Graham’s article about John Smyth focuses on what happened in 2012-13, 30 years after Smyth’s assaults, at which point he doesn’t appear to have been a threat to no-one. I am more interested in why Smyth wasn’t exposed in the early 1980’s. There were no safeguarding rules in place at the time, but the assaults were known to a large number of people – not just the Iwerne clergy/lay leaders, but the victims parents/families, and presumably teachers/school staff (as some of the victims were at boarding school) and doctors (some of the victims must have sought medical help). Why didn’t… Read more »
This lie has been perpetuated by David Fletcher/Iwerne/Titus Trust for over 40 years. Two fathers of Smyth victims, who were public figures in 1982, DID not want the matter pursued. David Fletcher and numerous C of E clerics were adamant that ‘the work’ (ie Bash camps) should not be investigated. As far as I/anyone know the other 28 (approx) UK victims were never allowed to express any opinion. Smyth’s 100 (approx) African victims, 2 of whom died, were definitely never asked their opinion. But given that they were African, the C of E has never spent a single second worrying… Read more »
Forgive my query but did you mean the fathers of the victims ‘DID want the matter pursued’ or ‘DID’not want the matter pursued”? If the former why if they were public figures, presumably with some influence, did it not happen?
Secondly, I am sure many would like to turn over the stones and look at what lies hidden below but where are the stones and how could it be done? This is a serious question to anybody with possible ideas.
2 high profile ‘Winchester Fathers’ DID NOT want the matter pursued, which coincided with the absolute insistence of all those C of E clergy in the Iwerne hierarchy that as long as John Smyth wasn’t risking the reputation of their ‘Bash camps’, they didn’t mind what he did or to whom or where (outside UK).
I’m not aware that the other 28 UK families, or the 100 African families, were ever consulted by David Fletcher et al as to what their views were.
‘Two fathers of Smyth victims, who were public figures in 1982, DID not want the matter pursued.’ (Admittedly it would have been a little clearer if the NOT had also been capitalised.) The others apparently weren’t asked.
Blogs, and chat rooms like TA, do a good job of turning over the stones the C of E’s senior layer are desperately trying to keep unturned. Keep up the good work, Susan!
The answer to your general question should be the Makin Report (when it eventually appears). Meanwhile, the most comprehensive and reliable source comes from overseas, the Coltart Report written by a distinguished human rights lawyer (and Senator of the Zimbabwe parliament) dealing with events both in England (in remarkable detail), and Zimbabwe where the death occurred to which Janet Fife refers. Following that Smyth moved to South Africa and set up a legal practice, including advising the South African government, and appearing on national television there in the year following Graham’s complaint. I can’t offer anything about abuse in South… Read more »
I doubt if Makin will answer all the questions or address all the issues. The last I heard there were key people he hadn’t interviewed; and one crucial witness withdrew his evidence after being continually messed about. And, of course, it was never part of Makin’s brief to investigate Smyth’s activities in Africa. Andrew Graystone’s book comprehensively covers the English chapters of the story, and Smyth’s activities in both Zimbabwe and South Africa.
You may well be right about Mr Makin, although I hope not.
I make no apology for recommending reading Mr Coltart’s report. Mr Coltart has been a major player involved in some of the events in Zimbabwe rather than just an external reporter. He is clearly the expert on all Zimbabwean aspects of the case, and also remarkably well-informed about the English end of things. Indeed, it was his report which first alerted me to the disclosure in John Thorn’s book as early as in 1989 of Smyth’s abuse and removal to Africa.
Yes, I agree that the Coltart Report – which is actually by a panel of people – is useful. It can easily be found online. One of the contributors was the Rev Chris Hingley, a Zimbabwean who took a degree at Oxford and later taught at Wycliffe Hall in Oxford. Chris knew a number of Iwerne men while he was over here, certainly during his Wycliffe days if not before. Some of them may have been Smyth victims.
I’m really puzzled by these exchanges. I linked the Coltart report in my reply to Susan Hunt to which you replied, so it’s hardly appropriate to tell me that it’s available on line!
I’m sorry if I upset you, Rowland. In long threads like this it’s sometimes useful to repeat information given earlier on, for the benefit of those who dip into the thread at some point in the middle. It’s quite easy to lose track.
So 2 families didn’t want to take the matter further. what about the other 28?
I do not understand how families would permit their sons to be treated in this manner. Even if they did want to put their sons through the ordeal of giving evidence in a public court case, there were other options open to them – e.g. take civil action against Smyth or the organisations concerned.
John Smyth remained a threat to boys and young men in Africa; one of them died. If you want to know more about this and the other questions you raise, read Andrew Graystone’s masterly book Bleeding for Jesus.
Smyth was still in abusive relationships with young men as late as 2017. Read Bleeding for Jesus by Andrew Graystone. Smyth was thrown out of his church as late at 2016 for inappropriate behaviour with students. As the Church of England has refused to investigate his African abuse ( whether 1984-97 and the charge of culpable homicide, or in Cape Town) we will never know the full extent. The Church can be embarrassed by English public school, Oxbridge men: black Africans…..well that is another matter.
Probably the most insightful thing I have read about the C of E over the last 11 years (perhaps even more insightful than the author, Robert Thompson, realises):
You can take the boy out of Eton, but you can’t take Eton out of the boy.
The Headmaster of Winchester College, the late John Thorn (died last year, aged 98), disclosed limited details of abuse by Smyth and his move to Africa in his autobiography “The Road to Winchester” published on 23 February 1989. I made this point on TA some years ago but some readers weren’t persuaded then that this was sufficient evidence (based on their assumption of a limited readership of Mr Thorn’s book) of amounting to public knowledge, frankly a very doubtful assertion in my view. Nevertheless it is impossible for anyone to suggest that Mr Thorn concealed his knowledge at that time.
Have to say I was very unimpressed by Thorn’s book. It did not name Smyth & failed to make clear the extreme physical violence that he inflicted on his victims.
Fr Dean
3 months ago
Is Mrs Smyth still alive? I can’t believe that she didn’t know what was going on. However, I somehow doubt that Graham will ever get justice. The CofE in its many guises passed by on the other side and is still scurrying away. Quite how those withholding justice from the survivors sleep at night is beyond me; their endless equivocation seems at odds with our founder’s teaching, or have I missed something.
Somewhere along the line in this complex saga I have read that Mrs Smyth dressed the wounds of some of the victims. Equally I have read that the police (l’m not sure that this has ever reached the CPS) indicated that they did not intend to take any action against her. The planned extradition of Smyth was prevented by his sudden death.
Anne Smyth’s situation is complicated. She was shown on the Feb 2017 Channel 4 programmes, eg 1 min onwards in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXNS57yQWGI On the one hand she was an active participant in the sense that she provided the bandages for those beaten by John Smyth, Simon Doggart (& others?), and provided the necessary ‘air cover’ of ‘happy family with 2.4 children’ that Smyth so ruthlessly exploited. On the other hand, was she John Smyth’s first/even ‘greatest’ victim? Some Smyth victims wanted proceedings to be pursued against her after Smyth’s untimely death in 2018, but the police declined. Probably one of the… Read more »
I doubt that Mrs Smyth would have been a compellable witness in criminal proceedings against her husband for offences committed prior to 1984 (section 80 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 modified the existing exemption between husband and wife originally based on common law). Without knowing, this would explain the stance taken by the police in relation to Mrs Smyth.
peterpi - Peter Gross
3 months ago
Regarding safeguarding (or more accurately, the lack thereof, the looking away. the reshuffling, etc.), when it comes to too many areas of those who administer the bride of Christ, John 11:35 still applies.
Graham’s blog in Surviving Church in December ‘21 sets out details of what information was already in the public domain about Smyth and was being steadfastly ignored by the current COf E hierarchy, and Rowland Wateridge has written about it too. The brutal reality is that there is a shocking and ongoing cover up , with the ever delayed Makin report the current best excuse of choice. Realist’s comment on via media news says it all in answering Graham’s question about whether not acting on a safeguarding disclosure is a disciplinary offence. We should all be ashamed that this is… Read more »
Thank you Kelvin. I’ve had so many people both during and after the pandemic tell me how much they appreciate the availability of the live stream. It’s not just the housebound (although of course every single one of them matters to God); it’s also people who are the only churchgoer in their family and have to help drive kids to sports and other activities, or people who have to work and can watch the recording afterwards. And in my case, if I’m away for the weekend, I love that I can watch the video later and feel a sense of… Read more »
Well put, Tim. But you’re writing from an Evangelical perspective. Catholic Anglicans are, by and large, hopeless with tech and shouldn’t be let anywhere near it. The reasons may be partly theological: an incarnational faith sees worship as essentially bodily, which may subliminally inform our general incompetence with the medium and our unwillingness to resource it properly. There’s also the lingering suspicion that, while it’s a lifeline to housebound Mary, Jim next door sees it as a good excuse to worship from the comfort of his bed rather than getting up on a February morning to go to a draughty… Read more »
I don’t know how it is in the UK, but in the USA, a lot of RC parishes went virtual during lockdown and have maintained a “streamed service” ever since.
An approach towards the Jims of this world that has been adopted by several churches is to visit them. Ask them why they have not felt able to attend. Some will have genuine concerns or difficulties, whilst others will not. The first group should be supported. My church still provides socially distant seating and individual cups at communion. The second group need to be pastorally challenged. After all, church is the gathered community of believers. It’s not a spectator event. A final solution I have seen adopted is to only provide the link to the live stream to those in… Read more »
Yesterday our Mennonite church was visited by a couple who live in a local seniors’ home. They themselves are mobile but many others in the home are not. They have been tuning in to our Sunday morning live stream for the past few months and expressed their deep appreciation for it. By the way, we didn’t find out about this until they’d been doing it for a few weeks.
Absolutely! Several people who watched our services on line joined the church when in person worship was allowed. They particularly valued the virtual coffee time after the service when they got to know a few people in more depth.
I think this is vital. The advantage of Zoom over YouTube is that it allows two way traffic, and facilitates conversation before or after the service, which makes the whole thing more inclusive.
It is worth mentioning that it is not only frail people, or those living with a disability, who appreciate streamed services. Many LGBTQ people use streaming to access more inclusive congregations if they have none local to where they live. And the campaigning group onebodyonefaith runs a weekly Thursday evening on line liturgy for LGBTQ people.
Zoom is more participative, but YouTube is good for when you can’t make the service at the time it’s occurring. And anyone can join without needing to know the access code. Both have their place.
Locally we do a zoom service with chat before and after. But the actual liturgy is recorded within zoom and put online for anybody to watch afterwards, so both are possible with zoom.
But I agree with you, there is no one single right answer,
Rather than asking Jim why he had not felt able to attend, I adopted a less direct approach by offering him home communion. Usually he’d be sufficiently embarrassed to be in church the following Sunday.
‘There’s also the lingering suspicion that, while it’s a lifeline to housebound Mary, Jim next door sees it as a good excuse to worship from the comfort of his bed rather than getting up on a February morning to go to a draughty church.’
Ah, right, thanks Janet. I had missed that. Personally I never thought God put me in my position so I could judge Jim, because usually I didn’t know all the circumstances. Actually, after Covid I baptised a guy called Jim. He had been on the periphery of church life for a few years, but during Covid he not only watched our services on Facebook but attended almost all the online study groups we ran. After Covid he told me he had decided it was time for him to move to a more definite commitment, so he was baptised in my… Read more »
LOL Allan – my usual mistake is the opposite one—to take people utterly seriously when they are being a tease! Such are the perils of faceless communication! Video chats are way better! (now I am teasing…)
I find comments like this outrageous. No wonder the church is struggling – and if attitudes like this are prevalent then it deserves to die. It is so judgemental.
There are many people who don’t want to attend church because of social anxiety. If asked will they volunteer that? Probably not – they will just stop participating.
And you will have driven them away from the church.
No I will not have done. Visiting them, talking to them to discover their reasons for not attending is being pastorally sensitive. It’s not the third degree as you seem to suggest! It might be a visit by a member of their small group, or by someone on the visiting team or just a friend. Through the pastoral visit you might discover anxiety about not only attending church but leaving their home. So help can be provided with shopping or collecting prescriptions. Health issues might be discovered that can be addressed. May be its increasing infirmity. Maybe it is issues… Read more »
Try Southwark cathedral (and others) which have used the possibilities of on line creatively for several years now. As do many cathedrals and other (Liberal??) catholic churches
Agreed. Southwark, like St Alban’s Abbey, was excellent during Covid, but they’re cathedrals and well-resourced. Catholic parishes tend to put on a good show for the Parish Eucharist, but this is not always matched by the quality of the livestream.
Parishes, whatever their tradition, may struggle to find volunteers with the know-how and the confidence to deal with the tech.
During lockdown I did wonder, as I watched some livestreams of variable quality, whether the Church needed fewer and better online options, from places that had the capacity to offer them well.
On the other hand, during Covid what most people from our church told me was that it was comforting for them to see their own pastor leading the service on the screen (whether it was a slick production or not), and to be able to interact with their church family members in the comments.
In the first year of Covid I saw Prince Charles giving an online message, using an iPad propped up against a stack of books. Not hi-tech, but very meaningful.
As well as helpful recipes for tuscan chicken, and videos showing the iniquity of Donald Trump, not to mention the dire prospects of Leeds United, i find High Mass from St. Marys Bourne Street, and All Saints Margaret Street. Bourne Street also gives a helpful sermon selection.All this on You Tube. I can also attend virtually ar St James Spanish Place (RC) for a sublime latin mass. Scope for those of a catholic persuasion I would have thought.
There are some Anglican Catholics who can do tech – the Shrine at Walsingham has been streaming services regularly since lockdown, and I know that is valued by those who tune in to it. However, you are right that many of us are clueless with technology – I have never streamed a service, and wouldn’t attempt to do so as I would make a mess of it and only demonstrate to the watching world how quickly my temper frays when faced with unco-operative technology!
I was also clueless about streaming technology when Covid started. Like everyone else, I learned because I had to. If I hadn’t, i would have lost my congregation.
We’ve had a rather remarkable experience with on-line worship in the diocese of Toronto with 62% of parishes maintaining engagement since the end of the pandemic. The result has been a 25% increase in church participation corroborated by a 10% increase in the number of identifiable givers. On the most Anglo-Catholic parishes in Canada, St. Thomas, Huron Street, has a vibrant and vast on-line community. My complete analysis of the experience in Toronto can be found in this month’s issue of the Toronto Anglican, here: https://theanglican.ca/online-worship-is-transforming-ministry.
Thank you for this, Peter. I’m not sure how this translates into a C of E context, although dating decline to the mid-1960s does match our experience (Evensong attendance declined when The Forsyte Saga began broadcasting in 1967). One made-in-England problem was the Archbishop of Canterbury’s misstep in banning clergy from entering their churches to offer Eucharist during Lockdown; the baleful legacy of which is still with us. You mention St Thomas, Huron Street’s ‘vibrant and vast online community’. But aren’t ‘online’ and ‘community’ to some degree mutually incompatible in a body where gathering to break bread together is its… Read more »
They aren’t necessarily incompatible. St. James Leith (Edinburgh) for example, does an interactive service on Zoom. The pics of those taking part online are projected onto a wall, so we can be seen as well as see. We are included in the Peace and some Zoomers also read lessons or lead the intercessions. And of course we Zoomers exchange greetings in the ‘Chat’ section. Zoomers are St James is an inclusive church which is helpful too.
Zoomers can’t physically share the consecrated bread and wine, of course, but this is the next best thing.
Livestreaming was a huge blessing during the lockdowns; as it still is for the housebound, the socially anxious, those working on Sundays and so on. Yet Anglicanism, at least as we have inherited it, sets a high value on place and presence. I can no more exchange the peace over YouTube than I can smell the incense on Zoom; more crucially, neither medium allows me to receive the sacrament of Christ’s body from the hand of another.
I don’t disagree, just as I don’t disagree that churchgoing is meant to be an every-week experience, or that daily prayer and Bible reading are a vital part of Christian discipleship, or that all believers are called to be witnesses for Christ by word and deed as a normal part of their daily life. I believe all those things, but I’m deluding myself if I think they’re a reality for every Anglican Christian (especially these days when, for more and more people, having to work on Sundays is a normal part of their lives). That being the case, meeting people… Read more »
Since I’m unable to get to church in person, it means a lot to me to be able to exchange the peace over Zoom. Some of us have to make do with what we can get.
The first parish in our Diocese of Edmonton to livestream was led by a guy who went by ‘Father Chris.’ And historically our diocese is one of the two Anglo-Catholic dioceses on the prairies (the other is Qu’appelle).
So no, in this instance I’m writing from a western Canadian perspective, not an evangelical perspective.
My CofE church is possibly somewhere in between – certainly not Anglo Catholic, but with a good mixture and an evangelistic ethos. I wouldn’t have thought the low church had a monopoly of technical gadgetry, but you’ve got a valid point about worship being a body activity – especially communion. Zoom or similar is a lifeline though for those who are housebound medically; we have several friends in that situation, who appreciate the facility. Indeed, another church I know found that broadcasting in this way following lockdown brought them into contact with a new ‘audience’ – they have a lady… Read more »
One way around the disembodied nature of Zoom is to train a sufficient number of lay people to form a rota for taking Communion to the housebound. Ideally this should be done immediately after they’ve received themselves at the Sunday Eucharist. That way they feel they’re physically joined to the liturgy they’ve been following online.
The local R.C. Diocese here has a program titled ‘Mass for Shut-Ins’ ( link). It has been in production since 1963. I gather it is now on their You Tube channel. It has its own production team. You can click on a sample via the link, get a glimpse of their budget and history. The R.C. church also has an extensive pastoral program using laity to bring the sacrament to shut-ins. The crisis in priestly vocations has resulted in the R.C. church being innovative with laity in pastoral work. We Anglicans who tend to clericalize everything could pick up some… Read more »
I was impressed by seeing lay eucharistic ministers in a local RC church coming to the altar with their pyxes before the Post-Communion, before going out right after the P-C to take the sacrament to the housebound. When I asked the young priest if he found that some shut-ins would only receive from Fr, he didn’t understand my question.
I have to say that I don’t agree with the praise for those who “lift their eyes to the camera.” I’m home-bound and watch livestream services from all over the world (here in New York, plus Sydney, Perth and London). When the deacon proclaims the Gospel, I feel it’s spoken as directly to me as it is to those in the church. When the priest gives the sermon, I feel it is directed to me as well as to those beneath the pulpit. When clergy turn to the camera and address “those of you joining by livestream”, it seems to… Read more »
I guess it depends on the congregation. When I’m leading a service or preaching, I try to look around the congregation as a whole, rather than just focusing on one group in front of me. So when I started leading streamed services I reminded myself to look up at the camera from time to time as well. Obviously that doesn’t float your boat and I respect that.
For those of us old enough to remember ‘Uncle Mac’ (Derek McCulloch) on BBC steam wireless, the following anecdote may be pertinent. During the late world war Derek, who broadcast regularly on ‘Children’s Hour’ would always end with ‘”Goodnight, children.’ When someone mentioned that he also had an audience who listened (at great risk) in occupied countries, he changed it to ‘Goodnight, children – everywhere.’ to remind them that they were not forgotten. Something similar surely applies to on-line services? If doing a reading, I (and several other friends) like to say ‘and those of us watching at home’ when… Read more »
Looking up at the camera is not the same as looking at the camera and specifically addressing those watching via livestream. I guess I just don’t like being singled out. The same would be true if I were present in the church. If the minister were to address “those sitting to my left”, I would wonder why that group was getting attention. My current gripe is when the celebrant (priest or bishop) enters in procession and singles out individuals or groups in the congregation by waving or ducking into a pew to shake hands. I first noticed Cardinal Dolan do… Read more »
‘I guess I just don’t like being singled out.’ To each their own, I guess; we clergy can’t please everyone. One person’s ‘being singled out’ is another person’s ‘having their existence recognised and acknowledged.’ I guess it’s a similar kind of thing to the question of whether a priest or lay people should contact people who have been absent from church for a few weeks to make sure they’re okay. To some people, it’s a sign that the church cares about them and misses them. Others feel like they’re being hounded. I must say there are days I’m relieved to… Read more »
Graham’s article about John Smyth focuses on what happened in 2012-13, 30 years after Smyth’s assaults, at which point he doesn’t appear to have been a threat to no-one. I am more interested in why Smyth wasn’t exposed in the early 1980’s. There were no safeguarding rules in place at the time, but the assaults were known to a large number of people – not just the Iwerne clergy/lay leaders, but the victims parents/families, and presumably teachers/school staff (as some of the victims were at boarding school) and doctors (some of the victims must have sought medical help). Why didn’t… Read more »
The reply given by both Winchester College and those involved with the Titus Trust was that the victims did not want to take the matter further.
This lie has been perpetuated by David Fletcher/Iwerne/Titus Trust for over 40 years. Two fathers of Smyth victims, who were public figures in 1982, DID not want the matter pursued. David Fletcher and numerous C of E clerics were adamant that ‘the work’ (ie Bash camps) should not be investigated. As far as I/anyone know the other 28 (approx) UK victims were never allowed to express any opinion. Smyth’s 100 (approx) African victims, 2 of whom died, were definitely never asked their opinion. But given that they were African, the C of E has never spent a single second worrying… Read more »
Forgive my query but did you mean the fathers of the victims ‘DID want the matter pursued’ or ‘DID’not want the matter pursued”? If the former why if they were public figures, presumably with some influence, did it not happen?
Secondly, I am sure many would like to turn over the stones and look at what lies hidden below but where are the stones and how could it be done? This is a serious question to anybody with possible ideas.
2 high profile ‘Winchester Fathers’ DID NOT want the matter pursued, which coincided with the absolute insistence of all those C of E clergy in the Iwerne hierarchy that as long as John Smyth wasn’t risking the reputation of their ‘Bash camps’, they didn’t mind what he did or to whom or where (outside UK).
I’m not aware that the other 28 UK families, or the 100 African families, were ever consulted by David Fletcher et al as to what their views were.
‘Two fathers of Smyth victims, who were public figures in 1982, DID not want the matter pursued.’ (Admittedly it would have been a little clearer if the NOT had also been capitalised.) The others apparently weren’t asked.
Blogs, and chat rooms like TA, do a good job of turning over the stones the C of E’s senior layer are desperately trying to keep unturned. Keep up the good work, Susan!
Thank you Janet for your answer and also encouragement, as always.
Thank you as well Rowland for your your helpful reply. I had never heard of the Coltart Report but shall certainly try and read it.
The answer to your general question should be the Makin Report (when it eventually appears). Meanwhile, the most comprehensive and reliable source comes from overseas, the Coltart Report written by a distinguished human rights lawyer (and Senator of the Zimbabwe parliament) dealing with events both in England (in remarkable detail), and Zimbabwe where the death occurred to which Janet Fife refers. Following that Smyth moved to South Africa and set up a legal practice, including advising the South African government, and appearing on national television there in the year following Graham’s complaint. I can’t offer anything about abuse in South… Read more »
I doubt if Makin will answer all the questions or address all the issues. The last I heard there were key people he hadn’t interviewed; and one crucial witness withdrew his evidence after being continually messed about. And, of course, it was never part of Makin’s brief to investigate Smyth’s activities in Africa. Andrew Graystone’s book comprehensively covers the English chapters of the story, and Smyth’s activities in both Zimbabwe and South Africa.
You may well be right about Mr Makin, although I hope not.
I make no apology for recommending reading Mr Coltart’s report. Mr Coltart has been a major player involved in some of the events in Zimbabwe rather than just an external reporter. He is clearly the expert on all Zimbabwean aspects of the case, and also remarkably well-informed about the English end of things. Indeed, it was his report which first alerted me to the disclosure in John Thorn’s book as early as in 1989 of Smyth’s abuse and removal to Africa.
Yes, I agree that the Coltart Report – which is actually by a panel of people – is useful. It can easily be found online. One of the contributors was the Rev Chris Hingley, a Zimbabwean who took a degree at Oxford and later taught at Wycliffe Hall in Oxford. Chris knew a number of Iwerne men while he was over here, certainly during his Wycliffe days if not before. Some of them may have been Smyth victims.
I’m really puzzled by these exchanges. I linked the Coltart report in my reply to Susan Hunt to which you replied, so it’s hardly appropriate to tell me that it’s available on line!
I’m sorry if I upset you, Rowland. In long threads like this it’s sometimes useful to repeat information given earlier on, for the benefit of those who dip into the thread at some point in the middle. It’s quite easy to lose track.
So 2 families didn’t want to take the matter further. what about the other 28?
I do not understand how families would permit their sons to be treated in this manner. Even if they did want to put their sons through the ordeal of giving evidence in a public court case, there were other options open to them – e.g. take civil action against Smyth or the organisations concerned.
John Smyth remained a threat to boys and young men in Africa; one of them died. If you want to know more about this and the other questions you raise, read Andrew Graystone’s masterly book Bleeding for Jesus.
Smyth was still in abusive relationships with young men as late as 2017. Read Bleeding for Jesus by Andrew Graystone. Smyth was thrown out of his church as late at 2016 for inappropriate behaviour with students. As the Church of England has refused to investigate his African abuse ( whether 1984-97 and the charge of culpable homicide, or in Cape Town) we will never know the full extent. The Church can be embarrassed by English public school, Oxbridge men: black Africans…..well that is another matter.
Probably the most insightful thing I have read about the C of E over the last 11 years (perhaps even more insightful than the author, Robert Thompson, realises):
You can take the boy out of Eton, but you can’t take Eton out of the boy.
The Headmaster of Winchester College, the late John Thorn (died last year, aged 98), disclosed limited details of abuse by Smyth and his move to Africa in his autobiography “The Road to Winchester” published on 23 February 1989. I made this point on TA some years ago but some readers weren’t persuaded then that this was sufficient evidence (based on their assumption of a limited readership of Mr Thorn’s book) of amounting to public knowledge, frankly a very doubtful assertion in my view. Nevertheless it is impossible for anyone to suggest that Mr Thorn concealed his knowledge at that time.
Have to say I was very unimpressed by Thorn’s book. It did not name Smyth & failed to make clear the extreme physical violence that he inflicted on his victims.
Is Mrs Smyth still alive? I can’t believe that she didn’t know what was going on. However, I somehow doubt that Graham will ever get justice. The CofE in its many guises passed by on the other side and is still scurrying away. Quite how those withholding justice from the survivors sleep at night is beyond me; their endless equivocation seems at odds with our founder’s teaching, or have I missed something.
Somewhere along the line in this complex saga I have read that Mrs Smyth dressed the wounds of some of the victims. Equally I have read that the police (l’m not sure that this has ever reached the CPS) indicated that they did not intend to take any action against her. The planned extradition of Smyth was prevented by his sudden death.
Anne Smyth’s situation is complicated. She was shown on the Feb 2017 Channel 4 programmes, eg 1 min onwards in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXNS57yQWGI On the one hand she was an active participant in the sense that she provided the bandages for those beaten by John Smyth, Simon Doggart (& others?), and provided the necessary ‘air cover’ of ‘happy family with 2.4 children’ that Smyth so ruthlessly exploited. On the other hand, was she John Smyth’s first/even ‘greatest’ victim? Some Smyth victims wanted proceedings to be pursued against her after Smyth’s untimely death in 2018, but the police declined. Probably one of the… Read more »
I doubt that Mrs Smyth would have been a compellable witness in criminal proceedings against her husband for offences committed prior to 1984 (section 80 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 modified the existing exemption between husband and wife originally based on common law). Without knowing, this would explain the stance taken by the police in relation to Mrs Smyth.
Regarding safeguarding (or more accurately, the lack thereof, the looking away. the reshuffling, etc.), when it comes to too many areas of those who administer the bride of Christ, John 11:35 still applies.
Graham’s blog in Surviving Church in December ‘21 sets out details of what information was already in the public domain about Smyth and was being steadfastly ignored by the current COf E hierarchy, and Rowland Wateridge has written about it too. The brutal reality is that there is a shocking and ongoing cover up , with the ever delayed Makin report the current best excuse of choice. Realist’s comment on via media news says it all in answering Graham’s question about whether not acting on a safeguarding disclosure is a disciplinary offence. We should all be ashamed that this is… Read more »
Thank you Kelvin. I’ve had so many people both during and after the pandemic tell me how much they appreciate the availability of the live stream. It’s not just the housebound (although of course every single one of them matters to God); it’s also people who are the only churchgoer in their family and have to help drive kids to sports and other activities, or people who have to work and can watch the recording afterwards. And in my case, if I’m away for the weekend, I love that I can watch the video later and feel a sense of… Read more »
I heartily agree!
Well put, Tim. But you’re writing from an Evangelical perspective. Catholic Anglicans are, by and large, hopeless with tech and shouldn’t be let anywhere near it. The reasons may be partly theological: an incarnational faith sees worship as essentially bodily, which may subliminally inform our general incompetence with the medium and our unwillingness to resource it properly. There’s also the lingering suspicion that, while it’s a lifeline to housebound Mary, Jim next door sees it as a good excuse to worship from the comfort of his bed rather than getting up on a February morning to go to a draughty… Read more »
At a basic level you could just stream your services on Zoom.
I don’t know how it is in the UK, but in the USA, a lot of RC parishes went virtual during lockdown and have maintained a “streamed service” ever since.
An approach towards the Jims of this world that has been adopted by several churches is to visit them. Ask them why they have not felt able to attend. Some will have genuine concerns or difficulties, whilst others will not. The first group should be supported. My church still provides socially distant seating and individual cups at communion. The second group need to be pastorally challenged. After all, church is the gathered community of believers. It’s not a spectator event. A final solution I have seen adopted is to only provide the link to the live stream to those in… Read more »
Yesterday our Mennonite church was visited by a couple who live in a local seniors’ home. They themselves are mobile but many others in the home are not. They have been tuning in to our Sunday morning live stream for the past few months and expressed their deep appreciation for it. By the way, we didn’t find out about this until they’d been doing it for a few weeks.
You never know.
Absolutely! Several people who watched our services on line joined the church when in person worship was allowed. They particularly valued the virtual coffee time after the service when they got to know a few people in more depth.
I think this is vital. The advantage of Zoom over YouTube is that it allows two way traffic, and facilitates conversation before or after the service, which makes the whole thing more inclusive.
It is worth mentioning that it is not only frail people, or those living with a disability, who appreciate streamed services. Many LGBTQ people use streaming to access more inclusive congregations if they have none local to where they live. And the campaigning group onebodyonefaith runs a weekly Thursday evening on line liturgy for LGBTQ people.
Zoom is more participative, but YouTube is good for when you can’t make the service at the time it’s occurring. And anyone can join without needing to know the access code. Both have their place.
Locally we do a zoom service with chat before and after. But the actual liturgy is recorded within zoom and put online for anybody to watch afterwards, so both are possible with zoom.
But I agree with you, there is no one single right answer,
Rather than asking Jim why he had not felt able to attend, I adopted a less direct approach by offering him home communion. Usually he’d be sufficiently embarrassed to be in church the following Sunday.
Sorry, who is Jim?
Whoever you want him to be, Tim.
‘There’s also the lingering suspicion that, while it’s a lifeline to housebound Mary, Jim next door sees it as a good excuse to worship from the comfort of his bed rather than getting up on a February morning to go to a draughty church.’
Ah, right, thanks Janet. I had missed that. Personally I never thought God put me in my position so I could judge Jim, because usually I didn’t know all the circumstances. Actually, after Covid I baptised a guy called Jim. He had been on the periphery of church life for a few years, but during Covid he not only watched our services on Facebook but attended almost all the online study groups we ran. After Covid he told me he had decided it was time for him to move to a more definite commitment, so he was baptised in my… Read more »
Thanks, Janet, for this. I thought, wrongly, that Tim was being a tease. Apologies.
LOL Allan – my usual mistake is the opposite one—to take people utterly seriously when they are being a tease! Such are the perils of faceless communication! Video chats are way better! (now I am teasing…)
I find comments like this outrageous. No wonder the church is struggling – and if attitudes like this are prevalent then it deserves to die. It is so judgemental.
There are many people who don’t want to attend church because of social anxiety. If asked will they volunteer that? Probably not – they will just stop participating.
And you will have driven them away from the church.
No I will not have done. Visiting them, talking to them to discover their reasons for not attending is being pastorally sensitive. It’s not the third degree as you seem to suggest! It might be a visit by a member of their small group, or by someone on the visiting team or just a friend. Through the pastoral visit you might discover anxiety about not only attending church but leaving their home. So help can be provided with shopping or collecting prescriptions. Health issues might be discovered that can be addressed. May be its increasing infirmity. Maybe it is issues… Read more »
Try Southwark cathedral (and others) which have used the possibilities of on line creatively for several years now. As do many cathedrals and other (Liberal??) catholic churches
Agreed. Southwark, like St Alban’s Abbey, was excellent during Covid, but they’re cathedrals and well-resourced. Catholic parishes tend to put on a good show for the Parish Eucharist, but this is not always matched by the quality of the livestream.
Parishes, whatever their tradition, may struggle to find volunteers with the know-how and the confidence to deal with the tech.
During lockdown I did wonder, as I watched some livestreams of variable quality, whether the Church needed fewer and better online options, from places that had the capacity to offer them well.
On the other hand, during Covid what most people from our church told me was that it was comforting for them to see their own pastor leading the service on the screen (whether it was a slick production or not), and to be able to interact with their church family members in the comments.
In the first year of Covid I saw Prince Charles giving an online message, using an iPad propped up against a stack of books. Not hi-tech, but very meaningful.
As well as helpful recipes for tuscan chicken, and videos showing the iniquity of Donald Trump, not to mention the dire prospects of Leeds United, i find High Mass from St. Marys Bourne Street, and All Saints Margaret Street. Bourne Street also gives a helpful sermon selection.All this on You Tube. I can also attend virtually ar St James Spanish Place (RC) for a sublime latin mass. Scope for those of a catholic persuasion I would have thought.
There are some Anglican Catholics who can do tech – the Shrine at Walsingham has been streaming services regularly since lockdown, and I know that is valued by those who tune in to it. However, you are right that many of us are clueless with technology – I have never streamed a service, and wouldn’t attempt to do so as I would make a mess of it and only demonstrate to the watching world how quickly my temper frays when faced with unco-operative technology!
I was also clueless about streaming technology when Covid started. Like everyone else, I learned because I had to. If I hadn’t, i would have lost my congregation.
We’ve had a rather remarkable experience with on-line worship in the diocese of Toronto with 62% of parishes maintaining engagement since the end of the pandemic. The result has been a 25% increase in church participation corroborated by a 10% increase in the number of identifiable givers. On the most Anglo-Catholic parishes in Canada, St. Thomas, Huron Street, has a vibrant and vast on-line community. My complete analysis of the experience in Toronto can be found in this month’s issue of the Toronto Anglican, here: https://theanglican.ca/online-worship-is-transforming-ministry.
That’s awesome, Peter! Well done, Diocese of Toronto!
Thank you for this, Peter. I’m not sure how this translates into a C of E context, although dating decline to the mid-1960s does match our experience (Evensong attendance declined when The Forsyte Saga began broadcasting in 1967). One made-in-England problem was the Archbishop of Canterbury’s misstep in banning clergy from entering their churches to offer Eucharist during Lockdown; the baleful legacy of which is still with us. You mention St Thomas, Huron Street’s ‘vibrant and vast online community’. But aren’t ‘online’ and ‘community’ to some degree mutually incompatible in a body where gathering to break bread together is its… Read more »
They aren’t necessarily incompatible. St. James Leith (Edinburgh) for example, does an interactive service on Zoom. The pics of those taking part online are projected onto a wall, so we can be seen as well as see. We are included in the Peace and some Zoomers also read lessons or lead the intercessions. And of course we Zoomers exchange greetings in the ‘Chat’ section. Zoomers are St James is an inclusive church which is helpful too.
Zoomers can’t physically share the consecrated bread and wine, of course, but this is the next best thing.
Livestreaming was a huge blessing during the lockdowns; as it still is for the housebound, the socially anxious, those working on Sundays and so on. Yet Anglicanism, at least as we have inherited it, sets a high value on place and presence. I can no more exchange the peace over YouTube than I can smell the incense on Zoom; more crucially, neither medium allows me to receive the sacrament of Christ’s body from the hand of another.
I don’t disagree, just as I don’t disagree that churchgoing is meant to be an every-week experience, or that daily prayer and Bible reading are a vital part of Christian discipleship, or that all believers are called to be witnesses for Christ by word and deed as a normal part of their daily life. I believe all those things, but I’m deluding myself if I think they’re a reality for every Anglican Christian (especially these days when, for more and more people, having to work on Sundays is a normal part of their lives). That being the case, meeting people… Read more »
Since I’m unable to get to church in person, it means a lot to me to be able to exchange the peace over Zoom. Some of us have to make do with what we can get.
The first parish in our Diocese of Edmonton to livestream was led by a guy who went by ‘Father Chris.’ And historically our diocese is one of the two Anglo-Catholic dioceses on the prairies (the other is Qu’appelle).
So no, in this instance I’m writing from a western Canadian perspective, not an evangelical perspective.
My CofE church is possibly somewhere in between – certainly not Anglo Catholic, but with a good mixture and an evangelistic ethos. I wouldn’t have thought the low church had a monopoly of technical gadgetry, but you’ve got a valid point about worship being a body activity – especially communion. Zoom or similar is a lifeline though for those who are housebound medically; we have several friends in that situation, who appreciate the facility. Indeed, another church I know found that broadcasting in this way following lockdown brought them into contact with a new ‘audience’ – they have a lady… Read more »
One way around the disembodied nature of Zoom is to train a sufficient number of lay people to form a rota for taking Communion to the housebound. Ideally this should be done immediately after they’ve received themselves at the Sunday Eucharist. That way they feel they’re physically joined to the liturgy they’ve been following online.
The local R.C. Diocese here has a program titled ‘Mass for Shut-Ins’ ( link). It has been in production since 1963. I gather it is now on their You Tube channel. It has its own production team. You can click on a sample via the link, get a glimpse of their budget and history. The R.C. church also has an extensive pastoral program using laity to bring the sacrament to shut-ins. The crisis in priestly vocations has resulted in the R.C. church being innovative with laity in pastoral work. We Anglicans who tend to clericalize everything could pick up some… Read more »
I was impressed by seeing lay eucharistic ministers in a local RC church coming to the altar with their pyxes before the Post-Communion, before going out right after the P-C to take the sacrament to the housebound. When I asked the young priest if he found that some shut-ins would only receive from Fr, he didn’t understand my question.
Couldn’t agree more. Our mission partners around the world have been able to feel part of the fellowship through joining in with the services.
I have to say that I don’t agree with the praise for those who “lift their eyes to the camera.” I’m home-bound and watch livestream services from all over the world (here in New York, plus Sydney, Perth and London). When the deacon proclaims the Gospel, I feel it’s spoken as directly to me as it is to those in the church. When the priest gives the sermon, I feel it is directed to me as well as to those beneath the pulpit. When clergy turn to the camera and address “those of you joining by livestream”, it seems to… Read more »
I guess it depends on the congregation. When I’m leading a service or preaching, I try to look around the congregation as a whole, rather than just focusing on one group in front of me. So when I started leading streamed services I reminded myself to look up at the camera from time to time as well. Obviously that doesn’t float your boat and I respect that.
For those of us old enough to remember ‘Uncle Mac’ (Derek McCulloch) on BBC steam wireless, the following anecdote may be pertinent. During the late world war Derek, who broadcast regularly on ‘Children’s Hour’ would always end with ‘”Goodnight, children.’ When someone mentioned that he also had an audience who listened (at great risk) in occupied countries, he changed it to ‘Goodnight, children – everywhere.’ to remind them that they were not forgotten. Something similar surely applies to on-line services? If doing a reading, I (and several other friends) like to say ‘and those of us watching at home’ when… Read more »
Looking up at the camera is not the same as looking at the camera and specifically addressing those watching via livestream. I guess I just don’t like being singled out. The same would be true if I were present in the church. If the minister were to address “those sitting to my left”, I would wonder why that group was getting attention. My current gripe is when the celebrant (priest or bishop) enters in procession and singles out individuals or groups in the congregation by waving or ducking into a pew to shake hands. I first noticed Cardinal Dolan do… Read more »
‘I guess I just don’t like being singled out.’ To each their own, I guess; we clergy can’t please everyone. One person’s ‘being singled out’ is another person’s ‘having their existence recognised and acknowledged.’ I guess it’s a similar kind of thing to the question of whether a priest or lay people should contact people who have been absent from church for a few weeks to make sure they’re okay. To some people, it’s a sign that the church cares about them and misses them. Others feel like they’re being hounded. I must say there are days I’m relieved to… Read more »