VICTIMS and survivors of John Smyth were present in the gallery and on the floor of the General Synod on Monday evening when a motion was carried expressing repentance, in 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 improve safeguarding practice, and to recognise that its failures continued to affect victims and survivors.
Introducing the debate, Dr Grenfell invited the Synod to remember “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 must be “even higher” than the Charity Commission’s, she said, before drawing attention to the progress made over the past decade.
“Many of the recommendations that are in Makin are covered by work that is already under way, or, in the case of independent oversight, will be debated tomorrow.” Other aspects were being followed up by a working group.
She continued, however: “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 process of culture change” must take place, she said. “Faced with the unimaginable realty of John Smyth’s abuse and the shame of being part of a Church where individuals and groups of people covered up and responded in wholly inadequate ways to that and other abuse, the only possible response is our collective confession, repentance, and commitment to turn back to God’s truth and light.” 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 since the Smyth story broke and yet the National Safeguarding Team has only recently started investigating those who failed to 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 ensure process is changed 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 could have been overlooked. . .
“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 does not show moral leadership then she will die. . . I urge anyone who has attempted to protect the Church from this scandal to come forward and explain their actions.”
A third said that not all Smyth survivors had spoken to the reviewer, Keith Makin, and that his report had “prioritised, often uncritically, the voices of the most vociferous and litigious. . . We contest Makin’s conclusions that the detail and extent of Smyth’s abuse was as widely known as he suggests.” Individuals were being “vilified, as if they knew the whole”.
Many survivors wanted to express “profound gratitude to Mark Ruston and others, who sought to protect 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 in the past 20 months since the dismissal of the ISB than at any point in the past 45 years. None had demonstrated trauma-informed behaviour. Many survivors refused to engage with the NST; those engaged in the response group were not representative. The Synod paper had “negligible” input from Smyth survivors, they said.
Dr Julie Maxwell (Winchester), a paediatrician, said that the issue of abuse “will sadly always be with us. We must never become complacent.” As a parent, she had realised that she was “in danger of seeing abuse everywhere”. This could “paralyse us”. Friendships and mentoring in the Church were a “vital part of discipleship”.
Ed Shaw (Bristol) wanted to “make sure that the cultural changes needed don’t escape our attention”. One of the “most horrific” but also “most helpful” aspects of the Makin review was the psychological analysis, including organisational factors, provided by Dr Ellie Hanson.
“For conservative Evangelicals like myself, she names so much that has been, that is too often, a problematic part of our cultures,” he said. This included misogyny, elitism, and intrusive and harmful pastoral care. “We are listening, and we know that we need to change our cultures.”
Dr Nick Land (York) drew on a C. S. Lewis essay, “The Inner Ring”, which warned of the dangers of the desire to be part of circles of power and influence. The C of E was full of 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 specific request of victims and survivors of John Smyth QC, recognise that the institutional failure to enact adequate disciplinary process means that this and other cases cannot simply be labelled ‘historic’, as they have continuing effects on the lives of those victims and survivors who suffer the consequences of the prolonged cover-up by the Church of England”.
There was a need to “engage properly with what happened in the past”, she said, including “looking for the patterns, seeing what was behind what happened, whether that was theology or our tendency to fall for the charm of someone with a . . . charismatic personality”.
The motion also failed, she said, to mention those who still lived with the effects of abuse. “Too often, we use the word ‘historic’ when we talk about safeguarding. We want to look forward, not back. . . For victims and survivors the past is not over.”
Disciplinary processes had not been completed: “Knowing that someone could have intervened but did nothing [and] is still in a position of authority, that is a further level of abuse.”
The amendment was welcomed by Dr Grenfell.
Clive Billenness (Europe) seconded the amendment. “Please never underestimate the full and awful impact that abuse causes not only to victims, but also 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 seem to be perfectly happy now to accept that we need an enormous change, a conversion of the way in which we, as a Church, deal with abuse.”
He suggested that his motion, tabled at the July in York, on abuse at Soul Survivor had been “dismissed as a sectarian play-game by a liberal trying to bash Evangelicals — and that could not be further from the case” (News, 12 July 2024)
“No abuse is historic,” he agreed. “All abuse continues in the effects that it has on victims and survivors, and it continues right throughout the whole of their life.” The way that the Church handled abuse was “symptomatic of how we as an institution . . . are also programmed into particular ways of responding”.
Martin Sewell (Rochester) said that he first encountered a Smyth survivor in 2018. “Even I have made mistakes on some of this.” He had not challenged a comment made by someone else that “if you think we are going to get pushed around by a bunch of public-school posh boys you’ve got another think coming” — a reference to the privileged backgrounds of Smyth victims.
Sam Margrave (Coventry) moved an amendment that the Synod “request that action 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 who 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 way to consider disciplinary action. It was also not “workable”, she said, as the Synod did not have influence over every position of membership or authority. The amendment was lost.
Peter Adams (St Albans) also praised Dr Hanson’s analysis: “a wealth of understanding we cannot afford to ignore,” and which would help the Church to consider the recommendations of the Scolding review of Soul Survivor. Smyth’s grooming took place in several contexts, he said. There was a need to look at how Smyth was “able to operate in 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 light into the darkest corners of the Church of England. It is shameful that it has taken a news reporter to bring each of these matters to light and to cause these resignations.”
He continued: “We have consistently failed to listen to victims and to put them at the heart of our decision-making. . . We have invested far too much 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 change.” She expressed gratitude for the reforms under way, which, she said, needed to be seen in the context of other business, including clergy discipline and governance. “We need to change the way that we work to ensure that we move faster.”
Dr Jamie Harrison (Durham) spoke of the failure of reporting systems. The Makin review had “offered the idea that some people have been unimaginative in the way that they failed to 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, in the motion, led to the words “better policies, guidance and practice”. “It seems that we are missing something that is deeply rich in our biblical tradition, and that is symbolic acts of repentance: physical demonstrations or rituals performed to express remorse for sin and a desire to return to God.” It seemed to him that “we owe victims and survivors — indeed, I think we owe the nation — a symbolic act of repentance.” He called on the House of Bishops to consider what this might look 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 in the Church of England detailed in the Makin report: (a) ask those in leadership roles across the Church of England to redouble work to implement best safeguarding practice in line with national policies and guidance, and note the further and forthcoming reforms set out in GS 2376; and (b) at the specific request of victims and survivors of John Smyth QC, recognise that the institutional failure to enact adequate disciplinary process means that this and other cases cannot simply be labelled “historic” as they have continuing effects on the lives of those victims and survivors who suffer the consequences of the prolonged cover-up by the Church of England.
