SOME of those that knew of the abuse perpetrated by John Smyth have been “lying”, a survivor told the General Synod on Monday evening. He urged them to come back forward to clarify their actions, warning: “If the Church of England doesn’t show moral leadership then she’s going to die.”
Before debating a motion that repented safeguarding failures and urged the Church’s leaders to “redouble” efforts to enhance practice, members listened to statements from 4 Smyth survivors offering diverse perspectives. These were read out by the Bishop of Birkenhead, the Rt Revd Julie Conalty, who’s the deputy lead safeguarding bishop.
The first told members: “You are all witnesses and all to some extent complicit in failing victims so catastrophically by inaction, by lack of resolve, by failing to make sure process is modified and justice pursued relentlessly.”
Another said: “I unreservedly forgive anyone who has kept information regarding Smyth’s activities from the relevant authorities. . . At times, something like this might have been missed. . .
“However, the moral leadership of the Church of England hinges crucially on the transparency of her leaders. . . Some people have been lying. If the Church of England doesn’t show moral leadership then she’s going to die. . . I urge anyone who has attempted to guard the Church from this scandal to come back forward and explain their actions.”
A 3rd said that not all Smyth survivors had spoken to Keith Makin, the creator of the report on Smyth’s abuse. His report had “prioritised, often uncritically, the voices of probably the most vociferous and litigious. . . We contest Makin’s conclusions that the detail and extent of Smyth’s abuse was as widely often known as he suggests.”
Individuals were being “vilified, as in the event that they knew the entire”. Many survivors wanted to specific “profound gratitude to Mark Ruston and others, who sought to guard our anonymity in an age where standards of victims’ protection and understanding of recidivism were entirely different to today”. They were “alarmed and horrified” by attempts to “out” survivors and “further abuse them on social media”.
A fourth said that treatment of survivors by the Archbishop of York, the National Safeguarding Team, the lead safeguarding bishops, and the Archbishops’ Council and its Secretary General had been worse previously 20 months for the reason that dismissal of the Independent Safeguarding Board than at any point previously 45 years. None had demonstrated trauma-informed behaviour.
Members voted in favour of an amendment to the motion moved by Professor Helen King (Oxford), which added that the Synod: “at the particular request of victims and survivors of John Smyth QC, recognise that the institutional failure to enact adequate disciplinary process signifies that this and other cases cannot simply be labelled ‘historic’ as they’ve continuing effects on the lives of those victims and survivors that suffer the results of the prolonged cover-up by the Church of England.”
An amendment moved by Sam Margrave (Coventry) requested “that motion be taken to remove anyone highlighted for safeguarding failures in Makin from holding any church offices or having membership of any committees, boards or councils; and call on those that currently hold an office or have such a membership to resign”. The motion fell after the Bishop of Stepney, Dr Joanne Grenfell, the lead safeguarding bishop, argued that it pre-empted the four-stage process underway to think about disciplinary motion (News, 5 December 2024).
In her opening speech, Dr Grenfell warned: “We are ministering as a broken church. The work that I’ve outlined can never take away the pain of victims and survivors or offer adequate recompense or assurance of change to them.”
A “huge means of culture change” must happen, she said. “Faced with the unimaginable realty of John Smyth’s abuse and the shame of being a part of a church where individuals and groups of individuals covered up and responded in wholly inadequate ways to that and other abuse, the one possible response is our collective confession, repentance and commitment to show back to God’s truth and light-weight.” These were “long complex and painful processes”.
The last contribution to the talk got here from Simon Friend (Exeter) who suggested that the fundamental motion was “missing something that’s deeply wealthy in our biblical tradition and that’s symbolic acts of repentance: physical demonstrations or rituals performed to specific remorse for sin and a desire to return to God.”
He gave the examples of putting on sackcloth and ashes, fasting, tearing of clothes, baptism, confession, restitution, and the washing of others’ feet. “It seems to me that we owe victims and survivors — indeed I feel we owe the nation — a symbolic act of repentance,” he said, calling on the House of Bishops to think about what this might seem like.
The Bishop of Rochester, Dr Jonathan Gibbs, has warned that, within the wake of the Makin report, “we haven’t really, at a national level, addressed the anxiety and anger that folks within the pews, victims and survivors above all, and clergy, are all feeling (News, 13 December 2024).”
