![](http://survivingchurch.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/jonathanfletcher-2.jpg)
On December 27th last year the Daily Telegraph published, on the front-page, information about the former Vicar of Emmanuel Wimbledon, Jonathan Fletcher and accusations made against him for abusive behaviour. The previous June, the same newspaper had published a story on the topic, revealing that Fletcher had had his Permission to Officiate withdrawn by the Diocese of Southwark at the beginning of 2017. There were few details in the June 2019 report about the nature of the offences leading to this ban, so we were left wondering exactly why this action had been taken against a clergyman of such standing and possessing considerable influence within the world of conservative evangelical Anglicanism. There was obviously a story to be told but the details were not being given at that point. The December Telegraph account by Gabriella Swerling introduced new material, since she had interviewed five victims of Fletcher’s abusive behaviour. Without going into the details, she was told of massages, cold baths and other behaviours which, while not technically criminal, were questionable as being part of any recognisable pattern of pastoral care. Reading through the Telegraph account once again, there is a clear pattern of young impressionable men who were in awe of Fletcher’s power as a guru, father-figure and man of God. They were thus ripe for abuse at his hands. Whether it is to be described as sexual abuse or spiritual abuse is probably not important. Clearly those interviewed had been severely traumatised at the hands of Jonathan Fletcher.
The original Telegraph story of June 2019 had resulted in various responses from a variety of sources. The ReNew constituency leaders published a statement of regret through an organisation known as the Evangelical Ministry Assembly and some of the speeches relating to the event were broadcast on Youtube. https://vimeo.com/344888648 I found myself commenting on three occasions as an outside observer. I was puzzled by various aspects of the case, including the way that the entire Internet had been swept clean of all references to Fletcher. His online sermons had disappeared and even documents that had contained references to him were ‘edited’ so that his name no longer appeared. That work must have taken a lot of effort. For individuals studying the story like me, it just provoked a greater interest in what information there was to be had. Although the information I presented on this blog contained nothing from the inside, I could not help but notice that the articles I had written were being consulted for months afterwards. Most blog pieces I write have a circulation lasting at most a week, but interest in Fletcher has been extensive and literally thousands of people have consulted these particular posts. http://survivingchurch.org/2019/06/27/joining-up-the-dots-the-jonathan-fletcher-story/ https://survivingchurch.org/2019/07/01/further-reflections-on-the-jonathan-fletcher-story/
The second aspect of the story that demands comment is the way that, apart from the five anonymous individuals interviewed by the Telegraph, there has been little evidence of new people coming forward to say what they know. That may have changed in the past few months as there is an enquiry being conducted by Thirty One Eight, the independent safeguarding charity. They have been commissioned to make this enquiry by Emmanuel Church, Fletcher’s former congregation in Wimbledon. They were to have delivered the report by this month, but the virus, and larger than expected amounts of information being gathered, have created a delay. We have absolutely no reason to suppose that they will not accomplish a thorough job and we hope they can help heal some of Fletcher’s victims who have suffered so grievously over the past thirty to forty years.
As my readers who have read earlier blogs will know, the Fletcher affair is deeply intertwined with the Iwerne/Titus story. Fletcher’s own brother David was the leader/organiser of these camps for many years and for decades also Jonathan was a regular feature there as a speaker. On one occasion at least he shared a platform with John Smyth. All this information is available freely on the net and I do not propose to spend any more time recounting it. What is of importance is what is happening in the present and this may help us to understand new twists and complications in the way the Fletcher saga is to play out over the next year or so.
The first thing I have to report is that there has been an interesting change of personnel among the safeguarding professionals who are involved in the process. Sarah Hall, who can be viewed on the YouTube video I mentioned above, was the local Emmanuel safeguarding officer for the parish in June 2019. She now no longer fulfils that role. She had combined a full-time post as women’s worker with the parish safeguarding officer. From the video it would appear that Sarah was the front person for local safeguarding concerns at the church. She is also given as the contact person for the website set up to help Emmanuel survivors, Walking On. The two people mentioned now as having safeguarding responsibilities are Gilly Briant and John Adams. I cannot work out when the changeover took place but it is worth noting that John Adams is a member of the ordained staff and thus would not obviously fulfil the independent role normally expected of safeguarding officers. The second change of role is in the Diocese of Southwark safeguarding team. Kate Singleton, the Diocesan Safeguarding Adviser, gave up the task around a month ago. No replacement has yet been appointed.
Changes in personnel do not normally matter but with a case as sensitive as the Fletcher affair, one would want to see continuity being preserved both in the Diocese and in the parish. When new appointments are made, much background knowledge can often be lost. In the case of Fletcher, there is an enormous amount of background information to be mastered. It will be all too easy to blame lost files, the coronavirus and miscommunication for massive errors in the way information is in future gathered and processed. I add this change of personnel to another piece of information which is also somewhat ominous. I have been told on good authority that, at the national level of safeguarding, in the offices at Church House, there is no file kept or indeed any interest in the Fletcher case. Given the enormous exposure of the affair on the front page of a national newspaper, this is a strange position to take. It was apparently said that the affair should be dealt with purely at the diocesan level. The changes of staff at local diocesan and parish level together with the indifference of the National Safeguarding Team are, when taken together, evidence of a worrying indifference to the whole case by the central church authorities. There is clearly no appetite by anyone at the centre to see stones turned over and the past opened up to scrutiny.
What we have left is the independent enquiry by 31-8 which we may see published this autumn. Let us hope and pray for the sake of victims that this enquiry will be allowed to do its work without interference or impediment of any kind. From past experience, we have seen other enquiries interfered with or suppressed in some way, when the truths revealed are of embarrassment to the centre. From the little we already know the truth about Jonathan’s Fletcher’s stewardship of Emmanuel is ugly. The Church of England as a whole and its inner integrity will not be served if that truth is in any way hidden and lost in ‘the land where all things are forgotten’.
Stephen,
Many thanks for this. You state: “I was puzzled by various aspects of the case, including the way that the entire Internet had been swept clean of all references to Fletcher.”
It is my understanding that ‘sweeping the Internet clean’ can be an expensive process. Service providers like Google and MySpace may charge a premium for this.
It would be one thing if Mr Fletcher were paying for this himself. However, it would be quite another thing if an agent were undertaking this work on behalf of a charitable concern (such as a church) with which Mr Fletcher is or was associated. Questions might be asked (by the Charity Commission) of the applicable trustees about whether this would be a proper use of charitable funds and consonant with the purpose of the charity.
Moreover, if the ‘sweeping’ occurred in the context of an ongoing inquiry – where online evidence might be considered as being of use to the parties conducting that inquiry – would that not also be problematic?
Of course I am sure that there are much more benign justifications for this sweeping; it’s merely that the ‘optics’ are somewhat troubling.
Many thanks again!
The “sweeping” of online sources is something I find troubling, while still trying to believe there has not been a cover-up and those involved have good intentions. Take as an example The Proclamation Trust (PT).
Googling PT and Jonathan Fletcher brings up an interview with Dick Lucas saying “Yes. The trouble is that I tend to get too much credit… Jonathan Fletcher, I always say, is one of the founders of P.T. Jonathan was on our staff for three or four years. He went to Wimbledon as the pastor there. He has a terrific number of friends. He’s one of these people who knows so many other people and is a great encourager. He ran a conference for two nights at Fairmont. We had a conference center by then due to the generosity of one of our businessmen. Jonathan ran a conference for two or three nights for about twenty men who were in charge of churches and invited me to come to lead it. This is how P.T. started. God does things”.
Yet a look at the history on the PC’s website makes absolutely no mention of Fletcher what so ever. Nothing. Was this always the case?
Listed under Leadership/Trustees of The Proclamation Trust are Vaughan Roberts, William Taylor and Robin Weekes.
You state that on one occasion at least Jonathan Fletcher shared a platform with John Smyth. More precisely they were part of the Iwerne core group together for several years (so must have often – together with many others – spoken at the same camps as one another), and that core group was large. Jonathan Fletcher’s Iwerne involvement dates from the 1950s to the decade just gone; John Smyth’s was essentially the 1970s and a couple of years either side.
Mentions of David Fletcher, Jonathan’s 10-years-older brother, remind us that a key point in the present debate is the culpability or otherwise for the appalling 800-strokes beating (a one-off hopefully, certainly in magnitude but also in location) in Iwerne. It seems possible to locate this to half a mile from campus, away from the possible notice of anyone on campus, since there was then and still is a boarding house (Devine) that was the old vicarage in the village, and only this would satisfy the varying reports (Anglican Ink) that the atrocity took place in the village *and* in a boarding house. (The boarding house has now an annexe of cottages, which would have been even more private if they then belonged to the school).
Supposing no-one outside his circle suspected J Smyth to be up to anything at the time, then we have to say ‘Would any of us have been able to curb Smyth on this occasion, or have been culpable for not knowing what was going on half a mile from campus?’. If not, then we have no right to hold others responsible either. Clarity on this detail of location is crucial, because it could be that innocent people are wrongly being assumed to be part-culpable. It is, on the contrary, a given that when JS and SD did something like that they would have made sure (just as JS did with his sign in his garden) that there was no chance of their being disturbed, from which it follows that it is difficult to hold anyone apart from the perpetrators culpable for the atrocity.
Whilst I am sure that your assumption that the national team have no interest in the Fletcher case is accurate there is a whole ‘web’ behind them not having any file on it, or any diocesan case, which seems to have been missed.
In order for a diocesan case to be brought to the attention of the national team someone directly involved in the safeguarding case has to bring a complaint about how it is being handled. Clearly the most likely person to do that will be the victim. In the first instance the complaint must be brought against the DSA for mis-handling, the protocol for this varies somewhat between each diocese but the idea behind it is always the same. The complaint is seen either by the line manager of the DSA, someone like the diocesan secretary (so no independence) or it goes to the ‘independent’ chair of the safeguarding reference group but the final decision is made by the diocesan Bishop. This is the case in Southwark, so essentially it is a complete waste of time. Once that complaint of mis-handling has failed, and be assured it will, the victim then has to make a formal complaint about the diocesan Bishop which will then be looked at by Lambeth Palace. If that is upheld the national team may have some involvement.
The national team can always advise on a case at any time but they will not and cannot get involved without the consent of the diocese. The autonomy of a diocese is almost absolute, it is a completely antiquated and unsafe system and the national team, even if it were of any use, is never anything much more than expensive ‘window dressing’ spouting out policies that dioceses then ignore.
A community has lost one of its key leaders. The conservative evangelical world which I grew up in and contains many wonderful people, held Jonathan Fletcher in very high regard.
Sometimes a group behaves rather like an individual, and for them, the loss of JF is like a sort of bereavement. Their response was unusually decisive in my experience, perhaps reflecting the severity of what he did. He has been deleted.
Many of those individuals who know, love and admire him, will be profoundly shocked by his removal. Before details came out in the “Telegraph”, they may have thought little of it initially, but the attempt at corporate muffling only encourages enquiry.
For those “in the know” about JF and others eg Smyth, the main thrust has been to pretend “we knew nothing”, “it happened away from us” etc etc.
My experience of JF was that he was an engaging person and a very good speaker. I’m sure Maurice’s assertion is right about his breadth of connection across the Christian world.
Simply deleting all there about him is doesn’t work in the collective mind. You can’t easily un-remember somebody. Neither is pretending effective at central level, that no one is talking about the subject: “nothing to see here”. I suspect the surge in internet traffic to your site Stephen is those who didn’t get the “memo”. Many who held him in high esteem will be wondering what to do with those feelings. When talk is discouraged (being honest enquiry) there will still be some finding out the news today.
Deleting a key leader like this was a highly unusual step and problematic for them as described above. The conevo world is one where thinking revolves around certainty. Of course we all like this in most areas of our lives, but many of us now realise how unrealistic certainty is. Nevertheless it will be profoundly unsettling to large swathes of that community who placed such store on his teaching, to see the gap where he stood.
When we grow as children, we take on board what our parent figures say as gospel. This shortcuts the developmental handicap of arriving in this world knowing nothing. Those figures heavily influence, at least for a while, what we choose as our central beliefs.
As a body of believers, to discover one of your fathers appears to be a fraud is a terrible shock, and not one which is easily edited away.
The replacement/removal of key safeguarding personnel tends to suggest a regression to more traditional forms of covering up by keeping the dramas “in house”. However mixing the methodology of dealing with the problem, only confounds it.
A healthy body needs to live honestly with itself, and there isn’t time here to examine how that would be. But it looks like we’re still seeing serious issues being dealt with seriously badly.
A good point, Steve. Under different circumstances Roy Clements was also “deleted” and I suspect rather than being a punishment it is more the fear that someone who expressed “sound” theology has suddenly turned out to be “unsound”.
It becomes problematic when what they previously said is still considered correct theology and central to the group identity if the fear exists that they’ve made the message invalid by association.
So it’s easier to remove them from the record all together and maintain a fiction that everyone is in agreement. Certainty is restored.
That’s exactly it Maurice!
I’m sure any website that retained any material by Jonathan Fletcher would be accused of ‘promoting an abuser’.
That’s true. But the problem for the ReNew network is it stridently activist role, openly criticising those who don’t agree with its very conservative views on sexuality.
Take for example William Taylor threatening to leave the Chuch of England because “any sexual practice outside of the marriage between one man and one woman is a matter of primary importance… and not merely (a matter)…over which faithful Christian disciples can agree to disagree:
http://anglican.ink/2017/12/08/st-helens-bishopsgate-walks-away-from-apostasy-in-the-coe/
Note the passage saying those who disagree “are not walking with us in any meaningful spiritual partnership”. Yet Taylor (ex-Iwerne) as a fellow trustee of St Peter’s Canary Wharf Trust, ‘walked’ alongside Jonathan Fletcher until the latter’s resignation in February 2019. Fletcher’s PTO was removed in 2017.
Similarly Andy Lines on behalf of Gafcon UK released a list of gay Clergy in the CofE due to the behaviour of “Western, liberal Anglican Provinces”:
https://premierchristian.news/en/news/article/gafcon-defends-decision-to-release-list-of-gay-church-of-england-clergy
Or Rico Tice resigning over same-sex relationships and saying people are on the road to destruction because”It’s a different religion…and it’s around whether scripture is authoritative in terms of human sexuality”:
https://premierchristian.news/en/news/article/rico-tice-quits-archbishops-evangelism-team-over-sexuality-teaching
The entire movement is defined by what it is not, and only exists by marking boundaries that can’t be crossed. As soon as that certainty is removed, the mindset is in danger. So the result is to delete anything that contradicts the message, including the homo-erotic elements of the Fletcher and Iwerne abuse allegations, which stand in stark contrast to the consensual relationships condemned by the group in the examples above.
Indeed, Maurice.
In the late 1990s I was at a conference where eI sat next to David Banting during a lecture on Galatians. When it was over he complained, ‘She [Dr. Ida Glaser] was saying Galatians is about freedom from the law. It’s not.’ My understanding being that Galatians is indeed about freedom from the law, I asked him to explain. ‘We have to have the law,’ he said, so that we know who’s in and who’s out.’
Which is a remarkable statement, since Jesus repeatedly said we can’t know ‘who’s in and who’s out’ until the final judgement. Nor should we want to.
If a group’s whole rationale is that they have to know who’s and who isn’t, they ‘need’ to keep condemning people. Which explains why the targets keep shifting; as soon as one controversy is resolved, dies down or simply becomes passe, they will need to find another set of people to define as ‘out’. That’s the only way they know they themselves are in.
But the gospel, the good news, is that God holds every person within his heart and wants them to be in, unless they rule themselves out. So, ‘go out into the highways and byways and compel them to come in…he who is first shall be last, and he who is last shall be first.’
Unbelievable. Even if one knows that is the mentality, it’s still appalling to hear it first hand.
Who’s in and who’s out ultimately brings us back to the Iwerne class-based roots of the ReNew network. There are similarities to the Cambridge Spies who were recruited at an impressionable age to get into positions of influence in British society. After Guy Burgess defected to Moscow, fellow old-Etonians shipped his furniture out to him and some travelled to visit him. He’d disgraced him self but ultimately remained “in the Club” and continued wearing his Old Etonian tie. And I suspect there is something similar with “Fletch”, who remains in contact with many, even if traces of him online have been deleted. What is heard time and again is that deep down to be with Fletch was to be impressed: A jolly good fellow.
With that we are back at the Iwerne camps and, with the latest disgraceful press release from The Titus Trust, I assume Stephen is working away on the next article for this site. Loyalty to the cause and fond memories of the past seem to make it impossible for the network to hold their hands up, apologise and address what happened. How very sad.
In the conevo world in particular (but not exclusively) Janet is right about the who is “out” and who is “in” mentality.
The loudest method of communication there is silence however. Indeed silence is often enforced with quasi scriptural backup.
For an individual it is possible to have splits in the psyche where unwanted parts of the self are walled off and forgotten, until they reappear in disguised form at the most inopportune moments.
The same is true in communities like churches where virtual or actual splits occur and the silenced-out other i.e JF, reappears to do committals and private communions in a split off portion of the whole community. As Maurice shows, some never accept the public edict and carry on with their affiliations as before.
Others simply won’t have heard of the deletion/expulsion and will carry on in “ignorance”. Because of the Silence many will precluded from “putting them straight”.
Thus a prominent character can even die and still receive gushing eulogies by a seemingly oblivious fan base.
Such communities can live like this because they are in isolated pockets with self contained self-referencing hierarchies.
The conevo world is not an homogenous one, but an isolated series of autonomous pockets. There is some “cross fertilisation” of ideas. For example I recall St John (Stott) being held in high regard up north, but few others were mentioned. That was many years ago however.
There are key linkages at senior level, but these are kept strictly silent.
It becomes deeply dysfunctional to live like this as a community, just as it would be for us as individuals, with important parts of our lives (and loves) disallowed into consciousness. It leads to much unhappiness and dis-ease and, as Janet shows, is far from the life I’m sure Christ intended for us.
This chimes with my experience on the whole, Steve, having come from a conservative evangelical background. At Durham University, whose inter-collegiate Christian Union leans heavily in that direction, I was co-leader of one of the college CU groups but was somehow never “in” and always felt very much “out”, although I didn’t really understood why at the time. In those days, I attributed it to my own inherent unacceptability as a person. Now, years later, I am able to recognise the divisions you mention, and have since recognised them time and again in similar contexts. My personal challenge is in identifying clearly where those divisions should not exist under any circumstances, as well as why they have been established at all and have evolved as they have.
My husband’s college roommate died suddenly last week aged 41, and a friend and I put together a list of those who might not have heard the news and would want to be notified. The roommate was, like me, a part but somehow and seemingly not a true and genuinely accepted member of the aforementioned community, and I was saddened by the realisation that no or very few links with that group had likely survived the last twenty years. I have often noticed that those who – for myriad different reasons – become distanced from the conservative evangelical community, can feel that they have been quietly “dropped” by those who remain within the group, and the ensuing silence can be very much as Steve describes. To identify and articulate this possible pattern is less to complain or criticise than to agree with something that Stephen has written elsewhere which encapsulates the ethos of SC: the emphasis of this wonderful website (description mine!) has always been to say ‘have you considered that Christianity might actually be larger and broader than what you have been taught?’
I spent a long time believing that Christianity was far, far narrower than I am now learning it is in reality, and I am so grateful to have found so many balancing influences and wise voices here at Surviving Church.
Thanks Fiona! It’s good to hear your views on this and subsequent threads. Best wishes, Steve
Janet, thank you so much for this. Your post has been the key to unlock many things for me. A number of things have become clear! Many years ago (about 54 I think) Canon Eric James said to me that if we try to draw a line between ‘us’ and ‘them’, Jesus is on the side of the line with those we are excluding. When I shared this with some of my Christian friends, they were not able to accept it. Now I know why! However, It is the principle on which I have based many things.
Thank you Stephen for this post and to the other writers for their various comments. There is an interesting comment on safeguarding on the Emmanuel website. See especially the final sentence. NB CC stands for Charity Commissions:
https://www.emmanuelwimbledon.org.uk/Groups/201179/Emmanuel_Wimbledon/About_Us/Proprietary_Chapel_Patrons/Proprietary_Chapel_Patrons.aspx
“The Trustees’ general approach to Good Governance
The trustees regularly review guidance notes and newsletters issued by the CC to ensure that not only are they complying with the relevant requirements but also they are measuring themselves against good governance standards, not least in areas such as safeguarding. The CC has issued many highly useful practice and guidance notes that are easily accessible to trustees and members of the public alike. See the CC website – https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/charity-commission
In particular the trustees are mindful of their responsibilities to report any serious incidents that impact on the charity; this is explained in detail on the CC website but may include an incident which results in or gives rise to a risk of serious harm to a charity’s work or reputation – see https://www.gov.uk/guidance/how-to-report-a-serious-incident-in-your-charity.
Finally, the trustees regularly monitor guidance issued by the Church of England for the proper operation and organisation of churches. Where necessary they will implement changes from time to time to comply with that guidance. However, it should be noted that, because ECW is a proprietary chapel and a separate charity, the trustees cannot use the diocesan serious incident reporting procedure but must report any serious incidents to the CC themselves.”
I find the statement “because ECW is a proprietary chapel and a separate charity, the trustees cannot use the diocesan serious incident reporting procedure but must report any serious incidents to the CC themselves” a very curious one and would be most grateful if others in this community can shed light on it, please.
I’m not sure that we can read too much into the various changes of personnel in safeguarding roles in either an individual congregation or in the Diocese. However I agree very strongly with Stephen that one of the resulting problems is the loss of background information. The Church of England has, for too long, taken a tabula rasa attitude. A new incumbent sees him or herself as a new broom and wants a clean slate on which to write. As far as safeguarding is concerned we desperately need broad background knowledge and understanding as well as knowledge and understanding in an individual issue. Changes of personnel inevitably lead to a loss of background knowledge. I don’t know how we can improve this.
I look forward to others explaining why Emmanuel feels they must not go to the Diocese when there are serious concerns, but that they should go straight to the Charity Commissioners.
As I understand it Serious Incident Reporting is not about investigating or dealing with an incident, but a statuary requirement, so the CC is aware of serious issues and is in a position to investigate a charity themselves.
In the example of a safeguarding serious incident, the immediate response is to report to the appropriate authorities (Diocesan Safeguarding/LADO/Social Services/Police). Only after this does one assess whether the incident requires also reporting to the CC.
The C of E advice is for PCCs to delegate Serious Incident Reporting to the Diocese (or at least work in partnership with the diocese – the principles are slightly differently worked out in different diocese), but in Emmanuel’s case (not being a parish church) the advice is to report directly to the Charity Commission. https://www.churchofengland.org/more/safeguarding/safeguarding-news-statements/new-guidance-reporting-serious-incidents-approved
Tim, thank you so much for this very helpful clarification. It might perhaps be a good idea if the Trustees make this clear in what they say. My reading of their comments was that they bypass the Diocesan safeguarding people.
Thank you Anne for drawing attention to this anomaly in Emmanuel’s approach to safeguarding. The proprietary chapel status is confusing from a legal point of view, at least to the layman. A serious issue arises when the Church of England, faced with a profoundly serious scandal which has national implications (Fletcher) throws it back to the diocese. If this charity/congregation in some way claims independence of the diocese, how is the Church centrally exercising any authority in this situation? The simple answer seems to be that it isn’t. So this case exposes to full view the utter powerlessness of the Archbishop of Canterbury and the local diocese to have any role to play in the ordering of the affairs of a congregation which claims to be part of the Church of England. I suppose we already knew that churches like Emmanuel and the entire ReNew constituency, who claim alternative episcopal oversight, sit very lightly on Anglican structures. The evidence is growing that their own constituency bishop, Rod Thomas, is not the one exercising authority but the power is firmly in the hands of the big wealthy con-evo churches. A de-facto hierarchy exists already and it is not episcopal. We are talking about a church within a church and the leaders of this are firmly male and not really integrated into the rest of the Church of England.
Stephen,
I am no ecclesiastical lawyer, but the history of proprietary chapels is an interesting one. They were a common phenomenon in central London, especially from the middle of the eighteenth century when: (i) parishes were not yet being multiplied (or ‘extended’) to meet the rapid growth in population other than by means of occasional acts of parliament; (ii) the well-to-do wished to isolate from other classes within increasingly congested parish churches; and (iii) incumbents were unwilling to see their parishes divided if it meant a loss of revenue. As proprietary chapels were deemed to be mere private enterprises they came and went with regularity. Some became well-known preaching houses (the Curzon/Mayfair Chapel, the Berkeley Chapel, St George’s Albemarle Street, etc.) and they are often referred to in conjunction with the word ‘fashionable’. Their decline was rapid from the third quarter of the nineteenth century with the improvement of parochial provision and the general decline in churchgoing, especially amongst the urban bourgeoisie. By 1900 almost all of them had been sold for development.
They are now exceptionally rare: St John’s Downshire Hill in Hampstead (conservative evangelical) and St Peter’s in Ely (A-C) are rare instances; the former witnessed the recent sacking of its minister (2018) by the trustees in the wake of his divorce.
Essentially they would be funded solely by subscriptions and pew rents. There were usually not consecrated – indeed, consecration would be exceptional. They were a focus of periodic controversy, often over money – and this was where their ministers would endeavour to perform rites which were the exclusive preserve of parish churches: there was a long-running squabble between St George’s Hanover Square and the Curzon/Mayfair Chapel over marriage ceremonies performed at the latter which deprived the former of fee income.
The major case was Moysey v Hillcoat (1828), concerning the Queen’s Square Chapel, in which the dean of the Arches, Sir John Nicholl, held that proprietary chapels were purely private, but that they could not be used for baptisms, marriages or funerals (the case concerned weddings) without the imprimatur of the incumbent, patron and bishop; it was a case cited with approval by a major authority and judge on ecclesiastical law, Stephen Lushington. Others may have more up-to-date information.
However, Nicholl and Lushington held that the minister of any proprietary chapel would still require a licence from the bishop. So, even if they are outside the parochial structure it might still be possible to advance an argument that they are within the diocesan structure, insofar as a licence is required. I would nonetheless defer to others who may know much more about this than I do.
Best wishes,
James
I don’t know why I was feeling so low when at university, but the fact was I was sufficiently deep in Psalm thirteen to ask for help. Almost unheard of for me – my independent upbringing and schooling have bred in me a sink or swim approach to life. Jonathan, curate at the Round Church, had me round, and filled me up with delicious toasted buttered tea cakes. Over a dozen, I think. I forget what was said, but I have never forgotten his kindness.
If you think you’re standing firm, be careful you don’t fall (1 Cor 10:12). None of us is immune.
Of course, Sarah Hall being replaced in her role as Safeguarding Officer could be an example of Emmanuel caring for her.
Titus Trust have today published this statement on their website:
‘Following an extensive year-long review, The Titus Trust has unveiled a reorganisation focused on extending and strengthening its ministry to independent schools into the future.
The review, informed by detailed feedback from school teachers and other stakeholders, has paved the way for an agile and more regionally focused approach to organising its popular summer activity holidays.
As part of the streamlining, the Iwerne & Forres camp group will close this summer, with responsibility for the associated boarding schools ministry to be shared out across the Trust.
Commenting on the changes, a spokesman for the Trust said: “We remain committed to supporting Christian teachers and pupils in their faith and witness in both the day and boarding independent schools of England and Wales.”
20 May 2020’
So, Iwerne camps will close this summer, bu the ‘ministry’ will continue in some other form. Or perhaps the same form under a different name?
I am catching up on all the blogs I missed while travelling offshore, as always very informative and thought-provoking, so much to learn!
Janet’s final post is interesting. Watch this space, I suspect, to discover if there really has been any repentance in the form of changed behaviour. Not holding my breath.
It’s a little puzzling why the NST are not involved in the Fletcher case, as I understand that they would normally have a role if a case is of national interest, which this clearly is. But perhaps it is felt that 31:8 fulfil this function?
Regarding personnel changes, lack of continuity is undesirable but not always unavoidable. It is in the public domain that Kate Singleton has taken up a new post with a national sports charity. I understand that an appointment has been made for her successor but they have not yet taken up post – usual checks, notice etc. There is a very experienced person providing temporary cover, to keep as much continuity as possible.
Who is providing temporary cover at Southwark Jane? As a survivor of Southwark I have not been told anything, so whoever this very experienced person is they clearly feel it is acceptable to obey orders and ignore me. Can I ask how you got that information? I thought like Stephen that the DSA assistants were holding the fort and I wasn’t expecting them to reply as they have always obeyed orders and never talked to me. Sorry makes my blood boil to have to find out things via a blog.
I’ll bet. That’s ludicrous. Mind you, they have clear outs. When the vulnerable adults officer changed, I disappeared! Standard practice.
My case disappeared from the NST list when the officer dealing with it left. I’ve heard nothing since, and that was two and a half years ago. If they had a good system running this wouldn’t happen – unless they want it to, of course.
The idea of people ‘disappearing’ is especially shocking to me right now, as we’re still in Central America, where that has been used to oppress many voices.
Trish, no wonder your blood boils! Have just sent you a confidential email.
Best wishes all
The internet has been great for not allowing stories like this to disappear. Although JF may have been removed from some Christian organisations websites he hasn’t been removed from the Telegraph and this is the first result when googling his name.
I do think that some organisations are still living in a pre-digital age for responding to awful events like these. When in the past when information could be better controlled, JF would have simply been dropped from his speaking circuit at Iwerne, Conevo churches and conferences etc. A few people would know but most would be non the wiser, maybe “health reasons” would be rumoured. However today all can find out lots of detail very easily
What this means it the church needs to respond more fully so that it is seen to be owning and addressing the issues otherwise we will only be associated with bad things. Last night on BBC2, Tony Slattery talked about his rape by a priest as a boy, this is what people are hearing and forming their opinions about the church and God.
Vaughan Roberts, William Taylor and Robin Weekes are all published authors. Vaughan Roberts has said he is same sexed attracted. If they spoke about JF more fully it would have a bigger impact than another yet book on apologetics.
Exactly, Jon. I presume the view from within the ReNew network is that Vaughan Roberts, William Taylor and Robin Weekes were not directly involved in what happened and therefore have no obligation to speak out about it.
But one of the defining characteristics of ReNew is how outspoken it is in criticising those it considers theologically unsound. Likewise Church Society, which writes letters to The Times about Bishops or transgender policies it doesn’t agree with but does nothing similar with JF and instead deletes all mention of him from their website.
A single letter to The Times specifically condemning Iwerne abuse or something in The Telegraph in reaction to its Fletcher revelations would be a huge step in addressing what has happened.
Instead the impression is of an uncomfortable shuffling of feet and regret that such unsavoury details have come out in the open.