There are some words in the English language where a precise meaning is always going to be approximate. One such word is Establishment when used in a British context. The word speaks of such things as the protection of traditional and conservative values by a powerful elite who have a strong preference for the status quo. There is also an assumption that those who belong to such a group are among the very wealthy in society. When challenged to define exactly who in fact belongs to the British Establishment, the answers are going to vary according to whom you speak. This ambiguity about who belongs to our UK Establishment points to another feature of the word. Those in this group normally exercise their power and influence over society in secret, or at least in ways that do not draw too much attention to them.
The word ‘Establishment’ is also a helpful one to use in trying to understand what is going in our Church affairs. The safeguarding crises over the past twenty years have brought out into the open a much clearer picture of the way establishment dynamics and values can work. These values, normally completely hidden from view, are strongly articulated in the 2000 letters sent to Lambeth Palace to support Bishop Peter Ball after his Caution in 1992. The great and the good, members of one or other of the particular establishment networks occupied by Bishop Peter Ball, entered into a letter writing frenzy to try and persuade Archbishop George Carey to rehabilitate the disgraced bishop. Among the letters were some from royalty, the top echelons of the social and political elite and other groups such as top lawyers and public-school headmasters. The very existence of this stash of letters is an important witness to the fact that we can still meaningfully speak of a powerful establishment dynamic in England. Here it is a sub-set of the main one, but one energetically operating inside the Church of England. They are doing what such groups do best, protesting vigorously when one of their number is attacked, trying hard to restore the status quo by seeking the rehabilitation of the accused. In this episode the establishment methods were temporarily victorious. Although Peter Ball eventually, in 2015, went to prison for his crimes, he had enjoyed twenty years of partial rehabilitation. For all that time he had continued to enjoy dinner invitations, week-end house parties and a warm welcome at many English public-schools.
A second clear example of establishment dynamics at work is in the present situation with John Smyth, Jonathan Fletcher and the activities of the Iwerne/Titus Trustees. As I have claimed several times on this blog, there is clear evidence of powerful wealthy people linked to the Church hiding the truth about damaging abuse to some individuals attending the Iwerne camps, as well as protecting Smyth from prosecution. The Ball group and the Smyth group seem to have operated in similar ways and may even have had some individuals in common. Ball’s supporters were socially drawn from some socially extremely well-connected people, including members of the Royal Family. One cannot provide higher social credentials than letters from the Prince of Wales. The Smyth backers and supporters did not have the Royal Family to advance their cause, but they could call on numbers of extremely wealthy evangelical backers to rally together to keep a lid on the scandal. As I have pointed out before it takes enormous energy to manage a scandal as far-reaching as the one around Smyth and Fletcher. It is unfortunate that this story will not probably ever receive the same scrutiny as that given to the Peter Ball affair through the IICSA process.
The Smyth supporters and the Ball supporters seem to have sufficient things in common to allow us to describe them both as ‘establishment groups’ operating within the Church of England. Both these networks operate like ‘establishments’, socially powerful groups who wish to defend and support one of their own as well as defend privilege and power that they believe to be rightfully theirs. One intriguing connection which links them is that both groups have connections a number of major public schools in England. In particular the headmasters of some of these establishments seem to play a prominent part in both the Ball and Smyth supporters’ groups. This raises many intriguing questions which, unfortunately, I can take no further.
Before we leave this theme of establishment values and groups operating within the Church of England, I need to mention one further group that seems to use similar methods to promote its cause. I am thinking of Freemasons. When I was a child, I knew two things about the Masons. The first thing was that the Archbishop of Canterbury who confirmed me, Geoffrey Fisher, was an enthusiastic Mason. The other fact was that local papers then (the 50s) published regular stories about Masons. As part of the story a local Vicar would be quoted, opposing them on scriptural grounds. Since those far off days, my meetings with them have been on some awkward but rare occasions, when trying to organise funerals of individuals who combined church membership with attendance at the local Masonic lodge. Although my current exposure to the world of Masons is non-existent, I am still left with uncomfortable questions. Any group that possesses secrecy, privilege and power will potentially be working in a similar way to the two other establishment networks we have mentioned. The Ball and Smyth supporters have done the Church considerable harm and that damage is a continuing wound to the Church right up to today. I have no current conspiracy theories about the Masons to air here, but there will always be an air of discomfort about any group that operates outside the norms of open communication and accountability. The late Frank Fisher, one of Archbishop Geoffrey Fisher’s sons, managed to combine membership of a masonic lodge, the Church of England, the board of the Ecclesiastical Insurance Company and Nobody’s Friends, the elite dining club. His day job was as a headmaster of consecutively, I think, two public schools. Without having further details, there is a curious coinciding of several establishment traits in a single individual. The rest of us, living outside such charmed circles, are given further reason to wonder whether, when such networks exist in the Church, ecclesiastical power is always being exercised healthily. The establishment groups we have identified operate with a large degree of secrecy. This fact alone will always generate suspicion and lack of trust. How can we know that the power possessed by these elite secret groups is always or, indeed ever, used for the benefit of all? As the IICSA process has made clear, much power and privilege in the Church have been dispensed in ways that are hidden from sight. We are constantly being reminded how sexual and spiritual abuse thrives in such places of secrecy. Every area of the Church, to be healthy, must become properly and routinely transparent. The Church otherwise will remain a sick and unhealthy institution. Self-serving groups have no real place in an institution which follows a master who came to be the servant of all.
I think it is worth stating that John Thorn, Headmaster of Winchester College, warned-off John Smyth when he discovered the abuse which had taken place, and I’m certain he had no part in any cover-up for Smyth’s benefit. He has accepted publicly that the police were not informed and why, at the time, that was not done. Of course, with hindsight, one can see that Smyth benefitted, but I don’t think there is any evidence imputing Mr Thorn as having intended this.
I make no comment about Peter Ball.
According to something I was reading, the evangelical impulse at Winchester College and thus enthusiasm for Iwerne camps, began only in the early 70s after a mission led by Keith de Berry. He was Vicar of St Aldates Oxford. It affected a fairly small number.
Other schools had much older evangelical histories , such as Stowe. The Iwerne schools numbered only twenty or so. Some were not particularly evangelical in ethos but may have had a chaplain or master who encouraged participation. Headmasters may have had little or no input to what went on the summer holidays. The Ball link with public schools was revealed at the IICSA hearings. He took confirmations at at a dozen or more. This would have involved headmasters giving permission. Ball did have a mesmeric effect in his public speaking which, no doubt the headmasters welcomed and encouraged.
The Winchester mission would have been mid70s I think, and certainly the number was not small by school CU standards. 100 (peak number) is a colossal figure and percentage by public school standards. Of course the OICCU and CICCU long remained the largest university societies at the great universities with the sole exception of the Union debating Societies.
Monkton Combe and Dean Close would have been particularly evangelical, and Stowe, Repton, Oundle, Winchester (certainly in 70s-80s), Harrow, Sherborne would have had strong traditions. Otherwise one thinks of Tonbridge, Wellington (Berks), Cranleigh, Charterhouse, Malvern, Radley, KingsCanterbury (even David Gower once I gather – remember that the camps’ reach was very widespread and public indeed). I heard a story that Eton’s involvement was terminated when a prayer list was found, no doubt including the Christian establishment on it. Lancing maybe was too anglocatholic if it was in fact regarded as top 20. I am sure Rugby, Marlborough, Haileybury qualified as top-20 though I remember participants from these less. (Westminster would be different, as a day school.) Effectively, therefore, a south-of-England list; but then the great public schools are mostly south-of-England. For the girls for some reason I remember only Benenden Princess Anne’s school when boys and girls got together for the Oxford preChristmas conference – but a few girls’ schools were represented (and at the Motcombe camps) though I don’t recall which. As we’re talking boarding schools Roedean etc might have been expected.
How the top division/drawer of boarding schools was calculated (who’s in, who’s out) I’m not sure – there cannot have been a limitless number to choose from – but I would think the top-[boarding-]schools concept may originally have had all or most of the following in mind:
Ardingly
Bryanston
Charterhouse
Cheltenham (of If… fame)
Clifton
Cranleigh
Dean Close
Eton
Felsted
Haileybury
King’sCanterbury
Lancing
Malvern
Marlborough
Monkton
Oundle
Radley
Repton
Rugby
Sherborne
Stowe
Tonbridge
Wellington, Berks
Winchester
& I believe Iwerne touched Bloxham too. I wrote in entirety without stopping 2 lengthy (70pp each) illustrated D of E expedition-log projects during parts of 2 days of a brief Iwerne camp, and sent them off, one to a Bloxham-based assessor, only for him to return it (flagged through) within a ClayesmoreSchool-postmarked used envelope of his own. An instance, surely, of secret communication among those in the know.
and Harrow where I was.
I would share your questions about Freemasonry as it appears to be. But latterly, I have come to know quite a few. Including several priests. And they all seem thoroughly nice people, and genuinely spiritual. Most of the time, it seems to be little more than a club for old fashioned rather chauvinistic men. I’m guessing it probably depends on where you live. You’re not going to influence Archbishops by belonging to the same clubs unless you live in London!
Dear English Athena, Your comment raises the exact issue Stephen is talking about. You say that all the priests you know who are freemasons “seem thoroughly nice people and genuinely spiritual”. Isn’t that exactly the point? Peter Ball seemed ‘thoroughly nice and genuinely spiritual’, similarly John Smyth and Jonathan Fletcher. The point that Stephen is making here is about secrecy, defensiveness and the abuse of power. People who insist on belonging to groups which have an ethos and ethic of secrecy are at the very least suspect. And quite possibly harmful especially when they had the ethos of favouring their own. Belonging to a ‘secret’ group is not about little boys playing games, it is a much more serious issue. I asked a group of anglo catholic clergy why so many of them were freemasons and got the answer that they liked the dressing up. Unless all freemasons are prepared to be public in their membership of the organisation, I think we are right to be suspicious of any group which favours its own and keeps the membership secret. It doesn’t matter how ‘nice’ and/or ‘spiritual’ they are.
Hi, Anne. It can be hard to see bad in people we like, but we mustn’t exchange it for refusing to see good. I totally agree about a pathological desire for secrecy’s being an issue. But I was trying to strike a balance. It’s unlikely that a small lodge in Worcestershire is going to be able to influence an Archbishop. Not impossible, but unlikely. Nor am I entirely persuaded that being a Freemason would of itself let the devil into your life! I think behaving in a corrupt manner, because you are a Freemason, would.
That small lodge in Worcestershire is part of a vast network of ‘brothers’ who operate in covert ways. That’s the problem. I have to say that when I trusted a Mason I got my fingers badly burned – but it did open my eyes to just how extensive and powerful that network is. Including in the Church of England.
Most people favour those whom they know (although I don’t) – this is the case in all areas of life. It ought not to be the case as much as it is, and it is the case less than it was.
Those who know most people may know most people because they have most friends, and they have most friends because they are nicest. And therefore perhaps deserve to be favoured because niceness can be altruism.
To repeat what I said earlier: when I encountered J Smyth and P Ball at school I thought (on the little data I had) that J Smyth was essentially good, nice and impressive, but I would not have been able to swear he was a good egg unlike with several others on his termcards; P Ball I was in a minority on because (for 1 off 2 times in my life) I saw a particular thing in his face I could not place, and which left to myself I did not like, but I deferred to the majority positive opinion because after all even one person will see dimensions that I do not see, so among the majority many dimensions that I do not see will be seen.
Do C of E bishops (other than the two archbishops) have extra-territorial jurisdiction outside their own Diocese? I wonder how it was that (apparently) Peter Ball was invited to ‘take’ confirmations “at a dozen or more” public schools with the permission of headmasters. I assume, and hope, that didn’t include Winchester.
Unless I am mistaken about this, shouldn’t those confirmations have been taken by the Diocesan or Suffragan of the Diocese in which the school is situated? (I am certain that would be the case in the RC church.) Alternatively, was the permission of the relevant Diocesan sought and obtained?
Perhaps C of E rules are more relaxed. Questions, possibly for a canon lawyer.
I should have researched this before asking the question. From the Canons of the Church of England:
“B 27 Of confirmation
“1. The bishop of every diocese shall himself minister (or cause to be ministered by some other bishop lawfully deputed in his stead) the rite of confirmation throughout his diocese as often and in as many places as shall be convenient, laying his hands upon children and other persons who have been baptized and instructed in the Christian faith.”
I think this must imply that any confirmation by another bishop is required to be authorised by the Diocesan.
Yup. If Peter Ball were an Honorary Assistant Bishop in that diocese, there would simply be a rota, ” you take this one, and I’ll do those”. But I’m sure you can put in a bid for a Bishop of your choice.
Yes, but without having researched further, my impression is that he was doing this all over the place, not just in his ‘own’ diocese. The point is now academic, but having tracked down Canon B27, it’s clear that the delegation is in the hands of the relevant Diocesan who “shall himself minister (or cause to be ministered by some other bishop lawfully deputed in his stead) ….”
I suppose “lawfully deputed” is wide enough to allow the Archbishop to give permission, but to comply with the canon, the delegation must be made by the Diocesan. Let’s hope that was duly done!
Retired bishops are often honorary assistant bishops in several dioceses, not just the one they live in. As Athena says, confirmations would then be allocated to the various bishops on the extended team.
A bishop (or archbishop) who is asked to preach or officiate at a service in a diocese where he or she is not on the episcopal team is required to ask permission of the diocesan in question, though it’s really a courtesy. It would be unusual for the diocesan to refuse permission.
It’s not clear what happened in the Peter Ball case; did he just have a cosy arrangement with some headmasters? My recollection of Lord Carey’s evidence is that he was surprised and dismayed to find Ball had been officiating all over the place.
I’m not sure about the chronology of the school confirmations. Ball was successively Suffragan Bishop of Lewes and Bishop of Gloucester. According to Wikipedia (sorry that I can’t quote anything more authoritative) Ball was not an honorary assistant bishop. He resigned (not retired) from Gloucester. Thereafter (from Wikipedia again), Archbishop Carey “allowed Ball to continue officiating as a priest after his resignation, but not as a bishop—he could still celebrate the Eucharist, but not ordain clergy or confirm”.
Whatever happened, put as politely as possible, it was clearly a catalogue of irregularity.
In at least one case Ball officiated as a bishop pretending he was his brother Michael, with Michael’s connivance.
That’s dreadful!
Yes, I recall hearing something along those lines.
And yet in a recent letter to The Times someone described the occasion of a sermon (not sure now whether this was about the Resurrection or Ascension) by Peter Ball in a Sussex church when he ducked down in the pulpit to disappear, and his brother Michael simultaneously jumped up in the organ loft above. Somehow the letter writer appeared to see this as a humorous story to be told again.
It seems that an enigma can persist in spite of everything.
I think the latter was a trick repeated on different occasions, but more likely before any scandal broke?
Probably. I was surprised that this letter followed The Times obituary which didn’t mince words about the scandal. Perhaps I have misunderstood the writer’s motive. The letter just seemed out of place in that context.
If any retired minister, including a Reader, acts as a minister without a “permission to officiate”, which is a piece of paper, they won’t have an up to date DBS certificate. This is very relevant to this blog! I do know of Readers allegedly retiring and taking emeritus rather than asking for PTO, but just carrying on as usual! No one checks!
You will have to dig around in the transcripts of the IICSA hearings for the information about Peter Ball. I think it was recorded in Carey’s evidence that having received permission to do one confirmation, Ball ended up doing quite a number of public school confirmations. It was an example of the way that Carey was outwitted by Ball.
And so it is with that most exclusive of clubs, the American House of Bishops. Smaller than many country clubs, even amidst the rapidly declining fortunes of the church this clique confers instant prestige and credibility. Yet members were adroit in subverting and watering down the #metoo legislation that passed at the last General Convention, and quite a few walked out during these discussions, doubtless called by weightier matters. And short of the most over-the-top behavior imaginable, this little group looks out for its own, unwilling to rock the boat as it increasingly takes on water, content in the knowledge that the defined benefit retirement plan will ensure a comfortable retirement for the remainder of their lives.
Interesting observation about ECUSA, and I was reading it just as I began to wonder whether women had in fact been ordained to the episcopate either here or in the USA! Obviously women cannot be Freemasons, but can they belong to Nobody’s Friends? One might have thought that increasing numbers of women bishops would change the complexion of these situations, but perhaps they have their own Establishment circles?
I would hazard that Nobody’s Friends and dining clubs in general appeal more to the masculine psyche – but would throw out for consideration how an apparent and unpleasant distaste for all-male preferences, clubs and doings has grown just as admiration for the importance of all-female networks of friends has increased. Personally I am a fan of both. I don’t think people these days get nearly as much out of their friendships as (e.g.) someone who believed strongly in same-sex friendship and its potential, such as C S Lewis. But friendship is one of the jewels of life and is free.
On August 20th this year, Martin Sewell stated on this Blog (on the thread “Gilo writes”) that he believed there were two female members of ‘Nobody’s Friends’. If correct, it is no longer an all-male club. I merely pass that on for what it is worth, having remembered also reading something on the lines of a new female member being a senior Church person, or possibly a judge – I’m not sure which.