In a statement today (Thursday) the Archbishop of Canterbury has said ‘everyone who knew about the abuse perpetrated by the late John Smyth and failed to report it will be investigated by the National Safeguarding Team’.
This extract from the online story by Madeline Davies will be included in the printed version of the Church Times coming out tomorrow, Friday. On the face of it, these words have to be considered as fantasy because the number of people who knew about Smyth in the period between 1982 and 2012 number at least a hundred. The idea of any organisation investigating a hundred people without enormous resources of manpower and time is risible. But there is a further aspect to the statement by the Archbishop. Many of these presumed witnesses had been known to him personally both in his undergraduate years and later. He has moved close to these same circles for much of his ministry. He must have had at the very least a suspicion about who knew what, even if he had limited knowledge of the detail before he was properly briefed in 2013. Since that revelation in 2013, it must have hung heavily upon him as a Christian that so many people he had once looked up to were among the colluders and bystanders for one who did so much evil and caused so much pain. The pain was not just physical; the actions reverberated right through the networks of loyalty and friendship that bound the constituencies of evangelicals together. The con evo group which had protected Smyth and his crimes for over 30 years has successfully kept its silence. Is a promise of an investigation now, forty years on, going to undo any of the damage that the silence had so dramatically prolonged?
The full investigation announced by the Archbishop today, together with his full personal apology to the victims of John Smyth, is additional to the Makin enquiry. This latter is now a full 12 months behind schedule. The report is believed to have turned out to be a long way from completion and we are unlikely to see anything during this calendar year 2021. Even if people are now revealing what they know to Keith Makin, this information has been proving difficult to acquire. The code of silence and fear that we noted in the Fletcher enquiry seems to be routine in the con-evo circles that Smyth occupied. Assuming a successful completion of the Makin report, we would hope to see the full story revealed by this time next year. What will it show? It will probably show that numbers of people had some inkling that something was amiss, but it was not in their paygrade or their responsibility to do anything about it. Meanwhile considerable sums of money, from private charitable trusts run by the Colman family, were spent on allowing Smyth to take up a post in Zimbabwe and then South Africa where he was free to groom and abuse young men once again. We must never forget the fate of Guide Nyachuru, whose death should hang heavy on the consciences of all who facilitated the departure of Smyth to Africa.
We need to return to the Archbishop’s statement once more. It is breath-taking in its implications. If everyone who knew Smyth and was in some position to disclose comes to a total of 100 individuals, where are the resources to come from to make this kind of enquiry? We are not just talking about individuals here and there, we are also talking about entire institutions which were deeply implicated in the story. There are many stories of corporate failure to add that of individuals. Just to list the institutions implicated in the Smyth story, we have quite a formidable group. We have the Titus/Iwerne trustees, Winchester College, Scripture Union and the entire REFORM network at the time. There are also several large parishes where the Iwerne influence was strong. There is also the question of the funding bodies that enabled the Zambezi Mission to come into being. The full story of what John Smyth did overseas has yet to be told. Are there institutions in Zimbabwe and South Africa to be investigated for enabling his activities? How does one set up enquiries into so many groups and organisations? The obvious answer is that it is impossible.
When we come to the individuals who knew, or may have suspected, that something was seriously wrong, we are dealing with quite a large group of current leaders in the con evo world. Obviously, many of them were extremely young at the time but we need to hear directly from them. Hugh Palmer, the former Vicar of All Souls Langham Place, is named in some accounts as knowing the events of the past around Smyth. The slightly younger generation of leaders, like William Taylor, need to come forward and tell everything they knew. Silence is not the same as ignorance. Silence may indicate complicity at the least. It is hard to imagine that a one-time chairman of the Iwerne Trust was allowed to disappear without any discussion or comment. One would like to know more about the relationship between Jonathan Fletcher and John Smyth. Fletcher’s silence about his own alleged misconduct is perhaps typical of the culture of the con evo world. If that is not in fact a repeated pattern right across the network, then we need to hear more from the current leaders. They need to speak frankly and openly about what they knew. If they do not, then their reputations and their place in the history books will be much diminished. The public will assume complicity in a massive event where because of silence, abuse and sadistic cruelty were permitted to flourish.
In naming some of the institutions which have some corporate responsibility for the scandals of John Smyth, I realise that, in the secular world, a scandal of this dimension would require resignations and real accountability to be shown. So far, as others have commented, not a single church person has lost a job or been officially reprimanded for the appalling failures for which the Archbishop is now apologising. What seems to be happening now, as before, is that in the face of scandals and past misdeeds of church members, nothing is ever done to make a difference, apart from a wringing of hands and expressions of regret. Individuals have failed, but I feel the greater crime has been the corporate one. I do not know what it is like to be a part of one of the named institutions which has manifestly covered up immorality and crime. It must, in fact, be appalling to be guilty of knowing dark secrets and having done nothing to bring them to light. The names of the wealthy trustees of the mission charity supporting Smyth in Africa are well known, but they have never come forward, as far as I know, to reveal their part in the drama or express regret for it.
I wish that it were possible for the NST to do this gargantuan task. It cannot and will not. Perhaps the promise to do something impossible is a ploy aimed at calming, temporarily, the anger of all those who have suffered at the hands of John Smyth. I end my somewhat angry rant about the Archbishop’s statement without any clear suggestions for what can be done to resolve the promise of something which is impossible to do. Perhaps on his return from sabbatical, the Archbishop should help the situation by setting up a response to the Smyth scandal which is possible to accomplish in such a way that would help survivors.
The Archbishop’s statement today, reported on national TV I noticed, gave the appearance of being a “holding statement”, that is one designed to give the impression “we’re doing something about it” whilst not doing anything much to help.
The deeds of Smyth and his extensive network are regularly discussed in various media. Whilst silence is exasperating for the survivors, those complicit have nothing to gain but plenty more to lose by further investigations and disclosures. So expect more silence and more delays.
With respect, I don’t think there is any real basis for your pessimistic final sentence. Keith Makin’s report is due to be published in the next few months. Its terms of reference were very wide, to include a full detailed chronology and executive summary. There is an enormous amount of ground to cover. The abuse largely occurred 40 years ago, but ‘developments’ of one kind or another have continued since – several as recently as 2020.
The Archbishop gave an undertaking today that the report will be disclosed and published in unedited form. I don’t think there are any grounds for suggesting that anyone is dragging their feet, or will do so. Mr Makin is both highly qualified and independent.
I am told on good authority by someone who is an occasional contributor to ‘Surviving Church’ that Mr Makin is also extremely thorough. His report will not make happy reading, but we should keep an open mind and wait to see it and read it.
Of course I’d be delighted to be wrong Rowland, and wish I shared your optimism.
Looking at the trajectory of the Smyth case, emerging and being concealed like movements of the tide over many decades, it is hard for me to see the landscape changing too quickly.
I’m sure those working on this will be thorough, but the ability to remain silent is a valuable one for those with plenty to lose by further disclosures. The passage of time allows those who were involved to slip away. I’m tempted to cite the recent Bashir case, but that’s probably for another day.
With affectionate respect, Rowland, you don’t know the problems. I do.
The U.K. has a greater chance of winning Eurovision than Keith Makin has of delivering his report for publication on time.
Actually Keith Makin has a better chance of winning Eurovision than delivering his report on time now ++Justin has moved the goalposts.
I’m not surprised, but for probably different reasons: the sheer quantity of material he has to deal with which I anticipated at the outset when I read the original terms of reference, the disruption caused by the Covid pandemic and the fresh material which has continued to pour in ever since.
I at least met Smyth at about the time he was abusing in or near Winchester, and have a vivid memory of him – 50 years later! At that time a respected barrister he would have been the last person one would suspect of being a serial abuser. He was later a QC at age 37 and a Recorder, the most apparently ‘respectable’ person possible. I’m familiar with the scene of his crimes, although I believe he departed to Africa just before my time as one of the organists at the church literally next door. I have read the Coltart report and everything else in the public domain (also some private knowledge which I did not at the time have any reason to associate with Smyth). Interestingly in 1981 the then Bishop of Winchester rejected Smyth as a candidate for ordination. That decision pre-dates the Ruston report. Of course there could be any number of possible reasons, but it’s just one salient fact which never gets mentioned in the mountain of public comments. There is very much more, of course, and I don’t have access to private documents or sources of information which you imply have been available to you. I have been relying, perhaps optimistically, on the Makin report putting everything into a correct, factual and historical context – the all-important chronology which you and I both know as the basic and essential tool as a starting-point in dealing with cases of abuse.
Approaching my 80th birthday shortly I hope to live long enough to see this saga through. Sadly, a dear friend and staunch supporter of Bishop Bell did not live to see the Carlile report. He would have been utterly dismayed by the subsequent cowardly and unconscionable Church leadership’s stance of the ‘cloud hanging over’. I share Stephen Parsons’ doubts that the NST would fare any better in the present matter or, in fairness to him, perhaps that should read whether they can possibly do the job on any reasonable timescale, and one can further ask what authority do they have over anyone other than C of E personnel?
Lord Asquith’s advice: “Wait and see”, but I had hoped for better than ad infinitum!
I can’t say that any aspect of this causes optimism. I think the real point is that for the NST to potentially interview 100 or more people starting from scratch is simply a non-starter as Stephen states above. It just isn’t realistic, nor is it clear that the NST possesses authority in relation to all of those people. But by now Keith Makin has, one hopes, already covered much of this ground. Duplicating his work seems frankly ill thought-out.
We were promised that the Makin report would be published this year. If for any reason that is no longer the case, the C of E must say so, and explain why.
I recall John Wimber once saying that when a Christian leader falls into sin, the wider and more far-reaching his influence had been, the wider and more far-reaching the response should be. It seems like a good principle to me.
A Iwerne chorus has been on my mind a lot this spring – There’s a way back to God from the dark paths of sin / There’s a door that is open and you may begin / At Calvary’s cross is where you begin / When you come as a sinner to Jesus. Those murderers Moses, David and Paul all had another chance. Jeremiah 33 verse one for ever!
A genius chorus – the simple tune is cleverly written with rises and falls at the appropriate words. The shorter the space (4 lines) the more clever one has to be at communicating the intended message precisely. There’s a lot jammed into those 4 lines, and no chorus sums up the mission of Iwerne better (though NB At The Cross of Jesus; My Sheep Hear My Voice; Cleanse Me From My Sin, Lord) – nor indeed indicates its roots in the 1930s better.
EH Swinstead RA who penned it was a leading artist. The others of his choruses that have made an impact include Out There Among The Hills My Saviour Died; Do You Need A Pilot? – and NB his fine less-well-known tune for At Calvary in Sacred Songs and Solos.
For those who want to ponder the words quoted by David, there’s one slight slip: 2nd line is ‘…and you may go in’.
I can only vouch for the truth and relevance of the message of this chorus and the doctrinal & practical summary it contains.
Conservative evangelicals, in my experience, usually believe in the Calvinist doctrine of election. There are variants of this doctrine, but many who hold it believe that once saved, it’s impossible to be lost, no mater what you do. A corollary (often felt but not explicitly stated) is that you know who the elect are by their ‘sound’ doctrine.
Does anyone know how widespread these views are within the Iwerne/Smyth/Fletcher circle? And if they are widespread, what effect might they have when it comes to owning up to sin in their midst? In theory, theologically speaking, it should have no effect. But people who are used over many years to considering themselves among the Elect, specially chosen by God, tend to have a certain ‘them and us’ mindset. This was reflected in David Banting’s comment to me that, ‘There have to be rules, so we know who’s in and who’s out.’ If I and all my associates are ‘in’, how do I admit that our leaders and teachers have done evil and there’s something rotten in our whole culture?
When I was at Sussex University, the CU President for one year was Peter Lineham. Peter was doing his PhD in 18th century religious and social history. He returned from a conference for CU presidents (all male in those days) saying that you understood evangelical culture when in a room full of CU presidents fervently sining ‘A Debtor to Mercy Alone’!
For those who don’t know it, here are the words read by an actor. They amply illustrate the mindset I was trying to describe in my comment above. The tune we always sang it to was a David Evans one in the minor key. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SaAvkedWtxc
The tune is “Trewen”: https://tinyurl.com/yh9rasz9
Thank you, Andrew! There are several renditions on YouTube, but mostly to different tunes.
I still like ‘Trewen’, though nowadays I’m uneasy with the words. In any case I don’t think I’ve sung it, or heard it sung, for around 40 years. Possibly longer.
As an aside, my father attended Westminster Chapel as a young man. In the days when G. Campbell Morgan was pastor and Martyn Lloyd-Jones his assistant, Lloyd-Jones preached one Sunday morning on the impossibility of a systematic theology. That evening Lloyd-Jones preached on the necessity of a systematic theology! Nowadays I’m with Campbell Morgan.
I wonder whether this is seen too glibly as an either/or. It is true *both* that we cannot give a full systematic account of how God is (or of how things are from a divine perspective) *and* that we cannot say anything at all or even study at all unless on the basis of some worldview or systematic understanding, and also that systematic understandings of this nature can be tested in two important ways: (a) how self-consistent they are and free from self-contradiction; (b) how well they match up to empirical data. *Preference* for the messy over the neat or vice versa can be merely psychological.
My father said he was a Calvinist because it was the most logically consistent form of Christianity. Which is ironic, since his own life was notably inconsistent and messy. He also had no understanding of symbols, in which he was more Zwinglian.
I started out with a Calvinist theology and point of view, but found it unable to support the messy realities of life and my own spiritual experiences. I also think it doesn’t give sufficient room for the remarkable love and grace of God.
Of course there are plenty of good and godly Calvinists, as there are good and godly Arminians, Anglo-Catholics, open evangelicals, charismatics, etc. But in a blog which focuses on power, it’s worth reflecting on which theologies seem most readily to give rise to abuses and damage.
The shortcomings of Calvinism speak against Calvinism only, not against the principle of being systematic. Systematic just means interconnected, and the only alternative to being interconnected is to fail in joined-up thinking – which is a backwards step. (Think: Nick Clegg wanting more efforts on mental health *and* more legalisation of cannabis.)
However it is probably true that Calvinists are more guilty on average of wanting everything to be cut and dried, since the Institutes is more like a legal code than is the average systematic theology.
Yes, I shouldn’t have confused the two.
I’m reminded of Alister McGrath’s lecture on the Trinity as part of our Systematics course at Wycliffe. He drew on the chalkboard a diagram of an iceberg, with only the top 10% showing above the waterline. Pointing to the 90% underwater, he said, ‘This is what you need to know to pass the Systematics exam.’ Then, indicating the top 10%, ‘This is what you need to know in the parish.’ And finally, ‘There is no overlap between the two.’
I’m a practical and pastoral theologian; abstract theories don’t interest me, on the whole. Nor did Systematics.
Yes – though I always wonder where does the grounding come from for pastoral and practical matters if not from some underlying interconnected understanding.
In fact, that seems to be exactly what Alister McGrath was saying – the whole thing is the same iceberg, and the 10 percent above the surface, in order to be well-grounded and well-founded, is undergirded by (in fact, an organic unity with) the 90 percent, just you just don’t show that upholstery to the parishioners.
Why not?
Left to myself I would show it, but I am just trying to interpret Alister McGrath’s ‘no overlap’ comment.
The complexity of British evangelicalism is seen in the comments here. The chorus quoted by David sums up the kind of evangelicalism which led me to faith. It is honest about the fact of sin and the need for salvation – a need met by God on Calvary. (NB no particular atonement model specified here!) This offer of salvation is inclusive – all are invited and may accept the offer. This leads to a new start in life.
This is of course Arminian Evangelicalism – but I did not know it was called that or that there was any other sort when I responded in faith to that presentation of the Gospel aged 13.
The problem with the Calvinist form is that it contradicts the inclusive vision of the chorus by invoking the notion of the elect – and as Janet says – by assuming it knows who they are!
Oh dear, this sounds like the “Light is particles!”, “No, it’s not, its waves!” debate. Both declaring that their way negates the other. There is a profound paradox in the freedom of Faith and yet the sovereignty of Divine Grace, which we shall not be able to resolve this side of glory (if ever) but can we live with each other without knocking the ‘other’ side down?
Good point, and good simile! I did smile at Charles’ model of atonement comment!
“They need to speak frankly and openly about what they knew…. The public will assume complicity in a massive event where because of silence, abuse and sadistic cruelty were permitted to flourish”.
This commonly expressed view misses the fundamental point. What it means for the leaders concerned to take responsibility is not for them “to speak frankly and openly about what they knew”; instead, they need to explain why they did not see themselves as being complicit “in a massive event where because of silence, abuse and sadistic cruelty were permitted to flourish”. They were complicit, not because of their silence, but because they were not persuaded that there was anything wrong about what they knew was going on, even if they may not have been an active part of it.
I note that Canon Simon Manchester, successor of Fletcher in the 1980’s, is now being reported as saying that he has only been blessed by Fletcher’s friendship and ministry. Then let him speak not so much frankly and openly about what he knew, but as to why he was not persuaded otherwise.
Limitations on knowledge included:
(1) People simply not talking – hence some very central people being clueless about the events;
(2) Obeying biblical injunction not to gossip;
(3) JS saying ‘Don’t tell anyone – they might misunderstand’ (evil).
(4) People being dealt with by JS individually, or individually with the addition of the second perpetrator – in conjunction with (3).
(5) Embarrassment, leading to silence.
(6) Following through the official resolve not to compound the misery of victims and the misery of families by dragging things out.
The fact that some people got a lot of good from Fletcher isn’t the point, is it? Life is complicated, people are complex. When someone is an abuser, people shouldn’t think you can cancel it out by accumulating enough good on the other side of the scale. They’re an abuser. They won’t stop being one by some people saying “They didn’t do it to me”! Ok. Good. Does that mean it didn’t happen to someone else?
In a statement today (Thursday) the Archbishop of Canterbury has said ‘everyone who knew about the abuse perpetrated by the late John Smyth and failed to report it will be investigated by the National Safeguarding Team’.
Am I the only one who wonders if Justin Welby will be required to say what he knew or suspected, if anything, during his time as a dormitory officer at Iwerne? Has he, in fact, already commented on, presumably, missing boys at many bed-times?
Many of us are wondering what Justin Welby knew. However, in most cases the abuse didn’t happen at Iwerne. It was the recruiting ground, but the beatings usually took place in Smyth’s garden shed. There was an exception; one of the worst beatings did occur at Iwerne.
I haven’t heard about boys being missing at bedtimes.
Supplementing Janet’s response (which is also my understanding about the locations of the abuse in England), these kinds of questions are only answered by (1) careful independent investigation; (2) the investigator receiving frank and truthful answers; (3) coordinating results in a strict chronology and an executive summary. Keith Makin was charged to do these things two years ago, but we are now told that publication of his report is likely to be further delayed.
No 2 of the above list is, of course, a tall order and it can never be assumed that it will happen.
I’m afraid there have been many speculative comments about what did or did not happen both in England and at the African end of things which simply don’t even stand up to the limited presently-known chronology. Let’s hope that Mr Makin’s report, when it eventually appears, will rectify all this. Putting my head on the block, I have to say that I have more faith in his independence than the track-record of the NST, and it’s also unclear to me how the NST can investigate lay or other non-C of E people.
Yes some of the non C of E people are leaders of other churches in the UK and beyond. You would hope that they would want to co-operate for truth to shown.
His son PJ Smyth had a senior role in Newfrontiers Churches and a oversight role of several UK churches – though he seems to have stepped down in the last couple of months. Also on this page is Stephen van Rhyn who was reported as being a trustee of John Smyth’s South African organisation in 2017.
compare March 2021
https://web.archive.org/web/20210304082955/https://newfrontierstogether.org/apostolic-leaders/
with
https://newfrontierstogether.org/apostolic-leaders/
You say “Yes some of the non C of E people are leaders of other churches in the UK and beyond. You would hope that they would want to co-operate for truth to shown.”
That seems to me a very optimistic, even unrealistic, hope if it resulted in exposing themselves as complicit in the “cover-up”. Of course there might be genuine repentance. But as the relevant events in England occurred between 40 and 50 years ago, potential witnesses here are going to be in the age-group 60-70 at youngest. In fact exact contemporaries of Smyth would now be very close to age 80 or over. I seriously wonder whether people, including the Archbishop, have thought these things through.
I’m not at all sure that the NST can, or should, attempt to investigate in Africa, and, in fairness to him, I don’t think the Archbishop intended that.
and it now looks like PJ Smyth has been scrubbed from other newfrontiers websites.
I wonder if any public statement will be made. Newfrontiers thinks of itself as a pure church and is generally able to escape any public scrutiny that the C of E gets. I’ve listened to many sermons about how they are recreating an authentic new testament church with none of the problems of the established churches.
They’re not still peddling that line? I went to the first Downs Bible Week with a group from my church, in the days when they were into shepherding. I note the history on their website doesn’t mention their early association with Bryn Jones et al; Terry Virgo always seemed to me the most sensible and human of the then ‘apostles’. But their effect on our church was divisive, as it was in so many others.
I don’t think their arrogance is justified.