have been properly and effectively reported to the police in the UK and to relevant authorities in South Africa. This represented a further missed opportunity to bring him to justice and may have resulted in an ongoing and avoidable safeguarding threat in the period between 2012 and his death in 2018.” (1.11)
Post 2017:
“The Church’s reaction to the expose of John Smyth’s abuse by Channel 4 in February 2017 was poor in terms of speed, professionalism, intensity and curiosity. The needs of the victims were not at the forefront in terms of thinking and planning; the response was not trauma-informed.” (1.12)
Too many people withheld knowledge or turned a blind eye.
Makin states that in 1989, when Jamie Colman created the UK Zambezi Trust to support the work of John Smyth in Zimbabwe,
“The information about the abuse was now out in the “public domain”, albeit to a relatively small public but certainly now widely known within Church and other circles. At the least, everyone at and connected with Winchester College would now be alerted to the abuse.” 13.1.52
In 2013, “the Church of England knew, at the highest level, about the abuse that took place in the late 1970s and early 1980s… There was a distinct lack of curiosity shown by these senior figures and a tendency towards minimisation of the matter, demonstrated by the absence of any further questioning and follow up, particularly regarding the Church reassuring itself that a known abuser was not still actively abusing (albeit in a different country, but this does not diminish the moral responsibility on people).” 14.1.1c-d
Take Responsibility
Rather than apportion blame or point the finger at others, we must acknowledge that abuse happens in any culture that allows or creates the circumstances for it to occur. We will take responsibility for the ways we have personally and corporately failed and will take the necessary steps to shoulder that responsibility and the reparations that must come as a result. (thirtyone:eight pledge)
In his book, ‘Something’s Not Right’, Wade Mullen writes,
“… when I analyse statements of institutional apology, surrender is hard to come by. I often observe what remains when every blame, excuse, justification and self-promotion is crossed out. At times, nothing remains.” P143-4
It would be an interesting exercise to watch the Channel 4 interview with the Archbishop of Canterbury with this in mind. However, there is a danger that the Archbishop of Canterbury just becomes a scapegoat for all that went wrong, and lessons are not learned. Makin is clear that,
“It is likely that there were culture and organisational factors within Iwerne and the camps that may have assisted or contributed to John Smyth’s abuse..” (11.3.57).
He also quotes the 2021 Cultural Review of the Titus Trust (Iwerne’s successor):
“It is hard to avoid the conclusion that up to 2014, some people within the Trust network were aware of John Smyth’s abuse, but either thought it had been dealt with, or were content to not bring it out into the open.”
The events surrounding John Smyth are part of a wider cultural phenomenon.
The Scolding Report spoke of “an institutional defensiveness built into the Church leadership and trustees” (3.6.2a).
The thirtyone:eight report into the abuse carried out by Jonathan Fletcher concluded,
“It is the opinion of the Reviewers that the aspects of unhealthy culture at ECW and more broadly across the affected CE constituency might only be addressed fully by those having played a key role in the establishment and maintenance of that culture to no longer enjoy the influence they have had to date (i.e. considering their positions and stepping down). It is not for this review to determine the details of how this should take place, but it should be recognised and considered as a necessary part of a demonstrable commitment towards a safer, healthier culture” (page 11)
The ‘Representations Process’ for the Makin Report took five months. All those criticised (and their lawyers) were given ample time to correct any errors in the Report, yet still some named are seeking to challenge Makin’s account of events.
It would be so much more edifying if instead of this defensive culture we saw a stream of apologetic confessions – with those named and unnamed setting out what they knew, when they knew and how they knew, along with what they did or failed to do with that information. Some may, like the Archbishop of Canterbury, need to consider their position, take responsibility for their mistakes and resign from positions of spiritual authority, many more of us may need to take responsibility for our lack of curiosity, our willingness to platform people because of competency rather than character and the fact that our love of being part of something that seems successful is greater than our love for survivors.
Make Change Happen
Apologies and learning lessons are important steps in the process of responding to abuse, but too often that is where we stop. We will not just take responsibility, and learn lessons, but will make active, tangible, timely steps towards change and encourage others to do the same. (thirtyone:eight pledge)
Makin describes a moment in 1989, “… when the curiosity of people should have been raised and a moment when it could have reasonably been expected that someone, either lay or ordained, would have taken the opportunity to raise their concerns with authorities.” (13.1.52)
The repeated finding that somebody should, and could, have done something brings to mind Charles Osgood’s poem about responsibility, which ends:
“When what everybody needed did not get done at all,
Everybody complained that somebody dropped the ball.
Anybody then could see it was an awful crying shame,
And everybody looked around for somebody to blame.
Somebody ought to have done the job
And Everybody should have,
But in the end Nobody did
What Anybody could have.”
Defensive cultures can be changed if anybody is prepared to keep asking questions. Cultures of fear can be changed if anybody is brave enough to keep speaking out. Successful cultures can be challenged if anybody is prepared to disassociate themselves from networks and individuals who have proved themselves incapable of safeguarding survivors. And if everybody does, then change will come even quicker.
Hold each other accountable
It’s important to acknowledge that issues of abuse are not confined to one particular denomination or tradition, but are issues experienced across all expressions of the Church. We will commit to holding ourselves mutually accountable by accepting the challenge of others about our own practice and challenging poor practice wherever we see it. (thirtyone:eight pledge)
While it is vital that all church leaders take responsibility to “identify such false and dangerous theologies and to make sure that they are not allowed to develop,” (21.1) theological point-scoring does not help keep the church safe. It has been disappointing to see some ignore Makin’s findings that Smyth “mis-used the writings and views of various conservative theologians” (21.1) and claim, for example, that it was his belief in penal substitutionary atonement that led to the beatings.
But there is another, perhaps greater, danger to good safeguarding and that is what some in the United States have described as the “Evangelical Industrial Complex,”; what Bishop North described to General Synod in 2020 as, “hidden power, opaque structures of power, ill-defined patterns of accountability,”; and what some have simply described as “the Blob” in the UK. This amorphous grouping of individuals, networks and organisations, share a commitment to ‘sound’ theological teaching. They platform one another, recommend one another’s resources and sit on committees together. Each individual ministry and organisation is, to some extent, dependent on the goodwill of other individuals and organisations within these opaque structures, which means there is a reluctance to speak out or challenge one another. When questions are raised about the character of an individual or the culture of an organisation, others close ranks, creating a wall of silence or actively challenging the narrative of those brave enough to speak up.
When challenged about their silence, many evangelical leaders have simply said it is not their place to speak out because they have no formal authority to challenge their colleagues. But until theological colleges, churches, conferences, networks and ‘big name’ speakers are prepared to publicly challenge poor practice wherever it is found, the church will not be safe.
Makin expresses concern that the current Church of England recruitment process, “does not include a requirement to disclose knowledge of abuse to others by others, or to disclose knowledge or awareness of individuals that pose a risk to children or adults. For those that had knowledge of the abuse by John Smyth, had this form included such requirements, it may have provided an opportunity for them to disclose the abuse, enabling it to come to light much sooner.” (22.1.5)
The introduction of such a declaration, to be completed regularly by clergy, is Makin’s eighteenth recommendation.
A declaration of the type Makin describes could be part of the answer to these evangelical networks of unaccountable power. Imagine the impact it could have if every church, theological college, publishing house and network called for such a declaration to be completed, along with the need to disclose who they have told about the abuse, before anyone takes a job, joins a trustee board, signs a publishing deal or takes to a stage or pulpit.
Imagine what could happen if everyone who read this blog signed the thirtyone:eight pledge and sought to live it out in their context.
