On Friday 3 April the Titus Trust has released a statement following a settlement with three survivors of John Smyth. The blog has frequently written about the case of John Smyth and his abusive behaviour and this is the subject of a new review by Keith Makin.
I do not propose to go back over all the material about John Smyth as the interested reader can find all the details of the case in earlier blogs on this site and elsewhere. What I wish to write about is the distorted manner in which the Trustees have presented their perspective on the case. The full text of their statement and Andrew Graystone’s response can be found on Thinking Anglicans website. https://www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/titus-trust-john-smyth-and-jonathan-fletcher/#comments
After a platitudinous expression of regret, the Trustees go on to speak of the ‘emergence of details’ about the abuse by John Smyth and Jonathan Fletcher. To speak in this generalised way without any date affixed is a misleading fudge. Some of the Trustees conceivably may not have known about the scandal before 2012 when the first survivor made a formal complaint. It is absolutely certain that others in the group would have known of Smyth’s activities for decades before that. The Trustees have always been chosen from a fairly small network of churchmen and women clustered around St Helen’s Bishopsgate, St Ebbe’s Oxford, the Round Church in Cambridge and All Souls Langham Place. As far as those of us outside this group, now called ReNew Constituency, can tell, information would have flowed freely within this network, particularly among the more senior members. The original report written about Smyth and published confidentially in 1982, did, we know, circulate among many of the prominent members. The initials of senior figures in the network who led the enquiry were named within the document. Although we do not now know exactly who knew what and when, large sums of money were raised and spent to keep Smyth in Africa for the 35+ years before his death. It is hard to see how tens of thousands of pounds were spent without some information being shared among the leaders of what was then the closely entwined Church Society and REFORM. I am thus forced to conclude that this absence of a date may well be a ploy that is meant to confuse the reader. It allows him/her to believe that information about John Smyth’s crimes was unknown when in fact for some this was old information that had been circulating around among the leaders of these groups for a very long time.
The second apparent attempt to manipulate the truth is a reference to work done by the Titus Trustees and thirtyone:eight, the independent child protection organisation. This group has a good reputation for understanding the issues around abuse. No doubt the training given was valuable to the Trustees. But what are we to make of the sentence including the words ‘receiving training in pastoral care and supporting survivors of abuse’? The natural implication of the sentence is that the Titus Trustees went out to search for Smyth victims and offer them support and pastoral care. My contacts with one or two of these survivors tells me that there is no evidence that this was done. If pastoral care was not shown to any of these victims, to whom was the pastoral care to be shown? The recently concluded financial settlement was not undertaken with any pastoral dimension in evidence. Indeed, the three survivors mentioned in the statement have had to fight over several years. Titus has ended up spending a fortune on lawyers, far exceeding anything paid to survivors. The evidence for huge expenditure on legal fees is found in their published accounts as a registered charity.
A third area of concern over the Titus statement concerns the reference to an ‘internal cultural review’. It then impressively refers to a future ‘independent Cultural Review’. The traditional secrecy of the Titus Trustees over the years, and, before them, the Iwerne Trustees, does not bode well for such a cultural examination. Are they going to speak to the abused survivors to find what they think of the culture, past and present? Are they going to subject to examination the highly contentious theology used by John Smyth to justify pain and violence as being part of Christian discipleship? I have read some of the source documents used by Smyth and frankly they are toxic, especially when used by a sociopathic Christian leader. A proper ‘cultural review’ would be one that was prepared to challenge this theology used by Smyth. What is to stop the poison of Smyth’s ideas appearing again unless they are properly understood? Every part of the network of interconnected groups, churches and individuals that interact and are linked to the Titus Trustees need also to be part of such a process. The convenient myth that each part of the ReNew constituency is independent of the other parts, works well when wishing to avoid responsibility for dreadful cover-ups over the decades. The name of Jonathan Fletcher was mentioned in the statement, but his abusive story is being relegated to a quite separate enquiry. As far as I can determine all the parts of the ReNew network adhere to the same harsh Calvinistic fundamentalism. Each part has to retain its place in the network by espousing the same ‘sound’ theology that calls itself orthodox Anglicanism.
The statement of the Titus Trustees ends by inviting those who have been part of their camps to comment and contribute to the forthcoming Cultural Review. What planet are they living on? Having fought an aggressive legal battle against three Smyth survivors to lessen financial liability, do Titus really expect others to come forward to be part of a safeguarding process run by them? Everything about this statement, including its timing in the middle of the pandemic, reeks of bad faith. The interested reader should read the comments by Andrew Graystone which are also to be found on the Thinking Anglicans website. We looked for clarity and honesty, the prelude to a new beginning. Instead we find dishonesty, fudge and manipulation of the truth. With Andrew, I call for the ‘Titus Trust to cease it activities immediately, and to disband.’ This statement is a disgrace and takes us no closer to a position of truth and justice.
This information has been sent to me by an anonymous but trusted source. It reveals further how truth was suppressed and distorted within this network. It points to a further link which I have not made in my piece -the link between Emmanuel Wimbledon, Jonathan Fletcher’s base and the Iwerne network.
For decades the files detailing Smyth’s abuse were stored in Giles Rawlinson’s attic. Giles was a senior lay leader at Emmanuel – effectively Jonathan Fletcher’s right hand man for decades. The man who refused to hand documents over to police until forced to remained a trustee of Titus Trust and was able to influence decisions for years after Iwerne rebranded itself as Titus Trust. His leadership of Cross Links also gave him a wide influence. It is striking that the safe space for hiding evidence about Smyth was felt to be an Emmanuel church attic
The 20th century evangelical revival is encapsulated in the figure of John Stott who was Bash’s protégé and cut his teeth in administration of the camps. He retained the character-formation and careful-biblical-study values of the camps. To these he added other Christian emphases – social reform (simultaneously with Tearfund and FestivalOfLight/CARE), women’s issues (working in close partnership with Elaine Storkey). He set up the Lausanne Movement, Langham Trust (to fund students from abroad and enable travel), National Evangelical Anglican Conference, Eclectics Society, London Institute of Contemporary Christianity; a curate founded Fountain Trust. Within the period of his ministry evangelicals turned from a despised minority into perhaps the largest Anglican contingent numerically and liable to be viewed as the most motivated. To this work we owe, to a great extent, the many thousands of individuals who have been nurtured in the churches pastored by members of the Eclectics and Iwerne alumni. The only other especially large/growing movement/change in this period is the Charismatic Renewal. This was initially headed up in the C of E by Eclectics and Iwerne alumni Harper, Green, Watson. Without Iwerne, we would have had none of this. Proportionally, it is an awful lot.
In terms of character formation, who could not admire those named together with David Sheppard, Oliver Barclay, Dick Knight, John Eddison?
I think others familiar with Iwerne (Antony Archer and David Pennant often comment) know and emphasise that it’s no secret that the organisation did and does much good, produces individuals of notably good character who are also happy and secure- as well as all of this spectacular success. There may be instances where (because they are so old fashioned) their ways are simply misunderstood or not recognised, and therefore viewed as alien when they are entirely well intentioned. The more successful a movement is (and, in a way, the better it is) the less cause there is to change the way things are done. One could (in the 1980s) walk through the doors of the camps and think: ‘Aha! So *this* was how it felt to be in the 1950s.’.
So it needs to be emphasised that the criticism which is rightly being levelled is levelled not at campers or staff but only at leadership. However, leadership are put in a quandary by the fact that (1) any large organisation will have its scandals by virtue of being large, (2) the media will milk even one scandal (and the present one was major not minor) for all it is worth – thereby perhaps causing the good done by the organisation (which may heavily outweigh the bad) to have to cease: a net loss, perhaps a substantial one. I don’t envy the leaders in that particular respect. They had hold of a sacred trust which they will not have wanted to betray. Otherwise I agree with what you write.
Christopher your ability to write instant triggers for survivors on a blog intended as a safe space, astounds me every time. For God’s sake do some online trauma-informed training! To say “There may be instances where (because they are so old fashioned) their ways are simply misunderstood or not recognised, and therefore viewed as alien when they are entirely well intentioned” when we’re talking about Smyth deliberately and statistically abusing people and using abusive theology to manipulate and coercively control, and when the Trust deliberately hid and chose to do nothing about it…words fail me.
My abuser, a National Youth Officer, did many good things for young people in his ministry. But that doesn’t lesson the impact of his rape and abuse of me, or the cover up by the Bishops when I first reported, and the vital importance of them all being held to account and changes made to protect in the future.
This is not a place to minimise or excuse abuse. Neither is it a question of maths, good doesn’t cancel out the bad. Perhaps some young people got some benefit from the Hitler Youth Movement camps. But we would never use that to argue that Hitler wasn’t so bad. Sheesh!
The quotation you made from me did not relate to Smyth. The point about the Hitler Youth Movement ( a startling thing to compare Iwerne camps to – but of course the comparison is on one point only, that there was one bad leader) is that they lasted a limited period of time, during all of which Hitler was present. Whereas the situation with Iwerne was completely different. Iwerne has had 35-40 years before Smyth and 35-40 years after Smyth. Which is (once again) my central point.
Christopher, the way you so frequently upset survivors and then refuse to apologise for the offence caused is not a very good advert for Iwerne training. It rather proves the points being made by Iwerne critics.
Simon Austen. Very evangelical, of course, not a monster, but anti women and a bit of a snob! Thought he was cleverer than me! 😁
Sorry, not clear. On account of my being female, I mean. I regard men who consider women automatically to be inferior as snobs.
English Athena’s comments are not registering. This is not censorship but some other fault. Keep trying EA!
No worries!
When I was involved in Iwerne first in 1979 as a school boy and then as a student in the 1980s, I remember singing this chorus: ‘At the Cross of Jesus pardon is complete/Love and justice mingle/Truth and mercy meet/Though my sins condemn me Jesus died instead/There is full forgiveness in the blood He shed.’
This is the doctrine of substitutionary atonement which the Book of Common Prayer presents with its ‘full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation and satisfaction for the sins of the whole world’ which Jesus Christ made on the Cross as ‘the propitiation for our sins’ (as the BCP’s Comfortable Words render 1 John 2v1).
If Smyth twisted this beautiful doctrine to justify abusing people made in the image of God, then that was an abuse of the evangelical message of the Cross which calls every Christian to love and serve other people in self-sacrificial ways.
For what it’s worth my own view is that Iwerne should have closed down in 1982 after the Ruston report and been replaced by a more modest work that would have supported Christian unions in boarding schools and run fun days and/or weekend conferences with biblical teaching rather than the full residential holidays which allowed Smyth (and as it later emerged Jonathan Fletcher) to groom victims.
I was at boarding school from the age of 8 to 18 and the institutional version of Christianity we got was not inspiring. When I was in the system, it would have been difficult for lively local churches to serve individuals incarcerated in these institutions, but a specialist para-church organisation accountable to the wider Church could have done it with a network of Christian teachers prepared to support it,
Substitutionary atonement is another path to go down another day, but I think it strays too far from the original post to take it.
Christopher I do hear what you say about all the good years not being cancelled out by the bad (if I have understood you correctly).
The point I was fumbling around, is I don’t think it’s about sums, or scales. I don’t think with something like this you can balance it out.
It’s more like sour milk or salt in your tea. The bad contaminates the good. No amount of sugar will make salty tea taste good again. Good milk added to sour will just turn sour itself. (That’s how I make yoghurt and curd cheese on the boat).
Abuse contaminates. And perhaps sometimes there is a nuanced discussion to be had about milk that is just on the turn. But in this case, as in most I know of too be honest, it is well and truly soured. And while we all live with flawed church, I don’t think contaminated church is somewhere the kingdom can ever flourish. Plus it is insulting to the survivors to continue as though nothing has happened.
Better to throw the sour milk away and start again.
Jane, you’re very good at this! Thank you, well said.
Good Friday helps me to remember that God can bring good out of evil and disaster. Wonderful!
John Eddison was mentioned in a comment. He ran the Swanage camps where I helped for several years. I remember him with fondness and admiration. The daily officers meeting after lunch that he ran used to have three parts: first, a review of the previous twenty-four hours, then a look ahead at the future, and finally detailed planning pf the next twenty-four hours. A good scheme for any organisation. Then I also remember his typewrite going far into the night in his room at the top of the house. He was tireless.
Mark Ruston has also been mentioned, the vicar of the Round church, another man I admired. My abiding memory of him was his impassioned plea from the pulpit one Sunday morning, “God delivered us from James Bondage!” I have always avoided the books and films ever since. Sadly, most of us did not, with the hideous results that we see all around us, and now we wonder why God has silently moved off as in Ezekiel chapters 10 – 11 (read from chapter eight) leaving us to our chosen ways.
Apologies if you find this line of thought offensive, but it is a time to speak up in my opinion.
Good coming from evil is a great Easter message. Thank you David.
I am going you have some good memories.
As this blog is all about speaking up, I am sure we don’t find it offensive. But I am being a bit dim, I think. Please can you explain what is meant by James Bondism?
My main reaction to Bond films is to swoon over Sean Connery. Which definitely reveals my generation!
Jane, Mark did not elaborate, but I expect he included arrogance, sex outside marriage, life of luxury, trigger happiness etc. See I John 1:15-17.
To pick up on the training given by thirty-one eight. A review of diocesan safeguarding by this organisation felt able to reword my complaints which were backed up by evidence into complaints which they then found were not substantiated. Of course that is why I did not make the particular complaints thirtyone:eight investigated. I was warned by the investigator that although their name would appear on the finished report, they themselves would not be responsible for it. Apparently the report they produced would be “gone over” by another member of the organisation, and that in turn would be “gone over” by someone else. Needless to say the diocese got the report it paid for. For myself, I decided not to avail myself of thirty-one:eight’s telephone counselling service, which was the counselling made available to me by the diocese.
Mary, I am so sorry you had that experience. Absolutely your complaints should be in your own words, and state what you want to say. V disappointing that an organisation with their reputation should collude with such bad practice.
I used to be an Independent Person for Children’s Act complaints, a statutory process which is v thorough and a model for good practice in complaints investigation. The first step would always be to agree the complaints process with the complainant.
Do you have any further routes so you can challenge this?
Mary, your experience is unfortunately too common. I have had little experience with police, and yet have already had occasions when they say ‘Let’s just say that this happened’ (when it didn’t) and another occasion when the policeman for no good reason insisted in putting a statement in his own words which were less accurate than mine and also not based on first hand experience – e.g. ‘it was a knife made to kill – I can put it no plainer than that’ – pure (detective) fiction. Absolutely insist on making your own statement – anything else will always be inaccurate, and in a setting where accuracy is all. So often people try to conform your statement to a stereotypical one – what right have they? And yes there is the danger that they will edit it in their own interests. Pure dishonesty and they know it.
James Bondism is the idea that you can sleep around without psychological effect, that being ‘cool’ is something to aspire to, that you can go from woman to woman abd that’s just fine by the women in question etc etc..
Hello Jane, and thank you for that. I was given every chance to say what I wanted to at interview. But when the report came out, most of my actual complaints were reworded to complaints I had not thought of making. Presumably there was too much evidence to back up my actual complaints, so they were tweaked.
The review was the final part in a complaints process which both sides had to accept. He who pays the piper …
That’s a disturbing story, Mary. Did you have to ‘accept’ the inaccurate statements at the end?
I hope you are OK and have found some genuine support.
Hello Janet. I have kept up a protest against the report, and have been in contact with the national provincial safeguarding advisor, Meg Munn, and now Bishop Jonathan Gibbs. To date the report still stands, and is being used by my diocese to show my complaints are unsubstantiated. That is how you “legitimately” put an end to the complaints process in my diocese . Naturally I have a written copy of the complaints I actually made. The two most serious show dsa not fulfilling their duty in regard to safeguarding with accompanying documentation. Hence the need to reword. Thank you I do have some wonderful support, not from the diocese of course, and had an excellent trauma therapist provided by the nhs.
I’m glad you’re getting some good help. I hope yo find Bp. Gibbs helpful; he’s very new to the job but seems to be making a good start.
Dear Mary, I am the CEO at Thirtyone:eight. Your comments have been brought to my attention. I have to say that I cannot recognise the matter that you refer to. I can assure you that all such work which is commissioned for Thirtyone:eight to undertake is completed by highly experienced and qualified professionals and goes through a rigorous quality assurance and sign-off process. This process in most cases ends with myself. We take such matters very seriously and therefore take time and effort to ensure what is presented is robust. If you would like to make contact with me to discuss this matter, I would be pleased to hear from you. If you would like to call or make contact via info@thirtyoneeight.org please do so.
I have no doubt that my review was undertaken by a qualified professional. That was not my point. My point was that the exact nature of my complaint was tweaked and reworded and that the matter I complained about was not dealt with. I am now asked to contact the CEO of an organisation I feel unable to trust so that he can mark his own homework.
And there is absolutely no reason why your own personal statement would ever have to be reworded in the slightest. Quite the reverse.
Happy Easter, Chris. Mary is miserable and frightened. Try to be nice.
I understand that you would find this difficult, given how you feel about how your complaint was dealt with. However, I cannot even try to assist if I am unfamiliar with the issues you raise here. My commitment to you is to explore what has happened and address your concerns if possible. I wish you well and look forward to possibly discussing this if you feel able.
Mary, I am glad to hear you have good support and have found a good therapist (they seem to be few and far between).
Also glad you are protesting the report, it sounds like something has gone badly wrong there. I hope the truth will out.
I can understand why you would not trust 31:8 in the circumstances. I struggle to trust any institution, tbh.
You might feel it useful at some point to at least get Justin to investigate and explain how your words were changed and how you can challenge the report through their process, as well as the diocese and national office. If you do, and want/need an independent advocate to assist with that, I would be happy to see if we (Survivors Voices) could help.
Best wishes for it all.
Jane
Hi Mary if the DSA you have concerns about regards safeguarding failures is a social worker they will be on an externally accredited register through which it is possible to raise concerns. If you have documentation with proof of your concerns it is important to send that. Dealing with a situation like yours is incredibly difficult and like you I would be extermely wary of contact with an organization that would appear to already have failed. Such failures are devestating and have a huge psychological impact as rewording statements so they ‘fit’ is fundamentally abuse. If as you say there is a provable problem with the review then that needs to be assessed independently so lessons can be learnt and it would seem to me that once Mr. Humphrey’s has identified your case he should be advocating for this in order to improve practice not dealing with it personally. Internal contacts are so heavily bound up within the system that psychologically you need to be very strong to engage with them.
Wishing you well
I do not know what happened after 2013 but whilst I was involved with Church Society as a Council member from the mid 1980s I do not recall any information about Iwerne or the Titus Trust ever being raised. My knowledge of matters relating to John Smyth date from the Sky News articles of a few years ago. I am praying that much good would come from the reviews, that the victims would find much help from our risen and reigning Saviour, and that Biblical Christians would recognise that Scripture teaches us the fact that when ungodly behaviour comes to light it should be dealt with cleanly in a timely manner so that perpetrators of ungodliness are properly disciplined and those on the receiving end of ungodly behaviour (victims) are properly cared for and supported. The gentleness and meekness of our Saviour, and his grace, and holiness are what we are to called to exemplify.