by Gilo

The bishops have not had to deal with anything like the current situation before. Tectonic plates have never shifted as dramatically and suddenly as in this past month. One Archbishop has resigned (historic event in itself) closely followed by calls for the second Archbishop to follow. And in the midst of these seismic events, a courageous diocesan Bishop is making any amount of serious waves. Bishops have not had to face this previously. Alan ‘Elbows’ Wilson could easily be dismissed by the hierarchy as a beardy weirdy – when he had more courage, integrity and a mind for justice than the rest of the bishops put together. A few retired bishops have spoken out (notably Pete Broadbent) but no diocesan has had the presence of mind to speak out against their own failed and dysfunctional culture. It’s clear her peers view the Bishop of Newcastle as someone they need to freeze out … in much the same way that many bishops have repeatedly blanked survivors and our complaints. It’s a pattern many of us have experienced. The blanking and suspension in a vacuum has sadly changed little in the response of some bishops across the past decade. 

I suspect the women in the episcopacy are mostly grateful that they’ve managed to be accepted into the old boys club, and firmly hoovered up into the establishment (the Bishop of London is a case in point). They have spoken out hardly at all. I often wondered why Viv Faull didn’t speak out more. A bishop with more of a brain on her than many of her colleagues; and enough experience of the shadow side of the institution to have been a powerful voice for change. She has always stood some way apart from the rest of the bishops and been her own person. But she bottled out at a crucial stage… or more likely was silenced? She started speaking out in 2019 but was quickly put back in her box, presumably by the Nyebots or by whoever happened to be the ‘whip’ Bishop at the time.

https://www.churchtimes.co.uk/articles/2019/24-may/news/uk/bishop-of-bristol-speaks-of-being-silenced-by-tribalism-in-gloucester-diocese-in-the-1990s

The bishops have never known how to speak ‘corporate transparency’. They’ve always assumed the Centre or the Top would speak it for them. We’ve seen centralised contrition issued from both Archbishops in the past, which has been empty of real meaning while the structure continues to treat necessary questions and legitimate complaints in ways that demonstrate reputation management is still to the fore in the mindset of the hierarchy. Plenty of bishops, probably most if not all, have been aware of this institutional disparity but have preferred to remain mute. A big problem in my view, alongside the culture of fear which the Bishop of Newcastle rightly points to in the bishops – is the pattern of behaviours that arise from siloed thinking. As long as me and my diocese are OK. The bishops find it very difficult to take responsibility for their collective culture. Each individual Bishop has tended to only worry about their patch. Some are good and decent. Others are disaster areas. Some are kindly disposed and some are disposed to cruelty. And up until recently any Bishop wanting to make any kind of safeguarding statement or do any safeguarding-related interview had to go via the dreaded comms in Church Hse. Even national media had to go via Nye’s apparatchik. Everything has been centralized to enable the Nyebots to better control narrative and manage reputation.

Another major problem facing the Church: whose hands exactly are on the levers of change? Are there any levers?  Certainly not been the lead bishops’ hands. When they’ve tried to effect change they’ve discovered they have nothing much more than rubber levers to play with which spring back into starting position. Some lead bishops have found themselves thwarted by Nye and/or Lambeth Palace in the past. Some of us remember the frustration and anger of Peter Hancock when he was Lead at finding that Lambeth Palace could organise an interview with Justin Welby without letting him know. An interview which then contained a range of significant untruths about the Smyth case. 

Why have the bishops collectively not been able to shape effective levers and insist that Nye and any others blocking progress get out of the way. Nye and his court have been a significant hindrance to the Church responding well. Why have/are the bishops so slow in recognising this. Why are they so muzzled by fear? Is it because they have to go mitre in hand to the centre for funding and dare not speak out of turn lest the Welby/Nye axis cut off vital payment for diocesan projects?

Perhaps it suited the bishops to be lazy in their siloed mindset. It’s convenient to let the status quo remain unchallenged, because the hierarchy is protected by that status quo. Privilege and power are maintained. But that’s all changing rapidly now. Newcastle is identifying so many aspects of the low-grade culture of the bishops, which makes it much easier for the media to bring a necessary spotlight to that culture. There are likely to be several stories coming which provide further evidence of the dysfunctional culture. I don’t think the media will tire yet. They will eventually, but in the meantime it’s open season. 

So with this as the current and inevitable backdrop post the crisis of Welby  – it ought to be fairly easy for enlightened and savvy bishops (yes a few do exist) to get together and accelerate change. Really push together on the slow old lawnmower engine of this rickety structure to accelerate the pace of things. Perhaps to come up with a shared vision mapped out – of the Church they want to be, the response to survivors they want to be, and the kind of redemption and repentance they would wish to see embodied by themselves and the wider Church.

But then why aren’t we seeing any of them come alongside Newcastle’s statements in support? Why aren’t any of them even name-checking her? Praising some of her insights? Her colleagues are carefully stepping around her as if she’s not there. A deeply transgressive presence who they all avoid … rather in the way that the religious leaders avoided consorting with the ragged and disturbing prophet of Galilea.

What or who are they all frightened of? Are they frightened of each other? It seems a limp culture behind the purple enclosure. The sky’s not going to fall in any further… the sky has already fallen in! The wisest of them must surely recognise this, so why have they so little courage to match that of the Shepherdess of the North?

The other thing which needs constant repeating in the midst of all this episcopal fear is around mandatory reporting. The Church hasn’t much hope as an institution of stepping off the scandal merry-go-round until MR is in place in the statutory framework. For some reason bishops aren’t getting this, don’t want to get it. I notice some of them mouthed the words in their post-Makin statements. But it’s difficult to really know what they mean when the words ‘mandatory reporting’ are given little real context. The words have lost their meaning as Tom Perry recently said to me. The bishops have the perfect opportunity to support exactly the bill needed as it travels through parliament. Tanni Grey-Thompson’s bill is the Church’s hope for the future and will empower the institution to deliver one-Church safeguarding clearly and without any of the confusion we’re still seeing manifested. Why the bishops aren’t 100% behind this is a mystery to me. It’s really in their interest to bring the Church publicly and fully behind this bill with their support.

https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3328

I have argued previously for the planning of a Truth and Reconciliation process. But am not particularly surprised the Church has put zero preparation into this as part of the Redress Scheme. Has this been a canny move by the Archbishops Council to delay the scheme? Or is this too much conspiracy theory? Sometimes supposed conspiracy is better viewed as incompetence and shallow thinking. But on bad days I fear that any means fair or foul will be employed to delay the actual start of the Redress Scheme. Why would it be otherwise? This is the Church of England which delays every promise. Like others, my trust in this institutional hierarchy is low. And my trust in anything from Archbishops Council is zero. In my view, they should be removed from the frame. I agree with Helen-Ann of Newcastle – the top tier including Church Hse, both Palaces, the offices of Archbishops, entire NCIs – should be placed into Special Measures. That’s how serious I think it is for the Church at this juncture. There will not be real willingness to change until the Church sets about finding and making leadership structures dedicated to transparency and integrity and accountability. At present the old dispensation will cleave to power. But it needs to go, so a higher grade culture might hopefully take their place. Under current leadership it is clear that the Church of England is not fit to be in any sense the national Church, and unfit to be part of the legislature in the House of Lords. The deep soul sickness manifested by the Church across the past decade and longer, cannot be redeemed until the quiet corruption of protectionism is a thing of the past. If you want to find the locus of that protectionist culture, look behind the walls of Church House, Westminster. And Bishops, wake up to the new reality and start showing considerably greater courage and visible determination to address your own collective cultures of fear, power politics and dysfunction.

Gilo

Co-editor, Letters to a Broken Church

Co-creator, House of Survivors website

The reputation of safeguarding in the Church of England could hardly be worse. Mired in controversy, badly led, and regarded as unworthy of trust of confidence, the crises in its provision and oversight lurch from one disaster to another.  As an illustration of the parlous state of affairs, these risk assessment documents analysed by Clive Billenness appear to be part of the planned, deliberate weaponisation of safeguarding with intent to cause personal, financial and reputational harm to Dr. Percy in 2020 and beyond. 

The documents remain a significant bone of contention with the honesty and integrity of Church of England safeguarding under such intense scrutiny from the media. Especially as coverups, conspiracy and corruption are so rife in this sphere and go hand in hand with persistent incompetence. The analysis from the audit by Clive Billenness point to wider issues of grave concern, of which a handful are noted here.

1. Both Archbishops (Cottrell and Welby) have repeatedly blocked an independent inquiry into the forged documents and the weaponisation of safeguarding with intent to cause personal, financial and reputational harm to Dr. Percy. They have instead proposed internal investigations run by persons with extremely serious conflicts of interest, and under terms that would exclude consideration of the alleged forgeries, despite assuring General Synod otherwise.

2. Steven Croft as Bishop of Oxford consistently defended the forged risk assessments as “assessments of risk, which are different”. He did so publicly, knowing full well that the provenance of the documents were doubtful and lacked proper authorisation. This is an extremely serious safeguarding failure on his part. Dr. Croft made extensive efforts to defend the alleged forgeries and their authors, and avoid implication of his own lawyers and clergy in these actions.

3. The Diocese of Oxford may have a case to answer, as Bishop Croft consistently supported the documents as valid, and supported the authors as legitimate parties in their authorship. The analysis also shows that the Archdeacon of Oxford was originally in receipt of one complaint, and then later denied that in order to sit later as  a judge in a subsequent tribunal against Percy. Yet the Archdeacon denied and rejected any conflict of interest to preside as a judge. The metadata shows this to be unreliable.

4. A Church of England bureaucrat working in Westminster – Sion Hughes Carew, the Administrative Secretary to the Legal Office Synod Team  – who’s metadata suggests he had a hand in the preparation and dissemination of the forgeries was ordained by Glynn Webster, the Bishop of Beverely, a Flying Bishop. This raises the question of possible motive, with members of The Society, supported by CofE legal officers, engaged in weaponisation of safeguarding against Dr. Percy. The risk assessments were prepared and heavily promoted by those who already litigating against Dr. Percy, with clear evidence of assistance from senior CofE lawyers.

5. Emails and other documentation show that several written pieces of Dr. Percy’s evidence submitted to Kate Wood as part of her investigation were redacted and altered without his knowledge or consent. It is not known if these redactions and alterations were made by Ms. Wood herself or subsequently by church lawyers. However, we do know from emails that Ms. Wood invited plaintiffs to augment and co-ordinate their earlier evidence only after Dr. Percy had submitted his evidence. The plaintiffs were then allowed to re-present their modified accounts for her final report. Meanwhile Dr. Percy’s crucial evidence for his defence was removed without his knowledge or consent. 

In view of these findings, the case for an externally-led and fully independent inquiry is made. We can only guess at the reasons why the Diocese of Oxford, NST, Secretary General and both Archbishops have made such substantial efforts over the years to ensure that no such inquiry happens, and instead proposed an internal process run by persons with clear and substantial conflicts of interest in these matters. The evidence for deliberate weaponisation of safeguarding with intent to cause personal, financial and reputational harm to Dr. Percy appears to be very substantial. The NST has consistently deflected and declined calls for a fully independent inquiry into how their own processes were deliberately abused by persons working for the Church of England’s officers, and parties working for the Diocese of Oxford.

Document Content Analysis

An analysis of the content and metadata of two documents by Clive Billenness

Certified Informations Systems Auditor (CISA) for

Revd Dr Martyn Percy

15 December 2024

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report has been prepared at the request of Revd Dr Martyn Percy and is an analysis of the metadata of two Portable Document Format (.pdf) files provided to me by Dr Percy. I have also noted where there appear to be inconsistencies or matters of significant note between the contents of the documents and information freely accessible in the Public Domain.

I have noted the authorship and origins of both documents as described in the documents’ metadata and have concluded that while one document is a collation of multiple documents which have been assembled into a .PDF, the other is a document originated in Microsoft Word and containing evidence of tracked changes and comments from different sources identifiable by initials.

I have noted that a number of pages within the assembled document, entitled “Risk Assessment” falsely associate the name of Ms Kate Wood with them even though Ms Wood has publicly denied in the media having any involvement in their preparation. I have recommended a further investigation be conducted into how these pages were prepared since the criminal offence of Forgery may have been committed during their preparation given that they were subsequently submitted as evidence in legal proceedings under the Clergy Discipline Measure 2003.

I have further noted that in the second document, which appears to be an earlier, draft version of the statement of facts within the complaint against Dr Percy to which the first document related, contain a number of factual statements about the involvement in the investigation of allegations against Dr Percy of different individuals as well as the involvement of members of the Church of England’s National Safeguarding Team which were omitted from the final version.

1. BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION

1.1. Revd Dr Martyn Percy requested me to perform an examination of two  .PDF files, one containing a number of documents related to a complaint under the Church of England’s Clergy Discipline Measure brought against him in 2020, the other appearing to be a draft copy of one of the documents in the larger document

1.2. He asked me to provide him with my observations on the documents, highlighting any significant issues which I discovered.

1.3. I have performed a technical review, examining the documents as provided. They have been transmitted to me by e-mail by Dr Percy and I do not possess evidence of the full chain of transmission and storage since he received them. I am therefore unable to certify their provenance or authorship beyond that which is electronically detectable in each document.

1.4.  Given, however,  that the metadata indicates that the document was created on 9 November 2020 at 16:48:37 and was last edited on the following day at 13:14:37 while the first discrete document within what is clearly a collation of documents bears the signature date of 5 November 2020, I have no reason not to believe that this the original file received by Dr.Percy.

1.5. All documents have been managed in a Read-Only Environment since receipt and I certify no changes have been made to them whilst in my custody. Copies can be forwarded upon request to any third party for confirmatory examination.

2. METHODOLOGY

2.1. Many computer applications store data about the properties of a document they have created to assist in document management and retrieval, and also to provide a history of changes (revisions) made to the file since it was first created. This referred to as Metadata. 

2.2. Microsoft Word creates and stores not only a standard set of metadata on all files which are created using it, but offers various means to supplement this with additional metadata to assist with the tracking of changes to documents. I have confined my work in this analysis to the use of the built-in metadata reporting tools to be found in:

2.2.1. File…Info…Properties and

2.2.2. Review….Show Comments and Review 

2.3. Portable Document Format (.pdf) documents are most often associated with the Adobe Acrobat software package, although there are now many other tools and systems which can create .pdf documents capable of being read by a wide variety of .pdf readers and tools available in the market.  .PDF software is also frequently built into multiple purpose printer/scanners which can operate independently of a computer (or be connected to one either directly or via a computer network), enabling documents and images to be converted directly into .pdf files. The .pdf format contains a wide range of options for the inclusion of metadata, including the capability to restrict the ability to print or alter the contents of a .pdf file and to apply Digital Rights Management so that only a licensed user can view the contents of a .pdf file.

2.4. .pdf files can contain a wide range of metadata, some of which is dependent on the source files from which the .pdf has been created. Since .pdf’s can be assembled from multiple files originating from many different source computer packages.

2.5. I have not attempted to parse the document deeply beyond the inbuilt analysers in my .PDF reader, other than to verify that there are no hidden JavaScript elements in the file which might constitute a risk to a computer on which the file is opened. No such risks were identified.

2.6. For the purposes of my analysis, I first examined the .pdf files provided by loading them into Foxit Phantom PDF software and then using the inbuilt File…Properties function to view the “Description” information. I supplemented this with a further analysis of the Metadata using the online PDF Metadata analyser https://www.pdfyeah.com/, and finally conducted an examination of the files using the open source software package PdfStream Dumper v.9.3

3. DETAILED FINDINGS

3.1. The following files were examined:

* Complaint CDM MP.pdf   (File 1) and

* CDM MP Draft.pdf (File 2)

3.2. Turning first to File 1

3.2.1. This a .pdf created using the DocsCorp PDF package on 09-11-2020 at 16:48:23 by an author identified by the initials ‘rmr’. The file was last modified on 10-11-2020 at 13:14:37.

3.2.2. I was unable to determine whether this file was originated by combining a number of other existing .PDF’s or by the amalgamation of a number of source documents derived from multiple sources which were then recompiled as a single original .PDF from those sources. Given, however, that different pages contain different fonts including:

* Times New Roman

* Garamond

* SegoeUI

* Calibri

* Cambria

* Arial

* Courier

As well as pages which are identified as images and pages which are  identified as originated using a text-processor into TrueType fonts, it seems most likely that this file is an assembly of .pdf files and scanned documents originated separately.

3.2.3. Additionally, different compression ratios are shown for graphical items on different pages (e.g. page 7 reports a compression ratio of 15% while page 9 reports a compression ratio of only 3.9%) as well as different sizes of originating graphical items.

3.2.4. It should be noted that on Page 7 of the document, the signature of Graham Ward appears to have been inserted into the document from a picture held digitally on file, and not to have been placed on the document directly as a signature. This is evidenced by the level of “artefacts” surrounding the signature (the distortions associated with the application of compression algorithms within the .jpg standard).

3.2.5. This is significant as it is not possible to determine whether this component of the file was ever actually directly authorised by Mr Ward or his consent given to the application of his signature.

3.2.6. I also noted that the page titled “Oxford Cathedral – Activity risk assessment for Cathedral Choir School” [page 41] referred to “Risk alerted in report received 22/1020 [sic] (Kate Wood)” and 

3.2.7. the page titled “Christ Church – Activity risk in College” [pages 42, 43, 44, 45 and 46] contained the line

“Second risk assessment: Kate Wood (Independent Safeguarding Consultant) on 22 October 2020

3.2.8. The same line also appears on the page titled  “Christ Church – Activity risk assessment on Site: Deanery and College” [page 47]

3.2.9. I was mindful that in the 19 March 2021 Edition of the Church Times (page 6), Ms Wood was quoted as saying:

3.2.10. “I asked the college several times to publicly explain the error and to confirm that I had not conducted a risk assessment…… This public correction does not appear to have happened, though I am told that the error has now been corrected on the document.”

3.2.11. The article continues “A spokesperson for Christ Church confirmed that Ms Wood’s name had been incorrectly included in an early “risk assessment draft”. This was corrected before the assessment was finalised.”

3.2.12. Ms Wood’s name, however, appears in the packet of papers prepared for the consideration of a Clergy Discipline Measure proceeding, apparently signed and submitted by Mr Graham Ward on 4 October 2020.

3.2.13. I have further noted that in the Decision of the Bishop’s Disciplinary Tribunal for the Diocese of Oxford in the matter of a complaint under the Clergy Discipline Measure 2003 by Ms K Gadd against Revd Canon Richard Peers, reference was made to concerns about these documents. However it was stated in paragraph 29.4 on page 7 that:

“four risk assessments were subsequently prepared on the basis of the conclusions in the Wood Report. (These and other safeguarding processes put in place at the time have been criticised. For the avoidance of doubt, the Tribunal is not concerned with the details of how those operated or with evaluating their appropriateness.)”   

3.3. Turning to File 2

3.3.1. This is a .PDF file apparently created using a copy of Microsoft Word 2016 and authored by Sion Hughes-Carew. It was created on 12-06-2021 at 11:33:55 but clearly refers to an earlier document, since it contains the same text and signature of Graham Ward as in File 1 but is dated 1st November 2020 – i.e. 4 days before the version which was included in File 1 as sent to Dr Percy. It should be noted that although this was clearly not a final document, it had already had a scanned signature applied inserted into it, which is perhaps slightly unusual for a legal document to be submitted as part of a judicial proceeding which is recognised for these purposes under the provisions of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

3.3.2. This version of the document appears to be displaying comments made on the document by ‘AJ’ and ‘GW’.  When Word is tracking changes made to a document during preparation, it normally applies the initials of the first and last name of the person to whom the copy of Word on which they are working is registered. There is no means within the document of identifying who ‘AJ’ and ‘GW’ are. I note however that the complaint was submitted by Graham Ward on behalf of Ms Alannah Jeune.

3.3.3. There are a considerable number of differences between the two version of the text occurring on page 4 of File 2 and that which appears on page 4 of File 1 (the submitted document).

3.3.4. The most significant differences between File 2 and File 1 are that in File 1 (the version apparently submitted as part of a CDM):

3.3.4..1. References to the involvement of the Senior Censors of the College and the Archdeacon of Oxford in a discussion following the report of the incident have been removed.

3.3.4..2. References to the Sub-Dean and the Archdeacon contacting the Diocesan Safeguarding Officer have been removed.

3.3.4..3. References to the presence of the Diocesan Harassment Officer at a meeting following contact with the Diocesan Safeguarding Officer have been removed.

3.3.4..4. References to a professional agency for Risk Assessment being contacted have been removed.

3.3.4..5. References to the Diocesan Safeguarding office being unsure whether the allegation was a safeguarding matter, rather than sexual harassment/assault have been removed.

3.3.4..6. References to the Church of England’s National Safeguarding Team, while awaiting the full report of the investigation, having strongly recommended that a complaint be submitted under the CDM have been removed.

3.3.5. I have also noted that both File 1 and File 2 state that

“The police have proceeded with an investigation (Ms. Jeune’s hair – cut on the day of the incident – has been sent for forensic analysis for traces of DNA).”

3.3.6. I have noted that on social media recently (‘X’)  Ms Jeune has stated publicly that this did not occur, and that the Police returned her hair to her without submitting it for forensic testing.

3.4. FURTHER CONSIDERATION

3.4.1. I was mindful that in the 19 March 2021 Edition of the Church Times (page 6), Ms Wood was quoted as saying:

“I asked the college several times to publicly explain the error and to confirm that I had not conducted a risk assessment…… This public correction does not appear to have happened, though I am told that the error has now been corrected on the document.”

The article continues “A spokesperson for Christ Church confirmed that Ms Wood’s name had been incorrectly included in an early “risk assessment draft”. This was corrected before the assessment was finalised.”

3.4.2. Dr Percy has informed me, however, that this document originated from a set of electronic documents provided to him as a part of the exhibits for use in the forthcoming hearing of the complaint under the Clergy Discipline Measure, and were therefore identical to papers which would have been provided to those responsible for considering the complaint.

3.4.3. Despite requests from Ms Wood to have references to her name removed from the document, and a public confirmation by Christ Church that this would be undertaken, her name remained on a document giving the impression that she, as an external expert, had participated in the preparation of this document.

3.4.4. I then considered the provisions of the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981 which sets out a number of criminal offences:

1. The offence of forgery. 

A person is guilty of forgery if he makes a false instrument, with the intention that he or another shall use it to induce somebody to accept it as genuine, and by reason of so accepting it to do or not to do some act to his own or any other person’s prejudice.    

2. The offence of copying a false instrument. 

It is an offence for a person to make a copy of an instrument which is, and which he knows or believes to be, a false instrument, with the intention that he or another shall use it to induce somebody to accept it as a copy of a genuine instrument, and by reason of so accepting it to do or not to do some act to his own or any other person’s prejudice. 

3. The offence of using a false instrument. 

It is an offence for a person to use an instrument which is, and which he knows or believes to be, false, with the intention of inducing somebody to accept it as genuine, and by reason of so accepting it to do or not to do some act to his own or any other person’s prejudice. 

4. The offence of using a copy of a false instrument. 

It is an offence for a person to use a copy of an instrument which is, and which he knows or believes to be, a false instrument, with the intention of inducing somebody to accept it as a copy of a genuine instrument, and by reason of so accepting it to do or not to do some act to his own or any other person’s prejudice.

3.4.5. Given that Ms Woods had publicly stated that she had repeatedly requested that her name be removed from these documents, and that representatives of Christ Church had publicly stated that her name would be removed, and yet it remained on Risk Assessments which formed part of the evidence bundle submitted against Dr Percy, it appears that documents containing information which was known to be false were submitted, an act which was arguably to Dr Percy’s prejudice.

3.4.6. As such, these documents appear at first sight to contain knowingly false information and so meet the criteria specified to be ‘false instruments’ and consequently for an offence of forgery as specified in Section 1 of the Act to have been committed. Offences under Sections 2 – 4 of the Act may also have been committed by others if they knowingly copied or used these documents in proceedings against Dr Percy.

3.5. Given also that when concerns were raised about these documents before a Bishop’s Disciplinary Tribunal, it declared that is was ‘not concerned with the details of how those operated or with evaluating their appropriateness’,  further independent investigations are now recommended to determine the process by which these documents were created, who authorised their release containing false information and how this occurred. These investigations will then indicate whether criminal proceedings should be instituted.

4. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

4.1. The two documents passed to me for examination contain metadata which show that they are consistent with the dates on which any original copies would have been created, and I am therefore reasonably satisfied that they are true, unaltered copies of files sent to Dr Percy.

4.2. File 1 contains copies of “Risk Assessment” which allude to the involvement of an external consultant – Ms Kate Woods – which she has denied any involvement in the preparation of and which a spokesperson for Christ Church College Oxford publicly acknowledged and stated that her name would be removed. However, her name, and therefore her professional status, remain associated with the documents submitted in support of a charge under the Clergy Discipline Measure.

4.3. Since this appears to disclose possible offences under the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981, the matter should be referred for further investigation since the issue of false instruments may well meet the criteria of the offence of forgery.

4.4. This will involve inquiries into how these documents were originated and also what approvals were given for their publication and distribution.

4.5. A comparison of the 1 November 2020 version of the particulars of complaint and the submitted 5 November version show that a considerable number of items of potentially relevant information were omitted. The effect of these omissions is to conceal the involvement of a number of associated parties in relation to the incident under investigation, including the apparent involvement of the Church of England’s National Safeguarding Team in encouraging a Clergy Discipline Measure case to be initiated.

4.6. Given that all cases against Dr Percy have been dismissed, these omissions apparently had no effect on the ultimate outcome of the matter, and they are therefore remitted to Dr Percy to decide what action(s) if any to take.

by Fiona Gardner

‘The tragedy of life is often not in our failure, but rather in our complacency; not in our doing too much, but rather in our doing too little; not in our living above our ability, but rather in our living below our capacities.’

This quote from the African American minister Benjamin E. Mays seems sadly apt given the church’s response to knowing for decades about John Smyth’s abuses. It takes a while even to begin to digest the Makin Report – the immense and on-going suffering of those groomed and abused by Smyth, and then the response, or rather lack of response, from those who knew about what was going on: the response was a denial of awareness, a sadly familiar pattern of behaviour (see ‘Sex, Power, Control’ for too many other examples). By 2012/13 the reviewers note that although safeguarding concerns were widely recognised in all organizations, it was not so in the church:

14.3.35 We have demonstrated that this was far from the case, with serious abuse and crimes being covered up at the time. This complacency continues ….

It’s been suggested that one response to hearing about something that disturbs us, is to default to complacency: it’s an easier option that taking action – nothing to see here. One definition is that complacency is: “a feeling of self-satisfaction especially when accompanied by a lack of awareness of actual pending trouble, deficiencies or controversy.” The self-satisfaction includes being pleased with one’s position in life, one’s merits and situation, and so lacking awareness of any defects. Research describing why people get complacent and demotivated at work, suggests that among other things, this generally results from the intransigency of the organizational culture, implacability of the work climate, the inflexibility of supervision and management. One suggestion in unpacking the inaction is that those hearing about Smyth’s abuses defaulted to complacency, partly because of the organizational culture of protecting ‘reputation’; the rigid hierarchy, and, the power of a particular theology. This all contributed to “confirmation bias”, one of the helpful ideas put forward in the Makin Report which causes a person, or a group, to interpret what is going on, or only look for further information which confirms their currently held belief. And “confirmation bias” leads to complacency.

The Makin Report is divided into sections linked to chronology. In each section, the reviewers state how the abuses were known about, and how no action was taken – other than to ‘cover-up’. From time period 1982-May 1984 the intransigency of the organizational culture is clearly revealed:

12.1.2 For this period … a significant number of ordained Church of England Clergy knew of the abuse between March 1982 and July 1984, some may well have known or suspected it even earlier than 1982 although information confirming this is not available. One of these was very senior, a Bishop, and several others were well known influential leaders within Iwerne networks and the wider Conservative Evangelical world … powerful and influential leaders in Evangelism were also aware of the abuse.

12.1.6 … a sufficiently large number of prominent people within the Church did know of it.  Significant enough to say that the Church of England “knew” in the most general sense, of the abuse.

And

12.1.10 (l) All decision-making during this period regarding investigating and responding to the abuse was ‘managed’ by a group of men that included ordained Clergy and prominent Evangelicals.

The intransigency and ‘group think’ collective complacency was stronger than any sense of criminal activity:

12.1.10 (m) We must reach the conclusion that this constituted a cover-up of the abuse by those few individuals who were told at the time. This interpretation of what occurred has been questioned by many, but our firm conclusion is that a serious crime was covered up.

Complacency generates many negative outcomes which may be injurious not only to an organization, but to individuals in it. So together with ‘managing’ the knowing about the abuse went a complete disregard for the well-being of the victims, the ‘self-satisfaction’ did not extend to thinking about those outside the collective ‘group think’.

12.1. 10 (i) There was little support offered to the victims. Indeed, there is evidence of Mark Ruston being critical of some victims when questioning them. There is also evidence of what amounts to “victim blaming” in some of the correspondence.

And: (n) There is no reference to the welfare of the victims at the important meeting at the Carlton Club, where decisions were made as to how to proceed.

The general lack of concern for those who had experienced the abuse went alongside a lack of concern for the acceptance of what had happened, and the risks involved in ignoring this. The reputation of the institution, and the refusal to take on the ‘one of us’ aberrant perpetrator Smyth contributed to the inaction.

In the business model, a culture of complacency is seen as something that develops over time, and that is reinforced by each risk taken in order to meet some short-term need, without experiencing an adverse effect. This means that behaviour that deviates begins to be normalised, so that the continual inaction and lack of responses to allegations about Smyth’s behaviour became the norm. This is despite increased awareness of safeguarding. Whilst complacency is not in itself criminal, it can allow such criminal behaviour as that perpetrated by Smyth to exist. Complacency is deeply troubling as it works quietly – often a subtle drift beyond inaction into what might be called ‘evil’. For the C of E, the on-going complacency around the lack of action following allegations led to a false belief that somehow the right thing was being done – when it wasn’t.    

Moving to Smyth’s time in Africa:

13.1.1 (h)‘Throughout this period, that before and after, there was a moral duty to act on knowledge of abuse and as argued previously, a duty to report crime. John Smyth was able to abuse boys and young men in Zimbabwe (and possibly South Africa) because of inaction of Clergy within the Church of England.’

And in connection with the postcard sent and acknowledging wrong doings 13.1.30-13.1.32:

13.1.32 This is one of the clearest demonstrations of the Church Officers … that suggest potential collusion with him [Smyth] rather than prevention of further abuse by him.

13.1.139 There is no evidence that any proactive attempts were made to alert authorities in Zimbabwe by Church of England officers… By the time any attempts were made to warn those in Africa, John Smyth had already begun to abuse boys and young men. The starkest fact is that the UK abuses should have been pursued further, reported to the UK police and pursued by them. David Fletcher and others were still continuing to cover-up and to draw a veil over the abuses they knew about in detail from the late 1970s until 1982… David Fletcher and others, deliberately and knowingly, stood in the way of that investigation.

With the time period of 2012-2016, the complacent attitude and inaction seems increasingly astonishing, if not impossible to understand. At the highest level, and among a wide grouping of church officials the abuses were known about.  

14.1.1.(d) There was a distinct lack of curiosity shown by these senior figures and a tendency towards minimisation of the matter …

15.1.24 Victims’ expectations … were that Justin Welby had committed himself, and the Church to meaningful engagement with victims and to investigating the alleged abuses and to supporting them, but as time went on, victims’ frustrations and anger grew as these promises were not kept nor acted upon.

The patronising and neglectful attitude to the victims, let alone an in any way a trauma-informed response, is noted several times by the reviewers, and that the protection of the Iwerne name and evangelicalism generally was repeatedly put to the fore at the expense of helping victims and preventing more abuses. So how can this level of complacency possibly make sense? At the level of faith and belief is it that the particular theology advocated by Smyth and his cronies somehow minimised and then even ‘justified’ the punishment beatings? Hard to think that … but it seems that allowances were endlessly being made for the perpetrator’s behaviour, a perpetrator who some strongly believed was bringing boys to Christ. The very details of the on-going funding of Smyth confirms this. Could those knowing about the abuses really prioritise their particular take on evangelical theology over the well-being of children?

Could a strange blend of a particular brand of evangelical theology plus personal experiences of corporal punishment perhaps from boarding school days lead to the destructive entitlement syndrome? “It didn’t do me any harm” group think, that so distorts morality and compassion. Different research studies suggest that if you are exposed to and encourage a punitive mentality, then this provides an internalized support for systems of punishment against others and sometimes against yourself. Punishment is said to be a central theme in much evangelical theology, where US research shows that evangelicals sincerely believe punishment works, and the data shows they are favourable to the harshest forms of punishment which are socially acceptable in any given situation.

Benjamin E. Mays whose words I used at the start of this piece was a minister in the US, a civil rights activist, mentor to Martin Luther King amongst others, and President of Morehouse College for black male students in Georgia. His beliefs were the very opposite of complacency: he believed that social action could be built on integrity and respect, that right could overcome wrong, that stereotypes could be broken through, and that each person needed to take responsibility for their actions to make the world better. He believed: ‘And there was light’.

The dingy accounts of the sad sequence of cover up, denial, and deception in the Makin Report that continue on through decades, and are painstakingly recounted in over 250 heart-breaking pages rather suggest the opposite.

Motto: We’re On Some Sort of Journey

Owner: William Nye Esq.

by Anon.

         A Statement from CofE-Air: Proud Sponsor of Lambeth Palace FC

In recent months, it has been suggested that Church of England Airways—better known as CofE-Air—has enjoyed a less-than-stellar safeguarding record. This is wholly unfounded. But it is apparently impacting Lambeth Palace FC, who recently parted company with their Head Coach, Justin Welby, after a very poor run (Ed: surely several seasons?) of results.

CofE-Air wishes to make the following points concerning all the intense, undeserved, ill-informed and very unfair media scrutiny endured, and a handful of baseless complaints from a few of our passengers who claim to have had a less than satisfactory experience of journeying with us. In our statement, which will not be subject to media questions or further comment from us, CofE-Air reminds the public, passengers and its Purple Clubcard members that:

1. We take our passengers’ and customers’ comfort and safety very seriously. Safeguarding everyone who journeys with us is, front and centre, our number one priority. Safeguarding is what CofE-Air is all about, and we aim to deliver a service like no other.

2. We offer an elite high-cost low-budget safeguarding service for everyone. We avoid additional costs being passed onto our customers by making sure that our pilots, ground crew, cabin crew and other staff are unregulated, unlicensed and unaccountable to any industry standard.

3. We keep our published budget lower still by using lots of unpaid volunteers to oversee safeguarding, check-ins, etc. This ensures that all passengers are responsible for each other at all times, as safeguarding is everyone’s responsibility, not just the pilot(s) and crew.

4. In the unlikely event of any emergency procedures being required onboard one of our journeys, customers should be aware that all our staff have had crash-awareness training to the basic minimum standard. This means that when a crash does actually happen, the staff should know that there has been a crash and will be able to confirm that. They are fully trained to be aware of crashes.

5. In the unlikely event of a serious accident, Purple Clubcard members must sit facing forward in business class and first class, and should not on any account look backwards or attempt to intervene on behalf of those seated in economy class, who will be supported by our volunteer crew.

6. For the avoidance of doubt, Purple Clubcard members seated in first and business class must on no account respond to any cries for help or demands for assistance from economy class passengers. The volunteer crews will distribute forms to fill in for all those in distress, sometimes whilst the emergency is actually taking place. Obviously, Purple Clubcard members should never speak to the media about a serious incident.

7. Delays in reviews, journeys and transit are never, ever our fault and are frequently caused by troublesome passengers making annoying complaints about poor standards, lack of regulation, too much money being spent on PR, lawyers, advertising and marketing, and not enough on passenger safety. This only adds to our costs and causes further delays on journeys. If only passengers would shut up and stop complaining, we might be able to run an uninterrupted service for once.

8. We do not offer independently assessed compensation, assistance, or redress schemes to any passengers injured through our service or suffering delays (including fatalities) attributed to our provision. To do so would increase our costs. All our independent arbitration and mediation schemes are run in-house by trusted third parties who meet Mr. Nye’s criteria for CofE-Air independence.

9. In the unlikely event that you might have encountered a below-par experience with our service, or had a safeguarding issue unresolved, our website publishes details of how to complain. The complaints hotline is monitored on a monthly basis (we spin the bottle to select a random number between 1-31 for the day the ‘phone is answered). There is an unmonitored email address to write to, and you can also write to us at the designated PO Box 1662, Vennells Court, London – where , again that box is emptied one Sunday per month in Ordinary Time.

10. If you have a complaint that does not fit our criteria, then we do not undertake to consider your grievance. The policy on non-standard complaints and grievances is available upon request from Mr. Nye’s personal office, but is not published. But you can always write and ask.

11. In the event of a possible inflight accident, or more likely, an on-ground collision, and more likely still a failure to take off at all, or there being no means of embarking on the journey whatsoever, all passengers must assume the CofE-Air brace position.

12. In the front pocket of your seat you will find the brace position described in detail: tense up, put on a rictus grin, say nothing to the media, and pretend that whatever happens next, it was all planned and will be OK anyway. Familiarise yourself with the aisles and exits. Look after yourself first before you look after anyone else.  Run. Do not look back.

13. However, please ensure that Purple Clubcard members have already disembarked and are taking refreshments in the complementary lounges before you even think of moving. Church on Sundays is the kind of place where clergy preach on “the first shall be last and the last shall be first.” This does not apply here.

14. Remember that safeguarding is everyone’s responsibility, and you may be financially liable for any claims made against CofE-Air. We employ nobody to any industry standard, and when a crash or accident happens, the volunteers and passengers are usually culpable. Purple Clubcard members are naturally indemnified.

15. We do not carry life jackets, whistleblowing equipment or lights on our journeys. These might be industry standard, but CofE-Air is not subject to the law in the same way, so this allows us to keep our fares high, competing with the most expensive, yet operating on low-cost budgets.

16. Pilots and paid crew who might accidentally or deliberately fail in safeguarding duties are subject to our strict and rigorous internal disciplinary procedures. An indication of how safe CofE-Air actually is can be gleaned from the very few pilots who are ever grounded, suspended or subjected to any meaningful disciplinary action.

17. However, volunteer ground crew and non-essential low-profile staff often make the most egregious safeguarding mistakes. We aim to punish these individuals with the full force of our disciplinary code. (Let them be an example to us all, and a sign of how seriously we take our PR).

18. Re-branding. In the event of an established safeguarding position or role becoming completely untenable, CofE-Air reserves the right to keep that person in post doing exactly the same job to the same standard as before but rename the position and role so as to give the impression that it will all be different from now on. It won’t be.

19. We remain resolutely opposed to adopting any normal industry standards, as that might adversely impact on the control, cost, quality and reputation of our service.

20. At all times remember that CofE-Air puts safeguarding at the front and centre of its concerns, and that is why the very best people to conduct Fatal Accident Inquiries, Performance Reviews, Critical Incident Reports, Lessons Learned Assessments and Retrospective Analyses are hand-picked by the owner of CofE-Air, and also the Chairman and Owner of Lambeth Palace FC, Mr. William Nye. As on the football field, so in the journeys undertaken with CofE-Air. You only get the results that he is prepared to commission and underwrite. All other results are wrong, and will be treated as such.

21. We do run a bus service – but only for throwing people under who can be made to take the blame for our failures. Please note, this is not a Replacement Bus Service. Our buses do not connect destinations or have any other purpose other than to emphasise our zero-tolerance policy towards any failure to keep up appearances.

22. In the event of your journey being delayed, sit down and wait for the announcements in the departure or arrivals concourses. Or just go home. Whichever is quicker. Maybe go home?

23. In the event of an accident, unfortunate death or other injuries, we also ensure that all of our Lessons Learned Reviews are delivered in a timely manner to ensure that the reputation of our safeguarding is safeguarded, and customer confidence is maintained by:

• Running the clock down.
• Redacting embarrassing evidence and facts, and named individuals (only those we might need to protect) in order to save face.
• Ensuring nobody can remember what the original problem was.
• Delaying publication – over five years late remains the Gold Standard.
• Enabling the guilty to retire in peace without being impeached.
• Reducing the possibility of bad publicity.

That way, the public may never suspect for a moment that any of this service to passengers is carried out by unregulated, unlicensed, unaccountable and non-standard personnel and that there is no independent regulator to appeal to when things are going very badly wrong.

The Lead Bishop for CofE-Air stated:

“Whilst it is true that I, and indeed all of my predecessors, have no externally-validated qualifications in safeguarding whatsoever, or undertaken any industry-standard eternally-recognised training outside CofE-Air, and have no transferable skills or expertise that another carrier could ever deploy, valued customers and passengers on any and all CofE-Air journeys should nonetheless be reassured by the uniqueness of our standards which speak for themselves.”

A spokesperson for the safeguarding carrier industry said:

“CofE-Air are completely unregulated, unlicensed and wholly unaccountable to any normal industry standards of health and safety, and operate outside basic legal oversight. CofE-Air’s record is utterly atrocious, falling well below the minimum standards for any provider. If you do travel with them, you will have no rights, and no recourse in the courts if things go wrong, which they usually do. You travel with them entirely at your own risk, and in so doing will be taking your life in your own hands. Or putting your life in their hands. We strongly recommend you do not undertake any journey with them. Ever.”

by Stephen Parsons

It is hard to extract positive lessons from the woeful saga of John Smyth and all that has followed.  In the midst of all the sometimes shabby and even dishonest behaviour on the part of leaders and others in the Church of England, I have found one clear display of professional integrity.  This was not located in the Church, but from some in the journalistic profession, most notably in the efforts of Cathy Newman and Channel 4 to uncover the truth.  Not only did the Channel 4 team reveal the truth of a festering scandal in the C/E but the same high-quality journalism has continued in the aftermath.  Cathy has interviewed several of the key players in the drama, Smyth’s son and the Report author, Keith Makin.  It is good to see and hear Makin for the first time, when for so long his name has been merely the title of an invisible and much awaited report.

In this blog post I want to turn my attention away from information in the Report but start by first mentioning a commentary section that most readers will probably not read, the psychological assessment of Smyth by Dr Elly Hanson, in the appendix.  In this sub-report we are offered insights into the psychology of Smyth and what his actions suggest by way of a psychological/psychoanalytical profile.  I do not propose to repeat her comments, but to observe that much of what she draws out of her assessment focuses on narcissism and the Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD).  What struck me was that the word ‘narcissist’ was also the word that PJ Smyth, Smyth’s son, chose as the one to sum up his father’s personality at the conclusion of his very revealing interview with Cathy Newman. 

Long-term readers of this blog will know that I have frequently been drawn to the notion of narcissism as a key concept for the understanding of power abuse in the Church.   Confusingly, the word has acquired different meanings and usages in popular discourse. Sometimes it is used in a debate or discussion without the parties taking the trouble to find out what the other side means by the word.  I found myself first using the word in the context of religious or cultic groups, having read the work of Len Oakes, an Australian scholar.  He illuminated a link between narcissism and the personalities of many charismatic leaders.  The scholars that Oakes was reading were the generation who struggled to give the word meaning in the context of clinical practice rather than as a description of modern culture.  Otto Kernberg and Heinz Kohut, the pioneer clinicians to discuss the meaning of narcissism, were formulating their classic definitions and theories in the 70s.  Their ideas gained sufficient acceptance within the psychoanalytic profession to appear in the 1980 version of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) III.  The discussions about what constitutes narcissism have, of course, been refined since 1980 but many, if not most, of the classic signs of NPD have survived intact into DSM-V, currently the authoritative statement used by the psychoanalytic profession. 

The question of what precisely PJ Smyth meant when describing his father as a ‘grand narcissist’ does not matter at one level.  The word is one that always needs to be defined in any discussion lest it become a source of misunderstanding and confusion.  I use the word often but take care that the person I am speaking to knows how I am using it.   The important and interesting fact is that PJ used the word and we may find that, as we try to unpack the term, we obtain fresh insights into John Smyth and his extraordinarily evil behaviour.  Our examination of the word may also provide a key to understanding the corrupt dysfunctional behaviour of other religious leaders.

The definitions given in DSM III -V do not represent the final word on narcissism but they do offer us a series of traits found in the one who is defined as being afflicted with NPD.  The nine traits mentioned by the different editions of the DSM all seem to focus, directly or indirectly, on a relentless and pathological struggle for power and desire for control.  These are thought by the sufferer to be the keys able to satisfy a constant but unsatisfied craving for importance and self-esteem.  This reflects my own personal amateur attempts to understand the NPD literature which is summarised for us by the descriptions in DSM.  While experts might vary in the way they describe NPD, my remarks here are my attempt to make sense of the dense language of the pioneering clinicians like Kohut and Kernberg.  The DSM traits seem to indicate that the NPD sufferer is like a starving man.  His (typically a he/him) starvation, or voracious appetite, is so that he will be loved and admired.  For whatever reason, the narcissist is the one who has been let down or even betrayed in the process of growing up. He is one who has been wounded in childhood and now strives, using all his power and resources, whether social or psychological, to extract from others the respect and adoration that was, for some reason, unavailable to him while growing up.

It goes without saying that not every sufferer of NPD will have the giftedness and sheer power of personality to be able to attract and manipulate others in ways shown to us by Smyth (and Donald Trump).  Others remain crushed and defeated by their failure to be admired and loved – a gift given to most children by their parents.  The individuals who have the inner contentment that comes through ‘good-enough’ parenting, do not need to manipulate or control others.  That is the obsessive concern of the true narcissist.  The sufferer of NPD, the one who also has the force of personality to get their own way in pursuit of their addiction to importance and grandiosity, is hard to live with.  If they oversee an organisation, they will be difficult or impossible to challenge.  Everyone walks on eggshells, terrified of provoking what is called narcissistic rage.  Some or all of the nine traits of NPD as listed in the DSM can be identified in any bullying individual who uses the power of his personality to bludgeon or manipulate others into a place of control.  While they are ‘lording’ it over others, in a way that contradicts Jesus’s injunctions about the use of power by his followers, the insatiable appetite for power and dominance is being temporarily gratified.

Narcissistic dynamics do not just involve individuals and their esteem addictions.  They are also to be observed in political and religious structures.  Many commentators have spoken about the toxic narcissism of Donald Trump and the way that he has used the Republican party and his mesmeric gifts of dominance to obtain a position of power never achieved since the fascist dictators of the 30s.  It would of course be wrong to describe the Church of England as a narcissistic organisation, but it does provide extensive opportunities for narcissists to flourish within its ranks, and particularly in its hierarchy.  Words like ‘grandiosity’ ‘messianic’ and ‘high-status’ are all found in the descriptions of NPD and these characteristics are all obvious when we look at the pursuit of dominance seen in John Smyth and many others who have misused institutional authority.  Repeatedly we note the way that hierarchs, individuals within the structural Church, have chosen to support the organisation that gives them their status rather than listen to their personal consciences.   Only a few nights ago, Tuesday 26^th ,  did we hear once again how five bishops ignored the pleas of Matt Ineson about his abuse by a priest.  One wonders whether it was the relationship to the structure that inhibited their actions and whether things would have been different if they had had only to respond to their consciences.

Returning to the comment and description by PJ  Smyth of his father as a ‘total narcissist’, we are able to see how the word does sum up many of the aspects of behaviour of this notable malefactor.  In using this one word we touch on not only the evil perpetrated by a single individual, but a further uncomfortable reality.  This sees that it is not only individuals who are narcissists or sufferers of NPD, but organisations, such as the Church of England, are prone to incubate such behaviour.  Bishops, clergy, church administrators and lawyers, some of whom are being scrutinised currently for their historic failure to act over the abuses, are unlikely to be solitary narcissists.  They are better described as institutional narcissists – those who use the opportunities given to them by their position within a hierarchy, to indulge their taste and need for self-importance and power.

Once again, I am returning  to a theme which I have discussed many times because I believe it to be of such importance.  We need to embody in attitude and action the words of Jesus, ‘I am among you as one who serveth’.  In a serving church, narcissism stands out like the monstrous carbuncle that it is.  ‘Forgetting’ to act on a disclosure of abuse comes to be revealed as a narcissistic self-promoting action.  Acting and not acting as a way of gaining power and gratification, either for ourselves or the organisation we work for, will often result in terrible evil and injustice.  Smyth was a toxic narcissist, both as an individual but also as part of the various Christian tribes which gave him authority, even permission, to become the monster that he was. Institutions that fail to understand the nature of the power they have, can allow that same power to fester and become something truly dangerous and a cause of harm.    

by some Survivors, Advocates and Campaigners 

Trust and Confidence in the leadership and hierarchy of the Church of England is irretrievably broken. Victims and Survivors of abuse, and those subject to falsified allegations, can obtain no truth, justice or mercy from the CofE. Its leadership is blind, deaf and dumb in the face of its incompetence, corruption and coverups. There is no sign of repentance, reparation or reconciliation. This is harming the work of local churches and ministries in other spheres. Yet the hierarchy remains aloof from accountability and independent scrutiny. Consequently, this is destroying morale across the entire ministry of the CofE. Without change, the crisis will continue and only deepen.

We call for personnel in Lambeth Palace and senior bishops to be removed from or withdraw from any involvement or responsibility in Church of England safeguarding, pending a fully independent and statutory inquiry into the coverups over abuse, expenditure on those coverups, and the systemic issues in governance that have led to such disgrace, public disgust and despair inside the church. It will be impossible for the CofE to recover public trust until then. If trust and confidence are to be restored in its leaders and any of its safeguarding work, we petition the following:

1 An immediate Statutory Independent Inquiry into the operations of Lambeth Palace, Church House Westminster, its officers, expenditure, and the entirety of its safeguarding work.

2 The immediate suspension from safeguarding duties of those bishops and church officers who also knew of the details of the Smyth case and have consistently obstructed further reviews into cases brought by victims and survivors.

3 The full and immediate adoption of the recommendations of the Jay Report, without interferences from those cited above, identified below[i]

4 The Redress Scheme chaired by the Bishop of Winchester, and Interim Support Scheme, handed over with immediate effect to a trusted independent third party.

5 Safeguarding in the Church of England to be subject to immediate professional, fully independent scrutiny and independent external regulation.

6 Victims of abuse, survivors, and those deliberately harmed by false accusations are to be fully and promptly compensated.

7 The Church of England’s hierarchy to adopt, without demur, all Nolan Principles for Public Life, the Freedom of Information Act (2000), the Data Protection Act (2018), statutory employment law and human rights law.

If the Church of England fails to adopt this Seven-Point Charter by the February 2025 meeting of the General Synod, we request that the HM Government immediately remove HMRC Gift-Aid Status from the Church of England and the Charity Commission forthwith withdraw charitable status from the Archbishops’ Council.

---

[i] The following need to step aside from all responsibility in safeguarding in the interim, and consider their positions: William Nye. The Lead Bishop for Safeguarding and the Director of the NST. The bishops of Lincoln, Oxford, Rochester and Guildford. The Archbishop of York. The Head of Legal Affairs at Lambeth Palace and the Provincial Registrar for the Southern Province. The Bishop for Episcopal Ministry in the Anglican Communion.

The Epic Fight to Survive Goes to the Wire

By Nick Craven, Sports Correspondent

Head coach Justn Welby

Assistant Coach Steve Cottrell

Club Motto: Nil Satis Nisi Optimum (“nothing but the best”)

Club Colours: Purple top, shorts and socks (home). Away kit: Post Office Bright Red (Farrow and Ball shade: Angry and Embarrassed).

Club Mascot: Willie Nye and his Crook; a white ferret with an episcopal staff.

Club Chairman and Sole Owner: William Nye esq.

Club Sponsor: Elf-and-Safeguarding

(Our Vision: “Leading Providers of Unctuous Emulsion for the Broken”.)

 

Languishing in the relegation zone of National League Two, this once great Premier League football team of Lambeth Palace FC playing under the twin towers is struggling with performance, team morale, protests from fans and regular scandals.

After a run of very poor results Justin Welby has resigned as manager, to be replaced by assistant coach Steve Cottrell who is now stepping up as caretaker manager.  Once again, every fortnight our ace reporter, Gaby Lippy, brings us an exclusive post-match interview. This is a story of a Club in steep decline, but still aiming for the top!

Episode Eight: Cottrell-in-Charge (This Week)

Gaby: Well Steve, here you are, now the Caretaker Manager. Top Job, eh? But what are your thoughts on the manner of Welby’s departure? I mean football can be a funny old game, can’t it? And quite brutal, don’t you think?

Steve: Well Gaby, as you say, that’s football, isn’t it? I do feel for Justin. I mean Lambeth Palace FC have had a long, long streak of dreadful luck, and to be honest, we’ve not had the best refs in the world. Some of the decisions against us have been absolute shockers, and games where we should have drawn and gone to a replay and kept going with those replays over several seasons, have been unfairly wound up with penalty shootouts.

I mean the Safeguarding Challenge Cup isn’t supposed to end now – it is meant to be played out in local and regional leagues over several seasons, before it comes back to Championship and Premiership level, before going back out into the regions again. It is not supposed to be settled over a couple of matches.

Gaby: I see, yes. I presume you are referring to the ISB-11 here, who you kept avoiding having to play a match with, and in the end, the fixture and the points were eventually awarded to them? You also lost badly against Jay United, Wilkinson Wanderers, and Glasgow Gladiators (though you claim you didn’t field a full team for that game). But the manner of your defeat against Makin Rovers was the worst defeat in the club’s history, if not all footballing history. I mean, the list goes on, doesn’t it? These were thumping, heavy defeats. They were humiliating losses, weren’t they?

Steve: Ooh, I think “humiliating” is a bit strong, Gaby. They’ve certainly given us some pause for thought. Well, as Assistant Coach, I’ve kept saying to the lads that the art of winning matches is to score goals and not concede more goals than we score. We’re working on that every day, and the lads spend a lot of their time on VAR doing the lessons-learned reviews. The fans know how hard this is for us.

Gaby: Well, it might be hard for the team, but its much harder being a fan or a season ticket holder. They pay pay good money to watch this, and they’re not happy. Now, Welby’s gone after 15,000 fans signed a petition for his removal, and there were banners calling for him to be sacked. But Steve, the tactics for these games were yours too, weren’t they? I mean you prepped the team, coached the players, and surely you must share the blame just as much as Welby here. Shouldn’t you do the decent thing and resign too? I mean a new manager coming in won’t want you anyway, will they? You’re toast, surely?

Steve: Gaby, I am just going to be the Caretaker Manager here. The Head Coach job is probably not for me. But football is a funny old game, and you never know how it will turn out. So I’ve said to the Chairman, Willie Nye, that I’ll stay on as long as he wants, and if the results improve in the next six months, then who knows, I might get the job full-time.

Gaby: Would you want that?

Steve: Oooh, Gaby, that’s not for me to say, is it? It’s Willie’s pick, and of course, the fans have a bit of a say, too, in confirming Willie’s choice. Let’s just say that if we turn things around in the next few months, re-stock the trophy cabinet with some silverware, play some entertaining football, we can review our options then. I rule nothing out. Or in. I rule nothing is what I mean, I think. Is it, er…hang on…

Gaby: Right, can we talk about morale in the dressing room? You’ve put Hartley up on a free transfer now, as Hartley claimed that Welby’s run of form was so poor his position had become untenable. It’s a bit petty and vindictive to punish one of your youngest players like this, isn’t it?

Steve: Right, well I need to say a few things back here in response to that tough line of questioning.

First, loyalty is obviously the most important thing a club needs from its players. It matters more than skill, proficiency, integrity, winning, goals…anything, really. Also, we have a zero-tolerance policy on dissent. That’s why we’ve handed Hartley a free transfer. Uzbekistan has a fantastic league, and it will be a great place for Hartley to re-learn the basics of football, beginning with loyalty. North Korea is also an option.

Second, Welby was very hot on discipline, and any dissent would often be punished with having your wages docked, so I think Hartley has got off lightly here. Welby ran a tight squad, and he didn’t like the players to express themselves too much, or even at all. If you played out of position or said something off the field he didn’t like, you’d be packing your bags. He was very strict…but he kept discipline, and that was a plus. Until it failed. 

Third, we just can’t have fans, players and referees telling us how to play the game. That’s not right, because as Head Coach I’m in charge of the games and the results. The Chairman of the Board, Willie Nye, has always said that what counts most is results. And when the results don’t go your way, you need to be in a position to explain why those results didn’t really count in the first place. That’s football, and that way, we never lose.

Gaby: Seriously…?

Steve: Oh yes, it’s all about a united front. If discipline and order have broken down in the dressing room, then you clear out the dressing room. The players know that. That’s why you never hear them speak out about anything. The players need to be occasionally reminded that loyalty comes first. No matter how bad the results, we expect everyone to pull together, stand behind the manager, and accept his version of what happened in the game. That’s the way leagues are won.

We can’t have dissension in the team, and players or fans coming up with different readings of the games. It’s bad enough having to put up with independent referees. We should never have agreed to that. Back in the good old days, if we were playing at home, we provided the referees ourselves and ran the VAR and the linesman. And in those days we always played at home too. So we got independent refs that we paid for and employed, and who answered to the Chairman. That’s how it should be, really.

To be honest, it’s the same with the teams we play against like ISB-11. If the players are not registered with us, and subject to our club rules, then we don’t engage with that team, and don’t play them. We only play against teams who recognise that we are in charge, and we oversee the time and place of the match, and the result. If teams like ISB-11 can’t agree to simple things like, we will just ignore them, and we have every right to do so.

Gaby: …er right, I see. OK, now you’ve had this dreadful run of results of late, and some Big Games coming up. LLF Spartan Boys are next, and you’ve only ever lost to them heavily, but once managed a scrappy draw. How is this going to work?

Steve: I think we’ll be fine. Snow is our new tactics coach, and he also plays in goal and as a false nine. He’s a conservative player, but he likes to hang out on the right if he can. He’s comfortable there on and off the field. He’s not really a natural left-field player.

Gaby: Who are the left-field players left in the team?

Steve: Well, I’ll have to give you that’s a gap in the squad at the moment. Welby didn’t like them, really. They were too, well, individualistic. Anyway, not to worry, as Mr. Nye is currently off scalping potential talent.

Gaby: Don’t you mean scouting? 

Steve: That’s what I just said.

Gaby: Well, we need to draw this interview to a close for now. In short, it’s been a disaster these past few years, hasn’t it? It’s been a truly dreadful run of results. Tons of money spent on lots of new players, some of whom don’t last very long. Lots of different ways of playing too, with no commitment to the basics. We’ve seen Fresh Expressions of Football come and go. We’ve had Talent Pipelines, Footie Hubs, and seen Pioneer Football come and go. Welby brought players in from the ACNA league in the USA who aren’t actually registered to play here. Then there’s the third-provincial team who want to play in their own league, but they want one-third of your stadium, a third of the club revenues and 33% of the rights on the shirt sales, logo and mascot, even though they’re a tiny minority (5%) of the fans? 

Steve: Gaby, I promise the fans things will be different now under my watch. Just you wait and see. My results will speak for themselves. I will be judged on my results. I’ve said that to…er…

Gaby: OK, can we finally switch to a subject I know that is dear to you, namely women’s football? Now Lambeth Palace Ladies are going great guns, aren’t they? Top of the league, a record haul of goals, Golden Boot winner in the offing. But, Steve – and I have to ask you this – you have a few members of your Board who think women can’t play football…

Steve: Now hang on a moment…

Gaby: …no, don’t interrupt me. They say women can’t play football, and then they say, even if they do, it isn’t really football. They say – your Board Members and some of your players – that the ladies should stick to netball, serving half-time refreshments and maybe helping the team doctor with the magic sponge.

Steve: I don’t want to get into all that. Lambeth Palace is one big happy Football Club. It is a family, except for the players now up on the Lambeth (free transfer) List – did I mention them earlier, like Hartley? Apart from that, Lambeth Palace welcomes everyone, and we treat everyone equally, whatever they do.

We have a proud record on this. We were the first major team to have a black lad up front playing in the box in the 1970s. But we also kept our junior KKK white-boys-only team going until 1975 too. I mean that inclusivity tells you everything you need to know about this club. We’re completely undiscriminating.

Gaby: Did you mean to say ‘non-discriminatory’?

Steve: Yes, exactly – undiscerning. That’s what I just said. Is there actually any difference?

Gaby: Steve Cottrell, thank you very much. Back to you in the studio, Gary.

by Helen Yaxley

I was recently Googling ‘bullying vicars’ because I felt that was an apt description of what I had been subjected to. In so doing I came across this blog which was extremely enlightening. It was then that I realised that this type of behaviour within the CofE might well be described as not unusual. Nevertheless, it is far from acceptable. I would like to share my experiences of dealing with the Church’s disciplinary processes, following which I was utterly frustrated and didn’t know where else to turn.

My experience is a long and distressing story, not involving any sort of sexual abuse, but with elements which perfectly illustrate the dysfunction of the Church’s hierarchy and inadequacy of its complaints’ procedures. This is a case where a vicar has made written allegations against me, including that I had been cautioned by the police. The allegations, which I knew to be false, were proven to be lies, with evidence gained from the Diocesan Safeguarding Officer and from the police. Gaining the evidence I felt was a totally humiliating procedure; I knew I was not a criminal. And yet, having obtained this proof of lying by a vicar, the Church was unwilling to do anything about it.

I originally approached this vicar by phone, with concerns about the actions of one of his congregation, his organist, which were causing me and my vulnerable elderly parents considerable distress. Neither my parents nor I were in his parish. I had never met him or spoken with him before. He is a vicar in the Ango-Catholic tradition. I had hoped the vicar could help in some way – perhaps through some sort of mediation. Despite not being a member of his parish, I expected that a member of the clergy would be impartial and would respect my confidence.

I could not have made a bigger mistake. As well as breaching my confidence, he was anything but impartial, strongly taking the side of his organist in the second telephone conversation I had with him. He was extremely dictatorial and downright rude and came across as a bully. He then, some time later, misrepresented the conversation in a written statement produced for a Court of Protection bundle, where he made clear that he knew the organist “in a personal way”. The vicar was not present at the court hearing, and there was no determination on his statement, but his personal attack on me in this statement caused me considerable distress, and continued to eat away at me. This character assassination of me had been written by a member of the clergy whom most people would expect to be truthful and caring.

After the court case, I wrote to the vicar, taking issue with his comments (in a civilised manner) and requesting a meeting. He declined. I spoke to a friend who is a vicar and who said that if I had concerns, I should approach the vicar’s Archdeacon. I did this, but the Archdeacon said that without a recording of the phone call, to determine exactly its contents, there was nothing she could do.

This issue continued to prey on my mind, not least that the hostile and bullying manner of this vicar did not accord with Christian principles. As I had never met him, I felt that if I did so it may help to resolve matters. I wrote to the Archbishop of York setting out some of the background and to see if he could facilitate a meeting, given that the Archdeacon seemed powerless.

In this letter I made reference to safeguarding matters concerning the organist in respect of my parents, simply as background information, explaining that this was not regarding abuse of anyone in the Church but that it lay behind the reason for my initially contacting the vicar.

When the Archbishop’s office replied, my request for a meeting was declined but the Archbishop’s Chaplain stated that she had passed safeguarding concerns to the Diocesan Safeguarding Officer. This was not something which I had requested, and surely as a general rule, it should not have been done without my being made aware and without gathering the relevant information. I wrote back immediately urging caution, but it was too late.

After further correspondence with the Archbishop’s office I was advised by the Archbishop’s Chaplain that my only course of action within the Church was to a raise a formal complaint against the vicar under the Clergy Discipline Measure (CDM). The highly formal procedure initially involved making an out-of-time application because of the amount of time that had elapsed since my initial contact with the vicar. I made the application, to which the vicar responded. In short, his written response addressed to the judge dealing with my application, was yet another character assassination of me including outrageous allegations. He seemed intent on bullying me into silence and portraying me as a worthless individual who had committed a criminal act.

In this statement the vicar wrote that I had made a safeguarding complaint against his organist (which I had not), I had been reported to the police for doing this, there had been a full investigation and I had been cautioned. He stated that I had been told that should I make any further complaints I would face the possibility of prosecution. I find this totally unbelievable. The implication of the statement is that the vicar believes that if a person makes a safeguarding complaint to a church official, and that complaint is investigated and does not find any wrongdoing, it is therefore a matter to report to the police and worthy of a caution and possible prosecution. I would have thought that a vicar would be conversant with the procedures around safeguarding. Quite clearly, no one would ever make a safeguarding complaint if they thought they may be cautioned and/or prosecuted for doing so. Be aware, I had not raised a complaint. (I approached the Diocesan Safeguarding Officer for clarification after the complaints procedure described below was completed. He made it abundantly clear to me that he had spoken to the vicar following the Archbishop’s Chaplain’s referral regarding the organist, but had not described me as a complainant, contrary to the vicar’s statement.)

My out-of-time application was approved enabling me to pursue my formal complaint against the vicar. The complaint took its course. It was dismissed, both initially by the Archbishop of York, and also on appeal to the responsible judge at Church House in London. However, the vicar’s response of blatant lies to my out-of-time application regarding safeguarding and the police was not considered as part of my complaint, according to the Diocesan Registrar who advises the Archbishop on legal matters. The Diocesan Registrar also made clear that it was not of sufficient substance to be considered under the CDM if it were to be raised subsequently. I was dumbfounded. Lying to a judge by a member of the clergy in a CDM process doesn’t even meet with a rebuke.

I, of course, knew that I had not even been spoken to by the police, let alone given a caution, but was advised by the Diocesan Safeguarding Officer in York to gain proof via Subject Access Requests from the police. I was more than happy to do this despite finding it totally humiliating. After waiting several months, because of police backlogs with Subject Access Requests, I discovered what I already knew – there had been no police investigation, I had not been cautioned nor informed of possible prosecution. I took this proof to the Archdeacon whom I had spoken with before. She listened sympathetically and agreed to put my request for a meeting with the vicar, suggesting it would be useful for a mediator to be present. I was very pleased that she was finally willing to intervene. Meeting the vicar face to face was something which I knew I would find helpful. It might at least have given him the opportunity to explain his motive and furthermore apologise. That, I felt, would have been the least he could do. I wanted him to see me as a human being and not a punchball. The following day I received an e-mail from the Archdeacon who had contacted the vicar and he had declined the meeting. She stated, “He does not feel that the meeting you suggested would be appropriate and so I’m afraid that there is no more that I can do in this situation.” I was amazed – talk about marking own homework! This I cannot imagine being the norm in any other organisation. It appeared again that the Archdeacon was powerless.

My final step was to write again to the Archbishop of York, setting out the evidence gained from the Diocesan Safeguarding Officer and from the police. This was met with a curt reply written by the Archbishop’s Chaplain stating that the Archbishop “could not get involved with or comment on a matter that has been fully considered and properly disposed of in both a CDM and subsequent review carried out by an independent judge”. As stated previously, it had not been dealt with. I felt I was up against further lies from the Church – this time at the highest level. The reply continued, informing me that the Archbishop’s Office would not be entering into further correspondence on the matter. This meant that the lies of the vicar had been compounded by a complete misrepresentation by the Archbishop’s Office regarding what had gone before and a clear attempt to sweep the whole thing under the carpet.

This saga, whilst clearly of a much lesser scale than the abuses recently exposed, still illustrates fault lines in the Church’s processes and hierarchy and in its attitude to safeguarding. In any other walk of life the telling of blatant lies in a written statement would at least attract censure from an appropriate individual in the organisation. In ignoring this behaviour, it is condoned and is a green light for the perpetrator to continue. Furthermore, had my initial contact with the Archdeacon been pursued (how often are telephone calls recorded?), or had the Archbishop acted appropriately when I initially approached him, CDM would have been unnecessary, and I would have been saved several years of heartache.

by Martyn Percy

 preached at St. Andrew’s Episcopal Cathedral, Aberdeen

Daniel 12: 1-3; Hebrews 10: 11-14,18; & Mark 12: 34-42

It is something of a heavy irony that Safeguarding Sunday in the Church of England falls in the same week that it was announced that the 105^th Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, resigned over his handling of the abuses perpetrated by John Smyth QC. This is without precedent in the 500 year history of the Church of England.

John Smyth was one of the most prolific sexual abusers in recent Church of England history, yet with substantial evidence of coverups and inaction protecting him at the very highest levels. The report into the abuse was conducted by Keith Makin, and despite being subjected to lengthy delays by lawyers acting for Lambeth Palace, Justin Welby’s position quickly became untenable. The Makin Report was published on November 7^th 2024, providing forensic accounts of the failures and coverups, if not systemic corruption in the culture within the ecclesial hierarchy. Welby resigned on November 12^th.

Welby’s tenure had failed to create a culture of transparency and accountability in the upper echelons of ecclesial governance. This is the protruding tip of a very large smoldering volcano.  John Smyth QC died in 2018 without ever being brought to justice, and represents “the Church of England’s Jimmy Savile crisis”. Smyth hailed from an impeccable elite public school and upper-class Oxbridge pedigree, and had been a prominent mover and shaker in the conservative evangelical world from the 1970s. That culture had played a large part in forming Justin Welby’s Christian faith, his eventual arch-episcopal governance, and a whole generation of English bishops.

Historians will pick over this ecclesial car-crash in the generations to come. Imperialism and benign superiority is no longer a trusted mode of governance for the vast majority of Anglicans.  Bishops and their senior advisors have no accountability, are aloof and averse to external regulatory oversight. Bishops lecture the rest of the world on democracy and equality, but refuse to be subject to the laws that govern everyone else. Like ancient demi-gods, they invest in omniscient and omnicompetent myth-presumptions, as though by becoming a bishop they acquire sufficient knowledge to lecture the world on anything they hold a view about.

Our times are different. These days, people in the pews expect democratic accountability and transparency. They might consent to being under authority, but only provided it is subject to independent external scrutiny and regulation. Alas, the majority of Anglican bishops would prefer the hot fires of hell to such egalitarian answerability. 

Welby’s resignation might be seen as an updated episode of 1776 And All That: no taxation without representation. Why should any punter in the pew fund governance rooted in autocracy with pretentions towards theocracy? Increasingly, the indications are that they won’t put up with authority they did not elect, yet somehow presumes to rule them – and can even tap them for compliant semi-obligatory financial support.

Welby is arguably a representative harbinger of an ecclesial revolution. It has been coming for some while. As the former Labour Party MP Tony Benn (1925-2014) repeatedly asked of those in authority,

“What power have you got? Where did you get it from? In whose interests do you exercise it? To whom are you accountable? And how can we get rid of you?”

If the answer to every one of those questions from the bishops and senior ecclesiocrats is “only God, or maybe the reigning monarch”, then the stage is fully prepped for open revolt by those in the pews.  In many respects, the story of global Anglicanism – not yet 500 years old – is one of Protestant democratic polity vying with regalistic notions of autocracy and theocracy.

The regal model presumes it does not need to give an account of itself or even consult. It just rules and reigns, and when subjected to questions, ignores its people and the media as though they were insolent and unruly serfs. It will spurn democratic accountability and treat congregations as medieval monarchs might once have regarded lowly subjects.

This has not always been an English problem. Let us not forget that Samuel Seabury, the first American Anglican bishop to be consecrated (1784) without the approval of the Church of England, wore a specially made mitre fashioned from beaver-pelt and gold filigree wherever he went, in order to signal his self-proclaimed divine authority over a bemused American citizenry. Seabury believed his cathedral was wherever he happened to be celebrating the eucharist, and he demanded monarchical deference.

Today the church marks Seabury’s consecration. Yet he did not believe the laity should have any say in the governance of the church, and his diocese, Connecticut, did not change that until later in the 20^th century. Seabury’s lofty regal outlook matched his pro-slavery and high Tory leanings.

Yet these views have not prevailed. American Episcopalians are assiduously pro-democratic, and their ecclesial polity is progressively Protestant, albeit with some catholic accents. That spells the end for English Anglican imperialism at home and abroad. Its time is up, and the resignation of the 105^th Archbishop of Canterbury demonstrated that the public have little patience with an institution that does not practice what it preaches. If democracy, equality and accountability is good for the rest of the world, then English Anglicanism will need to model that too. 

Until it does, dismissal by the public and decline will continue. To paraphrase Ernest Hemingway, bankruptcy happens in two ways: first very slowly, then all of sudden. Leading the Church of England from hereon will be like trying to ascend the proverbial glass cliff.  Falling further and faster is the most likely result. But clinging on for dear life is hardly an option. The only future left for Anglicanism lies at ground level. The leadership needs to climb down, and as fast as possible.

The issue is simple. Any power imbalance always creates the space for power abuse. Bishops and their courtiers, advisors and senior ecclesiocrats expect to rule and reign.  Safeguarding in the Church of England is overseen by mercurial, unaccountable, unlicensed, non-transparent and unregulated officers. Every bishop refuses to level the playing field by balancing power, and becoming subject to independent external professional regulation and oversight. The result is inevitable. Nothing in such a safeguarding system can ever be safe. It is wide open to abuse, incompetence and coverups. All the evidence for that is lengthy and legion. But bishops and their officers will still not cede their power. So they cannot and will not be trusted.

Our readings this morning have a rich theme. They lectionary always does. Roughly, they connect through fecundity (the Parable – or Sign – of the Fig Tree), the importance of sacrifice, and the need for perseverance. The readings remind us that judgment always comes, and truth will always out. The systems of governance, even in the church, that think they have a God-given right to endure, will perish.

Institutions like the Church of England use inaction and inertia as a weapon to silence others. I don’t think we know, yet, if Justin Welby’s resignation has any point to it.  But I want to leave you this morning with a poem sent to me this week, which has nothing to do with recent events. It is called ‘The Laugh’ by Chris Goan, and it is full of hope. A hope, I think, for a better world; and far, far better way of being church.

When you feel despair at the state of the world,

Do something small.

Ignore those voices without or deep within

Calling you fool for refusing tyrannical logic

Imposed by cynical wisdom

Then do it anyway.

When you feel broken by all the cruelty the world contains,

Reach out, remembering that humanity

Can only be collectively encountered.

Allow empathy to be an umbilical conduit

For a nutrient called kindness.

What else are we for?

When overwhelmed by the size of the mountain,

Walk slower, saving breath for conversation.

For miles pass fast in company, then as words fade

Listen for the fat laugh

Deep down in the belly

Of all that is still becoming.

Like Jonah in the belly of the whale, good things are born in the darkness. It is there that God laughs deeply. The resurrection is a laugh freed forever; and this crisis in the Church of England, never before seen in its 500-year history, might be an opportunity for a completely new beginning.

In the meantime, we remain at the mercy of episcopal hubris. But more importantly, we are at the mercy and judgment seat of God. As the gospel has it, “heaven and earth will pass away”, as will the church and its governance. Only God’s word is eternal. Nobody knows the day or the hour of judgment. But this week, it does feel like that end-time for the church has come much closer. These are but birth pangs; the beginning of some new creation. Thanks be to God.

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.