The resignation of the Archbishop of Canterbury might be unprecedented in the history of that post, but it does not, somehow, come as a shock. Yet another old Etonian figure of the Establishment has been revealed to have failed to ask appropriate questions when made aware of the abuse of children in the care of the Chruch. Whatever the supposed requirements of their office and faith, the old boy network appeared to be more important, and so the abuser ended his life unchallenged and without justice being done.
I do, as a result, and as a confirmed member of the Anglican community (although a decided non-attender), feel no great loss at Welby's departure. He never felt like an appropriate fit for a 21st-century Archbishop of Canterbury, and yet, in some ways, he proved to be exactly that, matching the stereotype of those with privilege who assume power and then fail to exercise it with proper judgement.
I only know one diocesean Bishop well enough to have an opinion on their suitability to hold this office, and I very much doubt that they would want it. What I do, however, know is that the Church does need to provide a very clear indication of change. Another white male is unlikely to suggest that is happening. They need to be a great deal more broad-minded if they are to face the challenges that the Church, society and those with power are being presented with.
In particular, someone who knows what it is like to live without innate privilege, including assuming a right to govern, might be good. It seems that ex-Etonians have a problem comprehending life as it is lived by most people.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
I am glad that he has resigned. Obviously not up to the job. Personally, as someone who would describe themselves as either an atheist or humanist, I am not that interested in the views of members of religious groups. I think its time that the Bishops were removed from the House of Lords and their monopoly on the BBC was taken away. I dropped religion many years ago (brought up as a Methodist), and find it annoying that the CofE still occupies the role it does in society. Not that I want other religious groups to play a role in what is essentially a secular society.
Having said that, I have known people who did adhere to a Christian faith who were true to their faith and had good moral principles.
As more of an attender, I’d have to agree that the CofE does have a problem with privileged leadership, old-boys’ networks. There are occasional exceptions and they are celebrated. However, the culture created is very much a ‘one of us’ unspoken culture which gently sidelines and marginalises more ‘prophetic’ voices. Those that don’t get so treated usually have found their relative radicalism later in the process of discernment of vocation for ‘higher’ office. It’s sad too to see those who do end up in positions of influence who aren’t from the white male Eton-based networks (other public schools are also implicated) tend to be those who best manage to fit in and can act as a reassurance that ‘we are diverse really’.
That’s all very much a broad brush characterisation, but I don’t think it is unfair at institutional level even if (as hinted above) there may be exceptions.
The CofE ‘knows’ it has a class problem, but hasn’t been keen to address it at hierarchical level or systematically. And maybe some of that is because the kinds of things it wants hierarchs for are class-marked already, relying on certain presuppositions about function and presentation that implicitly exclude those who do not play the game. (Other institutions and organisations have their own versions of this game, of course). I would suggest that this is not a good look for those charged with demonstrating the equality of all before God and honouring the gifting of each.
These are the conditions which allow abuse to be covered over or minimised. They are further cemented in place by a culture of deference and pageantry around the appointment and exhibition of leaders.
Thank you, Andii.
The Bishop of Islington and I went to the same school. I’m Catholic. The links between the school and diocese and university of Oxford were close. It was the same with the local regiments, Grenadier Guards, Light Infantry and Royal Hussars, none “fish and chips”.
My Catholic diocese is Northampton, not quite the same, but trying to become more of a social / community service with some religion attached.
I agree on the issue of privileged background, although Welby’s personal life journey includes painful experiences that I have never had to go through (check his biography).
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justin_Welby
I was also unhappy that he seemed to v uncritically line up with the forces determined to oust Jeremy Corbyn. Perhaps for the same reasons he refused to meet Palestinian pastor Rev Munther Isaac to hear representations from the Palestinian Christian community about the current conflict in the Holy Land & region. I was very angry about that refusal, having heard Rev Isaac speak in person in the summer of 2023 at a “Christ at the Checkpoint” conference in Bristol. He changed his mind on that refusal and after meeting Rev Isaac, Welby issued a v clear statement calling for an end to the Occupation on moral & legal grounds, dated 2nd August 2024. https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/archbishop-canterbury-ending-israel-occupation-legal-moral-necessity
Without in any way downplaying the seriousness of the Smyth abuse issues (which nevertheless have been in the public domain for some considerable time), I can’t help wondering if the pressure for his resignation has not been building because of his public statements about Israel. It should also be remembered that a couple of weeks ago, the very theologically conservative GAFCON was calling for his resignation for being too Liberal about single sex marriage matters in the CofE. https://www.gafcon.org/communique-updates/gafcon-rebukes-archbishop-welby-and-affirms-orthodox-anglicans-in-england/
Despite his background, he has upset a lot of people on the right, both in politics and the church.
And to avoid any doubt, I am quite disgusted at how the Smyth matter was swept under the carpet, but let’s face it, in all walks of life, business, charities, schools, NHS, politics, councils, religious institutions, the BBC, Press, the Post Office, Police, Armed Forces, protecting the institution is so often been prioritised over protecting or giving justice to the individual. I’ve only had to deal with one criminal issue in this child safeguarding area personally in my career, and I we had no pressure to protect our church (not CoE), nor would I have tolerated it. The safeguarding procedures of our parent body were clear, the offence had nothing to do with our activities but was committed elsewhere by one of our members who had no leadership role, and we followed the safeguarding process with compassion, and justice took its course (in public view and involving some prison time). I mention it just to make it clear that this issue is not something I take lightly.
Apologies for being off topic, but in response to Robert J , just seen that Biden will not withhold military aid to Israel despite them not complying with his ultimatum to increase aid or face consequences.
Last week 100 BBC staff signed a petition which accused the BBC of pro-Israeli bias.
In October an IPSOS poll showed 60% of the UK population thought Israel had gone too far. It was the majority opinion among all party voters except Reform where 16% thought they had not gone far enough.
It looks to me like the Establishment supports Israel and ignores popular opinion.
Thank you, Ian.
Richard and readers may be interested in: https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2024/11/global-fury-after-state-dept-claims-israel-not-violating-us-law-by-blocking-gaza-aid.html.
I wonder whether this is what happens when the inner sanctum doesn’t have people who will challenge you to explain your assumptions. Does it come down to the lack of critical thinking? Maybe a few honest ‘Sgt Wilsons of ‘Dad’s Army’ fame would have helped: ‘Excuse me, your Grace, but is this altogether wise?’
What I can’t understand is coming from a strong business background why he didn’t have in place all the usual risk monitors that ask the question, ‘What do I need to do to identify things before they go wrong?’ Was there even effective management and prioritising of his in-tray? We all have cock-ups but it’s best not to leave banana skins all over the floor.
What is disgraceful is that after all that’s gone on with safeguarding (this and other stuff down the decades) there is still resistance to external, independent oversight and reporting. And the cultural vestige of protecting the organisation or high-ups with ‘reputations’ has to be rigorously fought against.
And oh; yes, there happens to be someone called ‘the victim’, and heck, they hurt, and some take their lives.
I understand that neither of the Archangels Gabriel nor Michael is available for Lambeth Palace, so good luck to the poor soul who gets to be the 106th!
Thanks Peter
Only a small point, but I referred to Smyth’s ‘victims’ on a YouTube thread and was told by somebody who had experienced similar abuse that he won’t be called a victim, he’s a ‘survivor’ of abuse. I could understand why that was so important to him, so apologised.
The Church of England has a privileged position in our increasingly anachronistic constitution. Not only are we a monarchy, but the monarch is head of the church.
A shout here to the National Secular Society, which has been advocating for the separation of church and state for over 150 years.
https://www.secularism.org.uk/news/2024/11/cofe-clergy-call-on-welby-to-resign-over-smyth-abuse-scandal
Their take on this:
“Welby has said his resignation is in the best interests of the Church. Disestablishment would be in the best interests of both Church and state.”
And let’s not forget, Paula Vennells, of Post Office scandal notoriety,was short-listed to be the Bishop of London. Motes and eyes come to mind.
Thank you, Helen.
OMG!
Richard, I hesitate to comment on this matter. I am not a member of the Anglican Communion, nor am inclined to rest difficult questions exclusively by relying on the problematic hermeneutics of Biblical texts. My problem is, rather with our banal reliance in Britain on the integrity of our major institutions, that we already know have quite clearly failed us completely, and are not entitled to the respect we insist on awarding them; for failing us. The same problems with our past keep recurring (a depraved past that older generations still claim was better than the present, and are still voting for it). Need I list the major institutional failures (in police, media, educational, vulnerable children’s, or our religious and political institutions), that maintained for us a mixture of depravity, indifference and blind ignorance that characterised our institutions and their commanding presence in the polity through the 1970s, 1980s – that we, as responsible citizens, were so inadequate and self-absorbed, we did not even notice? A depravity acknowledged only because, belatedly we have discovered it in a different age, and conveniently too late for most of those who suffered, but that served the perpetrators well, and continues to serve the institutions only too well.
I have nothing more to say.
Thank you and well said, John.
With regard to institutional failure, a dear (female) friend tells me that the sex related offences are / were worse at the Beeb than imagined. She narrowly avoided assault by one of them in the late 1990s.
The BBC likes to promote itself as the broadcaster the rest of the world looks up to. That really isn’t the case and never was.
Thank you. I have commented here (numerous times) on the Savile affair, Dame Janet Smith’s report (in which scrutiny of the detail suggests the BBC was supposed to publish specifically determined, regular audits/updates on its progress on oversight, which I, at least have never recalled seeing ). I have said, each time I have commented that the BBC Charter should have been terminated after the Savile Report (not forgetting Savile was not a random outlier; there were Harris and Hall; and the management failures since). The ‘head in sand’ argument is that it would be the end of PBS; but that is not the case. A grossly failing PBS, as was the Savile case, is no adequate justification for that institutional instrument of PBS to survive: that is itself a gross failure of insight. If that terrible series of failures cannot bring down an institution; pray tell me just what would have to happen for an institution to fail beyond redemption?
I cannot think past the case Dame Janet Smith presented in her report of a young girl of about fourteen who attended a Savile Pop programme, and in a rehearsal ran out from a group of girls gathered close round Savile for a run-through, and accused him of a gross offence. Security was called; and the young girl was unceremoniously thrown out on the street. Management? What management? I rest my case. The ‘talent’ (so-called, if you have the stomach for it) have always exerted too much power and influence.
Colonel
My compliments to your ‘partner in justice’ Aurelien.
I thought he’d gone off the boil recently but his latest essay (A Wasting Asset?) is a cracker.
PSR
Thank you, Richard.
At the time of the vacancy and upon appointment to the sees of Durham and Canterbury, I worked at City trade bodies. A colleague and someone we worked closely with from a US banking giant were, and remain, church wardens in central London*. It was made clear that the former oil company executive was “one of us”, “the “City’s choice” and “in keeping with the times” (with the fellow Etonian at No 10). *Both similar backgrounds to Welby.
One wonders if the Bishop of Islington, with a similar background to Welby, will get the top job.
Not on the list right now, I gather
As always there is a Yes Prime Minister episode on the topic of appointing bishops. It exaggerates a bit…
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=m2dNCw0hPLs
The process is as transparent as the Berlin Wall and as accountable as the N Korean presidency. No doubt someone will “emerge”.
Very good
Thank you, Richard.
He and I went to the same school.
I watched the Bishop of Dover being interviewed about Archbishop Welby’s resignation on Channel 4 News last night and was amazed at her other-worldliness. She seemed to suggest (in a very ecclesiastical, hard to penetrate sort of way) that in order to stop future Smyth’s, the Church needs to get back to basics, to promote Christian values more. This struck me as utterly naive, the idea that preaching that we should all be good, love our neighbours, do no harm etc. is going to stop bad people is risible. All the evidence, from the Church, to social services, education (particularly Public Schools), the Police, I could go on, is that bad people are attracted to such organisations because it provides access to the people they wish to abuse and the power to do so. As with all other organisations that have safeguarding responsibilities, the Church needs rigorous and crucially, independent scrutiny.
“… bad people are attracted to such organisations because it provides access to the people they wish to abuse and the power to do so”.
It is very unpalatable, but this is exactly right. I have long and insistently been arguing that the British myth that the “Brightest and Best” mystically rise to the top in our institutions is patently absurd, and always has been absurd. Paradoxically, the opposite is unfortunately nearer the case, than the myth (although, of course neither is certain, merely more probable). Where there is power and money; institutions will always attract the worst. Such institutions have everything the worst crave most. The worst have an inbuilt advantage over everyone else; they have no scruples, but have a capacity for cold ruthlessness that few can defend against. The required social or personal acceptability may seem a saving contingent lottery; but much may be hidden or forgiven (especially in our culture), presented with a confident, smooth and urbane polish, combined with a discreet and distant charm. The worst understand best how much depends on both disguise and presentation; above content. They know how little content actually matters (which itself is a decisive advantage).
What you are describing here sounds horribly like ‘evil’- a word that seems to have disappeared from usage these days.
Philip
I saw that interview and C4 and was amazed – it really threw Cathy Newman – she was stunned for a minute or so. I enjoyed that. Believe you me, we won’t hear the last of her role in bringing down Welby. I can’t remember her talking to Boris Johnson like that and countless other cruel politicians she’s ingratiated herself with over the years.
I am an atheist but someone who believes in the words spoken by Jesus of Nazareth and even other prophets like Mohammed because they seem to have been real people on earth advising us how to live together humanely and in peace. Whether this wisdom comes from a God or not, is not my concern.
I had a screaming migraine at the time and just listened to the TV. I think that the Bishop of Dover made a really good point to be honest.
I think that the Bishop was calling on the church to try to put an end to this sick proclivity in many of our institutions – not just the Church BTW – for members of institutions to claim to be acting in the name of God.
I ask myself why the hell we put up with this in this day and age. Like we have got used unblinkingly to using fascist political science, we use the ‘God sanction’ to excuse ourselves. It is just an unauthorized appropriation of Gods word in my view in order to justify one’s actions – whether beating some poor boy in hut to even worse (just look around you – look how Blair used his Catholicism over Iraq ). The Church should intervene in these sorts of claims both within and without its operations. It would defend scripture from being abused.
I was also troubled by what the victim representative said about resignations which made no sense to me . To atone in a Christian manner for this awful debacle and using forgiveness is what I wanted to see. I wanted Welby and those who have also failed to stay and put it right as their atonement and THEN leave. That to me would be an appropriate form of justice fit for the institution.
To get someone to resign is just a modern form of revenge in my view, a letting of blood. I do not think that that is enough. It is no different to the way in which we treat CEO’s of corporations whose policies and operations of led to the deaths of people who walk away with most of their benefits intact (the same with many of our politicians) because both have a habit of returning after a period faux ‘rehabilitation’ but not having changed who they are, ready to do it all again.
Atonement – facing up to what we have done or not done and putting it right – is painful, embarrassing and should be. Yet we avoid it and pay the price in perpetuity it seems to me.
Thanks
Atonement surely first implies sacrifice. Resignation is one form of sacrifice, and by standing aside the public act of resignation acknowledges the scale of the institutional failure also allows a fresh and distinct healing process to put right the wrong. The sacrifice requires to be transformational for the wrong to trust it. The proposition that atonement entails someone involved in the creation of the problem literally ‘putting right’ the specific wrong committed, seems to me completely inappropriate. First, it can’t be done; for example only, some of the wronged are dead. Second, leaving the person with some responsibility in the failure, to retain power to ‘put it right’ is unsustainable. How is that to be achieved, while ensuring justice is seen to be done, and how are the wronged to be assured they can trust the proceedings? How is accomplishment of atonement to be publicly measured (because it is not just the person but the institution that requires to atone); and by whom?
Atonement is perfectly reconcilable with Resignation. Resignation acknowledges the wrong, and atonement is achieved by living a life of atonement thereafter. The attempt to bind atonement to the office seems quite wrong; as is the failure to recognise the need for double atonement – the person in the office, and the institution.
Thank you
“The sacrifice requires to be transformational for the wronged to trust it.”
Correction of a crucial word.
If Wellby had been guilty of the abuse, then clearly, immediate resignation (and prosecution) would be appropriate. But “failure to act” – yes, I think there is a case for “stay till you HAVE done something about it, then go” is a valid response.
In some cases of course, genuinely repentant people resign THEN offer themselves in low profile humble service to others (Profumo affair?).
I could have a theological discussion about atonement but will refrain!
Thank you, Philip. I watched, too, and agree.
Further to your comment last week about Amsterdam, are you following the reality emerging and how the MSM is covering (up)?
There is a horrible sense of cover up going on
Colonel Smithers. Yes I am following the Amsterdam ‘cover up’, though I think that is too polite a description as they seem to be bending reality to make the opposite of the truth the truth. I’ve just read a piece in the sports section of today’s Times newspaper by Martin Samuels, ‘If not Europe then who would host Israeli teams’ in which he repeats the trope of antisemitic attacks on the Maccabi Tel Aviv supporters. He also refers to a Daniel Finkelstein, piece also in The Times, about why the Jews needed a home of their own. Apparently Jews freed from Brunnlitz labour camp in WW2 could flee neither East or West as they wouldn’t be welcome in either direction, hence the need for a Jewish State. Well, possibly, however this is a gross simplification which ignores the rights of the Palestine people who were already inhabiting their chosen home.
In answer to Samuels rhetorical question in the headline of his piece, I would say, nobody. Just like apartheid South Africa, Israel needs to be frozen out of international sport. Some argue that this would be unfair to the many Israelis who oppose their Government’s treatment of the Palestinians. In my view this would be good, because they would then be more likely to oppose the current Government and seek political change. It would also wake up the general Israeli population to the international condemnation of their actions towards Palestine, of which they currently (judging by the Maccabi Tel Aviv supporters rampage through Amsterdam) seem to be ignorant.
I agree
Sporting bans on Israel are now appropriate
It is encouraging to see, at long last, this sort of weaponised misreporting and smear getting a bit more exposure in MSM.
The pendulum needs to swing a lot further though.
In any other situation, the “fans” would be referred to as thuggish hooligans going on the rampage in a host city, and disrespecting the war dead during the pre-match silence. But the false reporting will stick, and the truth will be quickly forgotten. The desired narrative reinforcing the specific propaganda of Israel’s government, has done its job, again, but the state of Israel’s global standing gets weaker by the day. And tragically, every time these lying smears are weaponised, diaspora Jews are put at greater risk of REAL antisemitic attack – although even that may be part of the Israeli state’s strategy.
I better stop there.
Jonathan Cook has two recent pieces on this.
https://jonathancook.substack.com/p/the-west-buries-a-genocide-by-making
https://jonathancook.substack.com/p/the-medias-role-in-lying-about-amsterdam
My understanding of the C of E, is that it was founded as a way to move the country outside the influence of external religious movements and leaders that were deemed unsuitable for English values. Given the reductions in religious participation in recent years, given all the frequent scandals, given the inability to find someone who can garner the support of enough people, is this maybe an indicator that a modern reform is now due (and maybe not just for the C of E).
I’m not sure what a “modern” 21st century religious movement would look like, but moving away from a single voice at the top might be a start. Anything that insists on having someone at the top is going to fall prey to paternalism and won’t offer a meaningful alternative. And maybe a focus less on following doctrines issued from far away and more focus on local voices, and individual interpretation of what might be good for a local community.
Noting that I am neither Anglican, Christian, nor English, take what I say with a grain of salt.
Try the Quakers if you want to look for an alternative model
Thank you, both.
My friend Aurelien reckons that the break with Rome was the first Brexit…
🙂
In a sense, how the CofE (any religion) is reformed (or not) is a matter for that organisation. If people derive solace from their religion/belief system .. that is great.
However the role in our society is to recognise that many churches have also been sources of discord – and should not be awarded any special privilege in rule making. Religious beliefs should not be used to constrain behaviour of people with other views. We can use the law for this.
Note that Private Eye has covered CofE of this issue for a long time. Welby was aware of all these issues.
It seems he was happy to stay in-post till the pressure gained popular distain. Like the Post Office under another “religious advocate”.
Revelations around the world show that we should never conflate apparent religious conformance (any religion) with morality .. or the inverse.
Can we please ditch the privileged special roles / immunity across all our institutions (eg ecclesiastical law, police , politicians, “establishment”) ….. In favour of competence and integrity …. And maintaining high standards with effective and public accountability.
Sorry, clearly that was not all I had to say, after my first comment – but Mr Maughan’s intervention was so appropriate and telling ……
Thank you to John.
In my friend’s case, it was a friend / accomplice of the one (named) based in the north. She was a BBC regional service intern and still lives up there.
This is a piece I wrote on the Amsterdam events of last week: https://dearscotland.substack.com/p/israel-plays-the-victim-card-again
I’m afraid I’m sticking to my guns on the atonement issue. I think we’ve got it all wrong.
Resignations do not seem to be a sustainable method either – all it is is a revolving door.
Added to that we’ve had people who are highly paid not do a good job and requiring them to produce a plan of action and resolve issues before they depart seems a decent and right thing to do employment wise.
The female cleric interviewed last night on Channel 4 news made some good points last night (speaking of a public school boy culture) , but when asked if there should be a female leader of the church stated that it was not ready for female incumbent yet (although one female has been implicated in the failure over inaction over Smyth).
My point remains that the ways and means of accountability are inadequate in this country – cruelty seems accepted everywhere in the upper echelons of our society who are ‘in charge’. A sure sign that inequality breeds indifference.
Someone has also mentioned the king – the so-called head of the Church, yet no no one seems to have picked it up and asked him what he thinks about it and what role he might have. As usual one wonders how it all actually us supposed to work.
You miss my point. The integrity of British institutions, and ‘atonement’ are two separate matters. The integrity of institutions I commented on in a (deliberately) separate comment. You are conflating atonement (a religious and Biblical issue) with the problem of the integrity of institutions in Britain (a political and sociological issue).