VICTIMS and survivors of John Smyth were present within the gallery and on the ground of the General Synod on Monday evening when a motion was carried expressing repentance, within the wake of the Makin review, for the Church’s past safeguarding failures.
The motion, moved by the Bishop of Stepney, Dr Joanne Grenfell (Southern Suffragans), the lead bishop for safeguarding, urged the Church’s leaders to “redouble” efforts to enhance safeguarding practice, and to recognise that its failures continued to affect victims and survivors.
Introducing the controversy, Dr Grenfell invited the Synod to recollect “those whose lives have been ruined by the awful effects of the abuse of John Smyth”, including those in Zimbabwe and South Africa. The Church’s safeguarding standards should be “even higher” than the Charity Commission’s, she said, before drawing attention to the progress revamped the past decade.
“Many of the recommendations which are in Makin are covered by work that’s already under way, or, within the case of independent oversight, will probably be debated tomorrow.” Other points were being followed up by a working group.
She continued, nevertheless: “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 strategy 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 Bishop of Birkenhead, the Rt Revd Julie Conalty (Northern Suffragans), the deputy lead bishop for safeguarding, read out submissions from Smyth survivors.
One said: “It is eight years because the Smyth story broke and yet the National Safeguarding Team has only recently began investigating those that didn’t stop Smyth in 2013. . . 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 ignored. . .
“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 return forward and explain their actions.”
A 3rd said that not all Smyth survivors had spoken to the reviewer, Keith Makin, and that 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 precise “profound gratitude to Mark Ruston and others, who sought to guard our anonymity in an age where standards of victim 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 NST, the lead bishops for safeguarding, and the Archbishops’ Council and its Secretary General had been worse previously 20 months because the dismissal of the ISB than at any point previously 45 years. None had demonstrated trauma-informed behaviour. Many survivors refused to have interaction with the NST; those engaged within the response group weren’t representative. The Synod paper had “negligible” input from Smyth survivors, they said.
Dr Julie Maxwell (Winchester), a paediatrician, said that the difficulty of abuse “will sadly at all times be with us. We must not ever develop into complacent.” As a parent, she had realised that she was “at risk of seeing abuse in all places”. This could “paralyse us”. Friendships and mentoring within the Church were a “vital a part of discipleship”.
Ed Shaw (Bristol) desired to “make sure that that the cultural changes needed don’t escape our attention”. One of the “most horrific” but in addition “most helpful” points of the Makin review was the psychological evaluation, including organisational aspects, provided by Dr Ellie Hanson.
“For conservative Evangelicals like myself, she names a lot that has been, that is just too often, a problematic a part of our cultures,” he said. This included misogyny, elitism, and intrusive and harmful pastoral care. “We are listening, and we all know that we’d like to vary our cultures.”
Dr Nick Land (York) drew on a C. S. Lewis essay, “The Inner Ring”, which warned of the hazards of the need to be a part of circles of power and influence. The C of E was filled with such rings, he said. “Let us be honest on how our desire to be well-regarded in our inner rings impacts upon our behaviour.”
Professor Helen King (Oxford) moved an amendment, which added that the Synod, “at the precise 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 who are suffering the implications of the prolonged cover-up by the Church of England”.
There was a have to “engage properly with what happened previously”, she said, including “searching for the patterns, seeing what was behind what happened, whether that was theology or our tendency to fall for the charm of somebody with a . . . charismatic personality”.
The motion also failed, she said, to say those that still lived with the consequences of abuse. “Too often, we use the word ‘historic’ once we discuss safeguarding. We need to look forward, not back. . . For victims and survivors the past shouldn’t be over.”
Disciplinary processes had not been accomplished: “Knowing that somebody could have intervened but did nothing [and] remains to be ready of authority, that may be a further level of abuse.”
The amendment was welcomed by Dr Grenfell.
Clive Billenness (Europe) seconded the amendment. “Please never underestimate the complete and awful impact that abuse causes not only to victims, but in addition to members of their families, potentially down many generations.”
The Revd Robert Thompson (London) spoke of the “definite change in tone” in current papers on safeguarding. “We appear to be perfectly comfortable now to simply accept that we’d like an infinite change, a conversion of the best way through which we, as a Church, cope with abuse.”
He suggested that his motion, tabled on the July in York, on abuse at Soul Survivor had been “dismissed as a sectarian play-game by a liberal attempting to bash Evangelicals — and that might not be farther from the case” (News, 12 July 2024)
“No abuse is historic,” he agreed. “All abuse continues in the consequences that it has on victims and survivors, and it continues right throughout the entire of their life.” The way that the Church handled abuse was “symptomatic of how we as an establishment . . . are also programmed into particular ways of responding”.
Martin Sewell (Rochester) said that he first encountered a Smyth survivor in 2018. “Even I actually have made mistakes on a few of this.” He had not challenged a comment made by another person that “should you think we’re going to get pushed around by a bunch of public-school posh boys you’ve got one other think coming” — a reference to the privileged backgrounds of Smyth victims.
Sam Margrave (Coventry) moved an amendment that the Synod “request 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”.
Dr Grenfell resisted the amendment, arguing that it pre-empted the four-stage process under approach to consider disciplinary motion. It was also not “workable”, she said, because the Synod didn’t have influence over every position of membership or authority. The amendment was lost.
Peter Adams (St Albans) also praised Dr Hanson’s evaluation: “a wealth of understanding we cannot afford to disregard,” and which might help the Church to contemplate the recommendations of the Scolding review of Soul Survivor. Smyth’s grooming took place in several contexts, he said. There was a necessity to take a look at how Smyth was “in a position to operate within the unpatrolled spaces between these groups”.
The Revd Mark Wallace (Guildford) thanked his own Bishop, the Rt Revd Andrew Watson, who had spoken out “with great courage and dignity” about his own experience of Smyth’s abuse; and Cathy Newman and Channel 4 News for “shining a lightweight into the darkest corners of the Church of England. It is shameful that it has taken a news reporter to bring each of those matters to light and to cause these resignations.”
He continued: “We have consistently didn’t take heed to victims and to place them at the center of our decision-making. . . We have invested far an excessive amount of trust and support in leaders of successful ministries.”
The Bishop of London, the Rt Revd Sarah Mullally, warned that “repentance will only see life if actually we modify.” She expressed gratitude for the reforms under way, which, she said, needed to be seen within the context of other business, including clergy discipline and governance. “We need to vary the best way that we work to be certain that we move faster.”
Dr Jamie Harrison (Durham) spoke of the failure of reporting systems. The Makin review had “offered the concept that some people have been unimaginative in the best way that they didn’t follow things up”. “It’s great to have hindsight, and I, like many others, have failed miserably on many occasions,” he said. Trauma-informed training had been “eye-opening”.
Simon Friend (Exeter) had, he said, felt “uncomfortable with the expression of repentance”, which, within the motion, led to the words “higher policies, guidance and practice”. “It seems that we’re missing something that’s deeply wealthy in our biblical tradition, and that’s symbolic acts of repentance: physical demonstrations or rituals performed to precise remorse for sin and a desire to return to God.” It appeared to him that “we owe victims and survivors — indeed, I feel we owe the nation — a symbolic act of repentance.” He called on the House of Bishops to contemplate what this might seem like.
After a moment’s silence, the amended motion was carried by 384-0 with two recorded abstentions. It read:
That this Synod, repenting of the failures of safeguarding within the Church of England detailed within the Makin report: (a) ask those in leadership roles across the Church of England to redouble work to implement best safeguarding practice consistent with national policies and guidance, and note the further and forthcoming reforms set out in GS 2376; and (b) at the precise 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 who are suffering the implications of the prolonged cover-up by the Church of England.
