“Many of the victims have asked why the archbishop did not reach out to them immediately after he says he learned of the abuse. ‘The silence has been deafening’…”
*** WARNING: This post contains some graphic information. ***
Two weeks ago The New York Times published an explosive article entitled Harvey Weinstein Paid Off Sexual Harassment Accusers for Decades. Since the story broke, media outlets have been covering this and related stories non-stop. Now those who were childhood stars are coming forward claiming that pedophilia is the number one problem in Hollywood. [Actually, they’ve been sounding the alarm for quite some time but have been ignored for the most part, until now…]
Needless-to-say, Dee and I are not at all surprised. We have been researching these topics for close to a decade now and have discovered that the young and innocent members of society — both male and female — are extremely vulnerable in both secular and religious settings.
In the wake of the Weinstein debacle, The New York Times is setting its sights on a scandal that they believe concerns the Archbishop of Canterbury. Several days ago, the NYT published an article entitled Doubts Grow Over Archbishop’s Account of When He Knew of Abuse. That would be alleged abuse at the hands of John Smyth, a British barrister who purportedly carried out “sadomasochistic physical abuse” on young men in the 1970s and ’80s. (link)
Here is a screen shot of the crux of the NYT article:
***********
*************
At long last, those claiming to have been victims as boys are coming forward to challenge the archbishop.That takes a lot of courage!
If you are unfamiliar with this developing situation ‘across the pond’, here is a 10-1/2 minute video that will help bring you up to speed.
Dee and I first became aware of these allegations against John Smyth earlier this year, and we shared what we were able to find out at the time in two posts (see links below).
John Smyth Allegedly Led Meeting in the Nude and Wouldn’t Let Boys at Camp Wear Underwear
John Smyth Allegedly Recruited One of His Victims to Carry Out Beatings
Now that The New York Times is investigating, they stand a good chance of getting to the bottom of what happened.
The NYT article includes some interesting information about Justin Welby, the current archbishop of Canterbury. When he was in his 20s, he worked in Christian holiday camps. According to the NYT article:
The archbishop, 61, was working abroad in 1982, when an internal investigation by an influential Christian charity supported allegations of sadistic practices by John Smyth, a prominent lawyer and evangelical leader who ran the camps.
The results of that investigation were never made public, and the allegations were dismissed when they were first reported to the British police in 2013 because Mr. Smyth had moved to Africa and was no longer in the country’s jurisdiction. It was not until Channel 4 news disclosed the accusations in a report earlier this year that a criminal investigation was started.
The 1982 inquiry, by Mark Ruston, a close friend of the future archbishop who has since died, was conducted on behalf of the Iwerne Trust, the Christian charity that oversaw the camps. The trust, which was chaired by Mr. Smyth, was a part of a network of camps inspired by the Anglican clergyman E. J. H. Nash, who recruited boys from Britain’s elite schools in the hope of evangelizing them.
The report accused Mr. Smyth of subjecting at least 22 teenage boys to savage beatings in his garden shed, with the intent of purging them of perceived sins such as masturbation and pride.
The NYT article details why those hurt by Smyth believe Welby knew what was happening. Smyth was …
banished first to Zimbabwe in 1982 and ultimately made his way to South Africa, where he faced new accusations in both countries about mistreated boys.
We encourage you to read the entire NYT article to understand the details of what is being alleged against the current archbishop.
Our hope and prayer is that the truth will finally come to light regarding what John Smyth did to those young boys and whether Justin Welby knew about it decades earlier.
1st
not 1st…
A quote from the NYT article leaped out and promoted memories. A Church “figure”: “It was a different time then,” he said. “Only recently has the church realized how crippling that silence was for the victims involved.”
There is truth in that statement. In 1982, I was in college in the education program. As far as I recall, reporting suspected abuse was given little, if any, educational time. A few years later, I was teaching elementary school in a small town. No guidelines were given (that I recall) on reporting suspected abuse to local law enforcement. I think that “report to your principal” was the extent of it.
I reported “suspected sexual abuse” of two of my students to my principal and provided written evidence, in the form of a creative writing assignment, from one child. As far as I know, nothing ever happened in the way of a law enforcement investigation. Why did I not take this to law enforcement myself? Sadly, it was the reason given by the person quoted in the NYT piece: “It was a different time then.” Sexual abuse of children was just then becoming talked about in professional educator circles of which I was part. If it was permitted notice at all, the standard practice was to report to your superior (probably your principal) and he or she would take care of it. I have discovered other teachers who followed the same prescribed path, back in the day, and they kick themselves now, too, for not reporting to law enforcement.
If only I had known then what I know now. It still haunts me.
The NYT report says “The report was filed away, and members of the trust, including Mr. Ruston, went on to assume influential positions within the Church of England and vowed, one trust insider said, never to speak about the matter publicly.”
This could lead people to think that this was a reward for silence or doing nothing.
In fact Mark Ruston was already a well known and influential minister in the Round Church, Cambridge, where he had been since the 1950s long before Justin Welby studied there. I think he died around 1988.
@ Tree:
In recent years, we (collectively) have learned so much about the sexual abuse of children, but we still have a long way to go. 🙁
It’s most often men doing this. What is in the socialization of males (in most cultures) that makes them think this is ok.
Reminded of a horrible documentary of the ongoing war in the Congo. The narrator asked a soldier why he raped women. He answered without a pause “Because I can.”
I noticed a turn of phrase in the NYT excerpts:
“…who ran the camps.”
“…oversaw the camps.”
“…a network of camps…”
Part 1
I am thinking that indeed it was a different time there regarding all sorts of things which we now call abuse of the sort which requires public involvement. I was never a part of the educational system as a professional, but I do know that nobody talked to us kids about reporting our own ‘abuse’ nor about telling anybody about what some other kid might say about what we now call their abuse. In part it was thought that ‘telling’ would only make things worse since the abuser would then take it out on the kids for telling.
For example: It was thought that a child should-repeat should- suffer corporal punishment for even relatively minor offenses. That thought went so far as to permit the idea that any man who thought that the only reason he wore a belt was to hold up his pants was probably a poor father. Not that everybody used a belt on a child, but certainly the switch was held in high esteem. And, yes, the teacher wielded the paddle if necessary. If that is not different from now then I don’t know what is.
At the same time various kinds of what we now call domestic violence were tolerated by society and considered nobody else’s business. Many thought that a parent or husband who utterly refused to resort to coercion was slack in the job of parenting and/or slack in being the man of the family.
@ okrapod:
Part 2
To stay in perspective, those times were also different on the job with much more of an authoritarian work expectation than we now have. One would report a problem to one’s immediate supervisor but one would not go to anybody higher up. Once when I was working weekends in OB as a nurse on the night shift we had a problem in where patients were being assigned rooms in the immediate post partum period. I was the only one covering three units at night and alone and patients were being wheeled out of delivery and put at both ends of the halls such that I could not possibly pay close attention to everybody at the same time due to distance. I told the floor supervisor when she came in Monday morning, and she asked me to stay until the Director of Nursing came to work that day because this had been reported before and nothing had been done about it So I stayed and personally talked to the DON about something which could easily be solved, which was dangerous for the patients, and in which I was personally involved and did so at the request of my immediate supervisor. Nevertheless, it hit the fan, because it was ‘none of my business’ to get ‘out of line’ in the hierarchical system and go to the DON regardless of who asked me to to it. This was not unusual, and I knew that this would probably happen before I did it; because times were different then.
I am not excusing anybody in the case discussed in the post. I am merely saying that indeed as somebody has said, times were different.
@ Deb:
“Leadership” that does not lead, not up to the task.
You should also be aware of the following statement in the Safeguarding page of the Iwerne Trust.
“Media reports concerning John Smyth and the Iwerne Trust
The Trustees of the Titus Trust published a statement (see below) when allegations emerged in the press of horrific physical abuse by a former Iwerne leader, John Smyth, at his home in Winchester between 1978 and 1981.
We unanimously condemn the alleged actions and are deeply sorrowful at their terrible effects. Our hearts go out to the survivors for all they have suffered physically, mentally, emotionally and spiritually, and for the long shadow cast over their lives and the lives of their families. We continue to pray that they will find profound healing and freedom from the harm so unjustly inflicted on them. And we pray that justice will be done for them.
Iwerne Trust / Channel 4 News – 1 February 2017
Channel 4 News and others have this week run stories about John Smyth QC, who was Chairman of the Iwerne Trust between 1974 and 1981. The allegations are very disturbing and our thoughts are with all those who have suffered, and their families.
The Titus Trust was set up in 1997 and took over fundraising from The Iwerne Trust. In 2000 it took control of the running of the holidays from Scripture Union.
It was only in 2014 that the board of The Titus Trust became aware of these allegations, after which the Trust provided full disclosure to the police, offering full co-operation with any inquiry that might arise as a result. The allegations were very grave and we believe that they should have been reported to the police when they first became known in 1981.
The Trustees also reported these allegations to the Charity Commission in 2014 who confirmed that they had no regulatory concerns about the management of The Titus Trust. A further update was sent to the Commission this week.
Our safeguarding policy is in line with latest best practice to ensure the safety and care of every individual on our holidays. The Trust is committed to operating a stringent policy which is regularly reviewed and updated. You can access a copy of it here.
The Titus Trust is an established Christian charity that runs activity holidays for young people from independent schools which include the opportunity to explore the Christian faith.
BBC News – 11 April 2017
The BBC broadcast an item about the John Smyth allegations on 11 April 2017, and approached the Titus Trust, of which Iwerne is a part, before transmission. The Trust told the BBC that its board became aware of the matter in 2014, after which it contacted the police and filed a serious incident report with the Charity Commission. The Trust told the police everything it knew about the matter in a format agreed with them: nothing was witheld. The Trust stands ready to co-operate with the Police in any inquiry and continues to pray that justice is done for the victims.”
You will also find this harrowing account from a survivor shocking in that the writer challenges the Archbishop.
Be warned,,it is harrowing.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/06/dear-archbishop-canterbury-can-look-mirror-honestly-say-did/
TomkeinOK wrote:
Have you been following all the female teachers who are being tried and convicted of this form of abuse with students?
It will be worthwhile to follow this victim on Twitter as he has interesting things to say.
@AndyMorseUK
Not just “savage beatings in the garden shed”, but Smyth being butt naked as he swung the cane until there was blood on the floor beneath the equally nude victim. Then Smyth pressing his naked body up against the bleeding victim and whispering in his ear.
Though the victims’ testimony said that Smyth NEVER got an erection while doing this. (Surprising, given the rest of the description.) Which makes me wonder if this was a case of “I didn’t (ed. get all hot and bothered), so it REALLY wasn’t Gay” (loophole like “I did not know that woman in the Biblical sense”) or Smyth was just so far gone in addiction/tolerance response (like the Cenobites in Hellraiser) it would take more than that to arouse him.
@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
There is always it seems crazy because it is crazy. Or, he acted crazy because he was crazy. Or, when you are dealing with the devil don’t expect to understand the depths of depravity and confusion. I like the one that says the reason it does not seem to make sense is because it does not make sense.
Let me bounce this idea for speculation. It is entirely possible that one could sink to such levels of depravity that one no longer got any pleasure out of it but was unable to stop because it had become a compulsion. That would be a great satanic gotcha, to watch the depravity continue sans any satisfaction for the perp.
I guess it depends on choice of paradigm.
That the NY Times gutted a story on Weinstein in 2004 says much on the timing of these revelations. There are strong indicators many knew of the misdeeds of both Weinstein and Smyth but the expose occurred only when their power was diminished and there were no longer the incentives for corrupt associates to suppress the secrets.
okrapod wrote:
Again, Hellraiser, specifically the extended-universe backstory of the Cenobites in the Hell of the Labyrinth. Pursuing “Sensation” that they could no longer experience or feel, no matter how much they upped the dosage in the attempt.
The whole thing is just creepy & wrong. Don’t underestimate the long long long history of homosexual behaviours amongst Public School boys & their strata in society, as aprecursor to all this, & the silence that followed. As a Barrister this would have been his world. He would have been among people who had carried out thoughtless sexual cruelties towards their school peers & had probably received them when they first joined the school, all of it being swept under the carpet & not dealt with. It was all part of a culture of physical & emotional harshness that you just lived with at boarding schools.
@ Beakerj:
Was there some purpose behind all that? Some philosophy about how to develop certain personality traits of use to the nation or use to some social class or such?
@ okrapod:
I think it was probably considered character forming…boarding school that is. My Dad (also a Barrister) said that Public School was basically there to train you to be an Englishman no matter where in the Empire you end up 🙂 In our case, that was Hong Kong.
But I basically detest that stuff as it has created generations of stunted men who just can’t deal with emotions or relationships.
As I’ve quipped before when TWW ran the first article on Smyth, this stuff is straight out of Joseph Conrad’s novel Heart of Darkness.
Both took place in Africa, and both are of the colonialist mind-set.
These men who either turned a blind eye to it or did nothing I have to believe that it is in their nature in their character to not just cover the abuse for financial gain but also because to some extent they to got pleasure out of it somehow. Sorry but I think this of anyone who covers abuse and abusers of any sort. I can not fathom any normal reasoning person covering such atrocities unless they get some sort of pleasure out of it. Let’s just get real about this these men are not just stunted but they are sick individuals. Mothers who hand their children over to abusers because they “love” the person is a bunch of bull. Again no different then those who stand around watching a bully torment and torture their victims to some extent there is pleasure to be gained from that for people who stand by and watch while doing nothing. To me it’s worse than the abuser sometimes because we know the right thing to do yet there are many who stand idly by allowing it. Church members do the same a lot of them who know the truth will stand by and do nothing while supporting the abuser. Shame shame shame I say.
Beakerj wrote:
I remember you saying your father started boarding school at four and a half — even at that age, completely constrained by his class and expectations.
And regarding “be an Englishman no matter where”, I referenced the cartoon of the Upper-Class Victorian out on the fringes of the Empire — colony, jungle, desert, wilderness — dressing and acting exactly as if he were in his Club in London. (Examples are Phileas Fogg of M.Verne’s Around the World in 80 Days or the prologue to Daring Young Men in Their Jaunty Jalopies.
shauna wrote:
Like was said of Ms.Hardcastle in That Hideous Strength — “You don’t get someone to do that kind of job unless they get a kick out of it.”
shauna wrote:
Here in Greater Los Angeles, we have a high-profile child abuse torture-murder trial right now where that was part of the dynamic. (And it gets sicker with each daily-coverage revelation; pop some anti-nausea meds and google “gabriel fernandez murder” for details.)
@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
Those details don’t actually make any difference. The fact of the matter is that he was abusing his position of power preying upon the vulnerable – whether his drive was sexual or violent.
@ dee:
Not gender, it’s power.
ZechZav wrote:
Yup. Power.
shauna wrote:
IMHO, disagree. It’s cowardice or naivete, or lack of training, or sheer out of their element and deer in the headlights, in some cases. There are nice guys who just can’t deal with the bad guys, the really bad guys. It’s not in the job description.
Privacy of individuals, some say. Parishioner – pastor privilege.
Will upset the applecart, others claim.
Don’t want to stand out, still others will testify.
Not why I got into the ministry, and I wasn’t trained for this, can be a reason.
Etc.
In the secular world of law enforcement, the local klondike cops call in the FBI when they are in over their heads. It’s actually taking the FBI a long time to figure out the bad guys. Recent USA events – law enforcement is again in over their heads. There are some very disturbed people (a few) doing deranged things out there to innocent folks.
Good is simple and forthright. Evil is complicated and gnarly.
JYJames wrote:
I think there’s a lot of truth in this.
Former archbishop George Carey was recently forced to resign from his post in the C of E over ignoring claims of historic child abuse against particular individuals who were subsequently exposed. I don’t know why he ignored the claims, but I have read his book, Church in the market place, in which he describes his time as vicar of a local church in Durham as it went through a difficult transformation. In brief, it had become very small and insular, and was in danger of disappearing altogether; his task was to get the long-standing members to look outwards and realise that the organisation did not exist merely to provide them (nor him) with certain traditions, but to represent Jesus locally.
Now, this was entirely different to a cynical neo-calvinist infection by an ambitious young seminary grad looking for a career. Indeed, Carey went to extraordinary lengths not to lose the long-standing members. And herein lies the rub. As far as I can tell from the book, which tells the story in some detail, there were a number of these folk to whom he almost appears to be under some kind of spell. That’s a poor metaphor, but I’m struggling to find a better one. There is no suggestion I’ve come across that children were being abused there – indeed, these folk were doing what they could to keep children out of the church; but they were certainly attacking him personally. He lavished endless love, grace and patience over them to the point that he constantly referred to their godly motives no matter how ungodly, selfish and venomous their speech and behaviour.
But bizarrely, at the same time, there were other believers locally to whom he appears to have had practically no affection at all; at least insofar as they rejected infant baptism. For him, that was some kind of trigger issue. But however it actually worked, he developed a strange social and emotional blind spot.
@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
Good memory HUG & it is precisely that ability to be the same everywhere & under any conditions, wearing an immaculate top hat & not spilling a drop of tea or gin, that they are hoping for. A spectacularly hilarious current example is the Tory MP Jacob Rees Mogg, who is frequently referred to as the Honourable Member for the 1820’s, 1920’s & so on. Straight out of Jeeves & Wooster – ‘Moggy’. The only people who have ever seen them act as truly human will have been Nanny, when they were little children.
@ TomkeinOK:
“He answered without a pause “Because I can.””
++++++++++++++++
so difficult to hear.
one reason he can is because his peers don’t object. at least, not very vocally. they are namby pamby.
my experience is that women’s voices don’t have impact.
–i’ll be in a meeting, a woman will suggest something. dead silence. a man rephrases it (knowingly or not), *boom* then a response happens.
–i’ll ask my son, “Clean your room.” dead silence. i’ll ask him a few days later. dead silence. upon my request, my husband asks “Clean your room”. he cleaned his room 30 minutes later.
–i’ll have an idea and tell my husband about it. dead silence. 2 minutes later he says, “hmmm,… what if we did such-&-such, by way of this-that-&-the-other?” it was exactly what i just said.
see, not even my husband hears me (fabulous person that he is). well, he does, he just doesn’t recognize that it’s me talking expressing my ideas — only when it’s in his own voice am i heard. ridiculous.
IT’S SO UNFAIR. with my son, i even birthed the bugger (as in, ‘rascal’) — my voice should have more influence!
Unfair is not even the word when people with obviously less influence are grievously harmed.
—-
getting back to He answered without a pause “Because I can”:
if men championed the cause of those with less power and influence and stood together en masse in their hulk and bulk and said “No, you will NOT rape, molest, or otherwise infringe on the dignity of another living soul because it is wrong and you will no longer be man in our eyes but an immature child instead”….
…if critical mass was achieved with this kind of a vocal stance combined with physical mass, i have to think it would be a catalyst to change.
heck, in the meeting rise up and say “…she made a valid point, why aren’t you acknowledging it?” and “no, actually that was her idea not yours to take the credit for.”
where Harvey Weinstein is concerned, i do appreciate the supportive and compassionate responses from other men in the film industry. Why weren’t you this vocal long ago??
men, namby pamby is the wrong image for you.
re: Harvey Weinstein — women’s voices weren’t heard until The New York Times cut off his b@||$ with their article.
it goes without saying that it shouldn’t take such extreme measures for the voices of those with less power and influence to be heard.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
That seems to be the formula and many teach that it’s Gods formula.
My jury service is over after eight days. It was a civil case in federal court involving five plaintiffs against a defendant satellite dish programming and installation company. We had to decide whether the plaintiffs were employees or independent contractors. It was a horrible case, because while several of us were VERY sympathetic to the plaintiffs and thought the contract agreements they signed were awful, the evidence they presented, in light of the law, didn’t push them over into being employees. So we had to find for the defendant satellite dish programming and installation company.
It was an experience.
As for Justin Welby, I’m of the belief that he knew *something.* How much he knew, I don’t know.
Muslin, fka Dee Holmes wrote:
It just seems like people know something as they rise to prominence, but don’t know what to do or they are afraid to do anything about it (which is no excuse, but a reason).
The collusion of individuals in law, politics, and the clergy of the film Spotlight, is sometimes the case, maybe not as often as people being scared, untrained but without excuse.
Rise to “prominence”, not leadership, because leadership would figure out what to do. It’s like the Holocaust. Many knew something and did nothing (a certain complicity). A few brave souls stuck their necks out (leadership). And a very few evil individuals created the terror for millions.
This may be so in some of the most deranged and disturbing cases however child abuse is child abuse. Either you do something about it or you don’t when it hits you in the butt!!!! I wouldn’t need to know the details except did the person abuse the child in any ways sexually or tortured, hurt, harmed? Dee is correct in saying it’s about power and control over the victim. Even if my child had never been abused I still had the same stance on child abuse as I have always had. No matter how hard or how it would come back on me YOU DO THE RIGHT THING! Defend the children, the elderly, the sick, the hurt!!!! Everyone has a moral obligation to do what is right heck even unbelievers can do what is right! How much more responsibility falls on the professing believer? I truly believer these men get some sort of kick out of the abuse when they defend these scumbags or hide what they did and then continue to keep them around kids. To me they become worse than the abuser themselves. I’m not talking about the most difficult or traumatizing cases by the way. I’m looking at this in a way where we as parents should be shocked stunned horrified when a kid is abused in these ways. Anyone for that matter but that does not stop our responsibility to do what is right once we are aware. Deer in the headlights just doesn’t cut it for me. Especially with men and women who have the position to do something. I do see some of your points I respectfully disagree. JYJames wrote:
Oh and if these cases are just to hard or traumatizing for the pastors and men in charge then why do they insert themselves into these investigations so much and get all the details? Not so traumatic when they are doing that!
my comment above, at 12:23 pm —
i want to acknowledge the excellent men here & everywhere. i’m feeling i ended my comment a bit too harshly considering the caliber of men here.
because voices of those with less influence & power tend to be ignored, especially when treated badly and violated, the gravitas of your prompt support is needed. Even if at personal cost to you.
(i’m still miffed that my gravitas isn’t as gravitassy as my husband’s…. i don’t get it)
@ Thersites:
I can’t speak to Smyth, but in the case of Weinstein, his power wasn’t diminished, when the allegations surfaced in the NYT and New Yorker he was still a major and highly influential player in Hollywood. It was that the allegations came from actresses like Ashley Judd who had or have some stature in the business.
shauna wrote:
1) JUICY! JUICY! JUICY!
2) The same reason serial killers often try to insert themselves into an investigation. Gathering Intel on what the cops know or active-measure attempts to influence the investigation away from themselves. (Especially if they’re insiders to begin with.)
elastigirl wrote:
“Long ago” they were personally benefiting from association with Major Playa Weinstein and The System?
And now that association has become a liability?
As always, I have great respect for the Wartburg Watch and wish there was more ‘investigative journalism’ regarding Christian churches, such as the great work done on this blog. Keep it going – an amazingly important website.
The NYT article mentioned here is entitled ‘Doubts grow over Archbishop’s account of when he knew of abuse.’
Although this article suggests he may have known much earlier what went on, I am not so convinced. I think there are several errors and potential slants in the article that ironically cover up certain important aspects. As I teach my hospital students, ‘never let a good story get in the way of the facts.’
One of the problems of the NYT article is that it makes out Justin Welby to be much more senior in the Iwerne movement than was actually the case. It describes him as an ‘officer of the Trust.’ This sounds high up, but in reality he was what is called a dormitory officer, when he used to attend the Iwerne camps as an undergraduate. This is not a particular high up position, involving being responsible for a group of boys at each camp, this responsibility shared also with those who were supervising activities, such as going sailing or visiting historic building. The dormitory officers were not part of the executive running the camps. In passing, the dormitory officers tended to be people who had just left school and were at university, being viewed as good role models and also having vacation time to attend the camps. They were different from the executive, many of who were older professionals, sometimes teachers who could dedicate holiday time to the Iwerne minister movement, Smyth being an example. Presumably, Smyth, as a barrister, could adjust his time schedule to involve himself in the movement.
Justin Welby was mentored by a Cambridge vicar, Mark Rushton, whilst he was an undergraduate student at Cambridge University. AS we know, the complication is that Mark Rushton wrote the report on the Smyth Scandal, so to some this might implicates Justin Welby as being knowledgeable. In the NYT article Justin Welby’s links with Mark Rushton are depicted as follows: ‘the archbishop and the investigator, Mr Rushton, were extremely close, as friends and colleagues, the victims and some church figures say, adding it strains credulity to think they would not have discussed the matter.’ However, as another person has commented, Mark Rushton was already very senior in 1982 and close to retirement, and so the relationship was not as it might seem in the article. Although one could view him as a friend of Justin Welby, in reality he was a spiritual mentor in his undergraduate years. As the article suggests, Mark Rushton ‘vowed not to speak’ about the Smyth matter. Mark Rushton died an old man in the late 1980s. In my view, it is very plausible, that Mark Rushton would have kept from Justin Welby what had happened. In fact, it is likely that he would have thought it is duty to do so, given that he would have been breaking confidence to a very junior person who he was mentoring. The analogy is that a senior partner in an organisation might regard certain secrets to be kept from a junior partner whom they nevertheless know very well and support. Other reasons could have been promulgated for Smyth leaving the movement and going to South Africa.
Another aspect is that beyond his time at Cambridge, Justin Welby had many different influences and directions other than the Iwerne Minister movement. This included the fact that he was from London and had been embedded in a large evangelical church, Holy Trinity Brompton (evangelical might mean different things in the UK). The NYT makes a thing about the fact that Mark Rushton kept in touch with Iwerne after his university graduation ‘during his years abroad.’ However, the evidence is that he gave a talk in the trust’s library in 1979. But this was only one year after he graduated and in my view does not constitute substantial contact and it was early days regarding the Smyth scandal, making it easily plausible that there was not discussion about it with him. Again, there were many competing aspects from this time, including him marrying in late 1979, the person marrying him Sandy Millar, who was a large influence on him. Other aspects around this time were his him smuggling bibles to behind the iron curtain, his demanding work for Elf based in Paris and the tragic loss of his baby daughter in 1983, in a road traffic accident in France, and then his eventual relocation to London to work for Enterprize old and attend Holy Trinity Brompton.
It is interesting that the NYT do not have appeared to have checked their story with Justin Welby (i.e. provide a draft copy), which I think they should have done. I have read articles by the NYT about completely different matters in which important errors were made, including one concerning a well-known researcher who died recently, some would say helping to damage their reputation, leading to 200 scientists from around the world signing a protest letter, of which I was one. If one reads the NYT article quickly it might give the impression they have information from many sources to develop their notion that Justin Welby knew about the Smyth scandal in the early days. However, if one reads it very carefully, it is actually relying on an ‘Iwerne insider’ who was said to be a friend of Mark Ruston (we cannot of course verify this, and also the insiders reliability) and Alan Wilson, both of whom think the scandal was common knowledge for people such as Justin Welby. In my view, Alan Wilson might have has his opinion, but I suspect he was not fully cognisant of the timeline for Justin Welby’s involvement with Iwerne and the nature of the Mark Rushton’s mentoring relationship with Justin Welby. At any rate, the evidence is too flimsy and circumstantial in my view to from a definite opinion.
Of course the cover up by the senior people in Iwerne was very wrong. I was attending Mark Rushton’s church for a year in Cambridge when he wrote the report, whilst doing my PhD. I attended Iwerne as a schoolboy in the mid 1970s – I knew nothing about the scandal until it broke in the news recently and was very disappointed to learn it had been covered up. There is no real excuse here, including the one that things were different in those days – ethically they were not.
I am happily married and my friends don’t suggest I am emotionally stunted, as a contributor to the discussion suggest might have happened because I attended a boarding school in the UK. Many of my friends from that era are happily married and also vicars in not very well known churches, doing an ordinary job very well out of the spotlight, but glad they were influenced by Iwerne. The mentoring I had from Iwerne consisted of a school teacher encouraging me to attend a large Baptist church (Arminian theology of course) in my home town and this transformed my social life. I see Iwerne as a benign and civilising influence in the main, and am sorry that it stupidly and unethically covered up the Smyth scandal. I would encourage people to read the autobiography of Justin Welby by Andrew Atherstone, to get a better appreciation of his life and work.
‘E. J. H. Nash, who recruited boys from Britain’s elite schools’ I was a cook on Scripture Union camps from the late 1960s. (We wimin were only allowed to cook on boys camps back then!) Nash’s camps were referred to by all of us as ‘Bash camps’ and I never thought to question why…I was very naive.. They were somehow above us ordinary mortals who ministered to ordinary kids not to the super-elite future leaders of Britain that Bash camps claimed to do. And Rev Mark Rushton was a superstar in those days, vicar of what everyone called ‘The Round’, a very successful student church, The Round Church in Cambridge from which hundreds of christian students went into fulltime mission around the world, my DH included. So that’s another hero of mine who just bit the dust..Rushton alongside Francis Schaeffer who I recently read was not very nice to his wife and not the super-spiritual hero I near-worshipped once. Mea culpa!
Hi Matilda,
Sorry about that. But if you did any of the cooking at Iwerne, the food was good, I seem to remember – so here is my chance to say thank you – I was hungry in those days as an active teenager! Having volunteers for catering also kept the cost down and enabled me to attend, my parents having spent all their inheritance on my school fees and being modest earners. I seem to remember we did the washing up. But things have moved on and girls are no longer expected to cook for boys – I hope.
I am trying to balance things – most of the people I knew from this era and still know are fairly ordinary people – they didn’t worship their leaders – we all had a fairly health scepticism – as we know the UK went through a cultural revolution in the 1960s in which young people tended to question authority and lampoon people who were revered. It is true that the schools Iwerne catered for were elitist and that set the tone, but this was also tempered by christian values of humility – I am speaking about the people I know, of course and I am sorry to hear about your experiences.
I read a book recently about great Christians of history and it essentially exposes all their flaws. The problem is that we are expected to put Christian celebrities on a pedestal, and this leads to all sorts of problems.
On this topic, a great service of Wartburg Watch is to point out the absurdity of celebrity or elite Christians, especially those who feel they can get above common humanity and decency.
‘We put christian leaders on a pedestal…but they didn’t worship their leaders….mmm, not sure about that…I recall being in awe of the David Shephards, John Stotts, Martyn Lloyd-Joneses etc of the time and travelling across London to sit at their feet on Sundays and take copious notes from their sermons. I also recall posh snobby VPSM (Varsity and Public Schools Mission) leaders coming to our SU camps to give us advice in their plummy accents on how to reach ‘the upper classes’. Yes, really. We were chastised for not having compulsory officers’ croccer (a silly team game) on the beach at 7am for bonding purposes, they were mainly ex-miliary ‘muscular- christianity’ types.I wanted to wipe my nose loudly across my sleeve and use my broadest cockney voice when I made them tea… Later,DH and I were asked to lead the teens work at Criccieth, a flagship mission and I said this to a VPS leader who, I swear looked down his nose and said in cut-glaass english, ‘YOU were asked, really? That’s hard to believe..’ cos guess we weren’t and still ain’t posh enough…I can totally believe what the british press has reported, like the NYT, that the hierarchy of the CofE was only interested in covering up abuse and protecting abusers, middle/upper class people protecting their own.
Matilda wrote:
Off-topic, but I know it well – I was at Magdalene, just over the road.
Hi Matilda,
Thanks so much for your comments. As you say, there was a cover up and this was done by middle and upper class people in this case, protecting reptutations – as Justin Welby has said, this was shameful and people were let down by the C of E (although Iwerne was not exclusively C of E – the Iwerne person who encouraged me to go to a Baptist church was a Baptist). My contention is this is not fundamentally about class and some very ordinary people were involved in Iwerne who were horrified when they found out what happened, including me. Also, most people the SU were school teachers – fairly ordinary people – this includes my cousin who taught biology in a school in his career and likes bees and enthusing people about the natural work, a bit like Attenborough – he gave up a career as a zoologist to be missionary and teach in a small school in Ghana, which he enjoyed enormously. I say this because ordinary people are caught up in this. However, I agree that class differences and snobbishness continues to divide people, although things have improved in UK society – now it is more about money. I don’t think the abuse was to do with class – abuse is found in all organisations and background where children is concerned, as are the cover ups. Again I am sorry to hear about your experiences, which sound terrible.