No Lessons Learned? Makin, Welby and Theology

No Lessons Learned?

Makin, Welby and Theology

by Adrian Thatcher

The Makin Review – yes, the one that precipitated the resignation of Archbishop Justin – was entitled ‘Independent Learning Lessons Review’[1]. In this blog I argue that the Church of England will never ‘learn lessons’ about the causes of Smyth’s shocking exploits until it reviews its own theological failings.

Makin’s Brief

The terms of reference of the Review excluded any examination of the theology of John Smyth or of the evangelical networks that sustained him over forty years of unchecked abuse of children. However, the inattention to theology has serious consequences.

The Reviewers identified 8 themes[2]. None of them was about theology except apparently 1.13.7 – ‘Radicalisation and the exploitation of theologies by Smyth’. This is where the trouble begins. The difference between unremarkable and unexamined theology on the one hand, and radical and exploitative theology on the other hand, is not stated. I don’t complain that the reviewers do not do what their Terms of Reference did not require them to do: only to complain that without examining the theology of Smyth and his networks, the scope for learning lessons is strictly limited.

When does theology become exploitative?

As if the dismissal of theology required some further justification the Reviewers say

This Review does not attempt to comment on matters of theology, except where that is directly relevant to an understanding of a particular event and to the knowledge that the Church of England could have had at the time. Equally, the Review does not offer a whole critique of the bodies and organisations involved, or their theology, beyond matters directly relevant to this Review, for example in terms of John Smyth exploiting theological matters to enable his abuse. These matters are outside scope of the ToR [Terms of Reference] [3].

The Review takes for granted there is a standard Anglican or Anglican evangelical theology which, together with the ‘bodies and organisations’ supporting it, does not need to be examined, except insofar as the exploitation of such theology may attract appropriate comment. But where is the line between acceptable evangelical theology and exploitative evangelical theology? How would we know when we had crossed it? Who decides? And since John Smyth clearly stepped over the line, where, at what points along the line did he traverse it?

The unexamined tension between acceptable and unacceptable theology becomes even more taut when the Review draws on the findings of the psychologist, Elly Hanson, a consultant to the Review[4]. Hanson is quoted in the Review as saying that ‘the [religious] beliefs in which John Smyth operated are critical to understanding how he manipulated his victims into it, how it went on for so long, and how he evaded justice’. Yes, those beliefs are ‘critical’. As if to reinforce the point Hanson continues ‘Smyth drew on a set of beliefs that helped justify his abuse to his victims and likely also to himself’.

When is theology misunderstood?

A puzzle now arises – how the claim that this set of religious beliefs is ‘critical’ to understanding Smyth’s behaviour can be reconciled with what Hanson is said to say next:

In parallel with this, his abuse is not accounted for by these beliefs (i.e. it simply being a misunderstanding or misapplication of theology)… he had deeper motivations at work, and deployed numerous strategies in service of his abuse. It should also be noted that a large variety of beliefs and values (whether they be religious, political, economic or philosophical) can be conducive to abuse when they are held ‘ideologically’ – followed at the expense of a core care and regard for every human being[5].

Let us take for granted that Smyth was a dangerous, psychopathic Christian leader whose ‘deeper motivations’ require professional analysis, well outside the competence of theologians. OK. But now the dichotomy between acceptable evangelical theology and abusive evangelical theology returns in a new guise: whenever Smyth strays into abusive behaviour it is not his set of evangelical beliefs that motivates him. No. It is only his ‘misunderstanding or misapplication of theology’ that is responsible instead. The line between understanding and misunderstanding theology is as opaque as ever.

Whatever contributes to the mind-set that is responsible for Smyth’s crimes against young men, his conservative theology is exempted from consideration. Only his ‘misunderstandings’ of it and his ‘strategies’ based on it can be discussed.

When does theology become ideological?

The note about the large variety of beliefs which are conducive to abuse merely thickens the fog that now surrounds Smyth’s motivations. Now the contrast is between beliefs and values that are ideologically held (such as Smyth’s), and those beliefs and values that are not ideologically held (presumably those evangelical beliefs still widely held throughout the Church of England).

Hanson’s quoted definition of an ideological belief – one ‘followed at the expense of a core care and regard for every human being’ is very appropriate. In discussing ideology there is a range of meanings to choose from. It can be a neutral synonym for a world view or set of beliefs, whatever they might be. In the social sciences an ideology can mean a set of beliefs that are held however strong the evidence against them might be. Or it might be a set of beliefs that misrepresents the interests of people, particularly to themselves (as when people believe, falsely, that they are inferior, stupid, unworthy, requiring control, etc.) In such cases exposure of the falsehood becomes the means of liberation. The Reviewers, in citing Hanson, helpfully appear to agree that any belief is ideological that hurts people, that is ‘followed at the expense of a core care and regard for every human being’.

The lesson to learn?

The Church of England needs to learn, beyond the terms of reference of the Makin Review, that many of its members and organisations do hold ideological beliefs that hurt people and are ‘followed at the expense of a core care and regard for every human being’. The deplorable behaviour of John Smyth and the ‘cult of Iwerne camps’ had already been exposed in Andrew Graystone’s Bleeding for Jesus (2021). The wider scandal of spiritual abuse in the Church of England had already been addressed by Alan Wilson and Rosie Harper in To Heal and Not to Hurt (2019), by Janet Fife and Gilo in Letters to a Broken Church (2019), by Lisa Oakley and Justin Humphreys in Escaping the Maze of Spiritual Abuse (2019), and others. So it was no surprise to find copious references among the testimony of survivors in the Report to misogyny, homophobia, to ‘muscular Christianity’, to outrageous sexism (remember the ‘lady helpers’), in the camps and organisations where Smyth’s wickedness was propagated. Makin concludes The ‘patriarchal approach in the organisations and cultures that John Smyth operated, was a conducive and organisational factor’[6]  to the abuse.

Here we go again

This separation of theology from practice, of beliefs from behaviour, protects the leaders of conservative evangelicalism from an overdue examination of their patriarchal, sexist and homophobic beliefs, all Bible-based, and the harm that derives from them. It was just the same when IICSA (Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse) gave its excoriating verdict on the C. of E.’s appalling record back in 2020. Later that year Living in Love and Faith (LLF) was published. Could there be a possible connection between the abusive theology exposed by IICSA, and the sexual theology toyed with by LLF? Of course not. The LLF authors say ‘While acknowledging the reality of abuse in the church, it is important that the specific work of theological reflection on IICSA be carried out separately from the Living in Love and Faith project’[7] . We are still waiting.

Adrian Thatcher is Honorary Professor of Theology at the University of Exeter and Editor of Modern Believing.

Notes

1. https://www.churchofengland.org/sites/default/files/2024-11/independent-learning-lessons-review-john-smyth-qc-november-2024.pdf
2. above, 1.13
3. above, 4.5
4. Hanson’s report is referenced in the Review as Appendix 4, but this Appendix is neither published as part of the Review nor published online.
5. above, 11.3.15
6. above, 9.1.10
7. LLF, p. 87 emphasis added

Finding Support

If you or anyone you are in contact with are affected by the publication of the Makin review and want to talk to someone independently please call the Safe Spaces helpline on 0300 303 1056 or visit safespacesenglandandwales.org.uk

More information about Church of England Safeguarding can be found here.

If you have a safeguarding concern, all churches (across all denominations), organisations and County Councils have a dedicated safeguarding officer who should be contacted. If someone is in immediate danger, contact the Police on 999.