Abuse, silence and accountability: What Justin Welby’s resignation teaches us
Former Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby. He resigned in the second week of November.
What you need to know:
- Justin Welby resigned as Archbishop of Canterbury after failing to report John Smyth's horrific abuse of over 130 boys and men in Christian summer camps.
- The church's conspiracy of silence enabled Smyth to continue his abuse while receiving financial support, highlighting institutional complicity.
- Religious institutions must take responsibility for preventing gender-based violence, establish early warning systems, and empower their followers to stand up against abuse of power.
The resignation of Justin Welby, Archbishop of Canterbury (the ceremonial head of the Anglican Church), in the second week of November passed as a whimper yet the reason for his action is significant.
He was buckling to sustained pressure arising from the independent Makin Review, which concluded that barrister John Smyth, described as “the most prolific abuser associated with the Church of England”, could have been held accountable had the Archbishop alerted the authorities in 2013 of the former’s violence against men and boys when he served as a volunteer in Christian summer camps in the 1970s and 1980s both in Africa and the United Kingdom.
Smyth, who died in 2019 in Cape Town, South Africa, while under investigation, had violated at least 130 boys and men. “The scale and severity of the practice was horrific," the report noted. “Beatings of 100 strokes for masturbation, 400 for pride and one of 800 for some undisclosed ‘fall’ are recorded.”
Furthermore, the report observed, eight of Smyth’s victims received close to 14,000 strokes of the cane over three years, resulting in bleeding, bruises and scars. Although Welby had initially stated that he would not resign over the matter after his apology, it appears that his conscience prevailed. leading him to seek permission from the King to vacate his lofty position.
In the resignation letter, the Archbishop talked about the “conspiracy of silence about the heinous abuses”, adding that he felt compelled to “take personal and institutional responsibility for the long and re-traumatising period between 2013 and 2024”. He hoped that this was sending a message of “profound commitment to creating a safer church”.
Effectively, the Bishop was owning up to the conspiracy of silence about such atrocities in the church. Such conspiracy is evident in the words of Rev David Fletcher, one of the insiders privy to the abuses, who “thought [that] it would do the work of God immense damage if [the atrocities] were public". Arrant nonsense. Does the word of God condone injustice?
The conspiracy was further evident in the fact that instead of being punished, Smyth was encouraged to leave his stations, ending up in quiet solitude in Zimbabwe where he continued to receive financial assistance from officials of the church, technically rewarding him. There can be no better proof of institutional complicity than this.
It is obvious that Smyth used the power of his charisma, oratory standing as a lawyer (who should ordinarily defend the defenceless) and position of trust as a volunteer to ensnare his victims. He was certainly a horrible role model given that he was supposed to prepare for leadership in the church but elsewhere, he changed men and boys into victims.
By his actions, he did the exact reverse, killing their spirit. The silence about the problem is double-sided. The affected men and boys keeping quiet about their suffering made the problem invisible. That of the duty-bearers reeks of negligence and dereliction of the duty to protect and comfort the vulnerable and afflicted. A number of key lessons arise.
First, men must learn to overcome shame and stigma and to talk about the violence they are exposed to. Two, society must acknowledge and pay attention to violence against men and boys. Three, individuals in positions of power and authority must take responsibility for the actions and inaction of people under them. This should include vacating office instantly. Four, the church and other religious systems must be at the forefront of fighting gender-based violence.
Covering up the ills only dents their reputation and erodes them of the public confidence they casually take for granted. In fulfilling this expectation, it is imperative for them to speedily and decisively act on reported cases. They must also establish surveillance mechanisms for early warning to minimise occurrence of such cases and the implied damage.
The case of Smyth is just one among myriad gender-based violations perpetrated in mainstream churches. One shudders to think of what goes on in the smaller churches where cultic veneration of the spiritual “leaders” is the norm. If members do not come out to talk about these issues, the state machinery has a responsibility to keep them on the radar and to take action on violations going on there.
The church must be open to scrutiny and the flock made aware that not everything they are commanded to do is holy. They must thus be empowered to stand up to power. The church cannot be allowed to sedate its flock for exploitation and any other forms of violence. All implicated church leaders should emulate the belated example of Bishop Welby and resign.
The writer is a lecturer in Gender and development Studies at South Eastern Kenya University ([email protected]).
