Mark Murphy, commenter here, has developed his own blog, Tumbling Ages.
Welcome, Mark!
His "About" page is here and his initial, vision-casting page is here.
I like what Mark says at the last link:
"I’m calling this blog Tumbling ages because it seems appropriate for the polarities, disorientation, intersections, and complexity we are living through. My particular focus will be Christianity, the religious tradition I was born into and have practised all my life, and which I’ve been rediscovering with special urgency as a middle adult. I hope this blog might be read by others on their own tumbling journeys of curiosity, disintegration, and wonder."
In the "disintegration" of the world around us this week, I note (in no particular order of merit or demerit):
- a news report this morning that Trump is "very angry" with Putin. As best I can see, his anger is that Putin is just the person many of us in the West had already marked him down as. In the language of a former time, he was, is and always will be "a cad and a bounder."
- lovely, joyful to be in Dunedin on Saturday for the ordination of the Reverend Dr Anne van Gend as bishop and installation as new Bishop of Dunedin. (No news report yet on Anglican Taonga.)
- Archbishop Justin Welby has given a first interview since concluding his term as Archbishop of Canterbury: sorrowful, regretful, explanatory. I feel for him. There is much that is "overwhelming" for bishops.
- it was good to participate in an Evensong last night to celebrate the life and achievements of one of Christchurch's most renowned architects, Benjamin Mountfort (1825-1898). This month of March being the 200th anniversary of his birth. His imprint is on our city (albeit with some removals from the scene due to the earthquakes in 2010-2011), and on our nation.
Mark's blog is a really welcome addition to the blogosphere. The other links are all new to me so thanks for highlighting them. I knew the previous Dunedin bishop had moved on but I'd no inkling at all about the new bishop - this comes as exciting news for me! Thanks for the interesting update.
ReplyDeleteI understand you feel for Archbishop Justin Welby and I respect that. On the other hand, I wish he wouldn't grant interviews yet, I don't think it's helpful. Nothing he said helps assuage what survivors have been through. In another Guardian article he says he "winces" at the thought of his final speech. So do I. He can't undo what was done, the next best thing is to keep quiet. It'll save him grief.. like this very unfair headline the next day:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/mar/30/justin-welby-says-he-forgives-serial-abuser-john-smyth
Thank you Peter! Thanks Liz.
ReplyDeleteThe news items this week's seems to be asking us to offer prayers and support for our leaders and those most vulnerable in their care.
Hi Liz,
ReplyDeleteHere's a link to the full recent BBC interview with Justin Welby. I would be very interested to hear your impressions of how he fronted and what he said in a fuller context and longer format.
https://youtu.be/LSeSSiRsVBA?si=kJl8nvPS66Ye6IrZ
I have seen the interview of Justin Welby. I thought the condemning attitudes directed towards him at the time of his resignation were unreasonable and I still think so.
ReplyDeleteI have, as many will have, people in their orbit who have been abuse victims yet it escaped my logic that lack of foresight in following up on an abuse case, and one where you were told by police not to interfere with in case you contaminate evidence, constitutes the degree of culpability he has been accused of. Culpability for what he did not do - not following up is just, and yet it seems he was being treated as though he personally was the abuser or say one of the Board Members of the camp who had deliberately known about the abuse all those years ago and looked the other way, or clergy of the past who have known about peers who are committing abuse and ignored it. I realise he was an outlet for all the legitimate hurt, grief and anger of victims I just think the wrong man was on trial.
It is a fair statement he mentions regarding who will put their hands up to lead if no mistakes is the criteria to which one must live up to? I know NZ clergy who are hesitant to allow parishioners to undertake ministry under their leadership when they are not personally present in case ‘something happens’ - because of the climate of the one in charge is responsible for all the actions of those in the church. It is a positive thing to do all one can to put in place practices and education so the opportunities for abuse are less and so that people have safe channels for speaking up but not one of us is able to be fully aware of or in control of what others do.
Regarding the state of our world, we can have an Archbishop resign for failing to personally check up on one of the cases of historic abuse he has been informed of, and a President of the United States who was legally convicted of a crime but let off serving a sentence because he was to be the President! Two extremes!! There must be a happy medium.
Thanks Mark for the link, I've watched it.
ReplyDeleteIt makes me *immensely sad*, and tired, and I really wish he'd not done it. I already had no doubt of his regret for the most upsetting stuff, especially his valedictory speech, that speech really upset me. I was surprised by one thing, he didn't anticipate the scale of the abuse in CofE (how many cases would need to be handled). I guess cover-ups, and silencing of victims, and CofE silence, had worked pretty well pre-2013 for him not to understand this.
There are many things that make me sad. He could have used this opportunity to directly plead with male leaders (in particular), and leaders in general, to inform themselves about the scale of abuse in the church. That it's real, and that caring for women and young people means pro-actively learning about *their* issues, taking their concerns seriously, being curious and "pushy" (as he now realises) and being demanding.
What worries me is that many male church leaders still mayn't take these lessons on board. (I fear the attention now will instead be on the more sensational sound-bite about forgiving John Smyth). JW doesn't seem to anticipate when he's about to head into territory that's likely to be upsetting for survivors. Some things are just best left unsaid.
The takeaway from what I'm trying to get across is that this stuff just makes me want to weep.
Before posting this I quickly checked online for responses and found an Independent article that's useful in conjunction with what I've said (in my previous comment and this one). Interesting too, Bishop Helen-Ann has a similar view re the interview.. like, "Why?"
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/justin-welby-john-smyth-abuse-church-of-england-b2724026.html
Liz and Jean, both of your responses are interesting and helpful for me to read. Perssonally I resonate with more what Jean has said about Justin here. I can't think of a recent church or political leader who is as honest, vulnerable, and to the point as Justin Welby is, especially where he is reflecting on his sense of shame and failure in certain areas. That is so important for victims to hear, too. His honesty is discerning: he's tough on himself where he hasn't done enough, but he's not prepared to be misrepresented. That's a narrow path to walk.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading your comments, Liz, and the points you make, I'm with the dilemmas of leadership. You have to make some decisions that involve not going in other directions. Justin Welby followed police advice to not interfere out of concern of contaminating the cases. But he now regrets he didn't balance that out with more pastoral contact with abuse victims. He also decided to do this interview. Many might accuse him of hiding away and being too silent, whereas others, such as yourself and + Helen-Anne would rather him stay silent so he doesn't risk inflaming things further. You can't win either way so you have to decide and be true to yourself. Not easy.
That's just speculation, Mark. Who was asking him to say anything? Has anyone accused him of hiding away and being too silent? Or.. was he courting publicity in an effort to rehabilitate his image? This interview does absolutely *nothing* to help survivors and has generally been condemned.
DeleteGosh, we see things so differently on this one, Liz.
DeleteWhy did he do it, Mark? And how did it in any way help survivors?
ReplyDeleteI want to emphasise Liz that I don’t think any of these public debates about who did what wrong should overshadow the abuse experiences people have been subjected to. My concern is that our society instead may cut off their nose to spite their face by attacking the very people who are doing their best to address such issues because they are human and therefore do it imperfectly.
ReplyDeleteMy suspicion is Liz, and it is just that, and speculation to boot that he likely faced pressure from the BBC to do the interview. The interviewers last comment was that Justin might not have the luxury of fading into obscurity, after Justin Welby had said he wanted now to live in obscurity and to not ever appear on TV again.
After the abuse scandal that rocked the BBC in 2012. A famous UK presenter was found to have been an abuser including at BBC premises by two BBC female journalists. This was after the presenters deaths when the journalist looked into long time rumours. At the time the BBC carried on with a tribute to the presenter aired on Christmas Day but because there was no evidence of ‘institutional failure’ e.g. it couldn’t be blamed on an institutional failure the abuse was considered non-newsworthy.
The BBC had come down hard on the Church in terms of abuse and in an interview of the ABC at the time, on multiple topics, when talking about safeguarding Justin Welby said a lot of action was being taken in regards to this within Church institutions now and pointed out similar action needed to be taken by other institutions too such as the BBC. They took exception to this. In 2014 the BBC introduced a more rigorous safeguarding process.
Anyway enough, we no doubt will never know, albeit it pays to hold any news report with the realisation it will likely have bias. Even the fact that most media outlets focussed on Justin Welby saying he would forgive Smyth I think signals this caution. First the journalist puts him on the spot - as a christian what would our answer be? - and then when he answers clearly emphasising what he would do is irrelevant as he was not a victim, and his answer is completely overlooked by nearly all news reports. Are then the media really looking for the truth?
Thanks Jean. An experienced communicator like JW could surely be expected to handle being put on the spot with a fairly basic Q, and the interviewer wasn't aggressive. Let's not rationalise away his responsibility. He doesn't handle interviews well, and doing this one was ill-advised (I wonder if he consulted any Safeguarding folk or survivors before deciding to go ahead?)
ReplyDeleteA recent visitor-comment I saw at a blog re his forgiveness response: "If seeking to hurt victims, and shock bystanders, it could not really have been much worse." I agree.. I was shocked. Imagine what it's like for survivors who saw the interview.
The media bias on his forgiveness response? I'd already addressed in this thread (31 Mar, 2:22pm). But it wouldn't have happened to begin with -- if he hadn't fed them the soundbite.
Please know I read widely. News reports are only a part of what I look at. I also look at what CofE folk are saying, and I pay most attention to what survivors are saying (and their advocates).
I agree with Jean, in that Justin Welby has never seemed to me to worry about his own image, so I suspect pressure from the BBC. He also said in an interview last year, before it all happened, that he always consulted various advisors around him before taking action. I wonder, therefore, if some pressure came from the church hierarchy itself, which wouldn’t be surprising… Sad for him!
ReplyDeleteThanks for the BBC issue which is eye-opening!
As you say, we’ll never know but the fallout for everyone is distressing.
Moya, about image. JW's repeatedly caused anguish with his words e.g. initially stating he would not resign "for this" which to survivors who'd suffered for 40 years appeared to make light of their ordeal. Then he resigned and I think the response to that was pretty positive although many thought it should've happened sooner. But then in December he did the House of Lords valedictory speech which was insanely insensitive and profoundly shocking - for everyone I think but especially for survivors.
DeleteThis made it necessary for the Lead Bishops for Safeguarding to make a statement in response, part of which said:
"...the speech was utterly insensitive, lacked any focus on victims and survivors of abuse, especially those affected by John Smyth, and made light of the events surrounding the Archbishop’s resignation. It was mistaken and wrong. We acknowledge and deeply regret that this has caused further harm to you in an already distressing situation."
So that's the background to what I mentioned, I'm wondering if this latest interview was something JW instigated or if it was a BBC initiative. Given his previous gaffes I don't think the CofE would've encouraged any such action.. but who knows?
This page has all the background to what I'm talking about:
https://www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/archbishop-welbys-house-of-lords-speech/
Oh DEAR, yes, entirely insensitive. Sorry…
Delete(Incidentally, when I was earlier praying for survivors and him and everyone who is involved, I had a strong sense of the evil one behind it all. That’s something that came up in a recent blog I think. It’s not a normal experience for me but was very definite.)
Hi Liz,
ReplyDeleteI don't know why he did this interview. What I'm more with is how differently you and I experience him. I think that informs our assessment of whether the interview is harmful to abuse survivors or not, whether he is trying to rehabilitate his image or fronting in an honest, sensitive, truthful way.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteYes to all this, Liz. And I'm sure he does have a spiritual director, as well as many friends, family members, and the psychiatrist who supports him (and perhaps even a therapist!) helping out in the background. No doubt there is so much more to be discerned and understood, and not just on the safeguarding issue.
ReplyDeleteBut you seem to believe that there was something wrong, unwise, or harmful about this interview, maybe even something self-serving, and really I struggle to see that.
Changing tack slightly, though still on the need for reform so that the church is up-to-date and competent, this is an interesting article below (you might only be able to access it once before you need to register) reporting on the developing option for the Archbishop of Canterbury role as leader of the Anglican Communion to be changed, to effectively be shared out amongst the Communion, leaving Canterbury to focus more on the English Church. Indeed Welby seems in favour of this. One of his colleagues describes the Archbishop of Canterbury's present role as four jobs rolled into one.
That's my best understanding of why Justin Welby was not more active in following up on abuse claims: not because he knew Smyth, was involved, had inside information, and was covering his back, not because he is an insensitive elitist at heart, not because he's trying to preserve his power. I think he's been terribly overworked and spread thin in a time when the church is is in deep conflict on all sorts of issues, and in a church where the Archbishop has very little power.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/01/10/archbishop-canterbury-role-could-lose-world-anglican-leader/
Hi Liz
ReplyDeleteApologies, I did not mean to insinuate you don’t read widely, I can see you read very widely!! I did read and agree with you regarding your earlier comment about the cringe-worthiness of the media exploiting the line that Justin Welby forgives Smyth. For me this is a part of a wider ‘abuse,’ and I do call it that, of some media outlets to sacrifice reporting the truth by taking content received out of context in order to gain the next breaking story. As such the responsibility for any hurt caused to survivors from it by thinking Welby in anyway focussed on the need for people to forgive Smyth belongs at the feet of those reporting on the interview not Justin Welby’s answer.
Like Mark aside from the mis-use of this content which I do not see he has responsibility for, I found Welby came across as sincere during the interview and owned his own mistakes. Personally the reason’s he did explain help me put things in perspective especially the one where he says he was told by police not to do anything in case he contaminated evidence. If someone told me that about an abuse case I would not want to do anything either not wanting to jeopardise the case being bought to trial.
Mark, that would be an interesting development re the spreading out of leadership oversight of the Anglican Communion.
Ooops last comment was mine
ReplyDeleteMark: "But you seem to believe that there was something wrong, unwise, or harmful about this interview, maybe even something self-serving, and really I struggle to see that."
ReplyDeleteCorrect. There's been no explanation of why he did the interview so it's impossible to understand the motive (which drives me nuts). Clearly he's not there to just fill in time.. there's a MOTIVE. That could be a good motive, a bad motive, or somewhere in-between. In the absence of clarity people fill in their own ideas, e.g. "Is it possible the actual hidden agenda in this interview was to really curry favour with Sir Kier Starmer, and so be allowed into the House of Lords?" For myself, I'm very wary of a public appearance in which we don't know his motive. Why was that not made clear?
Because he did the interview, the lead safeguarding bishop, Joanne Grenfell, has to trot out yet another statement - more mopping up after JW:
"Today’s interview with the former Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, on BBC’s Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg, will be a reminder to Smyth survivors of their awful abuse and its lifelong effects. I know they continue to be offered support and we are deeply sorry for the abuse they suffered. First and foremost this must always be about victims and survivors, their needs and what they are asking us to hear and learn."
It *is* harmful. Did the survivors want all this dragged up yet again in this manner? I think not. By "in this manner" I mean JW adding nothing.. he's just recycling his defenses and still very self-focused. He's also added to their grief by publicly saying he'd forgive Smyth - that was extremely unwise.
And Mark, you're summing me up as though I have some fixed position. I'm working this through and it's very hard. I've spoken in this thread already about my sadness and that it makes me want to weep. That's not hyperbole - I actually mean it.
I'm certain some of his unfortunate public behaviour stems from his exposure to Iwerne-camp type evangelicalism and it's ill-prepared him for some aspects of the role he had as ABC (the whole nine yards of following the rules, seeing things as binary options, obedience to the established order, not being curious or questioning enough, not challenging authority). These things I'm familiar with from my own conservative evangelical upbringing - they're strong influences and hard to combat. His defensiveness is typical of the type. Failure is really difficult for conservative evangelicals. The non-apologies are slowly progressing toward real apologies, I think. But he wasn't ready for this interview. And as I've said.. did he consult with Safeguarding people or survivors before deciding to do the interview?
And that line of his about perfect leaders.. honestly, give me a break. That's just self-serving. Bishop H-A agreed with him but also observed that we do need "competent" leaders.
This appears to be primarily about JW and NOT about putting survivors' interests first.
We need to look at this situation from THEIR perspective.. how has it benefitted them?
Answer: It hasn't benefitted them; more likely to have caused harm.
Jean, thank you. What I want to do is to ask you to think about the impact of his answer on the forgiveness Q from the perspective of the *survivors*, not from your own perspective. Did they really need to know about an imaginary situation in which JW could somehow meet JS on the street and forgive him? How would it feel if your life had been horribly impacted for 40 years and someone who's not even had that experience just takes a few seconds in a studio to "forgive".. I mean, that's preposterous!
ReplyDelete"sincere" : on its own, the appearance of sincerity means nothing. This is something extremely well developed in conservative evangelical men. I don't think people outside of this subculture realise. That's how you get ahead in that sphere. They are a class act in how to look sincere! (I know, my father was a church leader in a similar culture). They're quite capable of doing horrible things in their private lives and fronting up publicly with the most gracious, apparently genuine, smiling demeanour. I'm NOT suggesting JW is duplicitous in a horrible sense but he'll have aced "sincerity" long ago. [Take David Fletcher as a case in point re the appearance of sincerity] Ugh!
"the one where he says he was told by police not to do anything in case he contaminated evidence". That's part of the story but notice JW also said in the same interview he should have "pestered" the police more. See, he understands that now. And that's the truth of it. If someone steals treasured valuables from your house and the police ignore your complaint, are you going to just let those things go? No.. you follow up as many times as necessary to get them to pay attention! Aren't the lives of all these survivors worth so much more than treasured possessions? If you *really* care, then you use your power to DO something - to be curious, to question, to push, and, maybe you even break a few rules. You use your influence to try and get others to join you in doing the right thing. Maybe you also exert a little pressure across a diocesan boundary even though you're not supposed to do it e.g. Lambeth/Ely and the South Africa/Smyth issue (it's not unthinkable for such action - don't forget that Welby/Cottrell were apparently fine with co-operating to try and coerce Bishop H-A in a letter). I mean, where's their priorities? If he had taken such actions, the survivors would've been far more supportive of him (as they are in respect to Bishop H-A). Ditto the general public.
To change such an encultured, evil-in-part system (I agree with Moya about the presence of evil) requires careful and considered disruption, not slavish following of the rules. E.g. Martin Luther King.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteLiz, despite my different view of the interview and Justin Welby, I do think that a lot of what you are zeroing in on here is true, which is why I dearly hope that the next ++Canterbury will be Guli Francis-Dehqani - i.e. someone who is not male and even white.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteWith the caveat that I know zero about channel/presenter/guest.. this morning I randomly came across this really interesting discussion re JW-interview/forgiveness. The occasional slip-up on minor facts, but the discussion on various aspects of forgiveness was extensive and thoughtful. The guest is Rabbi Dr Jonathan Romain (<13min).
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BhEcYAQCcsU
I've noticed from recent things I've read/heard, various folk are stunned that:
ReplyDeletei) CofE General Synod refused to commit to fully Independent Safeguarding
ii) CofE is so glacially slow to comprehensively address the abuse problems in the CofE
Therefore the volume of abuse continues unabated. JW quotes how many people are now employed in Safeguarding work as an achievement - but it's only an achievement if abuse is significantly reduced and outstanding abuse cases are settled properly with the survivors.
*
A couple of days ago on 'X' Andrew Grayston shared the following:
In 2024 the BBC reported allegations of abuse by Mohammed al Fayed. Six months later, Harrods has opened its compensation scheme.
In 2020 the Church of England agreed to establish a Redress Scheme for survivors of clergy abuse. It will not start until at least 2026.
*
For further insight into the current situation, see this UK-Hansard page dated 03 March 2025, on CofE Safeguarding (it's actually pretty readable despite the formal language):
https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2025-03-03/debates/99C58873-D3D8-440D-88BB-EDC46B0A8417/ChurchOfEnglandSafeguarding
Liz....
ReplyDelete1. Welby and many others (including Cottrell) support fully independent safeguarding. Many others did too. It didn't succeed at general synod because a small majority thought a mixed system would be more efficient, i.e. better for survivors. I think they're wrong but there it is.
2. Yes too slow, and much faster than other big churches; i.e. far ahead of Catholic Church, and Orthodoxy (hasn't even started). And it's slow, like women priests, inclusion for sexual minorities etc., because it is a very broad church that has democratic decision making, so no central leader can go in and demand this or not, especially not +++Canterbury.
3. Saying "therefore the volume of abuse continues unabated" just isn't accurate and is really unhelpful.
Hi William,
ReplyDeleteACANZP is a member church of the Anglican Communion, a communion bound together through its Instruments of Communion, one of which is the Archbishop of Canterbury. Why would we not be interested in whom the new ABC is?!
Re: The General Synod vote on Independent Safeguarding in February.
ReplyDeleteI've an article [1] saved about this event and to sum up in my own words, Bishop of Blackburn Philip North made grim predictions of enormous difficulty and future disaster if the Church tried something as challenging as full Independent Safeguarding. He must have been very persuasive because (sadly) it wasn't a "small majority" Mark who voted for the less independent model - it was an overwhelming majority. I tend to think this was probably due to confusion and lack of courage, commitment and resolve.
Synod voted 392 in favour, nine against and six abstained on the final motion.
And I've filed this in the back of my mind.. I've another article [2] that mentions the Bishop of Blackburn.. "The Bishop of Blackburn has recently given his advice to the Church of England on what next, in the light of Makin, but he did so without disclosing that he himself is out of communion with almost all his fellow bishops, either because they are women or because they are men who have ordained women."
[1] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/church-of-england-alexis-jay-general-synod-blackburn-london-b2696325.html
[2] https://www.womenandthechurch.org/blog/why-the-next-big-safeguarding-scandal-in-the-church-is-likely-to-be-the-abuse-of-women
I am wondering, with Justin Welby and Smyth, why there was no mention of repentance, without which, in my understanding, Smyth would face the judgement of God?
ReplyDeleteMaybe only forgiveness is associated with the Christian faith?
Two comments:
ReplyDelete1. Fully independent safeguarding is a tricky matter to achieve: if the church appoints the relevant officers of such a body, is it truly independent? If the church does not so appoint, who does appoint? Potentially it is the government [or a government-based appointing body] but that presupposes a certain amount of commitment by the government to the matter. We are seeing in NZ that it is taking the government a long time to tell us what its response is to the Royal Commission here - such response could include mandating a fully independent body to hear complaints against the church.
On Welby forgiving Smyth: I assume he meant forgiving Smyth for the trouble Smyth had caused Welby through all the challenges for Welby's time as ABC through the period since 2013; not Welby acting in God's place and absolving (an unrepentant) Smyth of all his sins.
Yes +Peter, I share your assumption of what Welby probably meant - but - wouldn't you expect the former ABC to be diligent in explaining the nuance of what he meant without leaving us, and general public, and media, to all make our own assumptions? It's actually a really important topic, right? Because forgiveness has often been weaponised against victims/survivors (in favour of perpetrators).
ReplyDeleteI'll share the video link again, did anyone watch it? It includes these aspects covered by Moya and +Peter.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BhEcYAQCcsU
That is a reasonable expectation, Liz!
ReplyDeleteLiz, thank you for those corrections to my misreporting of synod numbers, and more generally your holding us to the fire on this issue. People come to church, often, at the very least, because they want a safe experience of a family, both spiritual and actual, a family that reflects God's love and heals our lack of human love. If they are then abused in that place, it is probably better had someone put a millstone around the church's neck and thrown it into the sea - for the abuse is so great. This speaks to Thomas's point about how Church abuse contribution to public distrust and secularism.
ReplyDeleteI was fumbling inadequately towards the point Peter has better made here, that synod members voted for a mixed model not mainly out of contempt for abuse survivors, but out of a sense of responsibility in creating a system that they thought would work more efficiently, ie a mixed system relatively independent of church and govt perhaps. Anyroad, Peter has said it better than me.
Thanks for your clarifying comments on Smyth and forgiveness, Peter. I also wondered if the question was: as a priest, would Welby absolve him.
William, you underestimate the catholicity of Anglicanism. We're not Protestants!
The UK Government appears *impatient* for CofE to act, but decision-making lies with Synod.
ReplyDeleteI'll quote a couple of non-contiguous paragraphs from Home Office/Safeguarding Minister Jess Phillips - copied from the Hansard link I posted:
"We like to conduct reviews. Institutions and Governments like to conduct reviews. We will not always agree with every recommendation, or even be able to implement every recommendation, but what is the point of constantly conducting reviews and just saying, “Lessons will be learned”? Lessons must actually be learned, and that must be followed by actions. It would seem from the litany of reviews detailed by my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland that a great many actions could be being undertaken currently."
"There should be no status that is protected from scrutiny, and the culture of silence — through wilful ignorance or, worse, malign intent — to safeguard reputations above children must end wherever we see it. Lamenting and repenting is all well and good, but what my mom used to say to me is, “Sorry is just a word you say. Changing your behaviour proves to me that you are sorry.” We owe a debt to the victims who come forward about any institutional abuse. We owe them more than lamenting and repenting. We owe them change."
*
Hi Mark, I've spotted your latest comment.. thank you. I'm certain Synod members don't have contempt for abuse survivors, 100% agree with you. It's immensely sad to me they'd give more weight to the Bishop of Blackburn than to Professor Jay who's done tremendous work in multiple reports and said the only way in which safeguarding can be improved is by making it “truly independent of the Church.” The survivors also call for this. And actually, many of the clergy [1]. Synod disappointed so many people.
[1] From one of the folk in the Hansard link: "In fact, it is my understanding that the sample carried out by the Church’s response group to the Jay report finds that not only survivors, but the majority of local clergy support the recommendations."
Just found this re the lead-up to General Synod.. illuminating.
ReplyDeletevia ITV News.. prescient! -selected paragraphs-
*
Commissioned by the Church of England last February, safeguarding expert, Prof Alexis Jay, and her colleague, John O’Brien, published their damning report into the Future of Church Safeguarding.
"I do think there will be attempts to water down the best option closest to our recommendations," said Mr O’Brien.
Prof Alexis Jay and John O’Brien met Synod members this week, including senior members of the Church of England, ahead of the vote.
Mr O’Brien recalled from the meeting. "I feel that was more split. I get the feeling with some senior members there's a question about why can't we do something that's just good enough but doesn't quite make us give up this much power? And I feel quite saddened by that.
"Not once did I hear have we asked those that need to use the services and those that are victims of abuse in the Church, whether this would be good for them.
*
Full Text:
https://www.itv.com/news/2025-02-07/survivors-have-no-faith-in-the-church-of-england-ahead-of-safeguarding-vote
I did listen to Rabbi Dr Jonathan who made some very wise and pertinent comments. I listened again to him and realised that the interviewer certainly seemed to think Welby was forgiving the abuse. The Rabbi did seek to correct that view but what Welby was forgiving wasn’t made at all clear.
ReplyDeleteNo wonder that the interview has made the situation so much worse for everyone, sadly.
Hi Liz, in answer to your question some comments back I am afraid : ) …. For myself how would I be impacted if I heard a well known figure forgive my abuser, had it been 10 years ago it would have made me angry, but I would have been more angry at the people who were that abusers friends or knew him well or spoke of his virtues as I would be feeling that the abuser deserved to be treated as he had treated me. Concurrently I would have wrestled with God’s calling to forgive and have wanted to. Where I am now, a comment by another person forgiving the abuser would not impact me greatly.
ReplyDeleteIn the interview after answering that he would obviously like to be forgiven by the survivors of Smyth while re-iterating that this is in there hands so to speak, Justin Welby was quoted words he himself had penned that, “To forgive is not to pretend that nothing has happened: it is the opposite. It accepts the full weight of wrong, looks at it, considers it, weighs it and then dissolves it through grace and love.“. Then he was asked would you forgive to which he replied yes.
My understanding is whenever a Priest offers the assurance of the forgiveness of sins for others it is done so in response to the confession of sins by those responsible for them.
Due to the personal nature of the question and as Justin Welby is not longer in his position and nobody was confessing there sins to him it only ever occurred to me that he was being asked whether he would forgive Smyth. Not whether he thought God would.
The whole subject of forgiveness now there is an interesting diverting from this back and forth…. In my understanding of forgiveness should one call it a theology : ) - an individual can choose to forgive someone else and this does not require those being forgiven to have first repented. However, in order to receive the forgiveness offered the person committing the sin does need to repent - to turn - to accept they have sinned. Let’s say the former Olympian whose story was told in the film unbroken who forgave the Japanese prisoners who tortured him when he was a POW, who came to faith after many struggles, forgave and even returned personally to Japan to tell those who had done the torture that he forgave them. Many of the prisoners responded with remorse and thankfulness. In this sense forgiveness paves the way for reconciliation.
And the why of it is we are called to forgive as Christ forgives us…. So Jesus offered forgiveness before any one of us repented (turned towards God) - while we were yet sinners he died for us, yet to receive this forgiveness we first must repent (turn) towards God and believe Jesus is the son of God and came to save men from their sins and reconcile them to God.
So what are other peoples theologies of forgiveness?? : )….
In regards to Rabbi Dr Jonathan, and like you I notice he made a few slip ups Liz in regards to the facts of the situation. He recognises from personal experience how hard it is to discover a person one has known of has done such horrible things and how abuse is prevalent in most institutions/organisations/companies etc…. I do think though his answers are naturally aligned more with the Jewish concept of forgiveness which is different from Christians because it doesn’t include the Grace we believe came through Jesus Christ…. For Jews (as I understand it) forgiveness must be sought by the perpetrator and they must repent which involves a number of actions and attitudes of the heart and if so done the victim is obligated to respond in kind by forgiving (or accepting the perpetrator no longer owes them anything). In contrast the Christian perspective is we forgive because we have been forgiven by God in Christ therefore forgiveness can be offered before repentance.
Responding to: Saying "therefore the volume of abuse continues unabated" just isn't accurate and is really unhelpful.
ReplyDeleteGenuine Q, Mark: how do you know it isn't accurate? What if it's true? It's how I felt. I decided not to be silent about it.
TBH I think it may be accurate, and I'm inviting ADU readers to think about it as a possibility.
*
Andrew Graystone, after the Synod vote on Independent Safeguarding, said some stuff on X.
I've copied a couple of things...
i) General Synod, you have punched survivors in the gut.
ii) In the last 24 hours I have received three further disclosures from church leaders who have been abused by clergy.
---In the last 24 hours, said on that same day! Phew.
*
Have a look at this small segment from a Channel 4 video, a Rev Dr who's a General Synod member, initially commenting on the Bishop of Liverpool situation but also on the overall crisis of ongoing cases being revealed. His response is quite extraordinary. From 29-Jan-25.
Skip to 14:05 Rev Dr Charlie Bell, member of General Synod
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H4q0efal-Ig
Thank you Jean, hugely appreciate your thoughtful response - there's plenty we agree on and that I can learn from.
ReplyDeleteI've reached the point of trying to delve into JW's initial response on forgiveness and why it makes me recoil. And what I'm beginning to settle on is this:
I've heard of "cheap grace", right. And his short pause followed by "Yes" cuts into my heart.. it's like a cheap forgiveness. To be put on the spot and then forgive after a short pause, to me, cheapens forgiveness. "Instant" forgiveness, if you like, instead of deep reflection and heart-searching. I think it cheapens the terrible-ness of what Smyth did. And I think this may be one of the root causes of many church leaders not being nearly active enough in confronting evil, they're kinda ambivalent about it because of their faulty understanding of forgiveness. If JW had *really* thought it through, he would also have articulated *what* he was forgiving and sadly we didn't see that.
It reminds me of when I was in primary school, and just a naive little evangelical preacher's kid. And the teacher asked me why I'm so happy or smiley.. something along those lines. I remember feeling put on the spot and predictably trotting out "because Jesus loves me" - and I really cringe now because it spoke more to indoctrination than anything - that was a conditioned answer! I've no doubt the teacher drew his own conclusions along those lines. I feel quite a shame about it now.
"Responding to: Saying "therefore the volume of abuse continues unabated" just isn't accurate and is really unhelpful.
ReplyDeleteGenuine Q, Mark: how do you know it isn't accurate? What if it's true? It's how I felt. I decided not to be silent about it." (Liz).
Because there's no figures to show that this is true. Because in the wake of the massive increases in safeguarding information, investment, personnel, and public awareness it is highly unlikely that it would be true. Because it creates more alarm, panic, and a sense of unsafely, including for abuse survivors both inside and outside of the church.
Here's a prescient 2021 article that illustrates much of the problem with JW. The article is about what he'd said re UK political corruption and also criticises his attitude to forgiveness. There's points here that map across to his handling of the CofE Safeguarding crisis.
ReplyDeleteby Reverend Joe Haward, a community and business chaplain.
"Forgiveness demands that the truth is brought into the light for all to see so that justice can prevail. Forgiveness does not mean that there are no consequences to actions. Justice means to put things right. Sometimes that means experiencing the reality of what we have done."
This is what survivors and their advocates have long been calling for - accountability, transparency, action. CofE has frustrated many of them on these very things for years on end - many decades even!
The whole article must be read but here's the final paragraph:
Justin Welby must use his position to speak out against the reasons why people are suffering and suggest ways to shame those in power. As the German pastor and Nazi resistor Dietrich Bonhoeffer once said: “Christianity has adjusted itself much too easily to the worship of power. It should… take a much more definite a stand for the weak than to consider the potential moral right of the strong.”
He had an interesting take on "turning the other cheek" too.. that I'd never heard before.
https://bylinetimes.com/2021/04/23/archbishop-of-fantasy-political-corruption-and-the-ethic-of-forgiveness/
Gosh, Mark. Lead safeguarding bishops themselves have spoken out about the church being unsafe. And do you think that the Rev Dr was just hysterical or something? You seem to be ignoring the ongoing surfacing of new complaints. Safeguarding is hugely inconsistent across the church because each diocese does safeguarding differently. General Synod has failed to urgently address this - by the way they voted.
ReplyDeleteIt's enormously unsafe to tell people there's safety in the church when it's demonstrably not the case. Not yet! The power centres in the CofE that have enabled the crisis all along and resisted change, as at THIS time, are not dealt with. For a start.. the flawed CDM process. There's so much more work to be done.. e.g how to suspend bishops when there's serious allegations against them.
Moya, you said about "a strong sense of the evil one behind it all" and it reminded me of something I'd read but I didn't remember where! Checking through my browser bookmarks just now I found it - an article by a London psychiatrist referencing the JW-interview/Smyth abuse.
ReplyDelete"One place evil will inevitably seek to conceal itself, is under the cover of an apparently ‘pure’ establishment, like the priesthood. It logically follows that there is a special responsibility to remain comprehensively alert for wickedness, particularly there."
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/2035044/ex-archbishop-forgiveness-serial-abuser
What do we mean by "safety"? It is not a simple and obvious thing. I'm sure there is some minimal, legal common ground that we can all sign up to. A lot of this will be "physical", "objective". John Smyth beating boys in a shed etc. That an ethical institution will have a fair, robust process for receiving and investigating complaints. But those boys were unsafe long before they reached that awful shed.
ReplyDeleteWhat about freedom of belief? How to balance that with creating a culture of holistic safety?.
There are a lot of theologies and personal styles that I might object to as psychologically, culturally, systemically unsafe. But at some level people do choose to believe and practice in this way.
Safety requires me to choose, at some level. To explore theologies and church styles for myself and work out which environments feel safe or not.
I am of the view that some very widespread doctrines contribute to abusive theologies and cultures. One of the most basic is the widespread belief that God is mainly or exclusively male. That already sets the power arrangements and at the highest levels. Abuse is almost always, sadly, perpetrated by males. I know that a lot of Christians, a lot of Anglicans, perhaps the vast majority of world Christians still believe and certainly practice the male priority of God. What do I do about that? Ask +Peter to stamp it out? To shut down all such churches?
How does an institution as sprawling, vast and varied, as committed to freedom of belief, *and as committed to both democratic, local decision-making and collective, across the board standards* as the Anglican Church is ensure safety in both an objective, physical, explicit way, but also safety in a more pervasive, systemic way?
How does it create a *culture of safety*, let alone ensure that this is so? Is this even possible? And *who* does this, who is responsible....bishops, the local parish, the Archbishop?
Safety is a complex, huge conversation.
It is hard for a big institution to wrestle with this. On the whole, I think the Anglican Church of NZ and probably England too is doing a better job of it than similar churches, like the Catholic Church, Baptist Church, Orthodox etc.
My wife was brought up in a Baptist Church that only allowed men to occupy leadership positions. Some Baptist/congregationalist churches are fantastic, others are dodgy. It's so various.
While I have no doubt that my wife and children would be welcomed and be physically safe in any Catholic church they stepped into, they would also, most likely, be denied access to communion, the church's central sacrament. So I don't, in a way, feel like that is a spiritually safe place for them.
I do think the Anglican Church is moving, God willing, towards becoming a safer institution.
In another sense, the conversation is just begining, there is a long way to go, complete safety will never be possible, and I will need to carefully discern which environments feel safe for me.
Hi Liz thanks for your reply. Your illustration of your childhood and the question you were asked and replied to is insightful and we can indeed all be lulled into repeating by rote was is expected without giving due diligence to the words spoken. Don’t tell +Peter but sometimes okay often I do this with liturgy and every now and then I tell myself off and make myself listen properly and take it to heart!
ReplyDeleteCheap grace is a ‘thing’ as the modern lingo goes. A thing I think the Bible warns does not happen if ones heart is centred on Jesus, e.g. the passage Paul wrote:
(2 Corinthians 4:7–18)
1What then shall we say? Shall we continue in sin so that grace may increase? 2Certainly not! How can we who died to sin live in it any longer? 3Or aren’t you aware that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? 4We were therefore buried with Him through baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may walk in newness of life.
From your life experience I can see how you would feel that way about Justin Welby’s response, however, bear in mind that he likely has done a lot of reflection on Smyth since his resignation last year. Also, and you may know this already but Justin Welby working in the area of reconciliation and forgiveness in an earlier period where he helped negotiate peace in countries where there was internal conflict and for this he put his own life on the line. He continued to publish on the topic, and supported local efforts of reconciliation. He has also personally had to work through forgiving his mother and father (who he found out not too long ago was not his biological father) for being alcoholics and the repercussions that had on his young life. So forgiveness is something he has lived and breathed.
The link you posted re Justin Welby’s comments on politics well I can not comment on UK politics. I found the comments re Justin Welby’s should be more focussed on the poor. It is Justin Welby’s work I mention in the last paragraph, and his focus throughout his ministry years for the marginalised are to a large extent why I learnt so much about him prior to this latest debacle, because social justice is a leaning of mine. Justin Welby instigated a campaign against pay day lenders exploiting poor areas in the UK and after many years this industry is now regulated. He wrote a book on can companies sin? [related to his years in banking I suspect]…. He has continually spoken for social justice and for the disenfranchised, see just two random articles:https://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/news/articles/we-have-made-promise-worlds-poorest-people-archbishop-justin-welby-writes-financial or https://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/news/news-and-statements/archbishop-canterbury-slavery-healing-and-justice-all
If you haven’t had chance to already I suggest (and no pressure) you research these areas where he has steadily campaigned for social justice on multiple issues, not just in the UK but through the breadth of the Anglican Communion.
In the end we have no need to prove whether Justin Welby being human made an unfortunate mistake in not more actively checking to see whether the complaint that first came across his desk was followed up on as he was informed and by following police instructions re not engaging more with survivors, OR he intentionally did these things because he was negligent and didn’t care enough about the survivors. This is because God is the only one who judges justly. And whatsoever we may think, Smyth who is the main perpetrator is now facing that judgement which will be far more penetrating than any judgement he would have faced on earth.
Thanks for that article Liz, and the one by Rev. Joe Haward. Both point to the need for justice and truth to be evident even in forgiveness. Grace alone is not sufficient. Jesus was full of grace AND truth. They must never be separated.
ReplyDeleteThat’s why I said earlier that there seems to be a mistaken impression that the Christian faith is only about forgiveness. It is only one part of the big story.
Tonight I found a CofE Diocesan Safeguarding Data Report for years 2019 to 2021. It took me a bit to get my head around, and I've not had time to see if there's anything more recent.
ReplyDeleteContent I've copied re "Church Officers", # indicates my own comments.
#Church Officers
#note: concerns/allegations re clergy increased
#note: concerns/allegations re volunteers decreased
Church Officer – anyone appointed/elected by or on behalf of the Church to an office, post or role, whether they are ordained or lay, paid or unpaid.
"However, over the three years, the proportion of concerns and allegations which are to do with Church officers has gradually increased: 32% in 2019, 39% in 2020 and 35% in 2021."
Increase in number of serving clergy
Of the Church officers about whom safeguarding concerns or allegations have been, there has been an absolute and proportionate increase in the number of serving clergy: increasing from 250 in 2019 (32% of Church officers) to 295 in 2020 (34% of Church officers) and 330 in 2021 (40% of Church officers). The increase from 250 to 330 represents a 32% increase in numbers of serving clergy.
Reduction in number of volunteers
Whilst the number of concerns and allegations about serving priests has been increasing, those in respect of volunteers have been reducing – from 165 in 2019 (21% of Church officers about whom there were concerns or allegations) to 135 in 2021 (16%).
Link for getting the pdf
https://www.churchofengland.org/media/press-releases/safeguarding-diocesan-data-2019-21
Mark, there's plenty in what you've said that I'm fine with but it's tough for me that there's things that sound like victim blaming:
ReplyDelete"But those boys were unsafe long before they reached that awful shed."
"But at some level people do choose to believe and practice in this way."
Many of them were school kids at Winchester College! Yes, they were "unsafe". They were at boarding school and away from their homes for long periods. Some had uncaring parents. Some had already suffered awful beatings at school. Smyth insinuated himself into their lives as a "father" figure via the Christian Forum at the school, invited them to his house and groomed them over a long period. They felt special and increasingly depended on what seemed like a special mentoring relationship. They had a spiritual yearning. They were up against a very powerful manipulator who dominated plenty of adults!
Some early police contact didn't get anywhere because the police didn't consider them "vulnerable" - they were from good backgrounds. I'm now very cynical about entities who define who's "vulnerable". The CofE still does this (apparently the two women involved in the allegations against Bishop John Perumbalath weren't considered "vulnerable" and yet they were at a disadvantage). After that it's then hard to make much headway in the Safeguarding process.
There's much we can *all* learn from these stories but if we just revere our leaders as being above criticism, and we criticise those awful survivors who seem angry all the time (false stereotype).. the wider church is going to learn nothing and continue to harbour predators.
The thing is, a leader like JW gets all the publicity; when you actually get to *hear* a survivor they're often just as sincere, more eloquent, and have just as much to offer in terms of what the problems are, and what needs to be done to make things better. Experts keep pointing out the culture of deference and protectionism in the CofE and not listening to survivors, as major impediments to the CofE getting their house in order.
Liz,
ReplyDelete"But those boys were unsafe long before they reached that awful shed."
No victim blaming at all. Absolutely they were young and vulnerable.
"But at some level people do choose to believe and practice in this way."
I'm not even talking about Smyth and his trust here - that's the abject end of it all - much less the boys and young men who attended. I'm talking about the systemic beliefs and culture that sets this all up. For example, believing God is exclusively male. Penal-substitutionary theory. Repressing erotic energy as sinful. Hostility towards human psychology as "liberal", "humanistic" etc etc.
People *are* free to believe these things as adults. I may not choose to, and believe that these sorts of positions create the systemic conditions for someone like Smyth and his trust to have cover and even flourish. But freedom of belief, while paradoxically, allowing people to pursue and promote beliefs which maybe unhealthy and harmful, is also vital for "safety" - we are free to believe and not believe what we want.
That was the point I was trying to make. The conundrum of "safety".for religious institutions and society. Gloriavale is another example: how much do we tolerate, how much do we suppress? The dilemma of liberal democracies too.
Thanks again, Jean. There's no shortage of pro-JW sentiment on ADU so I've a passing familiarity with his achievements and I've had a quick read of the articles. But he doesn't get a free pass on this matter simply because, somehow, those other things cancel it out.
ReplyDeleteI remember a survivor hoping JW would engage with them after his resignation and work with them to obtain justice. I've not read anything that suggests he's done anything like this. If he did, if he got to know them, I think he'd be less likely to do these verbal stumbles in public.
External reports to CofE constantly plead with CofE to engage with survivors and listen to their concerns, and learn. CofE consistently refuses to do this, apart from some outstanding individuals who do take the initiative.
One person I've noticed who did do a serious wrong, does seem to have changed - that's Bishop Steven Croft. I'll be watching how he handles his responsibilities in future, he may be a positive example of how a person can apologise, repent and change their behaviour.
This morning, talking about the Fall, the vicar quoted Alexander Solzhenitsyn saying, at the end of the quote, ‘The line between good and evil lies through every human heart’.
ReplyDeleteThat’s why no institution will ever be completely safe, and no belief system will rescue us, unless we are aware of what we are capable of, and cling to what Light we have.
Awesome, Moya! Thank you. Listening to survivors is one way we can be more aware of the evil "we" are capable of, and, the good and healing things "we" can be engaged in doing!
DeletePart of something Bishop Steven Croft said, I read it this morning:
"...in many ways that's the safest place for us to be as a church, knowing that we have a great deal to learn, and that we can still continue to set the voices of survivors at the heart of all we're doing."
source: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cq8ylxlx15no
Of course, the bigger question now for the CofE, and the Communion, is what comes next?
ReplyDeleteWelby - pro, con, all shades in between - has gone. He's resigned. No other ++Canterbury or modern major church leader, that I'm aware of, has done that over abuse issues. Whatever our views on him, that sets the tone for the next person coming in.
That's where I feel a bit shaky. This is a huge opportunity for the Anglicans in England to 'do a Francis'. Will they take it. Will they really take it by appointing a woman, perhaps even a woman of mixed heritage, both with English but also Asian whakapapa. Or...
Will they take this chance to do something clearly different, or will it be, somewhat, 'business as usual'?
And what's going to happen to the Archbishop of Canterbury? Will the leadership of the Communion be recast in a post-colonial, post-Imperial way?....shared out? Like, in a very local sense, the church here adopted a three tikanga, three Archbishop model.
Will *power*, in a fundamental way, shift, be symbolically recast?
For the record I feel uneasy about the events in the lead-up to the Bishop of Liverpool, John Perumbalath resigning. The real issue seems to be a breakdown in CofE's process and I doubt anyone's been treated right including John Perumbalath. Stephen Cottrell became aware of the allegations after the appointment of the bishop but before he was enthroned. It would've been wiser, surely, to intervene at that stage and mediate the difficult situation between these clergy - rather than proceed without resolution (and presumably hope it would all go away?) It seems extraordinary that ordained followers of Jesus in a venerable institution such as the CofE are incapable of resolving this satisfactorily within the institution.
ReplyDelete'Thinking Anglicans' have recently posted a page with a series of links to various articles about the JW interview, and the thread of comments underneath the list is fascinating reading!
ReplyDeleteAndrew Browns article also has a thread of comments (his article is in the list of links).
https://www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/welby-interview/
Thanks Liz
ReplyDeleteYour note led me to this:
https://tswyatt.substack.com/p/the-scandal-of-grace
I find him pretty compelling re JW's fair and reasonable explanations and careful. considered and constructively critical about the relatively careless remark JW made about fogiving Smyth.
I have also read Andrew Brown's piece and am pleased that two writers are bothering to make careful assessment of JW's role in the events of the past decade or so.
I read the Tim Wyatt piece too and thought it was pretty balanced.
ReplyDeleteAndrew Brown's article is very good too. Thanks.
ReplyDelete