The Jonathan Fletcher blog post that I penned at speed last week seems to have been read on both sides of the Atlantic. For whatever reason, it was apparently appreciated. It has encouraged me to reflect further on the significance on these recent events which took place in and around Emmanuel Church Wimbledon. The centre of the story is, I would maintain, not what happened between ‘consenting adults’, but the way that relationships within the evangelical world seem to be changing as the result of the news of the withdrawal of Jonathan’s PTO by the Diocese of Southwark at the beginning of 2017. The website, Anglicans.Ink, has shared with us other insights which show the story to be both complex and significant.
In my last post I mentioned the Commissioning Service of Andy Lines as a GAFCON bishop in Emmanuel Wimbledon in September 2018. I had heard that Jonathan Fletcher had played a major part in the service. An online account of the service written by Chris Sugden failed to mention Jonathan’s name at all, which slightly confused me. According to Chris who has been in touch with me, Jonathan was mentioned and this removal of his name was not done at Chris’ instigation. I then wondered whether this tactful censorship had anything to do with the fact that at the time of the service, September 2018, Jonathan’s PTO had been withdrawn and that he should not have had anything to do with leading a service in Emmanuel or anywhere. It also implied by implication that the news of the PTO withdrawal had not been shared with anybody within the ordinary congregation. The Vicar and members of the PCC must have known but chose not to share it.
The implications of this suppression of this important fact casts a pall over the entire service. The Anglicans.Ink group call it a service based on a lie. Certainly, we can question whether a new initiative taken by GAFCON or AMiE should be set up with a deliberate act of deceit built into it. The consecration of a breakaway bishop in the States is one thing, but at least all the details of Andy’s consecration, those who took part and those who sent messages of support is on record. Illegalities apart, the Anglican Communion has learned to put up with such irregular events for fear of alienating groups on the edge of the Church who still want to think of themselves as Anglican. Messages of goodwill were sent to the consecration service by two serving C/E bishops, the Bishop of Blackburn and the Bishop of Lancaster.
The Commissioning service held at Emmanuel Wimbledon last September has a darker hue. The information about who attended was censored and we now discover that the figure who had mentored the new episcopal candidate is accused of his spiritual manipulation. This is sufficient to take away any sense of joy or newness from the occasion. There are bound to be recriminations in future years about the integrity of this service, one which had lies and dishonesty overshadowing it. Now that Andy has effectively challenged his mentor, Jonathan Fletcher, if not by name, relationships in the world of REFORM and conservative evangelicalism are going to be fraught for years to come.
What do we know about the institutional strand of evangelicalism to which Jonathan Fletcher belongs? I have already described, in my last blog, the existence of a group of upper middle-class evangelicals who are linked to one another by the networks of the Iwerne camps, Christian Unions at major public schools and certain wealthy Calvinist congregations in and around London. People like myself would find the insistence on a single theory of the atonement and a literal reading of the scriptural text fairly suffocating, but this network succeeds in propagating itself fairly well. Internationally REFORM finds a great deal in common with the theology of the ultra-Right in the States. One figure in this group that is worth noting is John McArthur. He has had an enormous influence over other conservatives like REFORM on this extreme edge of the Protestant world. A recent internet trawl found MacArthur arguing against Christians being involved in social justice!
Needless to say the overall UK evangelical constituency is far larger than just REFORM. Within the large tent which calls itself evangelical, we find softer, less legalistic approaches to theology and church life. One ‘softening’ influence has been the charismatic movement. Since the 1970s many evangelicals have learnt to focus on a more experiential kind of evangelicalism. On the outside, these charismatic evangelicals have identical belief systems to those of REFORM with its heavy legalistic preaching. Inwardly these charismatic Christians gather in their networks of New Wine and Spring Harvest and find support from each other though common spiritual experiences. This preference for experience in their worship rather than hard propositional text sharing gives their churches a completely different atmosphere. Although it is not admitted much in the UK, quite a strong fault line exists between charismatic Christians and those who operate in the REFORM networks. American conservatives will know which side of the divide they belong to, partly because of the series of books written by John McArthur. He has written trenchantly about the heresies of charismatic Christians, denying them the right to claim orthodox Christian belief. The fault line between these two is less obvious in the UK but it exists.
The GAFCON project that came to this country from the States was an attempt to draw ‘orthodox’ Anglicans together. Those who set up the structure honestly believed that there were many members of the Church of England right across the board who would wish to identify with a project to reclaim orthodoxy. In fact, GAFCON has really only appealed to those at the extremes. Some charismatic evangelicals have identified with GAFCON but by no means all. REFORM members on the other hand have always thought of themselves the only true Anglicans for a generation or more. Thus, they align themselves totally with the approach of Archbishop Foley Beach to become part of the group. GAFCON has preserved just enough credibility with the wider Anglican church not to be expelled completely. The links are tenuous in some places, but it knows that the word Anglican gives it some ‘street cred’. It cannot afford to abandon the Anglican ship altogether. The position of Bishop Andy Lines in this desperately untidy cacophony of Anglican groups is, at the very least, messy. The untidiness is partly because Anglicanism as a whole has a problem of identity. It is also made worse because of the unclear relationships within the evangelical world. In Britain, evangelicals make a show of unity even when, as in the States, they are deeply divided over issues like tongues, creationism and the position of women in the church. Andy Lines, though reared in the REFORM traditions of Emmanuel Wimbledon, seems also to have absorbed some of the wider culture of the charismatically inclined evangelicals. Indeed, he would have to be acceptable to such ‘softer’ evangelicals if he was able to serve them as a bishop. This wider sympathy in the context of an open split with his erstwhile mentor Jonathan Fletcher is likely to put strains on the artificial unity between the wealthy REFORM members of Wimbledon and the more working-class charismatics in the provinces. I would hazard a guess that Andy’s withdrawal from ministry may have something to do with trying hold together two warring factions of the evangelical movement in England. It is an impossible and altogether unrewarding task.
What I am describing is the apparent beginning of a split among some of the evangelicals who attach themselves to the Anglican communion because of the revelation of old scandals. The opening up of an old example of abuse centred on Emmanuel and Jonathan Fletcher may have the effect of opening up another ancient sore, the Iwerne scandal. The time has surely come for the evangelical world to face up to long supressed scandals which have done so much harm to the inner integrity of the evangelical world and, by association, the entire Anglican Communion. Signs of light and clarity breaking into places which have been shrouded with secrecy, gives one hope that truth is about to prevail. As someone wrote recently on Twitter. ‘The ice is cracking in Narnia’.
Just to say REFORM no longer exists.
It was swallowed up by Church Society.
There is ReNEW made up of Church Society, ex-Reform and Fellowship of Word and Spirit- more or less run by William Taylor of St Helen’s Bishopsgate.
‘Although it is not admitted much in the UK, quite a strong fault line exists between charismatic Christians and those who operate in the REFORM networks.’
Indeed. As an ‘insider’ to Anglican evangelicalism, I have found it very odd for ‘outsiders’ to think Fletcher was ‘at the centre’. For most evangelicals in the C of E, he was very much at the edge, and an elitist edge at that, where being at public school and Oxbridge wasn’t enough—you had to be at the *right* public school. In that regard, his concern with power has been very much like Boris Johnson’s.
Despite being a reasonably widely travelled evangelical in the C of E for 40 years, before all this I had barely heard of Fletcher; I had never heard him speak or read anything he had written, and would not have recognised him from his picture.
As someone concerned with theology being shaped by Scripture, I have always rejected the idea of a single model of the atonement, since Scripture has no single model. And the rather intense ‘one to one’ discipling in this tradition I always found odd and oppressive, and not something I ever wanted to engage in.
Note that when Richard Coles came into the news he was heralded as ‘perhaps the best known C of E priest’. By Patrick Strudwick (would he know?). Having been around if not in the C of E my entire life, I had never come across him.
When Vicky Beeching was in the news, she was heralded as perhaps the best known worship leader / songwriter. I was not even sure I knew any of her songs, but there are and have been several better known.
So if Jonathan Fletcher is portrayed as perhaps the best known, then we see a pattern emerging. Anyone that people think some dirt may stick to is represented as being as important, central, typical, and representative as possible within their constituency. That is a tactic, and be it known that its employment has been noticed.
Richard Coles was/is famous for being one of the group the Communards, both openly gay. So his finding faith and being ordained was news. If you were looking for him in CofE circles while he was singing, you would have searched in vain. I’ve often wondered if you were a troll. C Shell?
It’s my real name, as plenty will vouch for – but I am not sure if the concept ‘troll’ makes sense. Is it anyone who resists the bandwagon? But jumping on bandwagons is easy. My agreement with this particular bandwagon is above 70% anyway. This is of course a site that resists abuse of power, but one abuse of power is to say that anyone who agrees with the dominant line only 70% is to be sidelined and ‘othered’ (and called nicknames). Yet how else can discussion even take place, let alone advance? I am very sorry of course about your recent bereavement.
Re Richard Coles I was not talking about the time when he was first a priest but the time when he had been a priest for a while and was called the best-known one.
Stephen, I think there’s a bit of a contradiction between two of your sentences, the first as quoted by Ian Paul above:
“Although it is not admitted much in the UK, quite a strong fault line exists between charismatic Christians and those who operate in the REFORM networks.”
and
“What I am describing is the apparent beginning of a split among some of the evangelicals who attach themselves to the Anglican communion because of the revelation of old scandals.”
I would agree with Ian Paul and suggest the split has been around for a long time. Graham Kings famously categorised Anglican evangelicals into conservative, open, and charismatic streams (the “watercourses” paper). Conservatives generally have nothing to do with the others. Women’s ordination is a big divide – conservatives say no, open and charismatics say yes. The conservatives have created “gospel partnerships” in many parts of the country, typically joining with FIEC churches (who also don’t have women pastors) rather than other anglican evangelicals.
And, whilst it is seldom publicly discussed, anyone familiar with the Anglican evangelical scene knows it exists and is happy to admit it. The situation in Oxford is a classic example – you have St Aldates (charismatic) and St Ebbes (conservative). Both are large churches that are known nationally, and it’s obvious to all that that they’re part of different networks and move in separate circles.
Anglican conservative evangelicals are characterised by spiritual elitism and a “holier than thou” attitude that looks down on other schools of evangelicalism. I bet a lot of charismatic and open evangelicals are secretly rather happy that a revered conservative evangelical leader has fallen from grace!
‘I bet a lot of charismatic and open evangelicals are secretly rather happy that a revered conservative evangelical leader has fallen from grace!’
I hope not. The only appropriate response to all this is deep sadness for those affected.
I would imagine Nicky Gumbel is far from happy, as he and Jonathan Fletcher are close friends and have had many holidays together- also both belong to the ‘Nobodies Club’- the irony is not lost.
Elitism is not restricted to conservative Anglican evangelical churches- it is there in Anglican Charismatic ones too- Charley Cleverly, Paul Perkins et al.
I have never found Charlie or Paul in the least bit elitist.
I have to disagree that conservatives are isolationist or don’t play nice with other streams. There may be a sliver of truth in that (after all, don’t we all think we are basically right…) but it’s not wholly fair, and surely, not more than any other group or network keeps itself to itself.
Witness, for example, CEEC, the local DEFs, the way church society seeks to work with new wine, CPAS etc. Currently on Facebook there is a fantastic discussion group with a wide fellowship of evangelicals of every stripe talking in a very gracious way which should give pause to any critique that conservatives keep themselves apart.
Talk of us being spiritually elitist, however, does nothing to build those christ-centred relationships. I hope Barnabas never spoke of Paul in such a way after they disagreed.
As a member of a church that is firmly in the public school Oxbridge network I have no joy whatsoever. But perhaps there is an opportunity now to examine the power dynamics of this network. There are so many good things to be said about the qualities in these churches. However, the elevation of a leader through his (always his) social (upper middle class) and spiritual (calvinist) superiority, and the prevalence of public school culture accountable only to the group, is alienating to many who share the values of that network (and may explain why all too often the churches become monocultures).
John Richardson nailed this in 2007. http://ugleyvicar.blogspot.com/2007/05/whats-really-wrong-with-english.html
I have not seen things get better. In fact it was from my growing awareness of the issue, that was niggling away at me, that I found the article
Sorry
“and the prevalence of public school culture accountable only to the group, is alienating to many who do not share the values of that network (and may explain why all too often the churches become monocultures).”
Thank you for the link, that was an interesting blog.
I come from a conservative evangelical background, having been at one time a member of Church Society. I trained at Wycliffe alongside a number of Iwerne men and heard Jonathan Fletcher spoken of with considerable respect. He was influential with a lot of young men who are now in ministry themselves, so in that sense he was at the centre of the conservative evangelical world – even if many in that world didn’t know him, or hadn’t heard him preach. It’s possible to be very influential without having a high public profile – particularly if you’re very selective about who you do your ‘personal work’ and mentoring with.
I also have a strong strand of charismatic evangelical in my background, and for many years found it rather difficult to harmonise the two. (I think nowadays I’d describe myself as ‘post-evangelical and post-charismatic’.) There has been both an overlap and a divide between the con evo and charismatic wings of the Church of England. David Watson was a Iwerne man but not everyone in those circles was happy with the way his ministry developed.
I have been watching this story unfold with some sadness, and also with concern for my fellow Wycliffe students who may have been victims in all this. They have had many privileges in life and in the Church that I (and many others) have not had, but their background has also restricted them in ways I have managed to escape from. Sometimes being on the margins is an advantage. Certainly many biblical figures have found it so.
Yes, John nailed the problems good and proper!
From an earlier generation we have John C King:”Controversy is eschewed by Bash campers”; it is held to be noisy and undignified- and potentially damaging. As a result many issues which ought to be faced are quietly avoided. Any practical decisions that must be made are taken discreetly by the leadership and passed down the line. The loyalty of the rank and file is such that decisions are respected; any who question are likely to find themselves outside the pale…It does not give a place to the process of argument, consultation and independent thought which are essential to any genuine co-operation, inside the church or outside the church.”
Little wonder that a cultural climate exists within which abusers like Fletcher and Smyth felt they could operate with impunity. The sooner it is recognised and repudiated the better. Perhaps Irwine and Titus trust should be visited by ICSA?
If I can make one final point in this sorry tale. I find it depressing that Bishop Rod had to write the April 2019 letter affirming that Bishop Christopher’s withdrawal of the PTO had legitimate grounds before it was universally acted on. Safeguarding should be beyond the need to validate a diocesan’s action along party political lines. Has nothing been learned from Chichester
Sorry Stephen but your article is almost entirely guesswork, most of it incorrect! Jonathan Fletcher did not lead the service for Andy Lines’ commissioning, though he did interview him. He also said he was at most a 3.5 point Calvinist!
It seems to me irrefutable that the Surviving Church and even Anglican Unscripted take on this is wrong in two important respects – namely:
-how typical the individuals cited were
-how questionable the fruit of this ministry is.
OK – so take away EJH Nash, John Stott, John Eddison, David Fletcher, Mark Ruston, Mark Ashton, Dick Lucas, Michael Green, David Watson, David MacInnes, Nicky Gumbel etc etc. What is left of the most successful Anglican constituency of the last 70 years?
But why on earth *would* you take them away – as opposed to trying to clone them? Name any of these, their chief church leaders, who is under any sort of similar cloud, or about whom the things to be said are not basically positive?
If anyone is becoming the sort of person that notices negative things only, and nothing positive, take a good hard look in the mirror. Does a tabloid journalist stare back at you? (Just a thought.)
As the man said, ‘Epic fail.’.
Christopher, I think it’s worth being careful about this either way.
But to call the comments of Anglican unscripted or surviving church an epic fail in the context of ever-shifting and vague declarations that have moved from ‘spiritual abuse’ which Jonathan denied to ‘things that were worse’ and Jonathan admitting it, is a pretty bold statement.
Also, in terms of your ‘challenge’, I suspect Mark Ruston is under some sort of cloud for the handling of the report he wrote regarding Smyth.
From the New York Times:
” 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.
……………
Although Mr. Ruston concluded that a criminal act had been committed, the trust decided not to refer Mr. Smyth to the authorities. Instead, he 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.
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.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/14/world/europe/justin-welby-archbishop-of-canterbury-iwerne-abuse.html
Exactly. Because the modus operandi and assumption of that time and of most other times is that lessons should be learned, bad things put behind us, repented of where necessary, people be given the chance to move on, and harping on about bad things would just magnify them – which is exactly the reverse of what anyone would want – and that was agreed even by the parents at the time. There was no cover up because the HM of Winchester referred to the matters quite openly in his autobiography. But that is not the narrative that will be fed to you.
The narrative people are now using (avoiding all others) is that there should be endless sifting over things in detail, especially if they happened decades ago – in the manner of a gossip magazine. That fulfils a need, but not a healthy or Christian one.
As for your other points about not allowing the guilty to be able to reoffend and the way in which such experiences can take a long time to heal and can actually get worse over time, again I agree. Remember the points in para 1. They have seemed common sense to most people in most ages. We cannot be in favour of people who are one eyed about exclusively adopting present fashions re how to proceed, fashions which in this case are atypical.
I’m sorry, this is the narrative of the bully. People need to talk. It’s one of the main treatments for post traumatic stress. Characterising very necessary catharsis as unhealthy picking of scabs just plain wrong. And cruel to those who need to be heard. And if twenty years have passed, and no one has listened, it is extremely likely to be more necessary. It’s like sending someone home from A&E without setting the broken leg and urging them to get over it, it’s in the past. And then blaming them because they walk with a limp.
I think this issue is being framed in a certain way, which wrongly excludes other angles. Framing is in fact always a bad idea, because real life, the real world, always has all of the angles. Not just the ones that belong to the current narrative.
People need to talk? Exactly. They must talk us much as they need. When was it said any different? The fact that you put things this way demonsgtrates that you have not understood the perspective that is being put forward – you assume I disagree with something that in fact I strongly agree with. ‘Bully’ too is a strong word but all the more remarkable given that the other person has been imperfectly understood.
If no-one has listened in 20 years – that would certainly be bad. I cannot imagine that there are not thousands of people who would be and would always have been sympathetic.
The normal expectation that people would want to move on and learn lessons – at least after a medium period of time – is not unnatural. Each of us can think back to traumas or mild traumas/disappointments from age pre-20 or earlier – but normally we do not dwell on these now and it would be unhealthy to do so, as well as being parasitic on the years that one has left to live. There will, as you say, be exceptions to this rule. That victim culture can be comfortable (everything is someone else’s fault) does not mean that there are not victims, but that it is immaturity (in an individual or a society) to gravitate naturally towards the victim role.
However, if it has only just dawned on one that something one thought was beneficial was in fact harmful, then one would expect that dealing with that would take a time proportional to the time within which the harm was inflicted.
In all this, there is a chance that shifts in the Zeitgeist will be a factor determinative of which particular lens one views events through.
Well, if the main problem is people not letting go of a long ago hurt, it would be fair to talk about that. What people on this blog are trying to point out is that actually, what happens is that people try for many years to get support and fail. I was bullied for twenty years, and I never saw the many thousands who would support me. I found people just jumped straight in with put it behind you.
Thank you Athena. I couldn’t agree more.
Yes, I agree completely
You inadvertently highlight a real downside of this whole matter. If one is speaking of (e.g.) Mark Ruston, then one is speaking of 50 years of ministry and thousands of events. But the tabloid journalist approach is to say ‘this is the Report Man’ (and he was shattered by the unexpected revelations in fact), and that is all that there is to be said about him!
Likewise the Iwerne camps can single handedly turn evangelicals from a despised minority to the movers and shakers and large happening churches before John Smyth (et al) ever being much heard of – yet the tabloid journalist mentality (the worst of all mentalities) equates Iwerne with the extra-Iwerne misdeeds of Smyth. This mentality wants to make prurient gossips of us all, skewing the picture so that it is as though only gossipworthy things ever happened at all, nothing else is real.
Christopher, I was just answering your question as to whether any clouds hang over the guys in your list, with a cloud that is related to the current discussion. The converse mistake to ‘picking on one issue’and ignoring the rest of someone’s ministry is to isolate people as ‘one bad egg’ or situations as a ‘one off’ and to ignore the connections and the possibility that the context makes these situations and subsequent poor disclosure all the more likely. http://anglican.ink/2019/07/04/the-english-the-evangelicals-and-the-elites-the-school-for-scandals/
So you regard the person who was key to addressing the problem
-who was also shattered when he found out about it
-and who had a pastoral attitude to the victims
-and who did not want to prolong their suffering by endlessly traversing the same ground
…as part of the problem not the solution?
Is that because he did not act like a citizen of 2019. Name anyone in 1982 who acted like a citizen of 2019. It is not even a possible thing to do.
The situation that we’re talking about is in 2019. You were the one who asked if any of the people in your list had clouds hanging over them.
Well – they do among people who know practically nothing about them.
But they are not the first people whose opinion one would ask. Just imagine people pontificating about you who actually knew very little about you. Would you be pleased or not?
Christopher Shell you say ‘… the modus operandi and assumption of that time and of most other times is that lessons should be learned, bad things put behind us, repented of where necessary, people be given the chance to move on, and harping on about bad things would just magnify them – which is exactly the reverse of what anyone would want – and that was agreed even by the parents at the time.’
That’s one way of looking at it. I would suggest that the modus operandi of that time was to hush things up, take decisions behind closed doors, and where necessary, move offenders to somewhere where it becomes someone else’s problem. This is the way English public schools, the church and other powerful institutions have always tended to operate, and it is in order to preserve the reputation of the institution. The fact the parents cooperated is most likely because of the powerful traditions of closing ranks behind the school; children can easily get caught up in this. It is disgraceful and needs to be stated as such.
Exactly – you have re-stated the official view.
Unfortunately not all the facts stack up.
First, there was no cover up in the Smyth case. The Headmaster openly referred to it in his autobiography.
Second, drastic action was taken against Smyth – he had to leave the country no less. How many people have to leave the country? It is jolly rare.
Third, the failure to harp on, and the desire to move on, were exactly what the parents urged. Not surprisingly.
Fourth, dredging things up after several decades is an eccentric modern practice. No other age can be found where these things are treated as being bigger 30-40 years later than they were at the time.
Fifth, counselling was offered to all and this offer was personally funded – but only one or two people took up the offer.
Sixth, does it not strike you as a coincidence that these very facts that do not fit the preferred narrative are the ones that get least publicity.
I could go on. Iwerne is an absolutely top cradle of character. It is laughable to think that the 2 people who appear in the media are representative. But it is even more laughable among people who have never met any of the other leaders, and would not know them from Adam.
You are defending the indefensible. Just to pick up on one of your points, you say ‘ … drastic action was taken against Smyth – he had to leave the country no less. How many people have to leave the country? It is jolly rare.’ Smyth leaving the country was a public school’s time-honoured way of disposing of such problems … if a chap has disgraced himself, send him out to the colonies, where it doesn’t much matter what he gets up to; we are shot of the reputational risk, and we can carry on pretending everything is fine. And it appears that once in Africa, Smyth simply carried on abusing young men and boys. I suspect that the fact that the headmaster was sufficiently unashamed of this to put it in his biography simply shows what a closed world the public schools were.
I am not ‘defending’ anything. I am as clear as all of us are that we cannot be selective of which facts we include in our assessment, especially by including only those that fit a preconceived narrative. I listed 6 points which certainly need addressing. But those 6 points, obviously, do not make other points untrue. Truth lies in comprehensiveness.
I think sea shell is trolling us folks. He’s done it before. He changes his ground. It upsets people, and occupies us thinking of arguments to explain it to him. He isn’t interested. Maybe he’s an undercover Bishop? 😁
But is that not another example of knowing almost nothing about a person and yet speaking as though you do (even to the extent of giving them a nickname that excludes them from your mainstream and ‘others’ them). The same thing I highlighted above.
Trolling is what? It is certainly not the same as trying to get at the multi-dimensional truth about a matter, and being aware of how prevailing narratives can skew objectivity. All that matters is whether people are seeking truth,. It is not clear how ‘trolling’ relates to that, nor (more importantly) how to define trolling. It is quite wrong to say that someone who is only trying to get at the truth is doing anything bad.
The whole thing is about whether one can respond to points or not. How well the points stand up. That is how debate proceeds.
Stephen is away at a conference and has no access to this blog as his computer is not working. I think if he were to read the comments he would have brought this thread to a close as it is verging on the personal. I have not told him what is going on, we have too many other things to talk about.
There don’t appear to be any winners so I am now asking you, please, to bring this to a close.
Sorry Frances.
That’s ok EA ! It’s just that Stephen is, quite rightly, strict on the personal thing. I know the cat is away, but this mouse agrees with him.
Someone at General Synod made the claim that records concerning Jonathan F had been cleaned up on line. I suppose that is why these two accounts, in spite of trolls, have remained popular for over a week. They will remain available for the foreseeable future.
I have never understood what ‘trolls’ means. People just say the truth as they see it, and will have different items, knowledge and perspectives to contribute.
Sadly Stephen, it gets worse: https://youtu.be/FeDB77vkhtI
The cornel Wilde story on Anglican ink is a sadly helpful insight too. http://anglican.ink/2019/07/04/the-english-the-evangelicals-and-the-elites-the-school-for-scandals/
I hope that the leaders like Vaughan Roberts involved in talking about it at the EMA follow up the challenges in complete transparency before the secular press do it for them.