Welby - Victim or Hero?

This is the third of four blogs, which reflect on the Archbishop of Canterbury's comments at the Cambridge Union in May 2025.

If you missed them, catch up on "Welby - I was being thick" and "Welby -The test of truth".

This third blog focuses on his responses to questions about the Makin Review into John Smyth's abuse.

John Smyth was a prolific and brutal abuser of young men. In November 2025, Keith Makin published his investigation into the way the Church of England had (mis)handled reports of the abuse. The Review states that it was, "triggered in large part by the actions of several victims, who relentlessly lobbied for the truth and learning in this case to be revealed," and its stated aim was,"to clarify facts and dispel myths that have developed over time in relation to this case."

Amongst many other findings, the Makin Review claimed to clarify facts and dispel certain myths about the former Archbishop of Canterbury, the Most Rev Rt Hon Justin Welby GCVO, including

• “... it was unlikely that Justin Welby would have had no knowledge of the concerns regarding John Smyth in the 1980s,” 

• "Justin Welby contributed to John Smyth’s ‘missions’ in Zimbabwe through donations to the Zambesi Trust, describing this as within the context of making many other, small, personal payments to charities and Missions."

• In 2013 " Although the Church (by definition, Justin Welby was aware) knew that at least three people were victims of John Smyth, no actions were taken to help them in a therapeutic way, nor to find out if the numbers of people abused was greater"

• "There was a distinct lack of curiosity shown by these senior figures and a tendency towards minimisation of the matter, demonstrated by the absence of any further questioning and follow up..."

• "Promises by Justin Welby to meet with victims were not followed through in any meaningfully helpful period of time"

• "On 12th April 2019, Justin Welby was interviewed by Cathy Newman... [the] interview contained several incorrect assertions by Justin Welby"

This blog will not seek to give a comprehensive account of the conflicting versions of the 'truth' that Justin Welby has given over the past six years with regards to his part in the Smyth saga. Rather it will reflect on his recent comments to those gathered at the Cambridge Union, in the light of his assertion that,"the test of truth for all of us is whether we are prepared to pay the price of defending it."

The former Archbishop faced four questions at the Union about his relationship with John Smyth:

Questions 1&2: “You resigned…after criticism about your failure to investigate reports of abuse committed by barrister John Smyth – do you regret your actions and what would you do differently?”

Questions 3&4: "Much of your lecture there centered on the importance of truth. Truth is important with reconciliation and forgiveness and it's in that spirit I want to ask you two key questions many of the survivors of John Smyth's horrific abuse have of you... So I ask you, especially because of the importance of truth for the hundreds of people who suffered sexual and violent abuse at the hands of this man, Did you know about John Smyth's abuse? And for how ... why did you hold on to the 2013 report and minimize and downplay the allegations?

To summarise - Do you regret your actions? What would you do differently? When did you know? Why did you minimise the allegations?

The first question could have led to a moment of humble repentance - instead Justin Welby spent several minutes justifying himself and reminding those listening that he too was a victim of abuse, though not from John Smyth. The closest he came to an apology was this rather half-hearted observation:

"While I thought I had done at the time everything I should have done I hadn't... but I was insufficiently persistent and curious to follow up and check and check and check that action was being taken and I felt that that had retraumatized the survivors."

But it was immediately followed by statements distancing himself from the abuse, "Remember these things had happened in this country in the 1970s up to 1981 and in Zimbabwe until 2001," and that "a judge-led enquiry" has yet to find evidence of later abuse in South Africa. In effect, he implied the abuse was a long time ago, a long way away and it could have been worse.

He then sought to recast his resignation in the light of wider historic safeguarding concerns, "In my role, it wasn't only the Smyth case... there were more and more cases, emerged [sic], very few from the present day, but going right back to the 60s and the 70s, 50 years - 60 years..". Thus, he claimed, it was actually his “idealisation” of the 'Church' which in the light of all these historic issues had led to a  “sense of its failure” (not his), which had made him feel that he needed to resign.

As for, what he could have done differently, Welby's answer, “ I could have taken on the interviewers more strongly,” suggests that he understood this question to be asking whether he could have avoided resigning.  This misunderstanding was almost as bizarre as his earlier claim that it was his attack on the then Government’s Rwanda Scheme that had got him into trouble, and that "part of the result of that trouble was my resignation last year.”

The second set of questions took longer to answer.

When did you know about the abuse? Justin Welby was determined that he first "knew of John Smyth's abuse in 2013, at the beginning of August." Going further he said he was not aware of the nature of the abuse until 2017, and it was not until 2021 that he was told there were more than a hundred victims. Any other interpretation, he said, "is not the truth."

The problem is, the facts don't add up. The Makin Review found both that it was "unlikely" that Welby had not heard of concerns about Smyth as far back as the 1980s and also that, "enough was known to have raised concerns upon being informed in 2013." But Justin Welby came out fighting, telling the Cambridge Union, that "Makin is wrong". Basing his claim on new evidence that has conveniently come to his attention since resigning, he wanted listeners to know that he had done everything he could at the time - which rather contradicts the view that he did not know enough to be concerned. Moreover, the fact these emails from 2013 (between Lambeth Palace, the Bishop of Ely and the police in South Africa) had not been given to Keith Makin at any point during the five year review, only raises further questions: Where were they buried? What else did they contain?

Yet things got worse. There was no answer to the question of why Welby had minimised Smyth's abuse, instead he just repeated the pattern, excusing his inaction over Smyth's abuse by comparing it to another case the Church of England faced in 2013, Bishop Peter Ball - "where we knew there were at least 30 victims and he was going to prison, uh obviously and one of those victims had committed suicide."

And worse. Seeking to distance himself from the cover up of Smyth's abuse, Welby referred to, " a small group of people about 30 at the time" who "paid for him to go and work in Zimbabwe, which he did, and they kept it a very closely held secret among themselves, the numbers grew, but by that time I'd long lost touch." In 'othering' the Colmans, who he had once been close to, he failed to remember that Makin had found that he himself was amongst those who had sent money to Smyth and that, "When he wanted to test the water regarding the extent of knowledge of John Smyth’s abuses he made direct contact with several leading Conservative Evangelical figures, being close enough to that circle to be able to do so."

Throughout the interview, Justin Welby's version of the 'truth' ricocheted between portraying himself as a victim and a hero thereby avoiding any responsibility at all. When it suited him, truth was objective - Makin was wrong, his questioners were wrong - while at others he defended the indefensible, presuming according to his principle that truth is that which does not "buckle."

As one of those abused by John Smyth told The Telegraph, "He tries to rehabilitate his reputation by trying to undermine the five-year, million-pound investigation.... doesn't he realise how offensive this is to victims?" Sadly, it appears that rehabiliating his reputation is a 'truth' that the former Archbishop of Canterbury is, "prepared to pay the price of defending," whatever the cost and chaos he leaves in his wake.

---

To be sure not to miss the final blog in this series, "Welby - We kept secrets"

subscribe to our regular emails

at http://eepurl.com/him4BT