The Makin Report – Church Leadership, Past and Present Found Seriously Wanting

At the heart of the Makin report released last Wednesday is an account of the behaviour and beliefs of one seriously damaged and dangerous individual, John Smyth.  I do not propose to say much about him here, as his activities, if not his thinking, are well documented in Makin and other accounts.  Andrew Graystone has already prepared us with his book, Bleeding for Jesus, for much of the factual material contained in Makin’s long report about the crimes of John Smyth.  What remains to be considered first of all is the behaviour of individuals, many now deceased, who responded to discovering the facts of the abuse that occurred in Winchester and elsewhere between 1979 and 1982.

A large section of the Makin account, as it recounts these events from the last century, concerns the actions and decisions of a group of prominent C/E evangelicals after the news first broke in March 1982.   It was in this month that Mark Ruston, a Cambridge incumbent, put together a report which was then circulated to nine other clergy, all trustees of the organisation running the Iwerne camps.  At that point Ruston had identified most, but not all, of the Smyth victims.  Meetings were called by these trustees as they struggled to get a grip on the situation.  From the records that Makin has gathered, there seems to have been very little concern for or interest in the welfare of Smyth’s victims. The chief anxiety appears to have been the damage the scandal might do to the reputation of the Iwerne camps.  Smyth had been a prominent leader for many years.  Mark Rushton and David Fletcher emerged as the de-facto leaders of managers of the crisis.  It was they, among others, who confronted Smyth and convinced him, with some difficulty, to sign undertakings to abandon his ‘ministry’ to boys and young men.  In the event the attempts to restrain Smyth were unsuccessful and he went on to run camps in Africa, supported by his English supporters who were still in thrall to his charismatic charm and evident gifts of public speaking.  It was to be another thirty years before information about his abusive behaviour became general knowledge.  The story of Smyth’s avoidance or exposure to justice is carefully chronicled in Makin’s report. 

Those who have the stamina to read the entire Makin report will recognise the importance of the year 1982 in the narrative.  This was the year when the abuses in England were stopped, and the small group of well-connected Anglican clergy, deeply solicitous for the reputation of the Iwerne camps, tried to decide what to do with the information in their possession.  The moral and ethical obligation to take some decisive action by the trustees who received the report is clear to us, as we examine the events from the perspective of 2024.  The trustees should have immediately referred all the information in their possession to the police and sought the advice of senior professionals in the psychological and law enforcement world, to help them both understand and act constructively with the information in their possession.  That they did not, at least initially, raises concerns in two areas.  One is that the silence and secrecy that they sought to impose on the Smyth case would go on to be a major cause of harm to Smyth’s existing victims.  It is as if the Iwerne effort was so important that nothing should or could be done to help those injured and protect other potential victims in the future.  The culture of Iwerne, or whatever was being protected through the secrecy, was itself a hard heartless enterprise.  In failing to support the Smyth victims, past and future, the Iwerne impulse was showing itself to be, despite its high-sounding language of conversion and love, to be a cruel monster, completely devoid of real compassion and healing. 

The second reality, shown in the frantic efforts to protect the Iwerne brand, was the lasting disregard by these clergy to bring in real effective expertise to resolve the issues caused by Smyth’s barbarity.  It needed resources of all kinds, far beyond what was available to a small group of clergy intent of preserving reputations, both corporate and individual.  Someone might possibly have said, ‘we need help.  This is too big to handle without the skills and expertise of a phalanx of professional disciplines’.  The reasons for failing to do this are again clear.   Secrecy and the preservation of the Iwerne name were paramount.  The culture of secrecy itself became a source of evil which was to do so much to damage individuals until today.

In the course of 1982, the offending behaviour by Smyth in England was brought to a halt, but one thing is clear in that none of the figures who exercised some authority in the situation and which enabled them to extract promises from Smyth not to misbehave, seems to have really got the measure of how serious and delinquent his actions had been.   The leaders who confronted Smyth did manage, in part, to stand up to the manipulative behaviour which had allowed him to rise so quickly in the Iwerne hierarchy, but they still believed (naively) that they had the true measure of his personality and behaviour.  In other words, they trusted their own innate skills as pastors and managers to penetrate his defensive/manipulative strategies which were employed to protect him from the accusers’ threats.  One hope by the leaders, that they could lead Smyth to a place of genuine remorse and repentance, turned out to be empty and of no value.  Dozens of children in Africa were to suffer (and one die) as the result of Christian leaders having an inflated assessment of their pastoral skills.

We come here to a failing in Christian ministry which is probably all too common.  This is the fault of believing that ordination has granted one the gift of inspired judgement in pastoral situations when, in fact, they need human judgement which is properly informed by professional (secular) skill.   Many clergy are unwilling to admit that a pastoral situation is beyond their level of competence.  In these situations, it should be possible to seek the support of consultant or experienced mentor.  I have always believed that an extra beatitude is required to add to the others.  It goes something along the lines ‘Blessed are those who know their limitations.’ Preachers/pastors who work within the culture of conservative evangelicalism, where the infallibility of the biblical text is claimed, are particularly vulnerable to the grandiose claims and hubris which allows them to ‘know’ the truth in a complex pastoral scenario such, as the Smyth saga.  Is this what we are witnessing in and around Cambridge in 1982 and later in Lambeth Palace after 2013?  One thing that is absent from the Makin report during this early 1982 period is any indication that an external professional assessment was sought to gauge Smyth’s potential for reoffending.  Nor were the psychological needs of those who had been abused looked at or considered.  Instead, the untrained amateur pastoral assumptions of the clergy, who had taken charge in managing the situation, were allowed to reign.  The results of letting this inadequate pastoral wisdom dominate the care of victims were to have baneful consequences both for the existing Smyth victims and for those who were to follow them in Zimbabwe and South Africa.

Clerical naivety, compounded by a refusal to access relevant professional competence, seems to sum up one way of understanding how things went so badly wrong in putting right the evils of Smyth’s actions.  If I am right to see these failings of professionalism as being at the heart of the saga, then the case for compulsory referral or mandatory reporting seems incontestable.  Naivety and the inability to make sound judgement was just not present at the early part of our story, and the same cluelessness seems to cling to many of the actors right through till today.  The decisions and the non-decisions that have taken place at Lambeth Palace are also part of the story.   The failings of church leaders in knowing what advice to take or whom to follow are not minor failings; they can be enormously harmful and wound the Church of God in ways that cannot be measured.

While writing the above, I have become aware of the increasing crescendo of voices calling for the resignation of the Archbishop of Canterbury over the Smyth affair.  My attitude to this question has not been suddenly formed but goes back to the interview in 2019 with Kathy Newman. On that occasion Welby said several things which were clearly untrue, including the claim that he ceased to have contact with the Iwerne camps after graduation and starting work for an oil company in 1977.  It is clear that he remained in touch with the camps and he and Smyth appear on the same programme in 1979. Telling even a single lie to impress an invisible audience is corrosive of trust, even with one on the other side of a television screen.  The recent article by ‘Graham’ in Via Media finally pushed me to the point where I cannot see him as a spiritual leader.  If he does not any longer have moral or spiritual authority, then there is, in my estimation, only one choice open to him -that of resignation. 

About Stephen Parsons

Stephen is a retired Anglican priest living at present in Cumbria. He has taken a special interest in the issues around health and healing in the Church but also when the Church is a place of harm and abuse. He has published books on both these issues and is at present particularly interested in understanding how power works at every level in the Church. He is always interested in making contact with others who are concerned with these issues.

14 thoughts on “The Makin Report – Church Leadership, Past and Present Found Seriously Wanting

  1. Thank you. Webys words of reignation seem to blame rhe police and not his concern for the individual over the institution. Institutional church is a dangerous anacromysm in a secular.post Christian age.

  2. “Evangelical” “ism” without any Gospel, contriving for political influence, and false ecumenism are the ever more fatal mixture that has led to the current outburst of disgust, however vaguely it articulates that. Leave other churches and their “ministers” alone, leave outsiders’ consciences alone, leave sacraments alone, seek some actual meanings to Holy Scripture.

  3. It has taken many years for the late John Smyth to be finally and categorically recognised for all to see, as a seriously evil man. No one is arguing with the Makin Report.

    Justin Welby’s latest and hopefully final accomplishment, in a catalogue of inept prevarication over his resignation, has been to ensure that every single Uk mainstream media channel was broadcasting lurid details of Smyth’s abuses, the intolerable suffering of his many victims, and the hopeless complicity of Welby and many others who did not do what they ought to have done. Ironically, if he’d gone quickly, his enduring mission to protect the image of his Institution could have been partly preserved. As it is, literally everyone is talking about it. The Church’s reputation has been savaged far more than if he’d gone before.

    I’ve argued before that Welby was a patsy for others’ failings. He’s now taken the hit whilst they’re hoping to get off Scott free. Time will tell whether they succeed. Who were these senior people he was getting direction from? Or was this another example of a certain economy with the truth.

    The odd history of the Iwerne factory system producing “great” future leaders has been fatally exposed. We should treat its products with particular wariness. Their programming is to dominate, and forget people and truth if they get in the way. The ends justify the means. We’ve been not just bitten, but heavily mauled. Let’s be more than twice shy. Enough surely!

    Only one bishop stood up and called Welby out. One. That’s courageous leadership right there, as is the few people like our host, who have (at considerable personal cost) consistently called out Smyth’s and others’ actions and dishonesty. I applaud them.

  4. Welby and Church turned a blind eye to vile abuse
    Daily Express Letters 13 Nov 2024
    THE Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby had to go (“‘Can we really trust the Church of England to keep us safe? I think the answer at the moment is no…’”, November 12). Church victims have been branded “troublemakers”.
    I reported violent abuse of trainees to an Archbishop but no formal inquiry ever followed. One victim’s mental state resembled that of terrorist attack victims I had seen as a junior doctor in A&E.
    Our denomination needs a new leader and a fresh start.

  5. Apologies if this is too off topic.

    In all of the reporting re: the Makin report, I have not seen any mention of the Archbishop’s Council decision to cancel the contracts of the Independent Safeguarding Board.

    I understand that Ian Paul was a member of Archbishop’s Council at the time of this decision. Given that this destroyed much of the CofE’s (minimal) credibility around safeguarding, I find it hypocritical for him to co-sponsor the petition for ++Welby to resign.

    ++Welby erred and, eventually, resigned. Will Ian Paul do the same? The Archbishop’s Council decision has retraumatised victims and left their cases hanging.

    1. People are just beginning to comprehend some of the Church politics being played out over the removal of the Archbishop of Canterbury.

      Liberals and conservatives, apparently united, joined together (in my opinion rightly) in the petition to remove Welby. With approaching 15,000 signatures, mainstream TV interviews and various other media inputs, they prevailed. He resigned. Pausing for a moment, this was a momentous and historic achievement.

      Ian Paul came across well on the telly. I’d formed a very different impression from his online written interactions here and elsewhere in the past. For example when I raised the subject of my own abuse with him, I experienced his response as dismissive, and at no stage did he attempt any assistance or follow up, despite his access to power and his position of influence.

      Everyone has an agenda, and this week they briefly intersected to produce the result we have now seen. Justin has recently declared that personally he now has little if any problem with same sex or outside conventional marriage sex in a “committed relationship”. Forgive me if I paraphrase his views clumsily. I probably agree with him, to the extent I understood what he was saying.

      Previously coming from a conservative evangelical background, I am certain that they will be incandescent with rage about his advocacy of variations on their interpretation of the bible. I have no desire to discuss any of this further in this post, because it’s off topic. However I’m almost certain this is why they’ve turned against Welby.

      Usually I want to be wrong. In the aftermath of this Exit, the true colours of those various parties will be revealed in their choice of candidate for replacement. Theoretically none of us had much say in the matter unless we happen to be King or PM. However both of these men will look for recommendations from others. These may be made privately and discreetly, but this being (Church) politics, expect a lot of noise.

  6. Not necessarily off topic, as there may be a relation between evangelical homophobia and the actions of John Smyth (and the concurrent inaction of his fellow ‘leaders’). But to your point — if you are right about the connection between Welby’s turn towards relational commitment over exclusive heterosexuality, and the turn against him by conservatives, then their alliance with liberals in this regard is an unholy one indeed. There’s a lot of this about at the moment — cf The Alliance, where catholics are in bed with evangelicals. All fighting over the remnant of the CofE. But whoever wins their exclusive church will be ‘reformed’ but not ‘catholick’ and thus not Anglican.

  7. I’ve been away from this blog for some time. Mostly because of the way my health has suffered as a result of a three year wait for both hips to be replaced. The second one is now seven weeks old, and while I’m by no means pain free, I am much more mobile, and I can stand up straight! I haven’t been able to be active in my church, but I am renewing my PTO.
    I haven’t taken the time to read every post since I last looked in. But I think I just want to say we are entering a time of change. It is at least possible that many things will change for the good. Let us pray for that. Personally, I am still waiting for the church to show any understanding of the need for restitution. It’s hard to believe that people mean their apologies, if nothing has come out of it.
    For my sins, I am on the Diocesan safeguarding group. Perhaps this development will serve as a kick up the backside wherever that is needed!

    1. Yes, indeed, ‘power to demolish strongholds’ can be relevant to the visible Church. Being rid of a lot of nonsense may be very helpful. The ‘halls, facilities and numbers’ days could be coming to a welcome end. The radical liberal, and the hard shades of fundamentalism, were classically spurned within Anglicanism. We perhaps cannot get back to the Apostle’s Creed quickly enough.

  8. I have been thinking a great deal about aftercare for victims/survivors of abuse in the church, and much of what you say resonates. While nothing I experienced comes close to the horror of what Smyth’s victims endured, both at his hands in the years after while the church was silent and silencing, I feel as if there’s a similar pattern. The abuse happens, but healing is hampered by things ranging from genuine ‘clerical naivety’, to something approaching monstrous arrogance. And it minimises, resulting in an experience of being silenced – and so oppressed – then burdened by the heavy handed sense of “knowing better”, which takes away control and autonomy – and so re-traumatised.

  9. Hello, thankyou for writing your blog. I found it after googling the JW case.

    I am also someone who has suffered church abuse in the C of E church and do not attend a C of E church now. During the time I was most bullied in the C of E church, there was bullying in the clergy and Bishop Tim of Winchester was scapegoated. It didn’t change anything because he wasn’t the root of the problem- it was bullying from the top down- straight from Justin W. A very toxic time.

    I used to be on the PCC, but became discouraged during lockdown because the church was doing the opposite that it should have been doing. After trying and failing to reason with the PCC about having the prayer meeting in the church not on Zoom, I left the PCC and the church because of abusive behaiour directed at me. They tried to control me but I refused to do what I felt was UnGodly. Communion was stopped and there were barriers put in place at a time when people needed God more,not less.

    They knew that I was an abuse survivor and were abusive and bullying. They stereotyped and diiscrminated. Although we abuse survivors are easy to re-abuse, we should walk away from any church situation that is abusive because WWJD? There is no way Jesus would put up with it. Remember, he turned the tables over in the temple.

    I am in a church now that’s Protestant and very kind. I have never regretted walking away from the C of E.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.