5m‘We must see a change here’, says reverend calling for Welby’s resignation
Cathy Newman
Presenter
We spoke to Dr Ian Paul, who is a reverend and member of General Synod and the Archbishops’ Council.
He has organised a petition calling for Justin Welby to resign and we began by asking him why he thinks he should go.
Dr Ian Paul: Well, Cathy, yesterday morning I spent the morning at a local church and I spent my time and my energy talking about the amazing good news we have in Jesus. That’s what clergy want to do. Today, I have spent all my time talking about this issue, and that illustrates the problem. It illustrates the disconnect between what’s happening in the local church and the problems we’ve got in senior leadership. At the local level, churches are working their socks off to make sure safeguarding is a priority, the church is a safe place – if you come to my church – you can find out immediately on the board who the safeguarding officer is, there’s a phone number in the toilets. You know, we’re working really hard. And Church of England churches on the ground are safe places. And then for clergy then to open their newspapers this morning or turn on the television or the radio – and hear what the Makin Report has said about the problems in senior leadership and the failing, in Makin’s word, of pastoral and personal responsibility, moral responsibility by the archbishop, then that undermines their work. And that’s what creates this loss of confidence and loss of trust. And that’s what we’re tapping into. And what the fascinating thing is, this is not a partisan issue. This is not about scapegoating. This is not about a token gesture. The three of us who organised the petition come from very, very different parts of the church. You couldn’t find three more different people. But we have a shared commitment to say, look, at a national level in terms of the senior culture, we must see a change here. And we’re asking for Justin to resign not as a sort of token gesture, but as the first step to seeing some really serious change in the culture of senior leadership.
Cathy Newman: When you read the Makin Review last week, what did you think about the criticism of Justin Welby? Why, in your view, has he fallen so far short?
Dr Ian Paul: Well, the Makin Review, I mean, first of all, is a traumatic read anyway, because it sets out in detail all the things that have happened. After having gone through it, I then went back and I searched all the mentions of Justin Welby, and just at every stage, every stage, was a failure of process. I think there’s been quite a big debate about what did Justin know before 2013? And that’s debatable. I mean, he claims, he claimed to you in a previous interview, that he had no knowledge before then. And in fact, you challenged him about that. And Makin said actually, his claims are unlikely. For me, my concern is what has happened since 2013. And again, for most clergy on the ground, they would know that if they were informed, as Justin was in 2013, that there was an issue with a serious abuser and that they hadn’t properly acted until it came to light in 2017 in the investigation that you did – if we’d let something like that go for four years, I’m afraid any local clergyman, any local church leader, they would be out on their ear. They’d be disciplined. And so the question we’re asking is, if that applies to the rest of the clergy, why doesn’t it apply to others? Why doesn’t it apply to Justin?
Cathy Newman: Justin Welby said to me in the full interview, which we’re going to put out online today, that he wanted to stay, to see through this change in the way the church adjudicates abuse. So it will be done by an independent body in future – he hopes. Is that some justification for him to stay?
Dr Ian Paul: No, because he has no credibility in doing that. If he himself has failed in the way that Makin has claimed, I don’t see how anybody can claim credibility on that. And I think the voices that I’ve been struck by – and people do contact me, survivors and representatives of survivors, contact me – and they’re the ones who are most vociferous. They have criticised me and they criticise members of the Archbishop’s Council in the past, but they’re the ones who say ‘we have no confidence’. I mean, yesterday one of the survivors of Smyth’s abuse said, ‘Justin promised me in 2017, after your investigation, he would meet with me. He never has.’ So how can someone who has no credibility with survivors actually see this through?
Cathy Newman: Multiple bishops were seriously criticised by the Makin Review and lots of senior clergymen. Some of them were much more seriously criticised than Justin Welby. So they’ve got questions to answer, haven’t they?
Dr Ian Paul: Yes, they have – and we need to follow this through. I’m not clear now what the exact process is for following through on the recommendations they’re making, but we need to take it seriously and we need to see a really significant culture change in the senior leadership within the church.
Cathy Newman: How much damage has been done to the Church of England by John Smyth’s abuse, and then the way in which the church and senior leaders have covered it up over the years?
Dr Ian Paul: Well, Cathy, this is the real paradox. And the paradox is the one that I began with. You know, in answer to your first question, which is that – at the local level, safeguarding is in good hands. There’s a lot of work being done. There’s a huge amount of energy and a huge amount of investment. And there’s this disconnect with the things that are happening at a senior level. So has it damaged the church nationally? Absolutely. Has it damaged the reputation of the church nationally? Absolutely. Does that undermine the really good ministry of local churches and local church leaders and members of congregations? Well, no, it hasn’t in the sense that that’s going to carry on regardless. But it needs to be enabled to carry on and we have to change the national approach and the national culture, in order to catch up with the good work that’s being done on the ground.