At the heart of the Makin report released last Wednesday is an account of the behaviour and beliefs of one seriously damaged and dangerous individual, John Smyth. I do not propose to say much about him here, as his activities, if not his thinking, are well documented in Makin and other accounts. Andrew Graystone has already prepared us with his book, Bleeding for Jesus, for much of the factual material contained in Makin’s long report about the crimes of John Smyth. What remains to be considered first of all is the behaviour of individuals, many now deceased, who responded to discovering the facts of the abuse that occurred in Winchester and elsewhere between 1979 and 1982.
A large section of the Makin account, as it recounts these events from the last century, concerns the actions and decisions of a group of prominent C/E evangelicals after the news first broke in March 1982. It was in this month that Mark Ruston, a Cambridge incumbent, put together a report which was then circulated to nine other clergy, all trustees of the organisation running the Iwerne camps. At that point Ruston had identified most, but not all, of the Smyth victims. Meetings were called by these trustees as they struggled to get a grip on the situation. From the records that Makin has gathered, there seems to have been very little concern for or interest in the welfare of Smyth’s victims. The chief anxiety appears to have been the damage the scandal might do to the reputation of the Iwerne camps. Smyth had been a prominent leader for many years. Mark Rushton and David Fletcher emerged as the de-facto leaders of managers of the crisis. It was they, among others, who confronted Smyth and convinced him, with some difficulty, to sign undertakings to abandon his ‘ministry’ to boys and young men. In the event the attempts to restrain Smyth were unsuccessful and he went on to run camps in Africa, supported by his English supporters who were still in thrall to his charismatic charm and evident gifts of public speaking. It was to be another thirty years before information about his abusive behaviour became general knowledge. The story of Smyth’s avoidance or exposure to justice is carefully chronicled in Makin’s report.
Those who have the stamina to read the entire Makin report will recognise the importance of the year 1982 in the narrative. This was the year when the abuses in England were stopped, and the small group of well-connected Anglican clergy, deeply solicitous for the reputation of the Iwerne camps, tried to decide what to do with the information in their possession. The moral and ethical obligation to take some decisive action by the trustees who received the report is clear to us, as we examine the events from the perspective of 2024. The trustees should have immediately referred all the information in their possession to the police and sought the advice of senior professionals in the psychological and law enforcement world, to help them both understand and act constructively with the information in their possession. That they did not, at least initially, raises concerns in two areas. One is that the silence and secrecy that they sought to impose on the Smyth case would go on to be a major cause of harm to Smyth’s existing victims. It is as if the Iwerne effort was so important that nothing should or could be done to help those injured and protect other potential victims in the future. The culture of Iwerne, or whatever was being protected through the secrecy, was itself a hard heartless enterprise. In failing to support the Smyth victims, past and future, the Iwerne impulse was showing itself to be, despite its high-sounding language of conversion and love, to be a cruel monster, completely devoid of real compassion and healing.
The second reality, shown in the frantic efforts to protect the Iwerne brand, was the lasting disregard by these clergy to bring in real effective expertise to resolve the issues caused by Smyth’s barbarity. It needed resources of all kinds, far beyond what was available to a small group of clergy intent of preserving reputations, both corporate and individual. Someone might possibly have said, ‘we need help. This is too big to handle without the skills and expertise of a phalanx of professional disciplines’. The reasons for failing to do this are again clear. Secrecy and the preservation of the Iwerne name were paramount. The culture of secrecy itself became a source of evil which was to do so much to damage individuals until today.
In the course of 1982, the offending behaviour by Smyth in England was brought to a halt, but one thing is clear in that none of the figures who exercised some authority in the situation and which enabled them to extract promises from Smyth not to misbehave, seems to have really got the measure of how serious and delinquent his actions had been. The leaders who confronted Smyth did manage, in part, to stand up to the manipulative behaviour which had allowed him to rise so quickly in the Iwerne hierarchy, but they still believed (naively) that they had the true measure of his personality and behaviour. In other words, they trusted their own innate skills as pastors and managers to penetrate his defensive/manipulative strategies which were employed to protect him from the accusers’ threats. One hope by the leaders, that they could lead Smyth to a place of genuine remorse and repentance, turned out to be empty and of no value. Dozens of children in Africa were to suffer (and one die) as the result of Christian leaders having an inflated assessment of their pastoral skills.
We come here to a failing in Christian ministry which is probably all too common. This is the fault of believing that ordination has granted one the gift of inspired judgement in pastoral situations when, in fact, they need human judgement which is properly informed by professional (secular) skill. Many clergy are unwilling to admit that a pastoral situation is beyond their level of competence. In these situations, it should be possible to seek the support of consultant or experienced mentor. I have always believed that an extra beatitude is required to add to the others. It goes something along the lines ‘Blessed are those who know their limitations.’ Preachers/pastors who work within the culture of conservative evangelicalism, where the infallibility of the biblical text is claimed, are particularly vulnerable to the grandiose claims and hubris which allows them to ‘know’ the truth in a complex pastoral scenario such, as the Smyth saga. Is this what we are witnessing in and around Cambridge in 1982 and later in Lambeth Palace after 2013? One thing that is absent from the Makin report during this early 1982 period is any indication that an external professional assessment was sought to gauge Smyth’s potential for reoffending. Nor were the psychological needs of those who had been abused looked at or considered. Instead, the untrained amateur pastoral assumptions of the clergy, who had taken charge in managing the situation, were allowed to reign. The results of letting this inadequate pastoral wisdom dominate the care of victims were to have baneful consequences both for the existing Smyth victims and for those who were to follow them in Zimbabwe and South Africa.
Clerical naivety, compounded by a refusal to access relevant professional competence, seems to sum up one way of understanding how things went so badly wrong in putting right the evils of Smyth’s actions. If I am right to see these failings of professionalism as being at the heart of the saga, then the case for compulsory referral or mandatory reporting seems incontestable. Naivety and the inability to make sound judgement was just not present at the early part of our story, and the same cluelessness seems to cling to many of the actors right through till today. The decisions and the non-decisions that have taken place at Lambeth Palace are also part of the story. The failings of church leaders in knowing what advice to take or whom to follow are not minor failings; they can be enormously harmful and wound the Church of God in ways that cannot be measured.
While writing the above, I have become aware of the increasing crescendo of voices calling for the resignation of the Archbishop of Canterbury over the Smyth affair. My attitude to this question has not been suddenly formed but goes back to the interview in 2019 with Kathy Newman. On that occasion Welby said several things which were clearly untrue, including the claim that he ceased to have contact with the Iwerne camps after graduation and starting work for an oil company in 1977. It is clear that he remained in touch with the camps and he and Smyth appear on the same programme in 1979. Telling even a single lie to impress an invisible audience is corrosive of trust, even with one on the other side of a television screen. The recent article by ‘Graham’ in Via Media finally pushed me to the point where I cannot see him as a spiritual leader. If he does not any longer have moral or spiritual authority, then there is, in my estimation, only one choice open to him -that of resignation.
Thank you. Webys words of reignation seem to blame rhe police and not his concern for the individual over the institution. Institutional church is a dangerous anacromysm in a secular.post Christian age.
“Evangelical” “ism” without any Gospel, contriving for political influence, and false ecumenism are the ever more fatal mixture that has led to the current outburst of disgust, however vaguely it articulates that. Leave other churches and their “ministers” alone, leave outsiders’ consciences alone, leave sacraments alone, seek some actual meanings to Holy Scripture.
An excellent report! Thanks.
Agreed.
It has taken many years for the late John Smyth to be finally and categorically recognised for all to see, as a seriously evil man. No one is arguing with the Makin Report.
Justin Welby’s latest and hopefully final accomplishment, in a catalogue of inept prevarication over his resignation, has been to ensure that every single Uk mainstream media channel was broadcasting lurid details of Smyth’s abuses, the intolerable suffering of his many victims, and the hopeless complicity of Welby and many others who did not do what they ought to have done. Ironically, if he’d gone quickly, his enduring mission to protect the image of his Institution could have been partly preserved. As it is, literally everyone is talking about it. The Church’s reputation has been savaged far more than if he’d gone before.
I’ve argued before that Welby was a patsy for others’ failings. He’s now taken the hit whilst they’re hoping to get off Scott free. Time will tell whether they succeed. Who were these senior people he was getting direction from? Or was this another example of a certain economy with the truth.
The odd history of the Iwerne factory system producing “great” future leaders has been fatally exposed. We should treat its products with particular wariness. Their programming is to dominate, and forget people and truth if they get in the way. The ends justify the means. We’ve been not just bitten, but heavily mauled. Let’s be more than twice shy. Enough surely!
Only one bishop stood up and called Welby out. One. That’s courageous leadership right there, as is the few people like our host, who have (at considerable personal cost) consistently called out Smyth’s and others’ actions and dishonesty. I applaud them.
Welby and Church turned a blind eye to vile abuse
Daily Express Letters 13 Nov 2024
THE Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby had to go (“‘Can we really trust the Church of England to keep us safe? I think the answer at the moment is no…’”, November 12). Church victims have been branded “troublemakers”.
I reported violent abuse of trainees to an Archbishop but no formal inquiry ever followed. One victim’s mental state resembled that of terrorist attack victims I had seen as a junior doctor in A&E.
Our denomination needs a new leader and a fresh start.
The best recourse is to the media. You might try Cathy Newman at Ch 4, who is still researching abuse in the Church.
Apologies if this is too off topic.
In all of the reporting re: the Makin report, I have not seen any mention of the Archbishop’s Council decision to cancel the contracts of the Independent Safeguarding Board.
I understand that Ian Paul was a member of Archbishop’s Council at the time of this decision. Given that this destroyed much of the CofE’s (minimal) credibility around safeguarding, I find it hypocritical for him to co-sponsor the petition for ++Welby to resign.
++Welby erred and, eventually, resigned. Will Ian Paul do the same? The Archbishop’s Council decision has retraumatised victims and left their cases hanging.
People are just beginning to comprehend some of the Church politics being played out over the removal of the Archbishop of Canterbury.
Liberals and conservatives, apparently united, joined together (in my opinion rightly) in the petition to remove Welby. With approaching 15,000 signatures, mainstream TV interviews and various other media inputs, they prevailed. He resigned. Pausing for a moment, this was a momentous and historic achievement.
Ian Paul came across well on the telly. I’d formed a very different impression from his online written interactions here and elsewhere in the past. For example when I raised the subject of my own abuse with him, I experienced his response as dismissive, and at no stage did he attempt any assistance or follow up, despite his access to power and his position of influence.
Everyone has an agenda, and this week they briefly intersected to produce the result we have now seen. Justin has recently declared that personally he now has little if any problem with same sex or outside conventional marriage sex in a “committed relationship”. Forgive me if I paraphrase his views clumsily. I probably agree with him, to the extent I understood what he was saying.
Previously coming from a conservative evangelical background, I am certain that they will be incandescent with rage about his advocacy of variations on their interpretation of the bible. I have no desire to discuss any of this further in this post, because it’s off topic. However I’m almost certain this is why they’ve turned against Welby.
Usually I want to be wrong. In the aftermath of this Exit, the true colours of those various parties will be revealed in their choice of candidate for replacement. Theoretically none of us had much say in the matter unless we happen to be King or PM. However both of these men will look for recommendations from others. These may be made privately and discreetly, but this being (Church) politics, expect a lot of noise.
Is the politician William Nye going to get the sack as well?
You obviously haven’t read the Statement issued by a group of Smyth Victims at 1615 on Thursday 7 November, released by Andrew Graystone.
https://www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/Statement-in-response-to-Makin-Review.pdf
Clearly this statement was produced in a hurry after the report was leaked 6 days early (who benefitted from it being published early, immediately after the US election, against the specific original written request of the victims?). It would have benefitted from 6 additional days editing and some spelling mistakes could have been corrected.
However it does make a number of points, including about AC & ISB.
… if there are no standards by which we are governed, then who is to govern becomes all-important. The professors who have discovered this state of affairs also want to be masters …
– Paul L Holmer
Not necessarily off topic, as there may be a relation between evangelical homophobia and the actions of John Smyth (and the concurrent inaction of his fellow ‘leaders’). But to your point — if you are right about the connection between Welby’s turn towards relational commitment over exclusive heterosexuality, and the turn against him by conservatives, then their alliance with liberals in this regard is an unholy one indeed. There’s a lot of this about at the moment — cf The Alliance, where catholics are in bed with evangelicals. All fighting over the remnant of the CofE. But whoever wins their exclusive church will be ‘reformed’ but not ‘catholick’ and thus not Anglican.
I’ve been away from this blog for some time. Mostly because of the way my health has suffered as a result of a three year wait for both hips to be replaced. The second one is now seven weeks old, and while I’m by no means pain free, I am much more mobile, and I can stand up straight! I haven’t been able to be active in my church, but I am renewing my PTO.
I haven’t taken the time to read every post since I last looked in. But I think I just want to say we are entering a time of change. It is at least possible that many things will change for the good. Let us pray for that. Personally, I am still waiting for the church to show any understanding of the need for restitution. It’s hard to believe that people mean their apologies, if nothing has come out of it.
For my sins, I am on the Diocesan safeguarding group. Perhaps this development will serve as a kick up the backside wherever that is needed!
Yes, indeed, ‘power to demolish strongholds’ can be relevant to the visible Church. Being rid of a lot of nonsense may be very helpful. The ‘halls, facilities and numbers’ days could be coming to a welcome end. The radical liberal, and the hard shades of fundamentalism, were classically spurned within Anglicanism. We perhaps cannot get back to the Apostle’s Creed quickly enough.
Glad you’re back!
Steve
Lovely to have you back, Athena!
Thank you.
All best wishes to you with regard to your op. I had one hip replaced 6 years ago, and was incredibly thankful for the NHS. I hope yours goes as successfully.
I have been thinking a great deal about aftercare for victims/survivors of abuse in the church, and much of what you say resonates. While nothing I experienced comes close to the horror of what Smyth’s victims endured, both at his hands in the years after while the church was silent and silencing, I feel as if there’s a similar pattern. The abuse happens, but healing is hampered by things ranging from genuine ‘clerical naivety’, to something approaching monstrous arrogance. And it minimises, resulting in an experience of being silenced – and so oppressed – then burdened by the heavy handed sense of “knowing better”, which takes away control and autonomy – and so re-traumatised.
Hello, thankyou for writing your blog. I found it after googling the JW case.
I am also someone who has suffered church abuse in the C of E church and do not attend a C of E church now. During the time I was most bullied in the C of E church, there was bullying in the clergy and Bishop Tim of Winchester was scapegoated. It didn’t change anything because he wasn’t the root of the problem- it was bullying from the top down- straight from Justin W. A very toxic time.
I used to be on the PCC, but became discouraged during lockdown because the church was doing the opposite that it should have been doing. After trying and failing to reason with the PCC about having the prayer meeting in the church not on Zoom, I left the PCC and the church because of abusive behaiour directed at me. They tried to control me but I refused to do what I felt was UnGodly. Communion was stopped and there were barriers put in place at a time when people needed God more,not less.
They knew that I was an abuse survivor and were abusive and bullying. They stereotyped and diiscrminated. Although we abuse survivors are easy to re-abuse, we should walk away from any church situation that is abusive because WWJD? There is no way Jesus would put up with it. Remember, he turned the tables over in the temple.
I am in a church now that’s Protestant and very kind. I have never regretted walking away from the C of E.
I’m sorry you had such a difficult experience in the C of E, and glad that you’ve now found a more supportive church.
Welcome to Surviving Church.
I think it’s worth remembering he wouldn’t walk away – he would turn over tables and so should we.
Thank you for writing this blog.
All manner of information about John Smyth has been floating about for years: the victims, the Irwerne camps and the rest. People like me, not at the heart of it all, have had to glean the story as best we can. Now you have looked at the beginnings of it all to the present bringing it together as a cohesive whole. You have explained the contents of the Makin Review making it understandable in the context of past events.
More than that you have shown, in view of these decades of secrecy and denials of the truth, that the historic resignation of Canterbury has been the only possible outcome.
Those who speak of ‘tears in Lambeth at the resignation’ still do not ‘get it’. What about the years of tears from the victims at their lost lives? There is still much work to be done in calling others to be accountable for the part they have played.
In the meantime thank you again for all your hard work in creating this excellent blog.
The references to Jonathan Fletcher in the review are surprising. In relation to Iain Broomfield, Makin writes “He was suspended from his clerical work in April 2020, pending an investigation by the Church of England, including safeguarding matters. We did not interview him because of this”.
Whereas Jonathan Fletcher is only described as being a contributor to the review and: “a highly influential person in the Conservative Evangelical world. He was Curate at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, Cambridge (more commonly known as the Round Church) before becoming the vicar of the Emmanuel Church, Wimbledon, in 1982”.
Why have they been treated differently?
The question of when Welby knew about Smyth reminds me of denials from the next generation of ReNew leaders that they knew anything about Fletcher’s behaviour before 2019.
“Re-New”, ah yes another of those suspiciously bland brand names.
‘OSL I53’ I sometimes jest with sceptics about the Lord’s personalised numberplate: One Solitary Life Isaiah 53. The internet age of shift and speed means a lot of abuse stories are like ploughed fields which grass over again quite quickly. In terms of victims, might it be useful to reflect on the key three items needing fixing in terms of protecting Anglicans? This is of really core importance: -“Every charge must be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses-.”
Thank you for your thoughtful comments. The question in my mind is whether all this could happen again. I fear it could. When we find out about people like Smyth, we correctly demonize their behavior – but in doing so, we risk that we forget that abusers are often friendly, intelligent, popular people. Our approach to safeguarding feels like sailing the Titanic – apparently lots of ‘safety nets’ in place – but blindly steaming on ignoring any warnings as we know we are right/invincible.
Indeed, are New Wine (or other ministry trainees) at as much risk as ever? Anglican Safeguarding covers only-‘children and vulnerable adults’-so would another Pilavachi necessarily be detected? Furthermore, is there a gigantic amount of destructive bullying which never gets detected, yet drives people away from the Church? Churches love to bluff about ‘adult safeguarding’ at times, but is there no such thing-only so-called VA’s exist?
The training I received as a Reader certainly covered more than just children and “vulnerable adults”.
In a fortnight, in my church which is mainly C of E refugees, my person was intruded upon by people who are not my best friends, one the wife of an occasional preacher, the other an elder. Why won’t they assume everybody has sensitive skin? Why is their message that they do not mean to have room for others? I want genuine believers to address my mind intelligently. This ghoulishness is spreading across the denominations. In fact I traced it to a book by Selwyn Hughes.
Thank you Stephen for this and all comments. Also for Simon including the report by the victims of John Smythe which is so important to be noticed and published.
I also realised that the day the news broke was the day after the American election and was announced towards the end of the 6 o clock news on the BBC. Also there has been little on the news since then. Where is the compassion and apologies from the Church institution I wonder.
It is understood that the report was leaked a week in advance of its due publication. It is highly unlikely that one of the victims would have leaked it, therefore one assumes it was leaked by someone in authority during a major news cycle (Trump’s re-election) to attempt to minimise impact. If that was the aim, it has backfired spectacularly.
Indeed, delayed years, a predicted date finally given, then mysteriously came early. Lots of people have had enough of Anglicanism, or stay but give a yearly ‘reality cheque’ of copper coins…….
Channel 4 news has continued to cover the story for over a week, as have most of the broadsheet newspapers.
Lancashire Evening Post 16-11-24 has a good ‘J Smyth QC’ victim testimony-see front headline
The trouble extends to the fact that one can be traumatised by psychological ‘experts’ and police as well as clergy. As the parent of a deaf child I know this all too tellingly, as I spent a tranche of many years blaming myself for what actually turned out to have a simple explanation which had no connection to me at all. You don’t get back the years that ‘the locust has wasted.’
Looking back it is almost only the charismatic c of e clergy with gifts of intuition who were kind and helpful, plus some nurses.
I have twice been pursued by police unjustly- once for a false accusation of being drunk and hitting a car I hadn’t hit. The breathalyser came out with a nil reading. I think one of the policemen may have been one who was later jailed for a gruesome crime. Another pursuit was for crossing the road twice when in my early 20s and running down a side street, which was termed ‘suspicious behaviour’ and apparently warranted a plain clothes policeman chasing me in the dark. Pretty scary and abusive. I should add that I am classified as white British, have never done drugs, have no police record, no tattoos, and look ‘respectable’.
So please don’t think any ‘professionals’ have an automatic dispensation from original sin, incompetence or insanity. It doesn’t work like that. The only guaranteed angels are angels, and only unfallen ones at that. It’s messy.
Am I alone in thinking that Mark Ruston and his colleagues may have been right in not attempting to prosecute Smyth?
1n1996 an attempt was made to prosecute the late Donald Macleod, a revered theologian of the Free Church of Scotland (on charges which were minor compared with the crimes of Smyth). Macleod was defended by a very prestigious legal team and was acquitted. Five women, who had been assured that they would not be named in court, were, nevertheless, subjected to a gruelling experience of cross-examination in the witness box; they were left with the impression that the court had regarded their testimony as perjury.
Had Smyth been prosecuted there can be no certainty that he would have been found guilty. But it is certain that, as a skilled QC with a talent for deception and utterly devoid of moral principle, he would have made sure that he was defended by barristers of similar ilk: men who would have had only one guiding principle – to get their client off. In order to achieve that objective they would have strained every effort to destroy the credibility of the prosecution witnesses, using every known barrister’s trick and inventing a few more.
I have been cross-examined on a number of occasions and have given what moral support I could to a distressed colleague who had to resist the prolonged efforts of a particularly unscrupulous barrister. We found these experiences traumatic and we were hardened professionals testifying to facts well within our professional competence. We were not Cambridge Undergraduates who had been conned into submitting to repeated assaults. Had we been in that position we might have been suicidal. One of Smyth’s victims was asked how he could have allowed himself to be so taken in. He regarded that question as victim blaming. Such a question is nothing to the victim blaming, the character assassination, the scornful incredulity, which would have been showered upon him in the witness box. Had Smyth been convicted the witnesses would have been further scarred, perhaps for life. But if Smyth had been found not guilty…
Compassion for the victims might have been a much stronger motive than protecting the “Iwerne brand.”
That is an interesting point, which I had not seen raised anywhere else. Against it is David Fletcher’s remark that “It would have damaged the work” but others involved in the coverup may have had compassion of that sort for the victims in mind.
False ecumenism ensures that the salami slicing of mischief making under different auspices will pass under the radar in plain sight. I’m sure Ruston would have been dismayed that his colleagues (close and distant) didn’t call each other out; he was probably already in trouble for collating evidence (poisoned chalice assignment).
These are some excellent points and thoughtfully made. But consider the Canon W G Neely case in Ireland.
The Scouting Association gave the late Canon Neely a lifetime ban in the 1970’s. Yet an Anglican Bishop shifted him to parish ministry in a distant and quiet rural area. The Scouts, in contrast, took definitive action in the 1970’s, without any need at all for police or CPS action.
The Anglican Church has been (and does it remain?) a law unto itself. Seniors seek to apply criminal standards of proof which make life impossible for victims. Do you practically need CCTV images and sound recording of an incident before you are going to be believed?!?!
Excellent coverage on ‘Makin’ in Private Eye (Edition is ’22-11-24 to 05-12-24′). This includes the cover, p8, p19, p32. The p8 bits are v good indeed. Worth the £2-99 cost just for p8 perhaps?