In the Channel 4 programme, See No Evil, we revisited the horrific activities of John Smyth and some of the pain experienced by the victims of his sadistic cruelty.  The bulk of the facts in this story have already been laid out for us in Andrew Graystone’s excellent account, Bleeding for Jesus.  While we learnt little new information about what went on in the shed in a Winchester garden, there were aspects of the story which were fresh to us in the new programme.  For me, and no doubt for many of my readers, there was a welcome attempt in the programme to understand the part played by John Smyth’s wife, Anne, in the saga.  It is clear from witnesses that she was close to the shameful events that took place in England and Africa, but always seemed to be in the background, unable to do or say anything decisive to ward off the cruel and criminal activities of her husband. 

In the Channel 4 retelling of the story, we watched once more the confrontation scene in Bristol when Cathy Newman of Channel 4 News ambushed John Smyth and challenged him to defend himself from the accusations of abusing young men through his regime of beatings.  This now familiar episode which has been played every time the Smyth story has been told, also contained images of Anne a few steps behind him.  It probably did not strike me the first time I watched the drama, but eventually I cottoned on to the fact that Anne’s expression on her face was wildly out of kilter with what might have been expected in this situation.  When a wife sees her husband accused of a terrible crime, the expected response might be an angry rebuttal.  Alternatively, there might be a concerned look of fear or shame etched on to the face.  Anne’s face showed neither emotion.  Instead, what we witnessed might be described as a embarrassed grin.  This was suggestive of a total detachment from the dramatic and life-changing events taking place on this Bristol street.   The half-smiling face that Anne was presenting to us revealed absolutely nothing of her actual feelings at that moment.  This apparent lack of engagement with the Bristol drama suggested that Anne had indeed already found a way to cope as another ‘survivor’ of Smyth’s crimes.  In the later interview with two of her children, which was part of the second instalment of Channel 4’s programme, she confessed to her children how she had shut down part of herself in order not to allow herself to react or get drawn into the dramas around her.  I leave it to others to decide as to whether this kind of repression is any defence which might lessen her guilt and responsibility.  Guilty or not, it may be right for us to suggest that Anne’s responsibility in Smyth’s crimes can be compared to a situation where cultic dynamics are at work.  One of the situations that presented Americans with a far-reaching moral debate in the 70s was the case of Patty Hearst.  Patty was kidnapped by the so-called Symbionese Liberation Army.  Somehow her captors succeeded in persuading this wealthy heiress to become part of the organisation and Patty was recruited to take part in a bank robbery where she was clearly seen to be using a rifle to threaten bank employees.  We can think of this turn-around as a kind of inverted conversion experience.  Such conversions are frequently discussed and analysed in the cult literature.    The human brain certainly seems capable of making a 180-degree change when certain forms of persuasion techniques are applied.  This can be observed within the context of political settings as well as religious contexts.  Was Anne Smyth the object of a cultic conversion in the context a cult-like environment which John Smyth had created within his own home?

To continue my speculation on the baffling key role that Anne Smyth seems to have played in Smyth/Winchester crimes, I believe that we should see her personality formation as belonging to two distinct phases.  The first of these phases would have been as a child in what was likely to have been a conventional conservative Christian family.  For many such families, making a good marriage was counted more important than having a successful career.  While we do not have access to the detail of Anne’s early family life, it is not unreasonable to suggest that her upbringing was preparing her to conform to biblical ideas of what a good Christian wife should be.   There are various key passages in Scripture which describe the ideals to which a good Christian girl should aspire.  Words like obedience and subservience to parents and to a future husband would have formed a prominent part in the culture.  There has been much discussion over recent decades over the meaning of complementarian to describe the relation of the sexes, but in the typical evangelical interpretation of this word there always seems to be a surrender of initiative and power to the men in the relationship.  No doubt Anne was reared to accept these ideas of female subordination as a given.   The Iwerne culture, which has been examined on many occasions in this blog, forbade the women, who were recruited to do the chores in the camps, to interact with the men.  It was probably thought to be a way of training these young women to look up to the menfolk.  They were, biblically speaking, thought to be in command and, in the context of marriage, these men would always to have the last word.   Anne may have been one of these ‘bunnies’ but, even if not, the model of subservient womanhood so valued by evangelical leaders from their reading of scripture, would have been practised in the Smyth household.

Alongside this biblical model of how to be a woman as promoted by mainstream evangelical culture, there seems to have been a darker dimension of dominance, subordination and control alive and at work in the Smyth household.  The very fact that there were happening in the garden of the family home secret episodes involving trauma, pain and the shedding of human blood was extraordinary.  The dynamics of the Smyth family have the hallmarks of a small cult.  The typical pattern of a cult will include a strong centre of control, normally a male, who carries all authority over the women and children under him.  These dominant male figures in a cultic situation typically suffer from a narcissistic personality disorder.  This is a personality type that thrives on constantly occupying the central dominant role in a group.  His (typically male) position flourishes in having others under him, preserving a stance of constant obedience and subordination.  John Smyth was known for his volcanic temper which no doubt had the effect of preserving his position in the family by means of exercising a fear-engendering control.  Fear of John was spoken of by one of the Smyth daughters and we may reasonably conjecture that the dynamic of fear was firmly embedded in the husband wife system of relating.

John damaged and destroyed the lives of many during his lifetime.  There were in England and Africa at least 100 victims of his sadistic behaviour wrapped up in a faux Christian rhetoric.   The family should be included in this total for reasons that were made abundantly clear in the second Channel 4 programme.  One of the appalling lessons of the Smyth story is that John may have failed to realise even with the wisdom of old age that he was behaving in a way that completely denied the central tenets of the faith.  The corrupt theology that he lived by caused terrible damage to everyone that he came into touch with.  He seems to have genuinely believed that he was practising a way of life that promoted human flourishing, through adherence to certain passages of sacred Scripture.  As we all know, he will be remembered as the most prolific abuser that the Church has ever known.  The unnamed ‘spear carriers’ in John’s story, those who taught him his cultic version of the faith or those later who did nothing to challenge his behaviour, have also played a part in the story.  Other unknown individuals played a part in Anne’s story by having taught her a version of the faith which encouraged her to acquiesce in a position of meek female subjection to the dominance exercised by John in the home.   However we look at it, there is a disturbing and unsettling coda to the terrible pain that existed and emerged from the Smyth family.  Can we really slip away from the story by claiming that the Smyths failed to live up to the clear moral imperatives of the Christian faith?  Should we not begin to recognise that the most dreadful psychologically disturbed individuals can, if not challenged, justify cruel destructive behaviour with the words of Scripture.  Perhaps we need to be far more careful before we decide that we know what the Bible truly teaches. 

by an anonymous member of the Church of England

Rural ministry in the Church of England is a world apart from the busy city churches of provincial towns and the lively modern leaning evangelical congregations found in conurbations.   If you’ve never worshipped in a small rural parish, imagine belonging to a small residents’ association where everyone is terribly polite whilst expressing very strong opinions, everything smells slightly damp and dusty, and the person in charge has indefinite job security, absolute authority, and may lack any of the practical or spiritual skills normally associated with being a vicar.

Picture one typical rural benefice.   The priest-in-charge arrived three years ago from a nearby parish, where, it now transpires, her ministry had evolved spectacularly badly.  The lay interview panel were not made aware of her past failures.  Had they been, they would have been alert to the danger, I am sure, of appointing her to a benefice so similar to the one in which she had failed so publicly.  That posting ended with both the incumbent and the parishioners begging the bishop for her to be moved elsewhere, which was done under cover of COVID.  The more cynical felt she might have been drawn to parish ministry because of the provision of a house and an ‘easier’ life. 

Parishioners in this benefice thought they had chosen a new vicar to engage with parishioners, cherish their elderly, and shepherd their community with gentle wisdom, much as the previous incumbent had done most successfully.  Unfortunately, what they got (promoted by the area bishop behind the scenes), was an entirely unsuitable incumbent.    She is devoid of social skills or empathy and is painfully shy.  This manifests itself as unfriendliness and a passive aggressive approach to interaction with lay people, alongside a particular hatred for some individuals, whom she perceives as a threat.  She seems lazy and unwilling to carry out her duties, whether administrative, pastoral or spiritual.   She finds it hard to project herself in the services so that worship is generally irredeemably dreary.    

Realising the problems, five out of seven churches’ wardens asked their Archdeacon to intercede and to devise ways in which they could help the incumbent.   The wardens described to the Archdeacon the incumbent’s various failings: the poor quality of the services, the fact that the previous vicar had managed to take a huge number of services and she managed less than half that number, her continuous grumbling about the number of funerals which occur (not unsurprisingly in a rural community popular with retirees), her lack of interest in meeting her parishioners and her complete failure to provide any pastoral care.  When challenged on this point she complained ‘what about pastoral care for me?!’   

The Archdeacon confessed that he did recognise the resurgence of difficulties as in her previous post.  He spent the remainder of the meeting explaining that he did not actually employ the priest and he was not, therefore, her line manager.   He therefore could not help, beyond talking to her.    The Archdeacon conceded that the priest was probably out of her depth but reassured the wardens that she was unlikely to last more than a year or two and would retire.   This, he seemed to think, was a solution. 

Soon the incumbent became aware of the increasing noise of criticism and her behaviour became aggressive and vindictive, directed against various lay members of the churches, whom she cast as ‘troublemakers’.   She cancelled all further benefice meetings for churchwardens, a ‘divide and conquer’ policy, thus depriving them and their congregations of a voice.

The cold war then instigated by the priest in charge with one of the smaller parishes in the benefice is remarkable. Members of the lay community thus sought help from the area bishop.

The priest removed any responsibility for funerals, weddings and baptisms from that parish’s churchwardens.  She asked in writing that one particular warden communicate with her only through a third party, a retired clergyman.   Services taken by the priest in this parish are miserable and her attitude to the congregation is unfriendly and cold.   There is no ‘hello’ or ‘goodbye’ to the wardens, or ‘thank you’, no friendly engagement with the congregation and the services are lacklustre.  She brings with her to every service a ‘chaperone’, who is robed and skulks around the altar with no discernible purpose, except presumably, to protect the incumbent against attack! Frankly, the congregation dreads these encounters, and it has shrunken from ten to six people.   A congregation of this size cannot afford to lose anyone.

The service rota for these Christmas weeks sadly included no services for this particular victimised parish – nothing between mid-November and mid-January.    Villagers are left disappointed and bewildered that their church will be ‘dark’ over Christmas.

The incumbent also requires a chaperone (a retired clergyman) to attend PCC meetings, which, the latter noted, were most friendly, cheerful and constructive events!

There has been some good news.   This benefice is much blessed with a supply of popular retired clergy who are willing and able to join the life of the seven parishes and lend a hand with services.   But unfortunately, the present incumbent feels threatened by these thoroughly professional and experienced clergy, perhaps thinking that they will expose her shortcomings.   The retired clergy have no such intentions and simply want to help spiritually and practically in villages which are now their forever homes.   To this end the incumbent has banned them from taking services in the troublesome parish and has removed them from the service rota.  They have been warned not to attend any church-related events in that village or even social occasions unrelated to the church.    Those retired clergy feel they must comply, through a mistaken belief (I think) that the priest could remove Permission to Officiate, were they to break these rules.  Surely not?  

These are small acts of administrative vengeance wielded with a bureaucratic sledgehammer to destructive effect. Combine this with a diocesan hierarchy reluctant to confront conflict or take responsibility, and the result is inevitable: a priest who behaves like a minor autocrat, and parishes left waving for help.  One might think this would concern the diocesan authorities.

Rural life, with its particular rhythms, expectations, and social glue, is often misunderstood by diocesan officials and possibly they are not interested and simply regard rural parishes as sources of money, for which they ask continually.  These seven parishes struggle to pay their parish shares because of dwindling numbers. 

Rural ministry throughout England is in dire straits.  A dwindling number of clergy (and a dwindling number of congregants) means that parishes are bolted together into larger and larger, and more unwieldy, benefices.  The benefice described here has seven parishes but twelve and fourteen are not unknown.   The job of incumbent is thus almost impossible.   But some priests do a grand job, nonetheless.   They get congregations onside so that they will share the burdens and support their priest in practical ways.   Such priests get to know every family and build social contacts that go both ways and provide help and support for all parties when needed.    Congregants are often elderly and successful clergy understand that funerals are pastoral events, not inconvenient blockages in the clerical diary.  Support of bereaved families is also essential and ongoing, but if a priest builds connections in each village this will happen naturally with the help and support of residents.

To make matters worse, bishops and archdeacons seem overstretched, spiritually lacking, and keen to avoid dealing with parish disputes. So poor leadership goes unchallenged, on the wobbly premise that church law states that diocese do not ‘employ’ their parish priests and so nothing can be done.

Unfortunately, this priest in charge has decided, having alienated all those who might help her, to isolate herself within a tight group of four friends, who will ‘defend her’ against all criticism and opposition. Sadly, two of these are themselves churchwardens and are thus not representing the views of the two congregations which they lead.

The parishes endure because they know the church is bigger than one priest.

They endure because Christmas comes whether clergy approve or not.

They endure because there will always be someone willing to stand up, light a candle, and declare that the story of Christ’s birth is not affected by diocesan ham-fistedness and incompetence.

And most of all, they endure because humour is the final defence of the Anglican soul. When faced with ecclesiastical incompetence, they do not riot. They do not revolt.
They make tea.  They swap stories.  They pray that one day they will find a priest they trust. And so these little parishes soldier on, powered mostly by cake, stubbornness and resilience.

In a strange way, this incumbent has achieved something extraordinary. By neglecting her work and her parishes, by waging bureaucratic and administrative war on her wardens, by exercising authority with a supreme lack of grace, she has inadvertently reminded us that the church is not run from the bishop’s palace, the deanery, and nor from the vicarage.

It is run—quietly, stubbornly, lovingly—from the pews.   And the parish(es) will always outlast the priest.

It is difficult to see what, if anything, of the problems in rural ministry, the difficulties of multi-parish benefices and the vetting of ordinands will be effectively dealt with.   Some more practical, real solutions would be useful with a manual on how to apply them.   Rural churches are in dire straits.   The Church of England needs to grasp the nettle.

The opinion piece ‘Church of England Must Rapidly Accelerate Safeguarding Reforms’ by Anon 17 November 2025 https://survivingchurch.org/2025/11/17/church-of-england-must-rapidly-accelerate-safeguarding-reforms/#comment-26329 highlights the problems in the Church of England’s safeguarding when it comes to those accused of safeguarding concerns including abuse. Reading about the harm that bishops (and archbishops and other safeguarding officers) can do to accused clergy is shocking. However, Anon fails to prioritise those who have been abused by Church of England clergy (and other church officers) and this is a significant omission which skews the priorities of safeguarding.

The Charity Commission’s statement https://www.gov.uk/government/news/church-of-england-charity-must-rapidly-accelerate-safeguarding-reforms urges the Archbishops’ Council of the Church of England to do better and speed up the process of establishing good safeguarding practice. The Archbishops’ Council of the Church of England’s reply https://www.churchofengland.org/media/press-releases/archbishops-council-response-charity-commission-case-review is unhelpfully defensive and only serves to minimise reputational damage, thus failing to prioritise those abused by clergy and completely ignoring the needs of clergy accused of safeguarding concerns by bishops.

The Church of England has a terrible record of abuse to children, young people, vulnerable adults and those who trusted clergy as safe people. Abuse can be physical, sexual, spiritual, psychological, emotional, financial, be neglectful or include maltreatment as listed in the draft Abuse Redress Measure https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/50136/documents/270512/default/  There is now not only acknowledgement of the abuse by clergy, but there is also the offer of financial compensation https://www.churchofengland.org/safeguarding/redress-scheme for those who have experienced clergy abuse. The Church of England is to be commended for recognising that abuse has been taking place and for planning financial redress.

To be clear to readers, this author is someone who has experienced abuse by Church of England clergy, and has also been referred to as a victim, a survivor, and a victim-survivor of Church of England clergy abuse. This author is not a member of the Church of England clergy and has never been investigated by the Church of England safeguarding team.

Abuse hurts. Abuse has long term harmful health impacts and can negatively alter the lives of those who have experienced it. Abuse by Church of England clergy hurts in additional ways affecting trust, belonging, faith and spiritual identity. It is hurtful that Anon challenges the lived experiences of those who survive Church of England clergy abuse by focussing only on clergy accused of safeguarding concerns including abuse, seemingly ignoring those abused by clergy. It is also hurtful to see the word ‘victims’ used by Anon in a vague catch-all way to indicate, perhaps, although this is also not clear, both ‘victims of abuse’ and ‘victims who continue to suffer’ without it being clear if this refers to those who have experienced clergy abuse or clergy accused of abuse, thus failing to distinguish who is a victim of what and by whom.

Clarity is important. It is wrong to assume that those abused by clergy as well as clergy accused of abuse by Church of England bishops can both belong on the same safeguarding failure continuum. Those who have been abused by clergy, clergy who abuse, and clergy accused of safeguarding concerns are not all ‘victims together’ in some confused sentiment of grievance against the Church of England. Anon writes of ‘unspecified, vague or false allegations of ‘safe-guarding concerns’ but does not acknowledge that such allegations can originate from those abused by clergy, or that the accused clergy could include those who have indeed carried out abuse. There is no admission by Anon that those speaking up about abuse might do so honestly, exposing a truth of harmful experiences that are difficult to report. As someone who has experienced clergy abuse, it hurts to be sidelined by opinion pieces which prioritise clergy on the receiving end of the Church of England’s flawed safeguarding policies and practices when discussing the Charity Commission’s statement and the Archbishops Council’s response.

There is no doubt that for any clergy to be accused of safeguarding concerns including abuse can cause many problems. It is to be acknowledged that for the church to undertake safeguarding in a way which leaves accused clergy spiritually, psychologically, emotionally or financially damaged, neglected or maltreated is very bad practice. Anon is right to say the Church of England’s safeguarding practice is ‘in a frightful state’. But without first getting safeguarding right for those abused by clergy as the Church of England’s priority, clergy accused of safeguarding concerns including abuse will never be treated with fairness or given the support they need. And opinion pieces which present the Church of England’s safeguarding as having ‘all the safety and robustness of medieval witch trials’ risk enabling clergy who abuse because they too can claim they have been unfairly treated when they should be held to account.

So please, Anon, get this the right way round! Demand that the Church of England first improves safeguarding for those who have experienced clergy abuse, then hold abusive clergy to account but bishops must do this in a way that is fair and also supportive of clergy who abuse to help protect against additional harms. Prioritise those who have been abused because their world has shifted to become unsafe by Church of England clergy who should have been trustworthy. This is the most urgent safeguarding issue – that the Church of England’s safeguarding fails to protect those abused by clergy and fails to hold to account clergy who abuse. Putting those abused by clergy first is vital if the Church of England’s safeguarding is to ever improve. Only then can there be any hope of fairness in the management of clergy accused of abuse or safeguarding concerns.

Name and details withheld