In just over two weeks, Justin Welby will stand down as Archbishop of Canterbury, a year earlier than his previously stated intention to retire a year later, when he reached the mandatory retirement age of 70. His decision was taken following criticism in the Makin Review into abuse carried out by John Smyth.

The Makin Review said that Justin Welby had failed in his personal and moral responsibility to pursue the allegations after being alerted to them in 2013; and that he failed to deliver on his promises to meet Smyth victims for four years. The report makes clear that he his not solely to blame, but it does make significant criticism of his actions.

I say this to make clear what Welby is accused of. Or. More importantly, what he is not accused of. Welby is not the abuser. Welby did not facilitate Smyth’s abuse. Welby did not condone Smyth’s abuse. Welby didn’t consciously cover up Smyth’s abuse.

Why is this important?

It is important because while Justin Welby has resigned – and while others – including Archbishop of York Stephen Cottrell and Archbishops’ Council Secretary General William Nye – also need to resign over their part in the wider Church of England safeguarding fiasco, it is important that such people aren’t vilified beyond what is deserved.

Earlier this week, news reports highlighted the electronic Christmas Card sent by Justin and Caroline Welby to friends and colleagues. The reports said that Justin and Caroline were making a donation to The Children’s Society. Last night there were further reports, saying that the Children’s Society had refused the donation.

“After careful consideration, we have respectfully decided not to accept the donation offered by the outgoing Archbishop of Canterbury”, the Children’s Society chief executive, Mark Russell, told The Daily Telegraph.

“The Children’s Society is deeply committed to supporting the survivors of abuse, our teams support victims of child sexual abuse, and this means that accepting this donation would not be consistent with the principles and values that underpin our work.

“We were profoundly shocked by the findings of the Makin Report, and our thoughts are with all survivors of abuse. We believe that there is an urgent need for the Church of England to reset its approach to safeguarding and continue to create a safer church and safer spaces for young people, protected by real accountability and a culture of care.”

The Children’s Society is a charity founded by people linked with the Church of England. Its official name remains “Church of England Children’s Society”, even though they have dropped the “Church of England” part for marketing purposes some years back.

Although an independent charity – as with all Church of England bodies (the Church of England does not exist as a single institution) – their links with the established church remains strong.

The vice chair of the charity’s trustees is the Bishop of Derby Libby Lane – the first female bishop in the Church of England. And churches across the country will be holding Christingle services this week, as part of their family Christmas celebrations – The idea for Christingle services was an initiative of the Children’s Society as a fund-raising idea.

And the charity needs funds. Its latest annual report shows it spent just under £41 million in the year to 31 March 2024. A tad over half of that – £21.84 million – was spent on charitable activities, while a massive £19.06 million was spent on raising funds.

Its income for that year included £12.58 million in donations and legacies; £12.08 million in “charitable activities”; £11.88 million in other trading activities; £23,000 from investments and £22,000 of other income.

The first thing people see when visiting its website is an appeal for funds – even before any information explaining what the Children’s Society does.

So you can see, the Children’s Society is in need of donations.

What does the Children’s Society do with its money? Let me quote their own words: “We provide specialist support that empowers young people to make positive changes and rediscover their hope. They want a future they can look forward to and we’re here to make sure they get it. Working alongside young people, their families and community, we will not rest until together, step-by-step, we’ve created a society built for all children.”

They work in areas of child sexual exploitation, children’s rights and advocacy, county lines and criminal exploitation, mental health and wellbeing, missing from home, poverty, refugees and migrants, substance misuse and young carers.

This is all vitally important work.

So on what basis are they refusing a donation?

Yes, Justin Welby has not taken opportunities to reform Church of England safeguarding practices to bring them in line with accepted good practice.

Yes, Justin Welby (and Stephen Cottrell) presided over an Archbishops’ Council which has done much harm and re-traumatising of victims and survivors of church-related abuse.

Yes, Justin Welby (and Stephen Cottrell and the entire Archbishops’ Council) ignored voices of victims, survivors, advocates and professions who told them that they were doing wrong.

Yes, Justin Welby (and Stephen Cottrell and the entire Archbishops’ Council) ignored the opportunities provided by IICSA and a myriad “lessons (un)learned reviews” to bring about change.

But they are not evil.

I don’t know why he and other senior Church of England leadership did what they did when it came to safeguarding. I can only assume that the voices of their internal advisers were given far more weight than they deserved.

Having read the Makin Review, I did not expect Justin Welby to resign. His decision, however, became inevitable when a public petition calling for him to go hit 10,000 signatories, and the front page of every English newspaper called for him to go.

His resignation, by itself, will not make the Church of England a safer place. In fact, it could make the Church more dangerous, as it gives an excuse to other blameworthy people at the top to say “the Archbishop of Canterbury has stepped down. All is well.”

All is not well. It has not been well for some time.

Justin Welby has gone. But we need a clean sweep:

Stephen Cottrell is guilty of exactly the same safeguarding failures as Justin Welby. But in addition, Cottrell frequently lies about safeguarding matters – including his recent “apology” to the General Synod and his statement in response to last week’s BBC Radio Four expose of the David Tudor case. He too needs to go.

William Nye has been the principle advisor to Justin Welby and Stephen Cottrell. He has also been found wanting – including overriding decisions of the Archbishops’ Council he disagreed with – when it comes to safeguarding.

If Cottrell and Nye are allowed to remain in post, proper safeguarding reform will not happen; and the status quo will remain.

The rot needs to be cut out and be replaced.

But while Cottrell and Nye need to go, they too are not evil.

A call for them to resign their posts is not a call for them to be sent to Coventry (which I’ve never understood as an aphorism – having lived in Coventry for a few years in the early 200s, I know it as a good place with nice people).

Welby, Cottrell and Nye need to go. They do not need to be shunned.

It was completely unnecessary for the Children’s Society to refuse a donation from Justin and Caroline Welby. It is virtue-signalling of the worse kind, because it is virtue-signalling that diverts funds from the charity’s core objectives of helping children.

Accepting the donation will not harm children.

Refusing the donation makes it harder for the Children’s Society to serve children.

I don’t have any knowledge or insight into Justin and Caroline Welby’s decision to make a donation to the Children’s Society this Christmas. It is a charity that they have supported for a long time. But there is in the Christian tradition the concept of penance, of reparations.

If the Welbys chose to support the Children’s Society this year as an acceptance that children have been harmed by the Church of England’s safeguarding procedures, surely that is a good thing, not a bad thing?