John Smyth and the question of Anglican membership

The question of who is and who is not a member of the Church of England/Anglican has always been difficult to determine.  Church law has encouraged a fairly lax understanding of membership.  Anyone who resides in a parish in England has an entitlement to vote for the churchwardens of their local parish church.  Common-sense tells us that this ability in law to vote for the churchwardens at the Annual Parish meeting does not make someone a member of the Church of England.  Nevertheless, the Church, being established by law, has always been hesitant to declare anyone who breathes as totally beyond its boundaries.  Even those who do nothing and are not baptised seem to have certain rights and privileges within the body.

What is, in effect, a completely passive membership of the Church of England has for centuries been the norm for a large segment of the population.  The only way that has been open to individuals to opt out of this membership was to declare openly that they belong to a dissenting group and then pointedly avoid attending the parish church.  To be such an open ‘dissenter’ used to incur civil penalties, like exclusion from university.  No doubt the authorities had other ways of discriminating against these non-conforming families.  I am not enough of a historian to be able to list these penalties or know how they worked in practice.  But, everyone else in society was deemed to be a ‘conformer’ and automatically Church of England.  Regardless of how often or whether people attended church, everyone could enjoy a number of privileges, including the right to be married in church and be buried in the local churchyard.  Actual attendance at church could be erratic, occasional or non-existent.  Who knows how many fell below the Prayer Book minimum attendance rules of Easter communion and two other occasions?

The issue of who is and who is not an Anglican has become an topic of discussion recently with the case of John Smyth.  Smyth, the notorious abuser and for a long time chair of the Iwerne trustees, spent the end of his life as a member of non-Anglican churches in South Africa.  On the basis of this period of non-Anglican participation, the Archbishop of Canterbury has placed the ‘not-Anglican’ label on Smyth, apparently for the whole of his life.  It is hard to make this claim when during his time living in Winchester, Smyth was a Reader at Christ Church Winchester.  It seems fairly clear that, assuming this claim is correct, he would have had at some point to provide evidence of his Church of England baptism and confirmation before being admitted to Reader status.  What happened after he left the UK in disgrace does not change his Church of England membership while he lived in this country, committing his crimes.  I am reminded of the career of Michael Harper who resigned as a curate of All Soul’s Langham Place to promote the charismatic movement in the 60s.  After retirement he then became a member of the Eastern Orthodox Church.  Does the fact that Michael made such a radical switch from conservative Protestantism to Orthodoxy in any way invalidate his time at All Souls and his ministry there?  No one would claim that he was Orthodox all the way through and that his evangelical Anglican past was in some way rendered invalid by a later change of allegiance.  The evident Anglicanism of John Smyth is in no way changed by what he did at the end of his life.  We suspect that, in any case, a change in denominational allegiance for Smyth would have been prompted by a desire to opt out of Anglican networks.  It would have been easier for him to be spotted as an Anglican and thus prevented from exercising any kind of ministry.

The non-Anglican label has also been applied to the organisations that Smyth was associated with in England.  The Iwerne Trust (now known as Titus Trustees) which runs the Christian summer camps from which all of Smyth’s victims came, was at the heart of a large informal network of well-connected and often wealthy Anglican Christians, most of whom live in the south of England.  The same network exists today with a close association with the REFORM network.  REFORM exists as pressure group within the Church of England, promoting a number of conservative Christian causes.  It is active on General Synod promoting the anti-LGTB cause and supporting clergy and parishes that follow its conservative line.

The argument of the Archbishop and his advisers is to claim that the Church of England has no responsibility for Smyth and his victims because the Iwerne trustees were independent of the Church of England and not under its control.  This is a patently absurd argument.  Is the same argument to be applied to all the other independent organisations that work in and around the Church, including REFORM?  The Iwerne trustees and the Titus group that followed it are stuffed full of ordained clergy who all hold licenses or PTOs from their bishops.  A license to officiate involves an oath of obedience to the bishop ‘in all things lawful’.  Does not the obedience promised ensure that every activity undertaken by an ordained priest is potentially subject to the scrutiny of a bishop?  Just because the Titus Trust is not a legal entity controlled by the central Church does not stop individual ordained trustees being subject to episcopal authority.  It is time for the Archbishop of Canterbury and his advisers to stop hiding behind the ‘not-Anglican’ argument and ask the ordained trustees who hid Smyth’s crimes for over thirty years to give an account of themselves.  The Archbishop and the members of the House of Bishops do have real power in this situation.  They can order an inquiry and require any clergy trustees with information about Smyth’s crimes to disclose them.  The sanction of removing permissions to officiate or licences is available to enforce non-compliance.  Those of us who have looked at Smyth’s crimes have been sickened at the detail.  The accusation that there are clergy who in different ways are hiding these crimes by not sharing information is one that needs to be answered.

The reluctance of the Church of England at the highest level to take an active role in seeking resolution to the criminal activities of John Smyth is a running sore that will not go away.  The motivations of the well-connected church people who provided the large sums of money necessary to spirit Smyth out of Britain to Africa also need to be explained.  If the Church will not do it itself, then a ‘Smyth Inquiry’ should be handed over to an independent group.  Once again, we have to point out that deflection and avoidance never serve the Church well.  At the time when the public of Britain are beginning to conclude that the vested interests of church bodies take precedence to openness and integrity, we need bold actions by senior church figures.  In this area courage is required.  Such courage can be seen to be the mark of true leadership.

About Stephen Parsons

Stephen is a retired Anglican priest living at present in Cumbria. He has taken a special interest in the issues around health and healing in the Church but also when the Church is a place of harm and abuse. He has published books on both these issues and is at present particularly interested in understanding how power works at every level in the Church. He is always interested in making contact with others who are concerned with these issues.

27 thoughts on “John Smyth and the question of Anglican membership

  1. Indeed.

    Were Smyth’s will to leave funds to the CoE, contingent upon his being a church member at the time of his death, rest assured that ABC Welby would, with equal alacrity, declare him to be an Anglican, based on exactly the same fact pattern.

  2. It is interesting to think that anyone and everyone in England seems entitled to write down C of E when they sign into hospital etc. The church has ever open arms to anyone who enters its door. I don’t think this is what membership is about.

    1. Well, it depends. The idea that if someone wants to be a member of something, they can be, is not a bad attitude for a church. I find the fact that people are not catechised at the door very appealing.

  3. According to the Church Times article of 18 April 2019 (https://www.churchtimes.co.uk/articles/2019/18-april/news/uk/smyth-abuse-survivors-dispute-welby-claim):

    —-
    One of the survivors who wrote to Lambeth Palace this week, Graham*, described the claim that Smyth was not an Anglican as “farcical”, given that he worshipped in the C of E.. The letter tells the Archbishop that Smyth had in fact been a licensed Reader in the diocese of Winchester.

    A spokesperson for the diocese of Winchester said: “When the allegations first came to light we reviewed our records. There was nothing to suggest that John Smyth had had a formal role within the diocese and so no further investigation was undertaken.”
    —-

    It would seem whether Smyth were a Reader in the diocese of Winchester is a matter of dispute, although I would be very surprised, given his background if he were not baptised and confirmed in the CofE.

    1. I wonder how complete the records of Winchester Diocese are? Some diocese destroyed large numbers of records when the Data Protection Act came in. Others have ‘lost’ records, such the files which were mysteriously ‘destroyed by floods’ in York (floods which at the time were declared to have done no damage at Bishopthorpe).

      It’s also possible that Smyth preached regularly in his Anglican Church without a formal licence, a some evangelical church used to sit very light to these.

  4. If he preached, as has been suggested, that fact should have been recorded in the register of services of the church(es) concerned. Finding the details would be another matter (whether those registers are forwarded to the Diocese for archiving is not within my knowledge). I suspect that if this happened, there must be people who would remember it. Of course there are occasions when non-Anglicans sometimes preach, so the evidence would not necessarily establish his denominational standing.

    I met John Smyth once, in an entirely different context, in the Winchester County Court. I think that was around 1970 and it was before he became a QC. Although it doesn’t relate to the present subject-matter in any way, my recollection of him is still clear. A very cool, competent, albeit aloof, advocate.

  5. I am the “Electoral Roll” officer for my parish and have spent many a happy hour pondering the question of “membership” of the CofE. The opening paragraph of this post merely hints at the complication of “membership” and how it affects who can vote (and who can “stand for” / “be elected”) at parish meetings.

    As far as I have been able to find out “membership” of the CofE is a self declaring process as far as an Electoral Roll is concerned.

    In order to hold certain positions in the CofE (or to take part in some services) it may also be necessary actually to be:
    * baptised
    * confirmed
    * a regular communicant

    . . . the list is illustrative not conclusive.

    One of the common errors with the Electoral Roll is to think that lack of attendance bars an individual from being on the Roll. (It only does so if the individual is not in the parish.)

    I would greatly appreciate being given a “definition” of CofE membership but I actually think that English Athena’s reply to Margaret is more important.

  6. I have always understood baptism (even as an infant unable to understand it) signifies admission into the Church (i.e., in the present discussion, the C of E). Confirmation is necessary before Communion can be received, although many C of E churches welcome communicants from other denominations and don’t seem to insist or enquire about whether their own baptised members have been confirmed. So whilst it might need a Canon lawyer to answer your question authoritatively, I agree that English Athena’s reply to Margaret is what I understand the C of E to be – a church open to everyone – but membership of it more difficult to define.

    I realise this does not take the matter of John Smyth’s religious affiliation any further – I have begun to wonder whether that really matters.

    1. I think perhaps it’s about whether the CofE could have/should have been able to control him. My sense is than it could, and therefore should. Member or not.

  7. Well, I’m not sure how or when the C of E could have controlled him. The assaults took place on Smyth’s private property, not at Iwerne (or anywhere else), as far as I am aware. What happened after they came to light, and particularly the subsequent move to Africa, are other matters.

    But I’m reminded that some of the victims have instructed solicitors, so we should leave these issues to them and the courts, if matters go that far.

  8. Rowland, Not that it is directly relevant, but membership in Jersey has various different facets.

    The Parish in Jersey is a political as well as a religious geographical unit. The “Connetable” or head of the Parish, elected every 4 years, sits and votes in the Island’s Parliament – the States of Jersey. He also presides over the Parish Assembly, with the Rector also present as a member of the municipality.

    All people living in the Parish (without other religious affiliations) are deemed to be “virtual Anglicans” for the purposes of baptisms, confirmations, weddings and funerals. That is to say, they have the right to have their children baptised, be married in the Parish (usually but not always before children arrive!) and be buried there.

    The Church has a church roll of membership based on signing the standard document, and members of the congregation can be called together at a church assembly.

    However, the electors (voters) of the Parish, regardless of religious affiliation, can vote at an Ecclesiastical Assembly – passing Church Accounts, appointing Church Officers (Churchwardens, Almoners), and this is presided over by the Rector with the Connetable also present by virtue of his office. The Ecclesiastical Assembly is the mirror of the Parish Assembly politically.

    In practice, those attending tend to be churchgoes.

    Those on the church roll, unless they are voters in the Parish have no voting rights at an Ecclesiastical Assembly.

    It should be noted that the Parish ratepayers do support the upkeep of the ancient Parish Churches (all of which predate 1066), and the maintenance of the Parish rectories.

    But as you can see, membership is a very strange thing over here!

    1. Dear Tony,

      Remarkable but not at all surprising ~ the parallels are very clear to see. Perhaps, one day, someone will drag the “Good old CofE” into the 20th century in terms of Corporate Governance.

      My firm view is that whilst Bishops, by definition, should be top level Theologians, that does not mean that they have an overall “competence” across the whole field of endeavour . . . (IMHO) there should be room in the controlling “Board” for “experts” from other areas.

      (PS I do know that we are in the 21st century ~ I just keep my aspirations to a high, but not impossible, level!)

  9. For a century the Church of England has been trying to pass itself off as a membership organisation, that it is but one church or sect among many. Writ large on the 1662 Book of Common Prayer is a different story. It says it is the BCP and other rites …. of the CHURCH according to the use of the Church of England. It sees its Bishops, Priests and Deacons as ministers of the one and only one world-wide catholic Church. According to the early Church it was irregular for ministers to set up alternative bishops where there already was a bishop and his clergy in a diocese. The main idea is not membership, but jurisdiction over the ministers providing ministry in the geographic area of England. Thus the Queen going to Scotland, does not quit the Church of England and join the Church of Scotland, when she passes from the area of the Church of England to the area of the Church of Scotland. Since baptism makes you a member of the universal church, this membership ought to be recognised where-ever you go, and make you eligible for the ministry of the Church of that area. Whereas the laity were subject to ecclesiastical courts, this ended in the Victorian era, so the clergy can only discipline themselves and the quasi-clergy such as wardens, lay-readers etc. who put themselves under the church rules. Now over this classic view has been imposed the ideas of sects especially congregationalism. To facilitate more self-government, Church Assembly was created (now renamed General Synod). This was created like any other society or association, members invented it and its rules (actually the two Synods proposed it to the King who approved it). The Enabling Act did not create it, it just gave it powers and privileges. It suggested changes to the PCC and a Measure/Act of Parliament reinvented the PCC. Originally, electors were the baptised adults of the Parish, now it is these and whoever worships regularly at the parish church. But note you do not become a member of the CofE by enrolling yourself as an elector, you are able to enrol yourself because you are already a member of the Universal Church living in or worshipping in the Parish. Thus General Synod etc. is really about passing legislation as to how the charitable property under the control of the CofE is to be managed and used. As I said, the laity ceased to be answerable to church courts in the 19th century so John Smyth was not answerable to the CofE other than when authorised as a Lay Reader. Finally, when he moved to Zimbabwe, then South Africa, he had passed out of the jurisdiction and ministry of the Church of England.

    1. “Quasi clergy”? But no, the universal church is still a concept, but you can’t just walk into say, a Catholic church, and claim to be a minister because you’re ordained in the CofE! Au contraire, they don’t even recognise Anglican orders!

      1. The key concept I said is jurisdiction not membership. Fundamental is the jurisdiction of the clergy of a diocese or national church over the ministry in their designated area. Thus the bishops with their clergy decide who to recognise as qualified ministers and allow to minister in their area. By quasi-clergy, this is a catch-all: lay-readers etc. who are a sort of clergy who accept aspects of clergy discipline. As to providing ministry to the baptised, the Church of England offers ministry to all the baptised (notorious evil-livers excepted). Roman Catholics, following the Donatists, are over-strict in restricting access to the Eucharist often excluding non-Roman Catholics. Things are easing, especially given their 1983 Canon 1752 which includes their fundamental rule: “… and keeping in mind the salvation of souls, which in the Church must always be the supreme law.” They recognise Anglican baptism and would never rebaptise Anglican laity being received into their body. Exceptionally, they do minister to Anglicans, in what circumstances depends on their canons which are variously interpreted by their clergy.

    2. Thank you.

      ” The main idea is not membership, but jurisdiction over the ministers providing ministry in the geographic area . . [ . . . ] . . . the clergy can only discipline themselves “.

      That is a very polite way of explaining a tyranny ~ one without any external checks or such (21st century) niceties as “employment rights”

  10. Like all charities the Church provides its ministry to its beneficiaries, the laity, for free. It, that is its trustees and office holders are free to decide how to use its funds and what ministry to offer. To complicate things, the Church of England is not one charity, but a network of independent charities with some dependencies and many unenforceable gentlemen’s agreements. The fact that the laity often fund the ministry to themselves does not alter this, they are only donors with no say. Because they have to keep giving, they are now consulted so they will keep giving. In the choice of a minister, often the patron or bishop has more say/influence, if it was a nonconformist Congregational church, they would decide. Whenever clergy try to invoke employment law, they find they are office-holders not employees. They too are beneficiaries supported out of charity funds, and receive the profits of being that office holder. This is why appeals to employment tribunals have failed and will fail unless the law is changed or the courts find some way to imply a contract of employment. Further, abuse victims will have difficulty suing the Church as it is a network of independent and semi-independent charities, some of which have little or no funds of their own. This becomes even more problematic when the laity have done the abusing in the context of a small separate independent charity. Mostly Smyth was not put forward as an educator or minister by any Church of England body. Even as put forward by Iwerne, Titus etc. there may be problems as Smyth did his abusing at his home in his own time. Charities like companies are only responsible for what they authorise. If a person is director of two companies, but experiments at home and blows up his and his neighbour’s house, neither company is likely to be liable. Even if the director was acting as agent of the small start-up company, it still may not be liable. Even if the small poor start-up company employed and authorised the director to do the experiment and is liable, the other, the wealthy established company, having nothing to do with the experiment, is rightly free of any responsibility or liability. I do not know the details of the history or constitutions of the Iwerne/Titus charities. Tenuously a court may hold a charity negligent for putting forward someone as their minister even if he was acting in his own time and property. Context is everything. But unless there is a transfer of undertaking, the later charities taking-over the work will not normally be liable for an earlier period when the work was conducted by a different charity. The then trustees many be liable for the liabilities of their trust, but again, this would be disputed, and would fail if the charity was a company limited by guarantee.

    1. I think I’m right in saying that a SSM took the Church to court for constructive dismissal for bullying, and won. The judge commented that should a Reader take similar action, she would be inclined to find in their favour. So it can be done. I have to say, as a Reader, that I don’t much care for the notion of being quasi anything! It carries overtones of falseness, to my mind, as if we’re fake ministers. Something that I fear some people do think. Your longer post I totally agree with, especially about clergy’s being abused by virtue of their employment position. But I don’t think I’m quite grasping the points you’re trying to make in your earlier post.

  11. Thank you – English Law and ecclesiastical law is full of quirks. There must have been some contract between the Diocese and the Self Supporting Minister despite being self-funding – otherwise how can they be employed or constructively dismissed? Do you have any details or clues that might allow me to find the case? A date, name or other details would be useful.

    1. I suspect that ordinarily a SSM would simply have a Licence, or PTO from the bishop, which specifies the agreed area of ministry. This is certainly the case for Readers/LLMs (of which I am one!) There are rural dioceses which have stipendiary Readers. I have no idea what the arrangements are for that.

      The notable well-known case of a clergyman taking the bishop and ‘church’ (presumably actually the diocese) to court for something similar to constructive dismissal (actually a failure to support him against his own parishoners who were allegedly bullying him) is that of Mark Sharpe. He lost in the Court of Appeal.

    2. Sorry, no. It was a while ago. Seven or eight years ago I think, female judge.

    3. Dear Alan,

      (First ~ Thank you David W for the name.)

      You will easily find the background to the case thanks to the wonder of “Google”. May I suggest that an approach to “Unite” might be a better tack? I sense from your replies that you may well be appropriately qualified. Also, please keep in your mind’s eye the influence of Non Disclosure Agreements.

      Stephen P might wish to suggest that this “conversation” is better undertaken on a different part of his excellent site. (We have strayed from the particulars of the “JS” case and Church membership) .

Comments are closed.