The days after Christmas are treated by most clergy as an opportunity to relax a little. Although I have not been caught up in the endless round of services like the active clergy, I did try and get ahead of myself by writing a couple of articles for the blog in good time so that I could try and forget it over the festival time. But the circumstances have changed things. Two events have happened over the holiday period that have thrust clerical abuse back into our attention in a forceful way.
The first event was the publication of David Greenwood’s chronicle of the Peter Ball affair in a privately published book, Basically Innocent. This appeared a day or two before Christmas. It contains a factual and yet horrifying account of Ball’s abuses and the subsequent establishment cover-up of his behaviour. Then on the 27th/28th came the extensive further Telegraph coverage of the Jonathan Fletcher affair. The newspaper and the journalist Gabriella Swerling have evidently been working hard on the story since they published their first exposé about Fletcher back in June. What they have produced is fascinating, not merely for the details of alleged abuses, but for the way that the paper has made many connections between individuals and institutions.
The stories about Ball and Fletcher have proved to be as much about institutional behaviour and misbehaviour as that of individuals. Each man offended in the context of having a senior institutional role. In neither case did the institutions involved seems capable of checking the behaviour of their senior representatives. Nor did they show much remorse after the nefarious deeds had been exposed. These institutional failures will probably be what is remembered by history. Individuals have been seriously harmed, not only by the actions of evil men, but by the subsequent failure of institutions that should have protected them and helped them to heal.
Returning to David Greenwood’s chronicle, I found it quite difficult reading the accounts of naked showers and sexual activity interspersed with spiritual ritual. But the exact details of Ball’s criminal offending are possibly the least important part of the narrative. What the reader may find even tougher to take on board are the deceitful tricks used by Ball’s allies to harass and undermine those who accused him of wrongdoing. The then Bishop of Chichester, Dr Eric Kemp, oversaw a policy of non-cooperation and obstruction of the police in their legitimate enquiries. Questions of truth and falsehood and good and bad seemed not to play any part in his calculations. All that seemed to matter was a determination to protect ‘one of us’, Peter Ball, together with the good name of the institution that he had done so much to dishonour. Obstructing the pursuit of justice by a considerable number of distinguished Ball supporters is a key part of the Greenwood account.
Basically Innocent still has the power to shock even though most of the information contained in it is already in the public domain. The recent Telegraph story on Jonathan Fletcher, however, contains fresh information. The newspaper has succeeded in talking to five victims of Fletcher and these have painted a consistent pattern of spiritually exploitative manipulative behaviour that seemed designed merely to satisfy the narcissistic and sexual needs of the abuser. But, once again the story is remarkable, not just for these actions but for the way that countless other people have been involved as bystanders or protectors. Back in October I wrote a blog piece http://survivingchurch.org/2019/10/03/the-jonathan-fletcher-story-continues/ on Fletcher commenting on the fact that no fresh news since the Telegraph stories of June had emerged into the public domain on the scandal. That said to me that large numbers of people in the Iwerne/ReNew/Church Society group had been ordered to keep quiet on the topic. Since that time the silence has begun to crack open and Fletcher’s old church, Emmanuel South Wimbledon, has agreed to commission a Review under the supervision of Justin Humphries and his independent organisation Thirtyone:eight. That has now begun and there has been a call for victims to come forward to tell what they know.
There are a number of parallels between the Fletcher scandal and the Ball affair. The Telegraph story suggested a possible link through membership of the same exclusive dining club, Nobody’s Friends. While Fletcher was undoubtably a member, I do not believe anyone has claimed the same for Ball. What is true is that powerful well-connected people linked to the two men have used their social power to defend and attempt to vindicate them. The 2000 letters sent to Lambeth Palace in support of Ball were in some cases written by people who believed genuinely in his innocence. Other individuals probably suspected that something was awry in his behaviour but in their minds the good name of the Church took precedence over the questions of right and wrong. In the Fletcher affair something rather more blatant was going on. As far as I can determine, almost everybody in the ReNew/REFORM/Iwerne network knew Fletcher and this is particularly true of the leaders in that group. The leaders cannot have been ignorant of Fletcher’s style of ministry and his reputation for spiritually abusive behaviour. If they were surprised at the revelations and the 2017 withdrawal of his Permission to Officiate, why has there been no protestation to this effect? It was also extraordinary that an individual with a very high profile should suddenly almost disappear from any mention on the net. Someone with the authority to do so must have spent hours searching for online references to Fletcher and removing them one by one. That piece of work has now been rendered void by the Telegraph reporting. The publicity machines at both Church House and wherever the centre of ReNew is to be found will be working very hard this week-end to try and undo the enormous damage to the reputation of the Church that has been incurred by the Telegraph stories.
I want to finish by briefly exploring a moral dilemma. In Christian teaching an individual can commit a wrong action but there is always the possibility of receiving forgiveness after true repentance. That is in essence what we understand from the New Testament. A different situation arises to this when we encounter a bystander knowing about and to some extent covering up someone else’s evil activity. When I know about the harmful behaviour of another person, how can I put things right? The simple appeal to repentance does not seem to work. I cannot repent of some else’s behaviour. How can I do anything to put right the evil being done by a member of my own church tribe? To separate myself from that action completely, I would need to abandon all that connects me with the network. That is a difficult if not impossible task. Members of the ReNew network who knew that Fletcher’s behaviour was spiritually and psychologically harmful were to a greater or lesser extent colluding in evil. The bystander is always a sharer of guilt, particularly if harm is in any way intensified because of the inactivity. Looking at the stories of Fletcher and John Smyth before him, the entire ReNew network leadership group seems to have been caught up in a kind of corporate guilt. It is hard to claim that any of them are completely free from Fletcher’s wrongdoing. They knew something and they simply did little or nothing with what they knew to protect the vulnerable. The typical motivation for this kind of behaviour seems to be one of idolisation of a charismatic leader and the protection and defence of their tribe against other types of Christian who are regarded as threats to their vision of the faith. How will the leadership of ReNew deal with the institutional guilt that is now seen to be pervasive within their constituency? The world is watching the conservative network of ReNew to see how it deals with this appalling legacy. At the same time, it is looking to the wider Church of England to act positively and decisively in this matter but also over the disastrous legacy of Peter Ball and of those who enabled and protected him over decades.
Just straight off my head, if I tell someone about someone else’s bad behaviour, they are now an accessory. So they have a moral obligation to do something. If the wrong action is in the past, they have an obligation to try to put it right. They rarely do so.
Not necessarily, I think. To be an accessory they have to be personally complicit in the wrong-doing, whatever it was. What you tell them might be no more than hearsay – and they could expose themselves to a charge of defamation if they repeat what you say and it turns out to be untrue.
Caution is always necessary before acting without personal knowledge of the facts. This is not back-tracking on one’s Christian duty.
I’ll totally admit to oversimplifying! But if you wind yourself up to explain something awful, and they say, as they often do, “I can’t do anything about the past”, they’re going too far the other way. They haven’t said, “Well, I’d have to check that”, or, simply that they don’t believe you. They’ve said they can’t do anything because it’s past. Well, everything is in the past! Every crime. No one would ever be done for murder if that were a sufficient argument. I’m not sure I’m explaining it very well, but it’s such a stupid thing for people to say! Hurts can be healed and wrongs can be righted. If people want to. But they don’t.
I think it’s now clear that we were discussing different things, so best left at that.
I wasn’t offended! I hope you’re not.
Stephen Parsons doesn’t like us to digress too far from the topic, but my late wife and I faced this situation about 40 years ago. I can’t relate any of the details as the person involved, then a young child, is still alive, but suffice to say that my wife did take action and there was a happy ending.
Brilliant. Thanks for the story.
It’s odd the way Jonathan Fletcher disappeared even from Crockford. I think that all clergy ought to appear in it unless they are under a lifetime ban from ministry. It should be possible to look up someone who’s ordained to check whether or not they are in good standing and possessed of PTO.
Whilst it may not be possible to achieve what you want through Crockford, the new national register of clergy, created by the safeguarding legislation, will contain the names of all clergy and information about the office they hold or whether they have permission to officiate. It is intended that this will be comprehensive in a way that Crockford is not, and (for example) address the problem that the same person can be Bill Smith as, say, a school governor in one diocese and William Smith, as an incumbent in another.
How accessible will that register be? Will it be available for anyone to check? Will there be a fee?
It would be possible for your hypothetical William/Bill to be identified through Crockford (provided he were listed there) because he would have the same address, and in any case clergy are not listed by diocese. But you do have to pay a subscription fee to join, and if you just want to look up one cleric it’s not worth it. A national register is a good idea if it’s run properly.
I’m not sure, and don’t want to mislead. There may be more information at/after the February General Synod.
That is odd. I haven’t checked, yet, but I presume he’s still in out of date print copies. Or has someone gone round the charity shops and pulped them! They can’t disappear him from history altogether!
Jonathan James Molyneux Fletcher is in my 2008/9 hard copy of Crockford – but that doesn’t tell me his PTO was removed in 2017 or 2018. And the fact there is uncertainty about which year he lost his PTO is telling, because it shows that this knowledge is not readily accessible. And if someone loses PTO. because of serious safeguarding concerns, that information ought to be available to anyone who might ask them to preach or officiate.
Articles etc have said that it was removed 2017. I have emailed +Southwark to ask when, although I thought it was January 2017. Emailed a while ago but didn’t hear back.
I have read several different timings for Fletcher’s POT removal. There doesn’t seem to be much clarity on the point.
No, there doesn’t. I suspect some prefer it that way.
I’m sure they prefer it that way, but it isn’t good enough.
Really hope all these points will be robustly addressed in the review.
Can someone please answer a question for me?
When the initial reports of Fletchers behaviour came out earlier this year. I remember reading that although his permission to officiate had been revoked, the churches in which he Ministered effectively ignored this (until the scandal broke).
The articles that I’ve seen in the last couple of weeks make no mention of this and, indeed, make it sound like those churches have been entirely cooperative in calling Fletcher to justice.
Is my memory faulty or is there some message management going on?
Peter, I don’t think your memory is faulty at all. Many of the ReNew clergy will not have been aware of an issue with JF until April 2019 when a ‘pastoral letter’ was sent out from Rod Thomas, William Taylor, Robin Weekes and Vaughan Roberts via regional ReNew leaders to say that JF’s PTO had been removed and that there were genuine issues – although it didn’t say what the issues were.
However, there are senior leaders in the ReNew/Church Society constituency who did know all about the problems with JF and yet did nothing. Of course they are all part of the problem.
JF may have formally stepped back from ministry and from positions of influence, but he is still in control behind the scenes. Those who do his bidding and who are complicit are still in post.
Many thanks
Do you think the diocese were at fault for not communicating widely enough that he had his PTO removed?
Good question – I don’t know whether the diocese should have done more.
I agree with you about the newspaper reports though. Victims at Emmanuel were fobbed off and complaints not acted on until the stuff went public and certain leaders wanted to cover their back.
It was put out originally that JF had himself resigned his PTO in support of Andy Lines who lost his own PTO when he became a Gafcon/AMIE bishop. So that would have put people off the scent.
Thirtyone:eight is a stakeholder in the church so its independence is questionable and Lisa Oakley who is conducting the review chairs the Task and Finish group on spiritual abuse for the Church of England. Emmanuel church are the commissioners of the review and I assume therefore hold the purse strings and a certain amount of power. Thirtyone:right have asked for victims to come forward but have already decided the specifications of the review without discussing this with as many victims as they could to ensure that what had been decided felt safe for them. In asking for information they said that someone would be in contact within 2 working days, I supplied information 2 weeks before Christmas and still nothing. I know I am not alone in questioning how stage managed this review is.
Trish that is so disappointing to hear. It is essential for a review process to be truly trustworthy and indpendent.
This is not to doubt you, but to overcome my ignorance- how is 31:8 a stakeholder? And what is the Task and Finish group please? I have a LOT to say about spiritual abuse…
I’m afraid someone will have to explain who 31:8 are. I tried to find out but my server can’t display the page! Please!
31:8 is what used to be CCPAS. I think that stood for Churches’ Child Protection Advisory Service and they were good. I went with several of my congregation to a training day they did some years ago and it was useful. They also used to issue a magazine. As is so often the case, the name change hasn’t been helpful.
Hi Athena and Jane, 31:8 used to be CCPAS, I think! They provide safeguarding training and advice to religious institutions but in the Anglican church also DSA cover. Certainly in social services and mental health a group like this would be seen as stakeholders by governance (they influence how an organisation is run) and therefore not sufficiently independent to carry out a serious case review. The Task and Finish group looks at policy and practice guidance on spiritual abuse but this seems to be a highly secretive group and closed shop with only people that won’t rock the boat too much invited.
With all your qualifications Jane particularly, in the field of survivors, they should lap you up but if you can even contact them I bet they don’t!
I think the review will be adequate in respect of JF but I strongly suspect there will be a damage limitation on the context and that will be a great dis-service to victims from other similar churches.
Thanks Trish and Jane. Happy New Year.
Ah, I knew it was the rebrand of CCPAS but not that they were providing DSA. Ad you say, that reduces their independence. Hmm, maybe Survivors Voices should consider setting up an Independent Review service. It would be good to see survivor-led reviews.
It’s a shame, as you say Trish this would be a good opportunity to have a showcase good practice review that restored survivors trust that systems can be held to account and lessons learned.
It concerns me that the truth about Jonathan Fletcher is being obscured by too many assumptions, unsupported by evidence, being asserted as established fact. I see no evidence that ‘countless other people have been involved as bystanders or protectors’, that anyone ‘had been ordered to keep quiet quiet on the topic’, that anyone other than the victims knew anything of Fletcher’s behaviour, nor that the victims themselves knew of other victims. Such claims are made without any evidence.
The nature and extent of Fletcher’s abusive activity was made very public at the Evangelical Ministry Assembly (the flagship conference of the Iwerne/ReNew/Church Society group), and came as a complete shock. Speculation over an imagined cover-up detracts from the real issues.
Yes, but it is a bigger issue than what was said at the EMA, and I have seen the culture of protection and cover up at first hand.
Shaun, you have to understand how hard it is to break out of such organisations. People begin by turning to people like me who has no agenda but to have proper process in the CofE. Who do you think is giving us all this data?
It is disenchanted Conservative Evangelicals who have not changed their theological convictions, but are not willing to stay silent on abuse. All credit to them.
The reports will clarify everything but it will take many months for all the facts to come out. In the meantime, there is the potential for proper safeguarding practice to be flouted and for cover up. We have clear evidence that this constituency continued to facilitate Fletcher having access you young people even after he had his PTO withdrawn as a safeguarding risk. We know victims have been approached to silence them
What are people of integrity to do, pretend nothing is happening whilst the problem is “ fixed”?
“It is disenchanted Conservative Evangelicals who have not changed their theological convictions, but are not willing to stay silent on abuse. All credit to them.”
Yes. Many conservative evangelicals are horrified by the abuse and want to stand with the victims.
Thanks for your response, Martin, but my question remains, what is the evidence?
You’re assuming that someone posts things as assertions with no evidence. They are assuming that people realise that they have been given first hand evidence from the alleged victims/survivors. They just haven’t spelled it out here. Slight mismatch of understanding here.
Just had a reply from Southwark re removal of PTO.
“Mr Fletcher’s PtO expired on June 30th 2017 and was not renewed thereafter; in February of that year he had given an undertaking not to exercise his PtO.”
Thank you. It’s good to have that clarified.
Re. bystanders: They have a duty to stop abuse when they see it, but do not always realise the extent of what is going on, and do not always feel able to do anything about it, especially if it is great leaders vs. a lonely voice.
What we all can, and should, do is working to make church a safe place, whichever part of the church one is in. Make sure people are listened to, can voice their concerns, not sweep things under the carpet. Make ‘followers’ aware of what is OK and what is not OK in church groups and pastoral care. Make sure there is a complaints protocol, that everyone knows where to find it, and that complaints are resolved by someone independent, outside the church.
You’re totally right. I, unfortunately, have had experience of Archdeacons and the like knowing what is going on and doing nothing. They are accessories imo. And many people can’t do anything, true. But if they offered tea and sympathy?
There is a lot written about how bystanders who do nothing create the culture that enables the abuse to happen and collude with the abuser. Of course some are in denial and some are intimidated or taken in. But definitely share culpability. Listening to victims with compassion would be a start. But supporting us to speak out and petition for justice would be even better.
English Athena and Jane, these are such good and important points that you are making. People in authority have a responsibility to act, but often don’t and so they become complicit in abuse towards an individual.
Bystanders also have a basic human responsibility to help, but often take a “I’m keeping out of it” attitude.
I have seen so much of this first hand within the CofE and amongst conservative evangelicals.
Athena, Jane – totally agree. I have seen pastor and elders in an independent church all working to blame the ‘follower’ while there was black on white evidence of malpractice. And forcing the follower to keep silent on pain of being excommunicated. And everyone else ignored it, hoping it would go away. Or was unaware of the problem in the first place.
That’s why we need external complaints handling for a start. Like the health service, police, judiciary etc. all have an independent complaints committee or ombudsman. Anyone in the same church or organisation has a conflict of interest: trying not to damage the church’s reputation – but only making it worse by sweeping problems under the carpet where like an abscess it festers on until it explodes in their faces. Like the current scandal. Also they often know the culprit, possibly are friends/ family, either can’t imagine them doing anything so wrong, or want to misguidedly ‘protect’ them.
In the NHS, if you make a complaint, it is handled by the doctor or trust where the problem happened. With the answer to the complaint, there is always a message or leaflet saying that if you’re not happy with the response or handling of the complaint, you can go to the ombudsman for health.
There should be something like that for churches. Like a safeguarding covenant they can sign up to and pay for external complaints resolution. I think there is something similar for good financial governance in charities.
We need to be realistic that the problem of abuse, whichever form it takes, is not going to go away. Every few years there is another scandal, in another ‘corner’ of the church. So we need to get better at spotting it early, and dealing with it – both the organisation and the individual, with support from external counsellors. And the perpetrator, if they are capable of dealing with it.