A Tone-Deaf Response: Archbishop Welby’s Speech Misses the Mark

Justin Welby’s recent speech in the House of Lords has sparked widespread condemnation, particularly from survivors of abuse linked to the Church of England. His comments have been described as tone-deaf, dismissive, and indicative of the institution’s failure to acknowledge the full extent of the harm done. Survivors of abuse, including those affected by the actions of John Smyth, a barrister and lay preacher who abused over 100 young men, were left feeling unheard. Welby’s remarks, including a reference to “a head having to roll” and a light-hearted quip about beheading, seemed profoundly out of place given the gravity of the issue at hand.

Frivolity in the Face of Trauma

For victims, this speech was a painful reminder of the Church’s ongoing detachment from the real-life consequences of the abuse they endured. Mark Stibbe, a survivor of Smyth’s abuse, described the speech as “frivolous,” while Graham Jones, another survivor, lamented the lack of genuine remorse. The expectation was simple: a sincere apology and an acknowledgment of the Church’s failings. Instead, Welby’s tone suggested an unwillingness to confront the depth of the damage caused.

The Church’s Culture of Mismanagement

This lack of sensitivity echoes broader criticisms of the Church’s handling of abuse cases. Earlier in the year, Welby made similar remarks about managing influential figures within the Church, calling for balance without acknowledging the full responsibility the Church bears in preventing abuse. His words at the General Synod, when talking about how to deal with powerful leaders in the church, were particularly telling: “You don’t want to quench them, but you do want to make sure that they don’t go bonkers . . . and are not irresponsible in their actions.” These comments, seen by many as dismissive, demonstrate a dangerous minimisation of the weight of the Church’s failings.

The same lack of accountability is evident in the Soul Survivor scandal, where founder Mike Pilavachi faced serious abuse allegations, many of which were substantiated. The Church’s failure to act in both cases highlights a culture of mismanagement that allows abuse to thrive, rather than being addressed head-on. These instances underscore the Church's ongoing struggle to reckon with its past and present failures, and the dismissive attitude shown by its leadership only amplifies the institutional shortcomings that continue to put vulnerable individuals at risk.

A Call for Change: The Church Cannot Continue as It Is

But all is not lost. This moment presents an opportunity for meaningful change. The Church of England is an institution that is here to stay, but it cannot, and must not, continue as it is. Whether or not I still have faith in ‘the Church’ itself is secondary to what really matters: things must change. The institution’s failure to evolve and address its wrongs would be a tragic continuation of its past mistakes. To begin restoring trust, the Church of England must place survivors’ voices at the centre of its response, prioritising their needs over institutional reputation. A genuine apology, coupled with clear commitments to reform, would be a vital first step. Addressing safeguarding protocols, ensuring transparent investigations, and creating a culture of accountability are crucial to making sure future generations are protected. This isn’t about symbolic gestures; it’s about real, lasting change. Whether the Church of England will rise to meet this challenge is yet to be seen, but it is a challenge that cannot be ignored any longer.