by Stephen Parsons
It is hard to extract positive lessons from the woeful saga of John Smyth and all that has followed. In the midst of all the sometimes shabby and even dishonest behaviour on the part of leaders and others in the Church of England, I have found one clear display of professional integrity. This was not located in the Church, but from some in the journalistic profession, most notably in the efforts of Cathy Newman and Channel 4 to uncover the truth. Not only did the Channel 4 team reveal the truth of a festering scandal in the C/E but the same high-quality journalism has continued in the aftermath. Cathy has interviewed several of the key players in the drama, Smyth’s son and the Report author, Keith Makin. It is good to see and hear Makin for the first time, when for so long his name has been merely the title of an invisible and much awaited report.
In this blog post I want to turn my attention away from information in the Report but start by first mentioning a commentary section that most readers will probably not read, the psychological assessment of Smyth by Dr Elly Hanson, in the appendix. In this sub-report we are offered insights into the psychology of Smyth and what his actions suggest by way of a psychological/psychoanalytical profile. I do not propose to repeat her comments, but to observe that much of what she draws out of her assessment focuses on narcissism and the Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD). What struck me was that the word ‘narcissist’ was also the word that PJ Smyth, Smyth’s son, chose as the one to sum up his father’s personality at the conclusion of his very revealing interview with Cathy Newman.
Long-term readers of this blog will know that I have frequently been drawn to the notion of narcissism as a key concept for the understanding of power abuse in the Church. Confusingly, the word has acquired different meanings and usages in popular discourse. Sometimes it is used in a debate or discussion without the parties taking the trouble to find out what the other side means by the word. I found myself first using the word in the context of religious or cultic groups, having read the work of Len Oakes, an Australian scholar. He illuminated a link between narcissism and the personalities of many charismatic leaders. The scholars that Oakes was reading were the generation who struggled to give the word meaning in the context of clinical practice rather than as a description of modern culture. Otto Kernberg and Heinz Kohut, the pioneer clinicians to discuss the meaning of narcissism, were formulating their classic definitions and theories in the 70s. Their ideas gained sufficient acceptance within the psychoanalytic profession to appear in the 1980 version of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) III. The discussions about what constitutes narcissism have, of course, been refined since 1980 but many, if not most, of the classic signs of NPD have survived intact into DSM-V, currently the authoritative statement used by the psychoanalytic profession.
The question of what precisely PJ Smyth meant when describing his father as a ‘grand narcissist’ does not matter at one level. The word is one that always needs to be defined in any discussion lest it become a source of misunderstanding and confusion. I use the word often but take care that the person I am speaking to knows how I am using it. The important and interesting fact is that PJ used the word and we may find that, as we try to unpack the term, we obtain fresh insights into John Smyth and his extraordinarily evil behaviour. Our examination of the word may also provide a key to understanding the corrupt dysfunctional behaviour of other religious leaders.
The definitions given in DSM III -V do not represent the final word on narcissism but they do offer us a series of traits found in the one who is defined as being afflicted with NPD. The nine traits mentioned by the different editions of the DSM all seem to focus, directly or indirectly, on a relentless and pathological struggle for power and desire for control. These are thought by the sufferer to be the keys able to satisfy a constant but unsatisfied craving for importance and self-esteem. This reflects my own personal amateur attempts to understand the NPD literature which is summarised for us by the descriptions in DSM. While experts might vary in the way they describe NPD, my remarks here are my attempt to make sense of the dense language of the pioneering clinicians like Kohut and Kernberg. The DSM traits seem to indicate that the NPD sufferer is like a starving man. His (typically a he/him) starvation, or voracious appetite, is so that he will be loved and admired. For whatever reason, the narcissist is the one who has been let down or even betrayed in the process of growing up. He is one who has been wounded in childhood and now strives, using all his power and resources, whether social or psychological, to extract from others the respect and adoration that was, for some reason, unavailable to him while growing up.
It goes without saying that not every sufferer of NPD will have the giftedness and sheer power of personality to be able to attract and manipulate others in ways shown to us by Smyth (and Donald Trump). Others remain crushed and defeated by their failure to be admired and loved – a gift given to most children by their parents. The individuals who have the inner contentment that comes through ‘good-enough’ parenting, do not need to manipulate or control others. That is the obsessive concern of the true narcissist. The sufferer of NPD, the one who also has the force of personality to get their own way in pursuit of their addiction to importance and grandiosity, is hard to live with. If they oversee an organisation, they will be difficult or impossible to challenge. Everyone walks on eggshells, terrified of provoking what is called narcissistic rage. Some or all of the nine traits of NPD as listed in the DSM can be identified in any bullying individual who uses the power of his personality to bludgeon or manipulate others into a place of control. While they are ‘lording’ it over others, in a way that contradicts Jesus’s injunctions about the use of power by his followers, the insatiable appetite for power and dominance is being temporarily gratified.
Narcissistic dynamics do not just involve individuals and their esteem addictions. They are also to be observed in political and religious structures. Many commentators have spoken about the toxic narcissism of Donald Trump and the way that he has used the Republican party and his mesmeric gifts of dominance to obtain a position of power never achieved since the fascist dictators of the 30s. It would of course be wrong to describe the Church of England as a narcissistic organisation, but it does provide extensive opportunities for narcissists to flourish within its ranks, and particularly in its hierarchy. Words like ‘grandiosity’ ‘messianic’ and ‘high-status’ are all found in the descriptions of NPD and these characteristics are all obvious when we look at the pursuit of dominance seen in John Smyth and many others who have misused institutional authority. Repeatedly we note the way that hierarchs, individuals within the structural Church, have chosen to support the organisation that gives them their status rather than listen to their personal consciences. Only a few nights ago, Tuesday 26th , did we hear once again how five bishops ignored the pleas of Matt Ineson about his abuse by a priest. One wonders whether it was the relationship to the structure that inhibited their actions and whether things would have been different if they had had only to respond to their consciences.
Returning to the comment and description by PJ Smyth of his father as a ‘total narcissist’, we are able to see how the word does sum up many of the aspects of behaviour of this notable malefactor. In using this one word we touch on not only the evil perpetrated by a single individual, but a further uncomfortable reality. This sees that it is not only individuals who are narcissists or sufferers of NPD, but organisations, such as the Church of England, are prone to incubate such behaviour. Bishops, clergy, church administrators and lawyers, some of whom are being scrutinised currently for their historic failure to act over the abuses, are unlikely to be solitary narcissists. They are better described as institutional narcissists – those who use the opportunities given to them by their position within a hierarchy, to indulge their taste and need for self-importance and power.
Once again, I am returning to a theme which I have discussed many times because I believe it to be of such importance. We need to embody in attitude and action the words of Jesus, ‘I am among you as one who serveth’. In a serving church, narcissism stands out like the monstrous carbuncle that it is. ‘Forgetting’ to act on a disclosure of abuse comes to be revealed as a narcissistic self-promoting action. Acting and not acting as a way of gaining power and gratification, either for ourselves or the organisation we work for, will often result in terrible evil and injustice. Smyth was a toxic narcissist, both as an individual but also as part of the various Christian tribes which gave him authority, even permission, to become the monster that he was. Institutions that fail to understand the nature of the power they have, can allow that same power to fester and become something truly dangerous and a cause of harm.
Many of us who weren’t thrashed within an inch of our lives (and in some cases lost or almost lost theirs) might be wondering what people saw in Smyth. How did they not see it for what it was? How did his behaviours get passed as ok? How was Smyth allowed to dominate Iwerne, the prep school for high ranking officers in the Church of England?
It’s important to see narcissism in context. Most narcissists are ineffective and shunned by people. Someone gazing at his own shadow and falling in love with it, hardly impresses.
What makes narcissists dangerous, is when their grand schemes tap into positive dreams we all have. Narcissists make up their own truth, which they believe. Because they only self-reference, if they say something it becomes “true” with remarkable ease. We who follow get a dream of wealth or success, or dominance which we crave, if we follow this guy. We feed the narcissistic dragon by going along with him, by not saying anything if we see something wrong, by pushing the problems away to other countries, but trying to keep the elitism we’ve been enjoying.
There’s no personal upside for people trapped in the feeder machine going public. If they do, they face oblivion, ostracism or career bankruptcy. Of course to have spoken up would have been a brave, moral thing; a Christian thing to do. But this doesn’t pay the bills or keep the palace going.
Smyth would have failed if it hadn’t been for the others.
It takes a lifetime of reflection, some therapy, a catastrophe or two to realise the structural faults in the whole thinking around these disastrous narcissistic leaders of yesteryear. We should have been less trusting of their rhetoric, more critical thinking. Many were set like this when young. How were they to know any better.
Those of us who were young, but aren’t anymore, need to do better. Yes we were misled, but now there is no doubt: Smyth was enabled by others, many of whom are still in post, and are doing and saying nothing about it. Neither are they speaking about or acting on numerous other further abuses.
Can an organisation itself be narcissistic? In this sense I believe it has a life of its own: the Church becomes an imaginary place-in-the-mind of many people. It shines with prestige, power and significance. That these qualities have almost completely disappeared for most people outside, is a matter of indifference to those few still in their places. Narcissism is generally self limiting. Without taking in vital external data, essential for survival even, failure and demise is guaranteed. However, with a hesitant State anxious not to interfere, and with vast wealth propping up the centre, there literally is no upside for the senior people to change.
Don’t they have consciences people are asking? Don’t they fear God? The third factor is the way these people are conditioned. Beatings, both physical and mental were a key part of education. The norm. Break them to make them. What are you left with? People who do other people’s bidding without question. Ideal for people like Smyth.
I was touched by Cathy’s interview with his son. The boy was brutally treated and finally was able to come to terms with what his father was, having initially deflected it. Then, most movingly he received compassion from another of his father’s victims. The time for this is only after all the poison has been released. Not before.
In my teens, over 50 years ago, I was suspicious of the fake “evangelicalism” due to the mind-flayed appearance of those issuing from it.
Had that element been assuring oppressors that the latter would be off the hook for oppressing if they did the fake “evangelical” thing? They should have been forthrightly advocating in Holy Spirit trust, like the prophets and apostles.
I add the word “fake” as the intention is still to discredit the rare real article existing somewhere.
Thank you Stephen – each ‘grand narcissist’ has similar general traits and then their own particular grimness.
The interview you mention is deeply powerful and yes he was a ‘grand narcissist’, part of which was for him denying any responsibility for his cruelty, dressing it up in religious speak, and with no insight into his criminal behaviour (despite the legal training). He was also an expert in manipulation and grooming and this comes over especially strongly
https://www.channel4.com/news/the-words-of-john-smyths-son-pj-one-of-his-earliest-victims-in-an-exclusive-interview-with-this-programme
The diagnosis of personality disorder (or hybrid disorders) in a living person is something a senior psychiatrist might approach with great care. I have not seen any reports of PD diagnosis being made by any psychiatrist while John Smyth QC was alive. Might a PD diagnosis also imply or allude to “illness” driving his sadomasochism?
Saying elements of someone’s behaviour is psychopathic (or narcissistic) does not equate to confirming they have a PD. A broader narrative, on Smyth’s early and middle life, could possibly be far more enlightening than the academically challenging (impossible?) question of making a PD diagnosis in a dead person. We will probably be hearing more from Africa (or England) which will throw further light on the situation.
The acutely relevant question is whether Smyth was ill or had insight into the wrongness of what he was doing. An overstretched UK Crown Prosecution service does not normally summons elderly men from overseas to face criminal charges in the absence of pretty good evidence. A realistic chance of conviction must have been present is surely a reasonable surmise…….
The narcissist is notoriously difficult “to treat”, although Christopher Bollas in his book “Three Characters: (2021) describes his attempts over the very long term with limited progress.
However it is very useful to understand the intricacies of the grand narcissist’s behaviour, and why he acts as he does, not to treat him, but to alert ourselves and others as to how these people work. I welcome articles such as this, which broaden the knowledge out there. Forewarned is forearmed.
The golden rule is to challenge bullies. Severe Personality Disorder management (if any is possible) is possibly not the Church’s responsibility. People with extreme patterns of violence can change. The Thomas Tarrants testimony is interesting.
This is not necessarily true at all, especially when it comes to a narcissistic person who behaves in order to generate narcissistic supply from those around them.
That is when we all become grandiosely, codependently mind-flayed. How many vicars had tutors at college who had been to miscellaneous “camps” (old fashioned or modern)? And sent our coparishioners to similar? Every autumn they came back worse, it was noticeable. A self-fulfilling system, an auto-non-forgiving blasphemy, a snowballing mushroom.
The section in the interview when JS apologizes to his 11 year old son for being a bad father is perhaps a momentary insight/remorse that soon went? Or a realization of his own damage and addiction to sadism … ? He needed stopping and that’s where the church failed so dismally.
The independence of Channel 4 and Cathy Newman stopped the John Smyth tank in its tracks. Clay-footed Anglican bishops failed to do this for decades. Would underling administrators in safeguarding (diocesan based and under a Bishop’s control) ever have achieved this in a million years? Rock on protection through independent inquiry processes. The golden rule is to “confront bullies”.
A remarkable historical coincidence that C4 began in the very year of the Ruston Report, though it would be ever so long before the two finally met their joint dénouement. Reminds me of Thomas Hardy’s poem “The Convergence of the Twain”….
Indeed, they have to have a very good chance of gaining a conviction to bring a case to court before they even consider an arrest – or in this case, extradition. The fact that Smyth, as a lawyer or magistrate would have had a good (albeit distorted) understanding of the law and its system would have been an even greater reason to have a very strong case for prosecution.
The Church attracts narcissistic people. Not just abusers but narcissists who turn a safeguarding crisis into opportunities for themselves. For example, by ‘telling’ on victims to their superiors in Church or even threatening to sue victims as if the Church is the victim here.
If you have a church headed by narcissists, who are pretty much unchecked and look out for one another, then it will end badly. You will have a cycle of abuse and a bunch of lip service to maintain it.
Vicars get 20 odd minutes every week to present a soliloquy in front of a compliant audience. It is an opportunity to sneak in scriptural punches against the victims in the pew – ‘forgive and forget’ sermons. These sermons also tell abusers that they are forgiven whatever they do. It is a toxic mix. Everyone in the congregation will nod their heads in agreement, and then go for coffee afterwards.
They go to church to have social time – what Martin Luther King called an ‘irrelevant social club’ and you can’t assume that they have an atom of Christianity in their bodies. In Church, they do not care enough about anyone but themselves. Even charity work is relentless self-promotion. They don’t want to get their hands dirty, recognising abuse, or doing anything about it.
People should stay away from the Church.
An older pensioner joined our midweek prayer meeting after professing fait. He comments: “The real Church is in heaven. The rest is only buildings”.
Lots of ‘Anglican anabaptists’ now prefer to nominally be connected for life rites, or an occasional Holy Communion service. But real spirituality is possibly far more likely to be found in midweek small group fellowships. No collection plates!
I go to a Church cafe midweek with good food, no music, space for discussion and fun. A ‘Judas Church’, about buildings and squeezing money out of people, will complain how a reducing membership do “not give enough”.
The ‘narcissism denomination’ can be good at organising children’s activities. But very few adults like endlessly getting barked at and manipulated. Time+money, wasted as a young believer on the institutional Church, now makes me sad.
Our Lord wanted deeds and compassion for the poor, not vestments-investments, funny hats and Bo-Peep stick collections. Those notorious clerics, wanting ‘pockets emptied’, often turn out to have their own hidden business interests.
Here’s a funny thing, James. You weren’t listening in to a conversation I had with a older lady in our church yesterday morning, but you’ve just quoted the way our chat went almost verbatim! Definitely Anglican anabaptists…….
This is all very disturbing and not limited to the Anglican Church in the UK. I live in New Zealand which has just had a Royal Commission into state and faith abuse which concluded that the worst of the sexual abuse occurred in two named faith schools “and Catholic institutions in general”. The Catholic Church in NZ is currently swimming in sleaze and denial. I have a very relevant professional background and have been researching it on behalf of survivor groups. The questions which beg an answer are 1) why are there so many child sexual abusers within the Church and 2) why were its clerics so wickedly cruel? To unravel this we need to explore their developmental pathway from their training through their ministry and probable promotion towards becoming child sexual abusers. Stephen Parsons correctly points to the incubation role of the established church(es) in promoting child sexual abuse. Whilst there is plenty of research on the grooming of young children by sexually abusive ministers and priests (and others), there is very little understanding or research on the developmental trajectory of future abusers. So we need I suggest to take a developmental approach to this. Within the Catholic Church (in NZ the percentage of diocesan priests who had credible accusations leveled at them was reported by the Church to be 14% but is probably double this since no records were available prior to 1995) I think that confession / reconciliation is part of this developmental pathway. Consider this, children make their first confession at about the age of 8 and there is at least a 1 in 7 chance (or higher) of their confessor being a sexual abuser or an embryonic sexual abuser. Now if the young penitent hesitatingly confesses to for example having “impure thoughts”, that would give the priest an opportunity to ask shall we say intrusive or probing questions. In Catholic theology this would otherwise be known as an ‘occasion for sin’, like deliberately walking past a brothel. Given the high number of sexually abusive priests this should not be allowed to happen. There will be of course other ‘drivers’ to someone developing a sexual interest in children but to me this one is pretty obvious.
Catholicism has made huge strides, unmatched sadly as yet within Anglicanism. Chapter Five of ‘Letters to a Broken Church’ notes this in 4 pages of crisp text. Removal of Bishops in Ireland, who covered up abuse, brought a gigantic change. Bishops implicated in CoE problems need to ‘follow the leader (ex-leader) and go….’ Any resignations in the NZ situation you describe?
No, that would be an admission of guilt. Catholic priests and bishops don’t readily confess to individual or institutional sexual abuse (let alone resign) because to do so would invite the awkward question, “Why does your God allow his priests to rape children?” So the answer to your question is a simple negation of your first statement, “Catholicism has made huge strides”. It hasn’t and they have deceived their flock yet again. Eventually the faithful who are secondary victims will wake up to the betrayal by their bishops and priests and leave en masse if they haven’t already. Just as church pews in Ireland are largely taken by immigrants from Poland, those in New Zealand are mostly reserved for Filipino immigrants.
Reading what Elliott has to say leaves me in no doubt about a great mass of resignations, plus the new attitude leaving Bishops who cover abuse knowing they face removal. Elliott juxtaposes Irish Catholicism’s radical revisionism with nothing really changing in the Church of England. There are two separate observations: pews emptying in a region v. clerical discipling being much powerfully controlled. Private Eye magazine cited lots of J Smyth QC associated senior clerics who have faced limited sanction.
Let the Roman Irish do things in a Roman Irish way. But in the major and multidenominational sector of the Anglosphere, the competition was among who could bring in Wimber’s “power evangelisation” concept the fastest and most thoroughly, spreading among all churchmanship styles. “Influencing” has held an attraction among the politically connected since Stott days.
Pentecostalism and the charismatic revival have had a remarkably positive impact. But objective analysis of evidence (not signs or wonders generally!) is what the Bible directs us to on issues of justice.
Elliott celebrates what Irish Catholicism achieved. In complete contrast, he laments the woeful performance of Anglican Bishops. Talk of just one head-Welby-rolling, is farcical when the people connected to Pilavachi or Smyth foul ups are listed?
What you describe as the ‘Roman Irish way’ is the right way: empowerment of the laity and senior clergy being held to account or fired.
What we might correspondingly label ‘Anglo-Saxon Puritanism’, badly needs to follow the example of Irish Catholicism: ‘il est bon de tuer de temps en temps un amiral pour encourager les autres…..’
Leaders not held to account become bullies, and protect other bullies. Has the evangelical wing of Anglicanism much more to hide?
There comes a point I suggest when parishioners of most Christian churches will need to accept that the problem is not just one of so many wicked individuals within, rather a corrupt institutional church. They can keep their faith but they should leave the institution that made and hosted these individuals. If the Anglican and Catholic Churches were commercial entities (spoiler alert, they are but don’t pay income tax or council dues, their ministers readily obtain visas and they have free seats in the Lords) they would go the way of ENRON.
Lots of people have already moved to ‘hatch-match-dispatch’ mode. An informal midweek fellowship suffices. The poor are an area of primary interest (not spires, steeples, rectories, wages, pension funds, diocesan administrators). It’s a return to an early Church form of engagement. There are lots of Anglican anabaptists around!
If you can find a fellowship that’s not micro-controlled! At one time savvy and good hearted pastors upon an enquiry into a fellowship would say, “why don’t you ask Mrs So&so if she knows”, knowing full well he could trust the parishioners and their friends to get on with it behind his back.
Indeed, respect for adult autonomy is everything. That’s what makes for a really positive midweek meeting.
Bishop Watson’s statement (a few years ago) that Smyth’s behaviour corresponded to no known theology showed up a blind spot. Revs W Taylor and / or Gumbel are now trying, by the power of suggestion and (other people’s) billions, to turn the C of E into what really it is not: something sectarian. They should hold matins and evensong seven days a week according to any prayerbook and they will see what church is.
Sharp eyed and good hearted, properly spiritual-minded nonconformists were prepared, sixty years ago, to guard the C of E and consequently themselves, before the wave of new apostolic restoration and dominionism engulfed everybody; but the inexperienced Stott hampered that. Smyth typified the prevalent institutional weaving in and out as material manoeuvre.
The nation’s morals, which the evo-cons don’t really care about, will mend when these imbalances are overturned. Are there people who use the prayerbooks at home?
Whilst decidedly non-spiritual myself, I welcome and support parishioners of the major abusive churches leaving and attending instead midweek prayer meetings, small fellowship gatherings at their homes and so on. At another level this is something which conveniently lets them off the hook in supporting the tens of thousands of survivors of faith abuse and tending to their needs. On a good day institutional churches might do this (I don’t know of any examples though) but most are so firmly in denial and wedded to maintaining the respective churches diminishing good name that the needs of survivors is the last thing on their minds. So I am asking correspondents on this and other excellent websites (e.g. Anglican Anabaptists), what is their plan for meeting the needs of survivors and what action steps have been taken? Pray do tell. Or are you just turning your back on the problem like the established church that you have just left?