My recent exposure once again to the ongoing saga of Jonathan Fletcher and his culture, has prompted me to dredge up from my memory encounters with university Christian Unions in the long distant past. I became an undergraduate in 1964, an aeon ago, and I can still remember my reflection on a few CU talks that I attended. I glimpsed a world where it was claimed that all intellectual questioning could be instantly sorted and resolved. I was being invited to a new social world where everyone was apparently kind, generous and loving to each other. What could there be not to like? But at the same time, I was picking up another message. There was an element of fear and threat. Not only in the doctrine presented, but there was a threat of being excluded from one’s eternal destiny if one failed to conform fully to the belief system on offer. I still wonder from time to time how these techniques of preaching that use fear to sell their message, have so much popularity.
One word that that I picked up from my brief flirtation with Christian Unions all those years ago, was the word ‘sound’. Being sound in CU terminology then seemed to mean being thoroughly embedded in their culture and having the right opinions. In this way, you became eligible for holding office in the CU hierarchy. In practice it also meant signing a list of Christian beliefs which included acceptance of the inerrant word of God in Scripture. It occurred to me that individuals might want to wobble in their strict loyalty to this list of statements. But those who had crossed the bridge to being regarded as sound, managed to hang on without showing any hesitancies. Conversations with such people about the Bible were always completely unproductive. But, in my current thinking about this word sound in relation to my questioning of the ReNew networks of power, it occurs to me that the word has no meaning taken in isolation. Being sound in this CU sense only makes sense when you are part of a group. It is a designation awarded to you by another person of established influence within your group. Anyone who is regarded as sound is also deemed to have a secure relationship with God. The stakes remain high. Subsequent wrong beliefs about the Bible or other topics like the gay issue, would affect your soundness and your salvation status. It will thus never be possible for many conservative Christians to shift in their opinions or even think about an issue on which their group has a settled opinion.
Who are the people who provide the rock-solid authority to declare someone or something sound within the conservative community? Clearly it must be the leaders. But who polices the leaders and their opinions? Has it never happened that a leader studying the text of Genesis has met a problem with the two contrasting creation stories or the two versions of the Noah narrative? Of course, there are going to be those who ‘wobble’ in the way they understand the text of Scripture. But they do not reveal any of these issues to those under them. The official line remains that to be a Christian, one has to toe every official line on everything – the Bible, the gay issue and a host of other official doctrines. Anything else would undermine Christians in the pew and cause ‘shipwreck’ to their faith and prospects of salvation. In short, the conservative Christian world cannot and does not tolerate deviation, discussion or difference in its ranks.
The preservers of ‘sound’ beliefs within the CU/ReNew networks in Britain are, as we have suggested, powerful people within that context. Not only do they teach the people in their churches, but they also decide what they are to believe and what is forbidden. They have the ultimate power to declare that an individual is no longer a part of the correct orthodox Christian group represented by ReNew and its associated organisations and congregations. Who are these leaders who have reached the apex where no one will ever question their soundness and their right to teach the ‘correct’ Christian faith? In the past, it seems that many people within the conservative networks looked to figures like Dick Lucas, John Stott and Mark Ruston to provide for them an impeccable point of reference for individual orthodoxy. In short, the culture of conservative evangelicalism required everyone to be in some direct or indirect relationship with a leader who was acclaimed by the entire network as having a quasi- apostolic authority. Jonathan Fletcher seems also to have fulfilled this role for many of the current leaders, including Bishop Rod Thomas. Fletcher’s participation at Iwerne camps and also his time in Cambridge and London, gave him influence over swathes of people, within and beyond the evangelical constituency. This might explain how he was so successful in escaping challenge for his behaviour for so long. But it also explains why his fall from grace is causing so many problems for the ReNew constituency currently. Others have quickly stepped into leadership roles since his retirement and especially since his outing for immoral behaviour. These new leaders, who are now vicars and rectors of the big ReNew parishes, have considerable authority, but none of them yet seem to possess the power and god-like stature of Fletcher, or Stott and Lucas before him. Individuals like Vaughan Roberts and William Taylor, who both signed the document in June 2019 accepting the guilt of Jonathan Fletcher and enforcing restraint over his actions, show that they have real power. This power, exercised in a variety of ways within the network, is far greater than anything exercised by a bishop in the Church of England. No bishop has the right to discipline a clergyman for having ‘incorrect’ views on scripture or sexual morality. In contrast the clergy who hold office in parishes where the power of ReNew patronage operates, are vulnerable to the direct and indirect control of these leaders. They are able to help people into jobs – or exclude them from the social world they once inhabited. I cannot claim to understand all the ins and outs of the dynamics of the constituency represented by ReNew, but there does still seem to be a culture of fear afflicting some of those who live and work within this arena of control. Those whose careers and vocations depend on the goodwill of ReNew leaders have every reason to be extremely nervous of losing their status of being considered sound. Losing the support of their leaders is a serious matter. What is there to be frightened of more than having your orthodoxy/soundness questioned? That could lead directly to the destruction of career, livelihood and even salvation itself.
On 14th September this year, ReNew held a virtual conference for members of its constituency. The address of the chairman, William Taylor was then immediately published online. I watched with fascination as Taylor in this speech outlined his vision for the ReNew constituency in the years ahead. He recounted how the various organisations allied to ReNew had come together since 2013 to fulfil a vision for establishing ‘clear biblical ministry in local churches across the land’. If I shared the assumptions of Taylor about what the expression ‘gospel ministry’ actually meant, no doubt I could have rejoiced in the vision of ReNew to revitalise churches in every part of the country. But having watched over a lifetime the way that churches of this tradition squelch questioning and sometimes, because of dysfunctional power dynamics, tolerate power abuse of various kinds, I was less enthusiastic about this vision. Power abuse of course can happen in churches of any tradition but the new revelations about abuse, in some churches that identify with ReNew, show that some abuses have been allowed to fester for a very long time. When a group of churches manages to hide notable abusers (Smyth & Fletcher) for up to 40 years, questions have to be asked of the morality and conscience of leaders who seem to have been in the know. How can leaders who hide evil in dark places be trusted to be the arbiter of who is or is not in the protected sanctuary of being ‘sound’? If evidence ever emerges that a trusted leader has deliberately hidden evidence of evil, their ongoing position as a leader should be questioned. At last year’s Evangelical Missionary Alliance meeting, Vaughan Roberts said that ‘lessons will need to be learned’. The assumption seems to be that Taylor and Roberts might make minor adjustments to their outlooks – but nothing so serious would be revealed that could lead to them standing down from leadership.
Taylor’s speech could have been regarded as a grand Christian vision by a conservative Christian for the future. Somehow, I glimpsed something else, a process of Christians claiming power for themselves, indulging in aggrandisement and even the extension of personal fiefdoms. Taylor boasted of how other ReNew leaders had elected him to be their leader. I wondered was it really surprising that the local leaders he had appointed had in return agreed he should be their leader? I wondered at his being oblivious to the obvious lack of integrity in that process – and felt more aware of how leaders could turn a blind eye to concerns over Smyth and Fletcher. The world of ReNew seemed to be offered as the only valid expression of Christianity in Britain. Every other congregation, every denomination was, by implication, deemed to be in a place of darkness. Can this really be the vision of Christianity we are all expected to embrace? Are we expected to follow leaders who are also conspicuously blind to the moral failings of their mentors? There are still many questions that surround this group of evangelical Anglicans within the ReNew network. We do not ask perfection from them, but we do ask, as Taylor mentioned himself in his speech, the qualities of ‘transparency, humility and integrity’, qualities that are not obvious in this speech of the leader of this group.
Not so different from ordinary CofE, then! Bishops can and do refuse to appoint someone they don’t like. And can and do appoint someone they do like. No one questions a Bishop. They can and do surround themselves with those who agree with them. And after years of being alpha wherever they go, they start believing their own myth. And they rule by fear. Which is why overwhelmingly, it is retired clergy who have been supportive. And I have witnessed clergy of independent mind being removed. Same old, same old. And very depressing.
Stephen, can you provide a link to William Taylor’s ReNew speech?
The file was sent to me direct from another computer. I am unsure how to make my copy accessible. I have asked the sender how to do this! It is 1.6 gb in size!
Thank you for this excellent analysis. I don’t think that anyone who attends a service at St Helen’s can be in any doubt about Mr Taylor’s authority, or that in his own sphere, it would greatly exceed that of any bishop.
Attempts were made to draw me into OICCU: it was known that I attended services, and also that I was something of a loner in what I had found to be a disconcertingly cliquey college. Presumably, this self-isolation was noted and it was thought that I would be susceptible to the friendship and blandishments of OICCU (which was very closely connected with St Ebbe’s, then under the leadership of David Fletcher, whose assistant curate was Vaughan Roberts). I was not: I preferred to walk alone, and to satisfy myself with the thin and subfusc gruel of university sermons, and also evensongs and the quotidian fare provided by various local parish churches.
Several things did strike me about OICCU which elide with your own experiences: (i) the apparent uniformity of opinion within OICCU, which seemed directed to one particular part of one particular Church party; (ii) that the friendship offered seemed contingent upon a complete acceptance of the ideological predicates of that party; (iii) that OICCU seemed an almost hermetic organisation; and (iv) there was a certain amount of ‘careerism’ (as there is in so many university clubs and societies), where those favoured with ‘positions’ would be in a good place for advancement within the Church (or at least that part of the Church in their future careers).
I am afraid that the OICCU ‘mind’ lost much vestigial appeal to me when, having been invited to the rooms of a very able geographer for a ‘spiritual talk’, I was told – in all sincerity – that environmental degradation was irremediable, that it would result in inevitable catastrophe, but that this was God’s way of working His purpose out and of dealing with a ‘fallen’ species. I found this fatalistic world view so depressing and debilitating that I ‘moved on’, psychologically, at least.
I think most Oxford colleges are disconcertingly cliquey. I was a college CU rep and on the OICCU committee in the early 90s. I joined freely, and enjoyed them. Each college was linked up with a Wycliffe theological student (I think through Proclamation Trust), some of these were a great help and support, with others you just got the impression they were there to keep the CU on the doctrinal rails.
As a northern comprehensive lad who went to St Aldates I was never in the public school evangelical circles. I also ended up as a ‘bible clerk’ in the college chapel – there was a lot of crossover between chapel and CU membership. If careerism was going on I wasn’t aware of it (or maybe just not interested, as I had no desire to be a St Ebbe’s intern), and everyone on the OICCU committee in my year was a sincere Christian who loved God and wanted to share their faith.
I found both the college level and university-wide CU a great help to my faith, and any element of coercion, or attempts to force everyone into the same intellectual box, seemed both mild and avoidable. And it paled into insignificance besides the sense of menace which emanated from the rowing captain and his minions. Maybe it’s a public school thing, most of the people I came across at Oxford who seemed to have power issues were public school educated men.
Froghole, I just want to say that I very much admire the extent to which you must have known your own mind, beliefs, preferences and priorities as a first year student.
The parent body of Christian Unions used to be called Inter-Varsity Fellowship (IVF) or, in the USA, Inter Varsity Christian Fellowship. My father was Missionary Director of IVCF for many years so this is the world I grew up in.
Terry Virgo, founding ‘apostle’ of the Coastlands network, once recited a jingle:
I’m S O U N D
I’m S O U N D
I know I am, I’m sure I am
I’m IVF, you see.
He had tongue firmly in cheek, of course. Terry had a lively sense of humour.
But growing up in the Sound world, the terms ‘going off the rails’, losing out’, and ‘unsound’ had a terrible ring of doom about them. Fortunately, I realised long ago that the love of God is a lot bigger than our definitions and concepts of who is in and who is out.
It wasn’t my experience, however, that ‘the culture of conservative evangelicalism required everyone to be in some direct or indirect relationship with a leader who was acclaimed by the entire network as having a quasi- apostolic authority’. Maybe that applied more to leaders than to congregants? Certainly there were revered figures like Martyn Lloyd-Jones and F.F. Bruce, and to a rather lesser extent John Stott. But we plebs weren’t expected to have a relationship of any kind with these exalted beings.
What did count was the contents of your Christian library. Banner of Truth books in, SCM definitely out.
I was a member of OiCCU it is part of UCCF.
As a student we weren’t able to decide soundness it was set for us by the UCCF doctrinal basis. All visiting speakers had to sign this basis before the meeting. I think Desmond Tutu refused and therefore couldn’t speak to the OiCCU but many OiCCU members attended when he spoke at one of churches instead.
https://www.uccf.org.uk/about/doctrinal-basis
I have quite a lot of IVF books. Obvs, I am lost!
Careful Athena, you might be considered UNSOUND in this company!
I have quite a lot of IVF books too. Their ‘Bible Speaks Today’ series of commentaries is good, as is their Illustrated Encyclopaedia of the Bible. I wa looking something up in it only yesterday.
I finally got rid of my Banner of Truth commentaries a couple of years ago – they fetched good prices on eBay.
I think that just as con evo ordinands are expected to read liberal and higher critical study books, so liberal and ‘broad’ ordinands ought to be set some conservative scholars. I certainly wouldn’t throw it all out – a closed liberal mind is no better than a closed evangelical mind. It’s the being closed that’s bad, not the theological stance.
Surely no self-respecting scholar would even think of being either conservative or liberal, only evidence-based. Conservative (or alternatively liberal) conclusions can scarcely apply across the board to all of the thousands of issues discussed!! Both are ideologies, and ideology is the opposite and enemy of scholarship. One never knows in advance what one will conclude, only that whatever it is it will be what is demanded by the evidence, and will sometimes be a clear conclusion and also will sometimes be only provisional or tentative.That is scholarship 101.
I think any “self-respecting scholar” would know both that ‘evidence’ always has a provenance and that when reading ‘evidence’ its reception says a lot about the scholar him- or herself. Whether conservative in inclination or liberal, they would therefore be most sceptical not of those in the other ‘camp’, but of those who hubristically attempt to claim their scholarship is ‘only evidence-based’!
Plus it’s how we interpret the evidence. What lens/bias/world view. Like, you know, feminist or misogynist…
Janet. You are probably right that those in the pew did not do the guru-worship of the pastors/clergy. But there does seem to be a lot of ‘projective-identification’ going on in this world. Having someone to identify with is not unhealthy. It helps to give you a state of inner stability if your orthodoxy is like one of the leaders. The problems come when the leader that you ‘worship’ is found to have feet of clay. In another context Peter Ball let down all his acolytes in the way that Fletcher has done.
Yes, it isn’t just an evangelical problem. It’s a problem of human nature. I wrote a blog a year or so ago on ‘Shibboleths’, and it’s part of the same behaviour set. The urge to belong is human and natural, and there’s nothing wrong with it. The problem arises when there are rigid definitions of what qualifies us to belong, and when we wish to exclude others. God is always inviting people in.
I’m glad its appreciated that the conservative evangelical world can produce good books and authors worthy of serious thought. So can the liberal world too. Can we accept this of each other and try not to label like ‘con-evo’ (I’ve never understood why not ‘eva’) which just tends to ecclesiastical tarring?
Janet – I was going the post the S O U N D ditty but you got there first! I have to say that my CU experience (Southampton 1971-74) parallels yours. Although the CU was evangelical (and yes, we did look down on both those poor liberal SCM types and the members of the denominational AngSoc and MethSoc), there was certainly no “party line” on lots of issues (however issues of morality such as homosexuality weren’t discussed; but that was true in churches too).
In fact our CU was riven down the middle by a charismatic/cessassionist disagreement; even within those two broad groups there was disparity in that the cessassionist group included a small ultra-Calvinist faction linked to National Young Life Campaign, while the charismatics weren’t sure whether to align themself with old-style Pentecostalism or the “new church” movement (eventually the latter prevailed and in fact became the nucleus of what became a powerful element in south coast Christianity). What was notable is that there was no strong Evangelical Anglican presence in the city – the vast majority of Christian students attended either the FIEC Above Bar Church (conservative but thoughtful) or a large Pentecostal church – with quite a few “outliers” of course. And although there was a lot of respect for the leaders of those two churches, there was also some leg-pulling with Leith Samuel being referred to as “Lethal Sam” and Tony Stone as “Stony Ground”.
I do agree though with the need to be “sound” to achieve advancement in the CU world; I, from a MOTR Anglican background (although I became a Baptist during my time at Uni) didn’t quite “fit” the mould – in fact that is still true of me in today’s Baptist world! My experience at that time though simply doesn’t support the idea of Christian “gurus” whose words were “Gospel” – we “did our own thing” albeit under the general IVF/UCCF umbrella of course.
Dear Andrew, you have lost me. What is an MTOR Anglican? Thank you!
Thanks Anne! The alphabet soup lost me several posts ago. I wasn’t even going to church in the early 70s!
I think MOTR is Middle of the Road.
Which reminds me of an old Oxford joke about a street called The Turl, on which Jesus College is located: ‘The Turl is like Oxford churchmanship: it runs from the Broad to the High, bypassing Jesus on the way.”
One of my Wycliffe fellow students encountered a couple of drunk freshers who’d lost their college and enquired of him: “Where ish Jesus?’ To which Andy replied, “He’s here in my heart.’
There’s articles on a potential replacement for the CDM in the Church Times. It’s all about clergy who have been damaged by the process. Very necessary. But, although I only skimmed some of it, I don’t think there was anything about how do you deal with genuine complaints. Sitting down with the accused cleric and telling them what their accuser said isn’t going to be helpful.
“Anyone who is regarded as sound is also deemed to have a secure relationship with God”.
Stephen, this comment clearly reflects your Church political interests in arguing against evangelical leaders. Be that as it may, your concerns appear somewhat misguided. What is unquestionable is the fact that anyone who has a secure relationship with God may presumably be regarded, in principle, as being ‘sound’.
Having said that, there would appear to be many evangelical leaders who actually lack a secure relationship with God, for reasons that you do address. If so, you seem to have a very good basis to dispute the evangelical constituency’s claim as to its being sound in the faith. Why don’t you, then?
Is it unimportant for believers to be agreed as to what it means to follow Christ, or are you happy enough with the church believing anything as long as it abides by the values that currently prevail in the social mainstream?
The problem with your position is that it is undermined by the argument that evangelical leaders “who could turn a blind eye to concerns over Smyth and Fletcher” may well be, themselves, the victims of “spiritual manipulation” by these two men. Thus, you overlook the case of Bishop Andy Lines, if not Bishop Thomas. Is it that you require, in effect, a confession?
I’m not sure there has ever been universal agreement among believers about what it means to follow Christ. The New Testament records many dissensions and disagreements, even among the apostles. The Council of Jerusalem attempted to resolve a few of them, but that didn’t prevent Peter and Paul later falling out over Peter’s kosher practices.
And, historically, Christians of all flavours have been all too ready to condemn those whose theology or practice is different from their own – from the Inquisition to the Anabaptists and the English Protestant and Catholic martyrs. Huguenots settled in England, and the pilgrim settlers went to America, because their brand of Christianity wasn’t acceptable at home.
Chris, could you clarify what you mean in your last paragraph? Are you arguing that evangelical leaders who have themselves been manipulated by Smyth and Fletcher are therefore exempt from taking responsibility – or have I misunderstood you?
No, Janet, I am not suggesting that evangelical leaders who may or may not have been manipulated by Smyth and Fletcher are therefore exempt from taking responsibility. I was suggesting that Stephen is wrong to target them for their silence when it is arguable that they may possibly be considered victims, themselves, insofar as they failed, at the time, to do what they might well feel, now, that they should have done, in the circumstances. But who knows, for that matter?
Notwithstanding Stephen raises the question as to what other leaders might have known as to Fletcher’s activities. That’s all very well, but he’s simply in a fight with the evangelical constituency, and going for its jugular. He is showing himself to be merely the political animal.
I have raised the point that, if anything, he should be holding evangelicals to account for the evident insecurity of their relationship with God. He does not do this, yet he sees it fit to raise the question, “Are we expected to follow leaders who are … conspicuously blind to the moral failures of their mentors?”
This is not a matter of there being any need for universal agreement among believers about what it means to follow Christ, that is to say, any need that is beyond our agreement that being blind to the moral failures of our mentors may indicate that we have been misled, confused or deceived by them, if not that we may be lacking in what is a secure relationship with God.
How would one put right an insecure relationship with God, Chris? Or avoid it?
EnglishAthena, please, can you give me a pass on that one.
*giggle*. Of course!
I think you misunderstand Stephen. If you have been following his blog over a long period of time, you will know that his interest is the abuse of power. He is attacking the ReNew constituency not for their theology, but for the tactics they use to control people. When it was Peter Ball in the news, he was equally scathing about Ball’s supporters. The difference is that the ReNew network is more organised and methodical – and is exercising a much wider influence on the C of E than Ball ever did. That is worrying a lot of people.
As for the silence of ReNew leaders re. Smyth and Fletcher, I agree that ‘they failed, at the time, to do what they might well feel, now, that they should have done’. But in that case there is an imperative for them to speak out loudly and clearly. I was appalled when my mentor Gordon Rideout (a trustee of Church Society) was arrested on charges of child sexual abuse. I had been utterly taken in by him. I didn’t feel that excused me from any action. Instead I became police witness. It was traumatic but I felt that truth was all the more important because I had believed a lie. In this situation Fletcher’s former friends and colleagues owe it to their flock to speak out, loudly and clearly. That would be true godly leadership.
Stephen is open about the fact he is a liberal, but he does not attack people for their theology. I have known him since 1998, when I was an evangelical myself, and he never challenged me on my theology. Perhaps you could re-read this blog, bearing in mind that it’s the power games, not the theology, which is Stephen’s target.
Janet, I haven’t been following Stephen’s blog for very long, but his writing is clear. I understand that “it’s the power games, not the theology which is Stephen’s target”.
Let me put it this way: if churches are basically no different from organisations such as business or community groups, schools, sporting clubs etc. then, yes, it would be right to focus simply on the abuse of power by the leadership. In that case, as you say, it would be imperative for ReNew leaders “to speak out loudly and clearly”. It would also be a lot easier, for them, than to admit that their relationship with God is something of a sham.
The point that I was making is that Stephen overlooks that the abuse of power in a church setting should lead one to question the purported relationship with God that is professed by the leadership. The failure to do so allows room for the leadership, actually, to avoid responsibility. Fletcher was known to them as a brother in Christ. How could you possibly be in a right relationship with God if you suffered from that delusion? Well, you might want to plead that you were a victim yourself (Andy Lines), or purport to be “dismayed” by the revelations as if you knew nothing (Richard Coekin).
‘That delusion’ being that Fletcher was a brother in Christ? And are you saying that if one has been deceived by an abusive leader (e.g. Ball, Fletcher, Smyth, Rideout) it demonstrates that one’s own relationship with God is insecure?
Jesus said we won’t be able to distinguish the wheat from the tares until the final judgement – though he did also say ‘you will know them by their fruits’. The human heart being as complex and deceitful as it is, these judgements are extremely difficult to make other than in extreme cases. I don’t blame people for being taken in, but I do blame people for not being open about it.
Janet, no, I am not saying that if one has been deceived by an abusive leader that it demonstrates that one’s own relationship with God is insecure. However I am saying that the ReNew leadership is vulnerable in this respect. Thus Stephen raises the pertinent question that arises, in this context, as follows. “Who are these leaders who have reached the apex where no one will ever question their soundness and their right to teach the ‘correct’ Christian faith? “
Thank you, I think I understand better now what you are saying. And that is a good question to ask.
However, I’d repeat that I don’t think Stephen is being ‘political’, and he’s only targeting this particular part of the evangelical world because that’s where the issue is at present. At least, that’s the way I understand him.
It is a good question to ask, but Stephen is being ironic. The problem with his critique is the poverty of his theological liberalism. When he refers to surviving church, he has in mind merely the decadent institutions of our secular culture. He appears to know nothing concerning the Bride of Christ.
Not sure you’re being entirely fair here Chris. You see, I think the Church does indeed behave exactly like other human organisations. Manifestly so. It shouldn’t, but it does. That being the case, you have to work on the assumption that nearly everyone has a less than perfect relationship with God. And many, I believe, don’t really believe in God at all. If you try to treat them as brothers and sisters, you’re on a hiding to nothing.
I’d completely (now as a liberal anglo-catholic) forgotten about being SOUND, but it was the touchstone in CICCU (the Cambridge version of Froghole’s OICCU )in the mid-sixties when I was involved. The issues seemed to be the relationship with college chapels / chaplains and whether they were even marginally SOUND and therefore we could join in with the Chapel. The other area of contention was the arrival of the Charismatic. Its leading proponent was the revered (and Reverend) David Watson, then Mark Ruston’s curate. I remember going to talk to Mark with a friend about our unease, especially as we shared a ‘set of rooms’ with someone who insisted on singing in tounges to praise the Lord at 3am some mornings – not good if you had a 9am lecture. Mark was non-committal but thought it was a passing phase!
I think the con-evo framework gave security both socially and in terms of faith to many (especially to a working class boy who had got a scholarship to a minor public school which had a ‘special relationship’ with my college as a result of some long-dead bishop and so had privileged access)! Most of those I knew , even the leaders at that time, have moved into a far less conservative position, both theologically and ethically. Now for various reasons, I have a good number of evangelical friends (some who might be considered conservative) and I am surprised that they can out drink me with Merlot. So different from my CICCU time, when Dr Basil Atkinson, Deputy University Librarian and CICCU patriarch, in referring to 1 Timothy 5:23 stentoriously pronounced ‘for external application only’! But seriously, ReNew seems to have all the marks of a cult and that is dangerous. Sadly the power of Bishops is limited (or they don’t want to address these issues).
Just to chuck my two penn’th into the pot: “sound” in my experience just really meant “right”. It just sounded more polite. Just as churches say, “Is he a believer” or “has she seen the light” as a more acceptable way of saying “Do they belong to our club”!
In his article, “Evangelicalism: a historical perspective”, Skevington Wood wrote in the early 70s that “much current misunderstanding of evangelical attitudes on the part of those who belong to other schools of thought arises from a failure to appreciate what might be described as our evangelical pedigree. Even some who themselves espouse the cause are nevertheless unfamiliar with its historical antecedents.”
For those who might want to look back at the rock from which they are hewn, the article can be found here:-
https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/tsf-bulletin/60_evangelicalism_wood.pdf
Thanks for the reference to a very good paper.
Yes, “Middle of the Road” – not Evangelical, not High Church, just “ordinary”!
Sorry.
I fear it was Leith Samuel who convinced me that the CU had a problem, when, at an ‘after-meeting with the speaker’ (remember those?), he told an ‘edifying anecdote’ which succeeded in being both anti-semitic and priggishly self-satisfied. The supine response (or lack of response) from everyone else in the room convinced me that there was a danger lurking in the starry-eyed veneration of ‘successful’ churches….
In the late 60s at Durham University we formed a Council of Christian Societies, and to make it truly ecumenical we invited the Christian Union to join. During my time as Chairman they accepted, but on the morning of the meeting when they would become full members their President was called to London to see Oliver Barclay of IVF. He said they could only join if someone approved by IVF was always on the platform. We had a Mission coming up, with speakers including David Jenkins and Anthony Bloom, and we were expected to invite an IVF-approved person to speak after each one of them. We refused, and the Christian Union did not join. It was called DICCU, which some of us felt appropriate.
Haha!-Good to find you here, Michael. Takes me back to BCC Youth Unit &-Mannafest days.
Notice that in Jesus’ parable of the sheep and the goats, people are consigned to eternal punishment or eternal life on the basis of what they do, rather than what they believe (Matthew 25:46).
Great article and discussion. Thanks!
In my experience during the mid-1990s, the DICCU of Durham University was precisely as you describe, Stephen, and as Froghole describes OICCU. Soundness, and the status bestowed on the sound, was upheld routinely as a desirable prize, and provided a passport to what I now look back and see as being an exclusive (ie excluding) group of Christians. As you highlight in your post, there was indeed kindness, generosity and love to be found there, but in many cases those things were in very limited supply, and the fear and threat you mention was absolutely lurking there below the surface. I was too naïve at that age to identify the fear and threats, and to understand that they were used as a way of exerting power. Thank you for this post which resonates deeply with me and helps me, as so much of your writing does, to make sense of my undergraduate CU experience and the scars it left.
Dear Fiona, if you were mid-90s, then it was just before my time, but I suspect I know who and what you are talking about. I remember being told in a one to one that I shouldn’t reallyread fiction as it was a waste of time compared to reading Christian books. Thankfully I wasn’t in awe enough to bother listening to the advice.
Looking back on it, I was considered ‘sound’ just because of my dad even though ‘the chaps’ didn’t know me from Adam. I was never ‘in’ as I wasn’t Iwerne (btw I never really wanted to be in, I’m too northern and proud of a working class family background).
The thing that jarred with me was that when I was involved in choosing the next DICCU president I had massive pressure from Iwerne chaps to pick a Iwerne boy who hadn’t even been involved in the DICCU in his first year! I refused.
Anyhow, what I wanted to say was, I’m sorry that you felt damaged by things. There were many of us that felt something was off and worked towards a change in culture, I think my exec (98-99) was a much gentler bunch, but I’m sorry you got hurt.
Chris, I recognised your name from Durham when you left a comment on another of Stephen’s posts, and although I don’t think we knew each other in person at Durham, we probably had mutual friends. (I was there from 95-99, and a college group rep in 96-97. And it’s nice to hear from another northern person with a similar background to mine!) I really, really appreciate your last paragraph – that’s so kind of you. I was too much in awe of the DICCU powers-that-were, and I regret that now, and I’m glad you weren’t so much in thrall as I was. It’s really good to learn that there were some people who felt change was needed, and worked for it – that does help me understand that things were less homogenous than I have thought in terms of outlook, and that I wasn’t quite as alone as I felt. Thank you, Chris – I’m really grateful for your kind words.
Fiona, I suspect that you were a rep at the same time as my wife Sophie nee Walley (castle). She always said she was chosen for exec as a ‘rescue project’. You weren’t alone! We both appreciated a great deal that we learnt from the DICCU, particularly the passion for sharing the gospel, but we also laugh, cringe and weep about a great number of things that never seemed right. Sadly the chickens are coming home to roost and Iwerne, which we always felt was anti-gospel is turning out to be far worse than we ever imagined.
Very sad and unsettling. But the great news is it’s never been about an organisation but a kingdom and the Lord Jesus never broke a bruised reed and justice will be done.
Yes – I remember Sophie! I was at Chad’s, and we were college reps at the same time. The “rescue project” notion is both hilarious and depressing! Thank you for your honesty about Iwerne. I and a few friends (all very much CYFA types rather than Iwerne) used to laugh about it in those days as a defence against our own perceived social inferiority. Now, and particularly given what has been coming to light in recent years, I just see the “key people from key schools” thing as being, as you say, profoundly anti-gospel and far from inclusive – and wish I’d been able to understand that a very long time ago. Your last sentence provides such an important reminder of the central message of Christianity.
I want to say too, Chris, that I’m so sorry to hear Sophie felt like a “rescue project”, and hope she was able to find some humour in that situation, and saw herself as a valuable part of a rightly more diverse exec, rather than being overly troubled by it.
Thanks Fiona. I think we get an en suite in heaven for being on the exec. 😉
I do hope so – it’d be very well-deserved! 😂
Independent culture review launched of Titus Trust launched today. Busy time for 31:8. Reports in September 21
https://thirtyoneeight.org/news-and-events/news/news-2020/titus-trust-review/
Quote: Over recent years, two volunteer leaders on Iwerne camps have faced separate allegations of harmful behaviour (in John Smyth’s case before the Titus Trust took over running the Iwerne camps; in Jonathan Fletcher’s case after this date). There have also been other criticisms of some aspects of the cultures of different camp groups.
Wikipedia (which I know can be wrong) “Titus Trust grew out of the Iwerne Trust which was created in 1932 by E. J. H. Nash, popularly known as “Bash”
I was under the impression that Titus trust was little more than a name change from iwerne. If that’s the case, the statement about Titus trust taking over is disingenuous.
I recognise I may be wrong. Is there anyone who would describe them as an altogether different entity that is able to distance themselves from Smyth like that?
From an article on Anglican ink by Andrew greystone. “Titus Trust’s line of defence has been that they have no legal liability for Iwerne camps prior to 1997 when the trust was formed. They argue that the Iwerne Trust and its work were an entirely different entity. This may be true as a legal point – indeed it is conceivable that the Titus Trust was set up precisely to avoid a legacy of responsibility. But everyone who has had any connection with the movement knows that Iwerne and Titus are the same animal. Indeed, Titus Trust’s own website claimed, until recently, that its work dated back to 1932, linking them directly to the Iwerne work.”
Up to and including the 2016 annual accounts for The Titus Trust available on the Charity Commission website, you can see the same sentence in the Trustee’s Report each year:
“With over 86 years of history, the Trustees and senior staff see the Trust’s operations as a mature Christian work”.
At that point the (Titus) Trust was only 19 years old. From the 2017 accounts onwards however, the sentence was tweaked slightly to a more vague:
“The Trustees and senior staff see the Trust’s operations as mature Christian work.
This is not how a Christian organisation should behave.
It’s interesting how Smyth and Fletcher are described as ‘volunteer leaders’ giving the impression of relatively minor and insignificant involvement rather than the fact that Smyth was chairman of the trust and Fletcher brother of the senior camp officer David Fletcher. Both were regular speakers and visitors.
I really hope that Titus trusts cooperation with this isn’t anything as poor as the statement would suggest.
The statement certainly doesn’t bode well in that regard. There is certainly still a lot of denial there. I’m just waiting for the eventual statement: ‘mistakes were made, but not by us.’
Today’s Private Eye carries an article about refinances of Titus Trust. At the end of 2019, their reserves were about half what their reserve policy says they should be. The trust had made a loss over the year of £594,000.
The article also states that the Iwerne camps will be discontinued and says that the Trust is looking at other ways of extending its ministry to independent schools. That is interesting in that the 38:1 Culture Review, mentioned by Jon refers to visiting actual camps in 2021
The Titus trust is not stopping running camps but repackaging them. The Iwerne name is being retired and they are organising camps I think on a regional basis. They used to have stratification even within their camps system with Iwerne for Elite public schools and Lymington for 2nd tier boarding /day private schools. This is being reorganised into a north / south system.
I noticed that the majority of the Trustees who in likelihood had knowledge of Fletcher’s behaviour, or at least links with him have all gone now too.
It all seems very convenient to distance themselves from ongoing revelations about Fletcher.
In many ways I feel sorry for the new Trustees, it looks like there’s been a dump and run.
“They used to have stratification even within their camps system with Iwerne for Elite public schools and Lymington for 2nd tier boarding /day private schools.”
So, it seems to be the case that the Titus Trust, not content with separating 6.5% of children (the sheep) from the remaining 93.5% (the goats), wish to have Iwerne reserved for the 1% (or less) and Lymington for the remainder of the 6.5%. All sheep are equal, but some are more equal than others. After all, it simply won’t do for someone who attends Eton College to mix with someone who attends Dover College. The question is, socially, where to draw the line: I mean there might be some OEs who can’t get their ‘less academic’ sons into Eton, and who will make do with Stowe or Millfield (as has been the case since Michael McCrum’s day). Is it acceptable for an Etonian to mix with a Stoic, but not (for example) someone who is ‘slumming’ it at Eltham College of Eastbourne College?
With all this nonsense, it is little wonder that the Church of England has so little of value to say to the country about issues with Britain’s political economy.
If this story about the Titus Trust is true, others, less charitable than myself, might wish to speak of the Titus Trust in adjectival terms.
I am even more disheartened to learn that “they used to have stratification even within their camps system with Iwerne for Elite public schools and Lymington for 2nd tier boarding /day private schools” than I was already. I have never yet heard any sort of convincing justification for Iwerne’s existence and raison d’être, and as Froghole says, this information seems just to take us further into the realms of nonsense than was already the case.
Many thanks, Fiona.
Quite coincidentally the archbishops have today released a pastoral letter which makes a brief note of some of the unfortunate economic tendencies which the virus has exacerbated, and they have asked the banks to be tolerant to their debtors. However, it is all fairly insipid (just as it is an inconvenient truth that the Commissioners’ returns are predicated, in part, upon high yield investments – which almost inevitably involve screwing certain debtors). Justin Welby did publish a tract in 2018 called ‘Reimagining Britain: Foundations for Hope’ in which he did critique our political economy, to some extent, but it was nothing like William Temple’s ‘Christianity and Social Order’ (1942), imperfect as that book was.
However, when the Church of England puts up with the sort of social and class stratifications implicit in this (alleged) move by the Titus Trust, its appeals for social equity and fair dealing inevitably ring hollow.
Some of us are still waiting for an unequivocal condemnation of the Titus Trust by the ecclesiastical authorities, and a recommendation that it be wound up and its funds be put to vastly better causes than keeping some Etonians and Harrovians out of their parents’ hands for part of the summer, in the name of ‘mission’.
Thank you for the recommendation, Froghole – I have just bought “Christianity and Social Order”, and look forward to reading it.
The north? Good God, the north? Civilisation in the north? As one of Victoria Wood’s sketches has it: “I’d like to apologise to viewers in the north. It must be awful for them.”
😂
I remember being told that they had to do it like that because the experience of the boys was so different to everyone else that they had to have a different camp.
I used to go on a CYFA camp that had a number of ‘iwerne’ leaders, I used to call it their ‘charity camp’. Didn’t go down too well.
I’d have thought that a good bit of mixing, to any degree, would be just what was called for! In my experience as a former teacher, the existence of independent schools can contribute a lot towards reinforcing some of the various divisions in society (I’m not necessarily opposed to them as an educational option, merely noting that added social division is often a consequence of their being available to some and not others).
My observation is that the later in life people start mixing with a more heterogeneous group than they’re used to, the more difficult it can sometimes be to learn to relate to others effectively (whatever and whomever their “group of origin” comprises), and that this may be a significant reason for the gradual evolution of the wider issues we continue to discuss at Surviving Church.
I’d come from a MOTR C of E & state school so hadn’t heard of Iwerne until a couple of years into Oxford. I was really surprised to learn this existed – it seemed an anachronism like the Bullingdon Club.
Whereas I had to work during the summer holidays many of the people I knew seem to spend the summer going from camp to camp.
There was a weekly prayer meeting at Oxford for Iwerne attendees – they were strongly encouraged to attend this – as far as I know this was a closed meeting to outsiders. Inadvertantly or not this must had had the impact of creating a circle within a circle given the amount of time they spent together on the Iwerne cause.
The Iwerne and Lymington camps have often been justified on the grounds that if they weren’t exclusive, the boys’ parents wouldn’t allow them to go. I wonder if the Lymington boys were allowed to attend the Iwerne prayer groups at Oxbridge? If not, it would seem to give the lie to that particular rationale.
When I was training at Wycliffe, the college was the venue for a Lymington camp one vacation. Over lunch I asked one sixth-former what he wanted to read at university, and what career he would like to pursue. ‘My parents want me to be a doctor,’ he replied. ‘But what do you want to do?’ was my next question. He didn’t reply but the forlorn look on his face spoke volumes. I often wonder what happened to that young man
If that gives an insight into the mindset of some public school parents, I can see why the camps were originally set up. Nevertheless, I think separating the elites like that is essentially anti-gospel, and the increasing dominance of Iwerne men in the Church is helping to destroy it.
All very interesting. I never questioned as a teenager that Iwerne was exclusive – I just accepted it. I have recently read Home at Last – Freedom from Boarding School Pain, by my friend Mark Stibbe. If you would like my copy, please messenger me your postal address using Facebook. I am happy to discuss issues raised for me by my boarding school experience from 8 to 18 if people would like.
David, I’d be really interested to hear about your boarding school experience. Have you already written about it anywhere?
Not yet, Fiona. Perhaps I will. I need to reflect on it first.
I think the increasing dominance of people who compromise the gospel is destroying the church.
Janet, as you say, the Iwerne men are helping in that, because despite their protestations that they stand for the gospel they are undermining it with their abuse and cover-ups.
Janet, you asked a teenager what he wanted to do with his life: “ ‘My parents want me to be a doctor,’ he replied. ‘But what do you want to do?’ was my next question. He didn’t reply but the forlorn look on his face spoke volumes … If that gives an insight into the mindset of some public school parents …”
That young man could have been me, though I was educated at a state Grammar School (11+), so it’s not just public school parents by any means.
This is not the place for lengthy self-revelation except to say, since it is relevant to how we cope with abuse (of which you might say this is a minor variant) that in my experience having lived an important and formative part of my life on the basis of decisions that others made on my behalf, I lost confidence in my own decision-making ability, becoming somewhat fatalistic, and I lost sight and feel of my emotions. It takes a long time for these to be recovered. I found it easy to beat myself up about not having the courage and strength to go against parental wishes, but the passage of years eventually brings a sense of understanding. No wonder Jesus said, albeit in a different context, that families could be pernicious.
When I qualified as a doctor in 1975 I felt I had in part discharged the debt to my parents and could move from where I then was. But I was never the surgeon or the GP living in the posh house that they could have admired, and that sense of inadequacy has not left me.
Thanks, Fr Stanley, I so value your insights. As I have said earlier, I went to a minor public school attached to a Cathedral as a day boy, . As I was deemed to be of high intelligence, I had been put into the 11+ a year early by my state primary school. I passed with the second highest mark in the small rural county and so got one of the 10 scholarships to this cathedral school. We did 4 years to ‘O’ level which I took in 1959 at the age of 14!. I therefore took ‘A’ levels at 16. When I returned to school for a 3rd year in the 6th (still 16) or should I write VIth form, my form tutor demanded ‘ Bring 10/6 (the application fee 52½p in today’s money) on Monday, you are applying to Cambridge! That was the only careers’ advice I have ever received – on the level of your minor parental abuse, others controlling my life. My father was a low grade civil servant and mother worked very part time in a grocers. I know it was a struggle for them to support me to get to Cambridge, especially when my father bought me a new Liddell & Scott Greek Lexicon, which even in 1963 was nearly £40 – several weeks’ wages.
They were so proud – I was probably the only undergraduate at that time without a bathroom at home!! I suppose that without someone else having vision, Cambridge would not have been anywhere near my ambitions. This was positive for me but I can see how easily it could have been a negative experience. I am now in my mid-70s studying at my 6th university – make of that what you will.
Lots to say John. What’s your email? Mine is wsmonkhouse at gmail etc
jcharleswallace at gmail etc
I’m sorry that you had that damaging experience, Stanley. You make a good point that it’s not only public school parents who over-dominate their offspring.
Yep. It was a long while before I felt free of others’ expectations of me, including my teachers. Actually, I suppose I’m still not!
I don’t want to prolong this, Janet , but I think the over-domination arose partly from a realisation that given my asthma and inclinations, staying local was not an option. No malice. It was a repressed, controlled, rural Methodist community. (The link between repression and asthma is not new). This is part of the understanding that comes with the passage of time. Of course, we took the “opposite” strategy with our children – and doubtless they criticise us for that!
Stanley, I have a schoolfriend from my own grammar school days with whom I reconnected about five years ago, and we talked a lot about the directions we’d taken since school and why. He has since become a consultant psychiatrist, but only studied medicine in the first place because it was what his parents expected of him (his father is also a doctor) and he sees becoming a psychiatrist – rather than another type of medical practitioner with perhaps a different status – as the one small act of rebellion he was permitted in early adulthood.
And I recognise in him what you say about yourself and the subsequent difficulties in making decisions as an adult (and, in fact, in myself too, albeit for different reasons – and, like you, I’ve tried to use the opposite strategy with my own boys as a direct consequence). As you say, the passage of time facilitates deeper understanding, but I absolutely agree with what you said about such experiences potentially colouring our abilities to respond to certain types of treatment by others, even as adults. I’m so sorry you struggled as a result.
This thread rings true for me too. All my decisions were taken for me into my twenties. So I can add, hear hear! And, your comments have helped me understand what has happened to me subsequently too. Very helpful. Thanks.
David, I have found your friend’s book on Amazon and started reading it. It’s very well-written and insightful, isn’t it?
Fiona, yes, I thought so too. He and I were ordained deacon together in 1986.
They were so exclusive that even when one was at Public School or Oxbridge one still was not ‘in’ till one received an invite. Officially, that is. But in truth,
(1) that included inviting people like me who would never ever be chosen for secret societies being far too individualist;
(2) the Cambridge and Oxford leaders were competing for numbers so were not necessarily too choosy;
(3) in order to make up the right numbers (since camp beds had to be filled and the ratio of officers to senior campers to pupils needed to be right) it may have perhaps been that as Iwerne became less mainstream vis-a-vis the culture at large, it was impossible to be too choosy. This was partly overcome by admitting girls to the main boys’ camps from the mid 1980s. (The girls twice in my experience were content to prick bubbles or question sacred cows.)
Also the principle of personal invite is a good one. Just as it is good when inviting people to church or to hear a Christian speaker. It is never good if it implies membership of a freemasonry. That was certainly not the case at Iwerne at least not the 1980s, otherwise they would not have extended invites to such uncool characters.