Our church will not be safe while spiritual abuse remains unchecked

As we all know and agree, Smyth’s crimes against boys and young men - as reported on in the recent Makin report - were heinous and no one ever wants such abuse to go unchecked again. 

Nonetheless, if we are serious in that ambition, we need to have the courage to examine the so-called theology that gave rise to Smyth’s abuse, which was both physical and spiritual. We need to ask whether Smyth truly believed that the boys were committing sin and that God wanted that sin purged from them through beatings.  And we need to be clear that this theological teaching is incorrect and unacceptable in our Church.  We need to consider whether the abuse was connected to a repression of homosexual feelings.  And, if so, we need to consider the safety consequences of teaching that gay sex is a sin.

Despite being a broad church theologically, we need to put some limits on the theology we condone and teach in the Church of England.

The practical theologian Leah Robinson wrote an interesting book recently called Bad Theology: Oppression in the name of God. In this she looks at so-called theologies in the past which have been condoned and justified through the Bible but which we all now concur are bad theology, such as apartheid in South Africa and the Klu Klux Clan in the US.

Hindsight is, of course, a wonderful thing - but how do we recognise bad theology in our midst?  Robinson gives us some pointers and one of them is when our theology causes other people harm.  Another is when it runs counter to justice and equality.

As well as tightening up safeguarding procedures, I think it is necessary, in the wake of Makin, for the Church to look at the theology it is condoning and teaching, and check for the potential harm it may be creating.

Do parents know, for example, what is being taught to their children in youth groups? I have come across families being shocked to discover that youth pastors are teaching boys and girls that God made men to be in authority over women and only wants men to be leaders in the Church and in marriage. I have come across young people being taught that gay sex is a sin and they risk burning in hell if they engage in homosexual activity.

In my own church a number of years ago our new youth pastor told a young girl, whose father had recently died and who had not been a Christian, that he was sorry to say this but her father would be in hell. When I found out about this, I had a conversation with the pastor who was a young man in his early twenties and he explained that this theology is what he had been taught in his own church and truly believed.  He said that he felt that it was only fair to be honest with the young girl. I took the view that this was ‘theology’ that I did not want to be taught to the young people in my church and I brought our contract with him to an end. Nonetheless, he has gone on and found a job in another church in another part of the country and may well still be teaching the same theology. Looking back, I wonder whether this was a matter that should have been reported as a safeguarding issue.

Just because we label something theology does not make it good.

What we teach lay people, and especially young people, is a huge responsibility. And some of that teaching may not only drive physical abuse, as was the case with Smyth, but also create mental and emotional abuse.

Yet talking to senior clergy about this recently, I feel the matter is being brushed off. I do understand that it is a difficult area and will give rise to heated debate from different wings of the Church. But it is about time we had some theological guidance and limits on what we are teaching in our churches, especially to children and young people.  It is also time to be transparent to families about that teaching. I believe this is a safeguarding issue and the responsibility of senior clergy.  And, until we rise to the challenge of doing this, we will not have a safe church.