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.
The information about Anne was the new bit for me too. She was sixteen when she met him. She thought that God called her to love and support him unconditionally. She felt relief when he died. She talked about finding a way to anaesthetise herself to his dark side.
That the anaesthetic eventually wore off.
It was sickening to hear that when Andy Morse tried to tell John Smyth that he couldn’t cope, his torture intensified.
I wonder if,with Anne, when she tried to challenge him, the methods of control intensified.
I’m interested that you say John Smyth genuinely believed he was using the Bible rightly.
I assumed he knew he wasn’t, he just saw the vulnerabilities and possibilities created by the Conservative Evangelical culture and took full advantage.
I think his views on e.g. masturbation, changed depending on what suited his agenda.
“There are various key passages in Scripture which describe the ideals to which a good Christian girl should aspire”
But it doesn’t! And all Bible passages are key.
And I’ve known the type in various denominations, devastating many lives usually “hands off”. I can assure you they don’t “genuinely believe” anything, because they are adamant that they shouldn’t have genuine belief of any kind on any matter.
Might our reactions or perspectives be very different, if a Liverpool docker had beaten young people in his back yard shed, and then asked his wife to attend to their wounds?
Questions were asked about smacking or corporal punishment (exclusively by teachers or parents) in the 1980’s. My recollection is of there being a clear cultural presupposition, or accepted idea, on how it was never acceptable to beat other people’s children.
Children and adults I came across almost universally accepted this. Is it possibly far too easy to introduce the PD (personality disorder) topic? PD diagnosis is a highly specialist area. It may not have featured as an defence if JS had been prosecuted while alive.
Smyth’s family were victims primarily. His wife could theoretically have stood up to him, but realistically this would have meant ostracism or worse, both from the family where she was completely invested or from the church if she’d “betrayed” him there. They certainly wouldn’t have listened to her. No one else stood up to him. Smyth was a vicious and highly skilled bully.
It wasn’t just the case that people were unaware of what Smyth was up to. They knew and many privately approved. Iwerne drew its recruits from the elite Public schools. Many of us recall just how sadism and sexual abuse were rife there. Smyth took his sexualised (sharing naked showers with boys) beatings to a whole new level. Many of his victims went back for more, confused by his faux loving father posture. It was a repugnant evil.
Anne, his wife, may be seen as ineffectual, but it was clear that she was dissociating from the trauma she was caught up in. With submission being highly esteemed, it would appear she was in an impossible bind. I was moved by the forgiving rapprochement her children gave her after they’d confronted her. To me at that moment we were witnessing true “church”.
These were powerful episodes from Cathy Newman. I doubt much will change within the C of E, but increasing numbers of viewers can be left in no doubt how the very centre of its leadership is still structured. Forewarned is forearmed.
‘Serial abuser John Smyth’s wife speaks for first time in Channel 4 documentary’. This online Channel 4 Film clip of around 6 mins has an interesting comment at around 1:30-1:45 mins: “These aren’t your children”. That is surely worthy of more discussion.
How many Reverends commit abuse, rape, incest and adultery while their subservient, obedient Christian wives decide to put their Christianity ahead of their own children, or other people’s children? The pure arrogance of Anglicanism is that they think they get to decide everyone else’s fate, and call it ‘Christianity’ and being role model Christians.
I thought Anne looked delighted as Cathy Newman first confronted John – as if she were actually pleased that he was finally being called to account. But as the encounter went on, she scuttled along with her head down, looking very scared. I strongly suspect she was used to John taking out on her any reverses and frustrations he met with – probably with physical violence. Did she fear she was going to pay for John’s humiliation?
As for the teaching about wives being submissive – she cited that, and we know it was part of Iwerne teaching. But I wouldn’t say it was part of mainstream evangelical teaching at the time, it was more at the conservative end of the spectrum. Sadly there’s a resurgence of it – if my Twitter feed is anything to go by. It needs to be combatted.
The highly traditional models perhaps offered empowerment to each gender in different spheres. Was the female often dominant around the house and home, or regarding most decisions relating to children?
No.
Yes, very definitely. Anyone who grew up in the 1960’s or early 1970’s saw situations where this appeared to be very much the case. Were there relationships, where a male who was a good provider, was allowed some considerable leeway on how he behaved outside of the home setting, but the female dominated what happened inside the home itself?
It was certainly true in the home I grew up in, although whether others experienced it or not, I can’t say. Conservative evangelical thinking predominated, as I’ve mentioned before. Mother was a tyrant with an explosive temper largely directed at me. The face slaps stung of course, but it’s hard to forget an incident where, not physically strong enough to hurt me as much as she wanted, she shouted at Dad to beat me with a cane (ironic considering we are recalling Smyth). Dad refused, which was the only time I remember him sticking up for me, albeit obliquely. Normally he was absent emotionally, even when he was home from his prestigious job. She ruled the roost, despite declaring women should be submissive, absent from church leadership and should defer to husbands. She remained vehemently against the ordination of women, and never saw how it was her who lead us and him. For me, the emotional abuse was far worse than the physical violence.
My belief is that the deep pathologies in their lives probably came first, before their extreme conservative evangelical theological beliefs, but the two were natural bedfellows.
Beatific smiles were the normal false presentation, Sunday morning, second row from the front, on the left, wearing Sunday best.
But as I say, I can’t be sure how prevalent these experiences were for others.
Steve, that’s awful. I’m so sorry.
My own experience was that my father completely dominated my mother, down to what foods she served us and which hairdresser she took us to. After his breakdown, however, she regained some control.
In some conservative households the wife does run the house – but if you look at eg Twitter, there are plenty of conservative Christians saying the wife should obey the husband in absolutely everything, unless it’s illegal. Even the house and children aren’t her management sphere.
Thanks Janet
‘Strong’ men and ‘strong’ women were the order of the day for generations. Our UK grandparents and earlier past generations often had a hard daily grind to survive. It is always tough defining when ‘hardness’ becomes flagrant lawlessness and cruelty.
But the shed in the garden, boys or men being beaten, and their wounds then attended to, appears off the scale to me. Also, as a barrister, educated at a top university, Smyth must surely have had a comprehensive grasp of consent or capacity issues. The need to hide problems is always a give away..
Slippers were sometimes used during my schooldays, but most people only ever got a slap on the face. But within that 1970’s-1980’s space, where corporal punishment was still largely accepted, would parents have ever accepted bleeding wounds on the scale produced by Smyth?
I think most fathers or mothers would have challenged any teacher who drew blood. And I think a door knock from the police well could have been a likely result.
The retelling of the Smyth story can draw us back from the full terror. I feel unease when viewing the latest current Smyth family interaction with Channel 4. Would victim testimony from those beaten in the shed be better?
Both the victims and the family need to be heard. We have heard quite a bit from some at least of the victims – and my heart goes out to them – but this was the first time we’d heard from the family. I think that was valuable both for their sakes and for ours – though I did think the reconciliation scene seemed rehearsed. I may of course be wrong about that.
The very fine book “In the Days of Rain – A daughter: A father: A cult.” by Rebecca Stott is a biographical account of her upbringing and family life in The Exclusive Brethren community and its subsequent effect.
This is a hard won but perceptive psychological and tragic drama of the first order and exemplifies both fear and extreme patriarchy within this cult.
Andrew Graystone suggests on page 24 of his book that Smyth may have been brought up in such a family.
I would understand Anne’s smile as an habitual self defensive reaction.
Yes, it might have been a fawning response, a reaction to aggression by someone subjected to extreme bullying. Good point.
Let’s not read too much into smiling when challenged by a TV journalist.
Do you think she should have challenged her husband, or reported him to the police?
Yes. Even under the ‘umbrella’ model of family, obedience and discipleship, Anne Smyth should have told these children’s parents. Guide Nyachuru’s family will suffer for the rest of their lives. Anne Smyth still has her children. Guide Nyachuru’s mother no longer has her son. Let’s put the ‘coercive abuse’ into perspective.
Anne Smyth only partly accepted the ‘umbrella’ model in her obedience to her husband i.e. Christ -> husband -> wife -> children. She did not accept the part where parents are responsible for their own children. She kept Smyth’s behaviour a secret.
John and Anne Smyth both behaved as if they had the right to take decisions over other people’s children. They both knew it was wrong, or they would not have kept it a secret for decades, even after one victim attempted suicide and another child died. how could she look these parents in the eye, knowing that their children had received beatings from her husband. There’s very little talk about what the victims’ families thought or felt. What kind of ministry is that? Guide’s life didn’t matter?
We can safely assume that the parents did not consent to have Smyth beat their children. Is being a good Christian wife at odds with the need to “to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God”?
You are assuming that Anne, having met John when she was only 16 and he was older and already achieving, had agency. I’m not so sure. That doesn’t detract from what all the victims and their families suffered and still suffer. We’ll never know whether she was capable of doing more to stop him – only God knows that.
Quite a number of the contributors to this site will have profound and painful knowledge, on how difficult it can be to summons up the courage to challenge organisations or individuals. But that’s a very different question from maturity of conscience or personal responsibility for decisions or actions.
I have read some modern theorists speak of ‘adolescence’ perhaps being best extended into one’s early 20’s. That’s different from our traditional viewpoint. Issues around consent to sex, or contraceptive prescription use, do get complicated at the age 15-16 zone. But it’s often assumed how much younger children may have some degree of ability to consent to consensual sex below this age.
When it comes to younger people being beaten to the point of bleeding, I think we need to ask a different question. Would most reasonably intelligent Primary School age children understand this to be morally wrong, and quite likely red-flag concern to responsible adults? Should the-‘she was only 16’ defence-be set against Gillick Competence?
James, I’m not sure you understand the psychological dynamics of grooming.
A lot of clerics falsely assume they know a great deal about psychology, psychiatry and law. That’s possibly part of the reason why we have the scale of bullying-abuse-harassment crisis which now confronts Anglicans. Do ‘woke’ clerics tend to naively ignore freewill and individual adult responsibility? No amount of amateur knowledge of psychiatry-psychology-law can cover up what is so plainly obvious to a great mass of the lay public.
Smiling when being confronted is very common when it’s an interaction between a teacher and a child who is being told off. These youngsters smile almost as a nervous reaction and it becomes clear as the conversation progressed it isn’t insolent. I wondered if Anne was responding as a child.
Further to the my post above 18th Dec, I have now gone back to The Makin Report and re-read sections especially the psychological analysis at p67 (Appendix 4).
There is more information about Smyth’s own family background at p.9 which may offer some insight into how his personality was malformed. However it does not develop the fact that some Brethren groups were/are cultic in nature.
I don’t think the Makin Report says much about Anne Smyth herself (probably not in the TofR), but it does clearly identify her as a victim of abuse and the pathological family environment in which she and her children had to live and survive.
Page 10 explains the “freeze and appease” reaction as a survival mechanism in contrast to “fight and flight”. This is clearly the mechanism that Anne had no other option but to adopt given her age, her own faith background and her expectations of men and women in marriage.
In my view the documentaries dealt very sensitively and compassionately with all the victims and survivors and no any suggestion of blame should be directed towards Anne and her children whatsoever.
Some will find the psychological analysis difficult to read and perhaps understand, secretly thinking it is largely “psycho-babble”.
It is difficult to read because it describes bad thoughts and actions, which touch our minds and souls. We really don’t want to go there and consciously (or unconsciously) would rather push such things away from ourselves or perhaps onto others.
It is difficult to understand because it is a technical document and most just don’t have the background training to grasp the complexity of the concepts and the underlying research and opinions that inform an inexact but developing discipline.
The continuing question in my mind is *why* those who discussed the Rushton Report at the start failed to act appropriately. The documentary did not address this and I’m not really certain that the Ruston Report did either but I do need to go back and read it again.
Thank you, that’s helpful
For the response to the Ruston Report by the Iwerne inner circle, Andrew Graystone’s ‘Bleeding for Jesus’ is a good source.
Section 16:22 in the relatively brief Makin Report conclusion has a very plain second sentence. I must question what exactly you mean in your second from bottom paragraph above. W B Yeats is alleged to have said: “Think like a wise man but communicate in the language of the people.” Do KC’s or judges generally tend to have this gift in abundance? I think a lot of them have an economy-accuracy-transparency with few words, akin to those who write national newspaper editorials. The ongoing crisis within Anglicanism is not essentially related to systems or a need for reforms. Do a great mass of our Bishops or Archbishops, who ignore shrill noises from credible whistleblowers, simply need to be removed?
James,
Are you referring to this: “It is difficult to understand because it is a technical document and most just don’t have the background training to grasp the complexity of the concepts and the underlying research and opinions that inform an inexact but developing discipline.”?
Appendix 4 is a technical analysis of the Smyth’s psychopathology and abnormal personality structure, its aetiology and natural history without intervention and its serious effects on others around him.
I am indicating that such psychological material does require serious study and is thankfully, likely outside the direct personal experience of most average readers, even those who read The Makin Report!
Those with personality disorders may be bad but they are not mad; they cannot be treated or cured by doctors or psychiatrists. (Prolonged expert psychotherapy however might in some instances bring about some small measure of insight).
We all need to be informed, wise and discerning as to whom we trust and ask others to trust. We are all vulnerable to the likes of Smyth and need to safeguard both ourselves and others. Ignorance and naivety does not serve us well-just look across the Atlantic for another malignant personality.
Hi Chris,
Is posthumous diagnosis of personality disorder likely to be speculative and unsafe?
The topic is filled with potential for controversy and dispute, even where a living individual has had an extensive clinical work up.
Whether JS had ‘narcissistic traits’, the ‘PD’ carrying that name, or was in a difficult zone where specialists might disagree on these points, could be a red herring.
The more central issue is ‘responsibility’ for his actions. His ability to evade the law for decades, aided or abetted by good fortune and cunning, plus quite possibly some influence in high places, is perhaps very telling.
Latterly there is a potential revision of traditional PD categories, with some practitioners feeling individuals possibly tend to quite often tick boxes across a variety of PD sub-types.
Psychiatrists apply restrictive criteria when diagnosing PD. Controversies, around available or effective treatments, mitigations might be a better word, make this seem entirely reasonable.
The media and the public perhaps latch far too readily onto talk of narcissistic traits. With PD diagnosis it may be wise to look for danger, damage and intractable trails of intense destruction.
The obvious situation to diagnose in Ms Smyth’s life and more importantly around the summer camps whether one knew about beatings or not, is codependency.
Everyone who doesn’t think Messiah came to deliver us – by Holy Spirit inbreathing and infilling – from the effects of the sin system of those bigger than us, needs to scuttle back to their Bible (and not J I Packer’s Eternal Subordination Version).
Youths should get a summer job and not allow themselves to be separated, by figures with a recognised name and glamorous aura, from a wide age range of experienced others. Church leaders said “we won’t let those filthy balanced normal old people near our youth”.
Now we old are ourselves too much the product of those siloes. Did parents order their youngsters to attend or did the youths beg and insist?
It’s sobering to read comments on this Blog and reflect on them. I was trained to trout fish by a group of old poachers. There were golden rules: keep low, hide behind background banks or trees, move slowly, wear a hat, dress in dull clothes, wade as little as necessary, approach river trout from downstream. There were also specific tactics related to the time of the year, and for certain pools or weedy runs. It was all about a gentle and quiet approach, and once eatable size fish were caught getting them quickly bagged.
I think lots of our Anglican leaders are experts at keeping ‘bah’ (bullying-abuse-harassment) hidden. Many of them know the game inside out. That’s my impression. It’s perhaps being akin to the old poachers who tutored me in the art of catching trout. The senior clerics really only become vulnerable when challenged robustly. But even at that point their DARVO mechanisms for evicting dissenters or victims kick in with well practiced force.
The current resistance to ‘independent safeguarding’ is very telling. I think we should be insisting on this henceforth, and I also feel ‘bah’ protections need to cover all Anglicans: children, VA’s, lay members, trainees, junior clergy, senior clergy. I wish Channel 4 were giving victims more slots. I really cannot understand exactly why the Smyth family want to appear on TV.
Family dynamics are rarely discussed or understood, but to see via TV, an edited selection of interactions, whilst feeling somewhat intrusive, is instructive. Of course with the central character now deceased, the family is still in disarray.
The daughter had found some agency in investigating her father herself and corroborating her own dis-ease with what she believed was wrong. It takes some courage to do this.
The wife has had considerable difficulty extricating herself from the narcissistic feeder relationship she provided. Successful narcissists like Smyth always have people who supply them. I’m grateful Anne has at least survived, and was brave to describe her shame, on the programme.
We are not our parents, but personally I’ve found it an almost daily exercise to extricate myself from their ways that were toxic, and not to repeat them. In his own way the Smyth son is doing something similar I suspect, from what we all saw.
As a child, almost all you know is from the nucleus of your main family. Even many decades later, I’m still learning how others’ may have been different.
It’s equally possible that others were part of Smyth’s narcissistic feeder network, for example Justin Welby. Many others too across the years. Justin even sent him money after he’d been quietly exported.
There’s no immediate upside to having been connected with Smyth. It’s not surprising that so few have admitted their involvement with him, influence by him, and complicity in covering up his crimes. We need a lot more courage from these men. They could learn something from Smyth’s family. In demonstrating some outward courage they could at least start to rebuild some credibility.
It’s taken over 40 years, but finally no one is saying Smyth was a great guy. We’ve achieved that much, as a society, as a Church. Unfortunately not much else has been done about it. Could a new nasty piece of work be promoted to dominate again? Yes. There’s probably a fair few already out there, gaining ascendancy.
We can bicker amongst ourselves as to how much we think we know about subsections of knowledge about what went wrong, but are we changing anything in the way we lead others? Has our love increased? Our Lord would have turned the tables years ago had He been let loose at Lambeth Palace.
The Church’s main strategy currently is: “Let’s hope people don’t watch Channel 4”. One thing we can do is to promote the programmes that expose the corruption ongoing at the very centre of our religious life. In this way we can begin to help others circumvent the deep set intransigence structured into our Church communities.
Yes, indeed, TV news exposure has capacity to do huge good. Technology and new weapons turned around battle against U-boats in 1943. TV news journalism has immense potency. A lot of people hunted after the Smyth story. But it was Channel 4 and Cathy Newman who exposed it in a highly effective manner.
I’m at a disadvantage as I have not viewed the latest televised documentaries. Possibly the point has been covered, but I wonder whether people commenting here are aware that John Smyth was born in Canada in a family of Plymouth Brethren and, somehow, the family was expelled from that community. Both facts seem to me to be potentially significant.
On moving to England Smyth appears to have joined the Church of England. He did not retain that ‘affiliation’ after the move to Zimbabwe. What happened there is explained in detail in the Coltart Report – essential reading for any authoritative comment on this extraordinary and tragic saga.
By sheer chance I was aware of a community of Plymouth Brethren meeting in Winchester, but that was long before these events, the 1950s or 60s, I think. The men were soberly dressed in black or dark suits, wearing black bowler hats and, to the best of my recollection, the women were similarly discreet in their dress. I have no idea when their activities ceased. The former chapel where they met is now a private house.
Thanks for your interesting contribution. The Brethren originated in Ireland I think. Many Irish Protestant families possibly have brethren relatives, friends, colleagues or class mates. In my experience they are perhaps often described as strait-laced, but fundamentally very decent people with a strong work ethic and often related or accompanying business success. There may be splinter groups within the Brethren, so separation or shifting might not be all that unusual. As is customary with lots of conservative evangelical groups, I think there can sometimes be a parent-child split. Lots of my Irish Anglican friends slip into agnosticism. But with those reared in conservative evangelical groups there may be a sort of -‘all or nothing’-at work: holding fast to belief or rejecting it outright. I have a general aversion to extreme fundamentalism, but lots of Brethren people I have come across bear zero resemblance to John Smyth QC. I would question if his early life in a Brethren family at all explains the pathology manifested.
Naturally I don’t know the full details, but I am fairly certain that I read that the Smyth family was expelled from the Brethren, and I would have thought that would be pretty traumatic for the children as well as their parents.
Smyth maintained a personal link with the country of his birth, and briefly returned to Canada after his short sojourn at Trinity College, Bristol – the subject of the later scandalous treatment of Archbishop Carey (then Principal of Trinity) on the flimsiest and unsubstantiated grounds.
Yes, you can see where the anger may have had its origins in the young Smyth, and his later tendency to move countries when things went wrong. This is valuable history Rowland.
Within fundamentalist groups one might imagine how rows, schisms, splits and fallings out can be quite common. ‘Open Brethren’ and ‘Closed Brethren’ boundaries come to mind. The scale of perpetual evil, in various times and places, is quite amazing with Smyth. I like middle of the way or ‘evangelical lite’ Anglicanism. Elements of the Brethren practice would not appeal. But are there lots of very fine Brethren families? And does the Brethren background not really make sense of Smyth?
There are a number of different Brethren groups, ranging from the ‘open’ Brethren to various ‘exclusive’ Brethren sects. I have always got on pretty well with Open Brethren, and have a great deal of respect for them. The Exclusives are a different story – when I lived in Eastbourne, years ago, there were two Exclusive assemblies who had little to do with each other. My neighbour attended one of them: when I gave her bath salts one Christmas she returned them saying they were ‘frivolous’. Poor soul.
Yes, it might be interesting to know if Smyth was in a more severe branch during childhood Funny, I have a recollection similar to yours, of stories from older contacts, about some of the rather more severe people within the ‘Exclusive Brethren’.
Is there any record of Smyth’s burial or cremation, and which denomination (if any) handled it in South Africa? Daily Mail, or Daily Tele, and the wider media, sometimes refer to arrangements for maligned criminals or deceased notorious prisoners. I am not a cleric. But do any contributors, retired or in active ministry, have knowledge or experience on this? One might guess how BCP standard funeral rites possibly have been used for centuries in situations where the sins of the deceased were premiership league rather than Vauxhall Conference. The funeral service could point to denominational association in South Africa in the years before his death.
While theories about potential PD or psychopathology are interesting, should we ask a different question about John Smyth QC. Given the scale of abuse, both in terms of the overall numbers and the intensity of harm to some individuals, could we reasonably surmise some form of supernatural evil has been at work?