This morning, Wednesday 8th, the safeguarding organisation, thirtyone:eight, published its review on the culture of the Titus Trust. It is a lengthy document and, given the fact that we have only had a few hours since it was published, I can be forgiven for not attempting to comment on the entire review. Rather, I focus on certain points within it. The word that came to me as I was reading the early sections, was the word claustrophobia. This might sum my overall feeling of what the report reveals of the past and present culture of Titus Trust and its previous incarnation as the Iwerne Trust. It is not a word that appears anywhere in the review, but it seems to describe well what many may have had to suffer through membership of this organisation. The overall theological and social culture of Titus is not one that is obviously attractive to the outsider.
A single sentence (p 43) sums up the sameness and suffocating environment that I would have found painful if I had ever been a participant at a Titus camp. ‘Leaders and staff are encouraged to have the same theology, which is reinforced by the churches and church culture the Trust is linked with’. Such a statement suggests to me a version of Christianity which, because it is fixed, is unlikely to have much in the way of flexibility or adaptability when problems are encountered. Members of staff are required to ‘share the Conservative Evangelical convictions of the Titus Trust, as set out in the Trust’s Doctrinal Basis.’ The application form for a post in the organisation has twelve questions to be answered about their Christian commitment. In some ways I have no problem with someone choosing to believe that Jonah spent time inside a whale and that Bible is united in its testimony to condemn same-sex marriage. I am however disturbed to think that impressionable young people of 16+ are being required to assert that no one can become a Christian unless they hold to such beliefs. Apparently according to the reviewers, the word ‘sound’ still circulates widely in Titus circles. It is described as the ‘particular theology of camp.’ Only if you are sound can you be entrusted with leading prayers in camp or seeking any kind of responsibility. Talks, even by junior leaders of experience, have to be monitored and assessed for their soundness, in case some heterodox opinion has been allowed to creep in. As with the thirtyone:eight review of Emmanuel Wimbledon and the ministry of Jonathan Fletcher, a strong sense of fear seems to be present in this task of identifying what is sound and what is beyond acceptable belief. The fear of saying or believing the wrong thing must constantly haunt these young people, whether teachers or learners.
The review gives some space to what happens to Titus campers who fall foul of the strict requirement for doctrinal conformity of belief. Individuals are first exhorted to submit to leaders or be declared as ‘unsound’. To have this single word used against you is the equivalent to an act of ostracism. The individual is deemed to have ‘gone cold’ or ‘moved on from the gospel’. In a social grouping with the intensity of the Titus camps, this kind of exclusion tactic must be felt with terrifying intensity. Most of those who have questions, especially those who are discriminated against by the culture for simply being women, will simply give up the struggle to interrogate authority. The review does acknowledge that this vexed question of women in leadership has been in part addressed by Titus in recent years. Women are now entering some positions of responsibility, though it seems that the leadership has not yet shed its fundamental complementarian stance.
The Titus personnel who become most fully enmeshed in what Bash, the founder called the ‘deep work’ are those who are working up the ranks to become camp leaders. For many, the recognition of achieving this rank or ministry is a path to leadership in the wider church beyond the camps. These individuals are selected for year-round training at courses organised by the Proclamation Trust, Cornhill or Wycliffe Hall. These may occur over weekends or the New Year. The camps and the extra trainings offered become an all-year activity, but those involved see it as part of a vocational offering to God. Some of those giving sacrificial amounts of time to the cause of evangelising young people do suffer exhaustion, but there seems little support being offered by those in charge.
In the Titus Camps, the climax of camp work undertaken by the junior leaders, is the ‘camp chat’ with the young campers. This involves asking deeply personal questions connected to the faith of their young charges. The hope is that camper is ready to make some personal commitment to Christ at a climax point in the week. Then they are required to accept an ongoing relationship of mentoring from the junior leader. This mentoring relationship being sought, may be between two individuals with perhaps a bare five year difference in age. It is not free of potential problems, not least those concerned with safeguarding. A further problem is that the young charge might regard this mentoring relationship as one more attaching him/her to the Titus Trust, rather than to God. In one memorable phrase, someone interpreted the process as being initiated into a ‘Titus bubble’.
The year-round oversight of successfully converted Titus campers was felt by some to be an attempt to turn individuals into Titus ‘types’. They were expected to behave in a certain way, dress in a particular way, go to the right (approved) churches and attend the right conferences. They were also expected to smile a lot and always be happy. This attempt to make Titus alumni conform to a type eventually palled for some, and was felt to be a drag of the spontaneity and creativity of the individual. The culture and authority of the camp was still trying to keep a tight grip on the convert. If one wanted to swap a church for another one, one’s soundness would be called into question. Charismatic churches were, typically, no-go areas for Titus people. Rules over marriage were in force and future brides were expected to come under the covering of Titus rules. One individual who broke away from the tentacles of Titus wrote as follows. ‘As I have removed myself from the culture, I have come to realise more and more the freedom of not being part of it…. That I don’t need to change myself to be who they want me to be’. Another wrote ‘it wasn’t a place where people are people… I’m really valuable and everybody has that.’
The thirtyone:eight review of the culture of the Titus Trust of course says in its 148 pages many valuable and interesting things. While the review is trying to help Titus to reform its practices and culture, I have, perhaps unfairly, focussed on the description or aspects of its culture that I find the most alarming. It is there that I see the fostering of a culture of coercion and conformity that is far closer to the cults than anything resembling the glorious liberty of the sons of God. That to me is the real challenge for Titus. Are they able to foster in their organisation a sense of freedom rather than appearing to stifle it in the name of an orthodoxy and conformity which has lost all sense of joy and newness?
Thanks for letting me know that the report is released. I’m on my way to download it, but regarding your penultimate paragraph: what period are we talking about for “Titus ‘Types’ … expected to behave in a certain way, dress in a particular way, go to the right (approved) churches and attend the right conferences”? Is this the ’80s, ’90s or before?
The ‘types’ are contemporary as far as I can see. Make your own assessment when you have read the text. I can’t give you a page ref at present but it is in the first part of the review!
Thanks Stephen. Thoughtfully written.
I found myself contemplating the book of Jonah which you refer to. Sometimes I think the book is a factual account. At other times I wonder if it is a tall story that I should not take seriously – even the cows are wearing sackcloth by the end! I seem to oscillate in my opinion between these views.
The question here is, what is the genre of this piece of writing?
For me, the issue in the book is the character of Jonah himself, a skilled evangelist who loved God (presumably) but who did not want the people of Nineveh to respond to his message and be saved. A complex person indeed.
Notice, I don’t need to decided about the historicity of the story to appreciate its message.
As you point out, it is better for me to have the freedom to have my own opinion than to have to sign up to someone else’s view. I prefer it that way.
I think that behind a good number of strong dogmatic assertions in Christian circles is fear; if we give way on this seemingly minor point, what are we opening the door to? What slippery slope lies beyond it?
I don’t have any doubt that the Bible is the word of God myself but as to exactly what that means, I don’t want to be pushed. Let’s have room to breathe!
I feel sorry for the ones that had to come down on one side or the other or risk rejection. Is it really a central issue?
another day another report.
Wade Mullen’s report into PJ Smyth conduct has led to him being told to step down from his overall leadership role in Advance (Newfrontiers sphere). This a big deal as in Newfrontiers he was held as having apostolic leadership and held in very high regard.
Additinally this gives additional information into what happened in Africa with John Smyth and PJ’s interactions that I hadn’t seen in the recent book.
link from Lee Furney.
https://soulinformation.org/pj-smyth-investigation
A very significant document. I have only read 17 of the 66 pages so far, but page 17 contains the startling information in a letter written by John Smyth’s solicitor in Zimbabwe that by the end of 1993 John Smyth had “left the Anglican Church”. The Bishop in Zimbabwe was informed.
There was much furore when Archbishop Justin questioned (in 2017, I think) whether Smyth was “even an Anglican”, but here is some support for that doubt.
But, surely, this must end all the speculation about the C of E’s failures in 2013 to forewarn the church in Africa. They were already in possession of the facts.
I live in hope that the Makin report, when it eventually appears, will give us an accurate history and an objective assessment of this entire matter.
PJ Smyth’s interesting personal communication (son of John Smyth) given on September 17 2021, and quoted in the Wade Mullen assessment:
‘I was also aware of the corporal punishment that my father used on the Zambesi Ministries camps. Heavily influenced by my father, and the culture I grew up in, I never considered it to be abusive, and to my regret didn’t take seriously those who considered it was abusive. I did try to confront my father once, but acquiesced.
I am sorry to the UK victims for not believing the reports and my lack of inquisitiveness. I am sorry to the Zimbabwe victims for my lack of appreciation of their painful reality. I have recently come to a painful awareness that my father abused me significantly when I was young, and maintained an abusive control over me for much of my adult life. I hope that I will have opportunity at some stage to connect with you, learn from you, and empathize with you.
With what I am learning from mental health professionals, I believe that a combination of natural memory loss over decades, and the trauma I am carrying, has caused me to bury and distort memories within this traumatic life-theme of me and my dad. I am now on a journey to discover, confront, and learn to live with my memories.’
How painful and powerful the life time implications of growing up with this culture of coercive control and with this abusive father …
Absolutely and I feel sorry for him.
Unfortunately in PJ Smyth it changed his ministry and influenced what he said. The online pamphlet about the physical chastisement of children was referenced to when I was part of a UK church and we were encouraged to do the same when we became parents. The report talks about secondary victims – maybe many more could be described as tertiary or quaternary ones.
I do wonder about those leaders who worked and trained in close quarters with people like Jonathan Fletcher. It must be hard to unpack and work which parts of what you learnt were not good. How many former leaders from Iwerne went away and copied his method of formal harsh public rebuking believing it to be beneficial.
So sad.
https://www.advancemovement.com/2021/12/09/update-on-pj-smyth/
and quite rightly PJ Smyth has been required to step down from church leadership …
The right thing to do, but I don’t see in the Advance statement any indication of whether they are supporting PJ, or any concern for how he might earn a living and pay for his therapy. The discipline is appropriate, but so would be concern for his welfare as a victim of John Smyth.
It’s a complicated situation where a victim of abuse also perpetuates the abuse to some extent, or minimises it and partakes in cover-up. It’s also more difficult to obtain redress and compensation for those abused by parents.
I hope all involved in this tragic situation find support and healing.
I hope PJ does get some financial support and that it doesn’t come with a NDA attached.
This may depend on how much money Advance has to distribute. Typically Newfrontiers churches are independent in terms of finances but they tithe to the central organisation.
When Terry Virgo stepped down from leading Newfrontiers the central organisation around him was wound down and I think the assets distributed to the successor organisations “apostolic spheres” (dioceses in CoE speak) of which Advance is one. – It would interesting whether they support will come from other spheres apart from Advance after all it is reported that Terry Virgo made the initial recommendation of PJ that his initiated his move from South Africa to Washington.
I wonder how widely this wave will ‘ripple’ in evangelical circles? I suspect that many evangelical organisations should come close to the accusation of having behaved abusively in a variety of ways over the years and it would be good to see them being held to account. I personally believe that the way I was treated by the Church Mission Society when working with them was a form of spiritual abuse – though CMS has never been willing to acknowledge that.
A minor point: is the idea of ‘choosing to believe’ something coherent?
To believe is to think that something is likely (considerably more than 50% likely) to be true. That is a matter of judgment not of choice. Things will not become any truer by people’s ‘choosing’ to believe them.
Christopher: on what do you base a judgment that Jonah did actually spend time inside a whale? What would make that considerably more than 50% likely to be a fact?
The Hebrew dag gadol should be translated big fish rather than whale. There is a difference. It perhaps makes the story less hard to swallow!
Of course, but that doesn’t change the point that Christopher is making, or my question to him.
You seem to have deduced that I have made ‘a judgment that Jonah actually did spend time inside a whale’. I cannot imagine how you come to that conclusion based on anything I actually said, and success in debate is proportional to attention to what people have said. As David said, genre analysis is always the key.
Christopher: I have deducted no such thing, and that’s why I am asking for clarification. It is important, as you say, to pay attention to what is actually said. What Stephen said is “ In some ways I have no problem with someone choosing to believe that Jonah spent time inside a whale…”. You then questioned whether choosing to believe was a coherent position. You said “To believe is to think that something is likely (considerably more than 50% likely) to be true. That is a matter of judgment not of choice.” Now people clearly do believe that Jonah spent time in a large fish. You may or may not believe that, and I am sure you will not tell us clearly one way or another. But that is not my question. Read my question carefully. On what do you base a judgment that Jonah did actually spend time inside a large fish? What would make that considerably more than 50% likely to be a fact?
It’s very clear to me that the story of Jonah is a myth. Genre is indeed the key. But many evangelicals of the Titus Trust ‘type’ would judge me unsound for suggesting such a thing, as Stephen points out. I am interested in your answer Christopher because of your sympathies for all of Iwerne, Bash, the Titus Trust and so on.
That’s actually a very significant question, given that in abuse cases there often isn’t forensic or 3rd party eye witness testimony.
I suppose we look at context; has it happened to someone else; is there a pattern of behaviour; motivation?
A pertinent question one would want to ask, with the Titus Trust obsession in establishing “Soundness”, I wounder if their approach could be just as much a departure from Orthodoxy as the Liberalism they decry, and with the Catholic claims of the Church of England, their approach could be considered both very Un Catholic and very Un Anglican?
Jonathan
I don’t think that would worry them. They would be more concerned that their approach is biblical, which they consider it to be – but the use of the Bible is selective.
Having said that, the Book of Common Prayer is very Protestant, if you read the Preface and Articles, and many conservative evangelicals would argue that they are the true Anglicans. Certainly Gordon Rideout, who was a trustee of Church Society, did so.
“the use of the Bible is selective” – e.g.?
E.g. preaching the texts which would appear to support the Substitutionary Atonement Theory of the work of Jesus, but not Bible passages such as the Parable of the Sheep and the Goats and the book of James, which might tend to support the ”social gospel’. There are many other examples, such as the exclusion of women from leadership roles despite New Testament evidence for female leaders in the early Church.