On November 12th, the Archbishop of Canterbury announced his resignation in response to the publication of a report that detailed decades of unreported and unchecked abuse within the Church of England (COE).
Beginning in 1971 and continuing until his death in 2018, John Smyth victimized at least 115 boys and young men in England, Zimbabwe, and South Africa. Smyth was an influential barrister and Queen’s Counsel who, in the report, is described as charismatic and successful by his acquaintances and victims.
His youngest victim, his son, was only seven at the first instance of abuse. Other victims ranged from ages 13 through their early twenties.
Smyth abused his victims in multiple contexts, leveraging his charisma and success to gain access to them at prominent universities, Christian holiday camps and a private college. The nature of his abuse was physical, psychological, emotional, spiritual and sexual, often taking the form of ritual humiliation paired with brutal beatings.
More than one of his victims attempted suicide, and a 16-year-old boy, Guide Nyachuru, was found dead under suspicious circumstances at Smyth’s youth camp in Zimbabwe in 1992.
John Smyth is, as the report notes, “arguably, the most prolific serial abuser to be associated with the Church of England.”
Though Smyth was rejected in his one known attempt to be ordained, he was given frequent access to the lectern and the pulpit as a lay reader and preacher.
In 1982, a credible report was made regarding the allegations against Smyth. The report was circulated by a few men, some of whom were ordained clergy within the Church of England. At this time, the report notes, these individuals should have reported Smyth to the police. They failed to do so, opting to ask Smyth how they should respond to the allegations and maintain secrecy.
Their choice gave Smyth continued access to power, influence and vulnerable children, enabling decades of further abuse. As years passed, many junior and senior church officers learned of allegations against Smyth. They discussed the abuse among themselves, and went as far as to informally warn one another about his tendencies.
Even after policies establishing safeguards for the vulnerable were introduced to the Church of England in the 1990s, clergy in positions of senior authority did not report Smyth to the relevant authorities in the United Kingdom or Africa.
In 2013, after Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby was made aware of the broad extent of allegations against John Smyth, no criminal report to the police was made. In his resignation letter, Welby maintains that he was “told that police had been notified” in 2013 and “believed wrongly that an appropriate resolution would follow.”
One victim of John Smyth characterizes the Church’s actions as “using the Police and other services to deflect and blank, rather than thinking pastorally about reaching out to people.”
A police investigation was not initiated until 2017 after a United Kingdom news investigation aired allegations against Smyth. The Archbishop of Canterbury did not meet with any of his victims until four years after the news report aired, despite his promise to do so.
Given the extent of those ordained within the Church of England who knew about Smyth and did not act, it is likely that Welby’s resignation is the first of many.
Three key insights from the report offer perspective into the circumstances that made Smyth’s abuse possible.
First, the few private actions taken regarding the abuse were accomplished under the presumption that John Smyth would continue to be involved in church and parachurch ministries. The reputation of various ministries and Smyth himself were prioritized, protected and preserved. The well-being and safety of victims were not.
Second, Smyth was emboldened to abuse boys and young men openly under the justifying force of perverted theology. According to the report, Smyth taught a “muscular Christianity” that endorsed a specific type of authoritarian masculinity. This made his many abuses seem permissible and even a valid form of pastoral care.
Furthermore, he presented his victims with a warped theology of atonement that made physical suffering necessary for the forgiveness of sin. Smyth’s son contextualizes his experiences of his father’s sadism in this way, writing, “By my stripes I would be healed.”
Finally, evidence of groupthink characterizes various ineffective responses to Smyth’s abuse, which enabled decades of abuse, endangered dozens of victims and authorized thousands of preventable beatings.
As the Anglican Communion, Church and world process these revelations, people of good faith are called to respond. In the communities and churches in which we live, our presence and voices are powerful tools that can either permit abuse or protect the vulnerable.
An excerpt from the Litany found in the COE’s Book of Common Prayer may lend words and direction to responses taken to this tragedy:
Lord, have mercy upon us.
Christ, have mercy upon us.
Lord, have mercy upon us.
Graduate of Baylor University and current student at Duke Divinity School.
