The Independent Lessons Learned Review for Jonathan Fletcher (JF) and Emmanuel Church Wimbledon (ECW) was set up in December 2019. This Review was commissioned by the church itself to be undertaken by the safeguarding organisation thirtyone:eight. This was after concerns had been raised about the behaviour of JF the former Vicar of the Church. He had retired in 2012 after thirty years in charge. Allegations of sexual abuse and other harmful behaviours had been made by various people over a number of years. The Review was commissioned by ECW partly as a way of facing up to its own past, but it also needed to respond to possible criminal activity by their former Vicar. The Review was not easy to undertake. Among various complications was the fact that ECW has a nuanced relationship with the Church of England. It preserves a degree of independence by being what is known as a Proprietary Chapel. Although still part of the national Church, it possesses a degree of independence through its founding deeds and this is not always well understood. It was also firmly rooted in the theological tradition known as Conservative Evangelical. This was a strongly traditional form of belief. One feature of this strong self-identity and independence was that the Vicar, if he chose, could exercise an authoritarian style of leadership. The second complication for the Review was an apparent moral blindness on the part of JF when accused of unbecoming and immoral behaviour. While apologising for some of his behaviours, JF also attempted to downplay his actions, by claiming that ‘anything that happened was totally consensual and non-sexual’. On other occasions, according to the Daily Telegraph, he maintained that he was ‘deeply, deeply sorry for the people I’ve harmed.’ While it is difficult to gauge exactly how far these comments go in expressing remorse, we should note that he refused to take any part in the thirtyone:eight Review and resisted all attempts to hear his side of the story.
The incidents of actual sexual abuse are, for me, the least compelling part of the narrative. The Review does conclude that various forms of sexual misbehaviour did occur, and the large number of testimonies place the accusations beyond all reasonable doubt. But for me it is the cultural and theological setting in which these crimes took place that is the most interesting. In my past attempts to cover the JF story, this wider setting has always been my focus for discussion. The beliefs and assumptions that existed among those he served and, in some cases, harmed, is a subject worthy of study. The lessons that need to be learnt are the ones that emerge out of this murky and hard to disentangle world of faith, power and vice. One word in the Review, which has also been drawn out for emphasis by members of the independent advisory group, is the word fear. JF exercised considerable power over his congregation which caused fear in those who wanted to challenge it. The Review speaks of ‘relational power’ to describe how JF exercised ‘psychological domination’ over others. Some likened this treatment of others, causing humiliation and fear, as being like that of a public-school headmaster. It was noted how the fear induced by JF was an issue, not only with members of his own congregation, but he also practised it among others he encountered within the network of con-evo parishes known now as the ReNew constituency. The Review found it necessary to give some participants anonymity because they still felt fear over ‘repercussions’. These could affect ‘future careers, personal relationships and standing’. This accusation, that there is in the network of conservative evangelicals a miasma of fear, is a very serious one. The charge is that JF, through his personality and charisma, kept some individuals under his personal control. The implication of the Review was that this culture of personal control was being handed down another generation. There is a quote from the Review that speaks of ‘fear of others still in positions of authority in the wider con-evo constituency’. In short, the whole network is affected by a continuing culture of tight control. The techniques of JF to coerce and control others for his narcissistic purposes, have been handed down to a new generation of leaders such as the incumbents of St Helen’s, St Ebbes and other major ReNew parishes.
The 4 page supplementary Report by the advisory group is hard hitting on this issue of fear and spiritual bullying. It develops the idea that such bullying is and has been a feature of many of the churches in the ReNew network operating within this con-evo culture. Raw fear has made it difficult for ECW members to come forward to share what they know. This fact might explain why the JF scandal took so long to break. People in the network have been conditioned not to speak out. They were made to believe that such speaking up would be a betrayal of the Church and of God himself.
JF’s misbehaviour did not of course begin in 1982 when he took up the incumbency of the Church. The Review however says nothing of this earlier history. To complete the profile, we would need to understand far better his Christian formation as a young man, as well as his growing influence over many in the conservative Christian world when still a curate. The period that particularly needs further examination is the time when he was first ordained. This was the period he spent in Cambridge, his participation in the Iwerne camps and his widespread influence over a generation of Cambridge students who went on to be ordained. These included Nicky Gumbel and Justin Welby. The silence from this generation of clergy who, early on, came into the JF orbit is a serious gap. Elsewhere in the con-evo world, there is a debate going on about the influence of Ravi Zacharias and how his fall has affected the faith and integrity of those who came under his influence. Every single one of the top leaders in the ReNew network either knew or was prepared for leadership by JF. He has now shown to be a charlatan. The question immediately arises for his disciples as to how they deal with this fact. Is there to be an appraisal of some kind, or will those same followers retreat into silence and secrecy? The intellect cries out to understand better when things go very wrong. We need enlightenment to make sense of this confused picture of power mixed up with the dynamics of abuse..
The JF Review raises a number of challenges to both JF’s former congregation and to the whole con-evo network. Among the very strong early recommendations of the Review is one that demands ‘the unhealthy culture of the congregation and network of the CE constituency …be addressed fully by those having played a key role in the establishment of that culture …. no longer (should they) enjoy the influence…’ In short, the Review is calling for a wholesale clear-out of the old guard of leaders. At the very least there should an entirely fresh look at the culture of a fear-laden autocracy, backed up by public-school attitudes from the past. I have frequently talked about patronage to describe the way things are done in the con-evo world. Parishes and favoured positions of influence are handed on to members of an ‘inner-ring’, the small group favoured by the leadership. Even now, power to chose who is appointed to key posts is in the gift of an elite band of leaders who dominate this con-evo world.
Jonathan Fletcher has been the product of an elitist church culture which is a throw back to the 1930s. It was then that ‘Bash’ thought up his idea for taking over the church with carefully groomed cadre of men from the top public schools. JF was a perfect example of a Bash type. He used his dominant social and educational privilege to run things exactly as he wished. Sexual abuse was one part of the way he expressed his sense of entitlement. The same was true for Ravi Zacharias. Hopefully the days of making up the rules of safeguarding as we go and the unsupervised use of male power are over. The popular mood also no longer tolerates male hegemony. At ECW, since JF’s departure, women’s ministry on a small scale has been allowed to appear. At that Church and elsewhere we hope to see a church released from the ideology as well abusive behaviour of a church leader such as Jonathan Fletcher.
Doesn’t bullying always cause fear? Even in the days it doesn’t happen, you can feel the tension in your diaphragm. I always wondered, if they can do this to me when I haven’t done anything, what on earth would they do if I complained?
Sad to say, that was my experience in, of all places, a Church of England primary school. At any time the sadistic headmaster would appear without warning, carrying cane, and call out a boy – any boy – we were never aware of any reasons for the ensuing severe beating. On one occasion, a boy too small (i.e., too young, and probably only six or seven years old) to be bent over, was laid across the teacher’s desk. You never knew when this would happen. It was a reign of terror in an ostensibly Christian school.
I have little doubt that the centuries old practice of flogging boys on bare flesh in English public schools explains, at least partly, some of the perversions which we have seen. This continued in places like Eton well into the second half of the 20th century.
I’m really sorry to hear about this, Rowland. These experiences leave lasting scars, psychological and emotional.That must have been terrifying, especially for very young children.
Thank you, Janet. I ‘only’ suffered a full-force punch in the ear at about age five or six. Of course he wasn’t allowed to touch girls, fortunately, although he boasted that in former times he had seen a cane broken across a girl’s back. Amazing, but true. I have since wondered whether girls might have been even more traumatised than boys watching these things happen.
But even worse occurred elsewhere. Many years later a respected colleague told me that possibly as late as the 1970s he had been beaten at a West Country boarding school, and a fellow pupil was so severely that he bled through his trousers. We have Baroness Warnock largely to thank for ending this barbarity in primary schools. It took longer to eliminate entirely elsewhere.
Dreadful, Rowland. So sorry.
No child should have to suffer or witness such assault.😟
Janet and Jane are right. Unforgettably bad.
Growing out of the 31:8 Review, and of course previous analyses, is a clearer picture of how people were groomed. And the extent of this grooming.
We were played, all of us. At least those of us who encountered JF, or who were part of the con-evo constituency, or both. Perhaps “do as I say, not as I do” was its central mantra.
Our lives were surrendered to a tight, supposedly life-enriching control, whilst all the time, the top leader was indulging in behaviour so antithetical to the published “code” as to be almost unbelievable.
Lee Furney, the latest witness and a brave man to wave his anonymity, describes the culture of ‘golden boys’. I perhaps had a lucky escape myself meeting possibly 2 of the criteria Fletcher set for membership. Probably my public school wasn’t posh enough.
But the constituency of CE leaders has been badly lead astray. Many, perhaps most, would have been preconditioned and blind-sided by their own early experiences of (sexualised) heavy brutal physical discipline as the norm.
They knew exactly what Fletcher was doing. And couldn’t allow themselves to see it. I get why.
But now is the time to dismantle this horrible legacy of abusing control, strip away the cliquey layers of faux sincerity and fake piety and never again allow the unaccountable guru-reign to be possible again.
Wasn’t there a comment in a report to the effect that the church could have been designed to maximise the opportunities for abuse? Incumbents and Bishops alike function with practically no supervision. And not much you can do to shift them if you do know something is going on. I went to an Archdeacon with an abusive letter, and he said he couldn’t do anything!
Whether a JF survivor or a Southwark diocese one whoever said this hit the nail on the head:
Diocese was seen as spiritually dangerous, pretty hopeless and useless so why would you go to them.
The statement issued by Southwark in response to the report is complete nonsense, they are completely incapable of learning lessons. Trying to get someone to investigate systemic safeguarding failures in this diocese over decades is impossible.
For me this recommendation from the report stands out as very important:
“The Leadership Team and Trustees should review the process for the appointment of Elders. Appointment of Elders should be a transparent process and include engagement from the congregation. This creates accountability and encourages diversity.”
I was, until 4 years ago, a trustee of an independent evangelical church in the same locality as ECW, in fact a number of people who left the church over the years ended up going there – out of the frying pan into the fire! The final straw for me was when the pastor unilaterally appointed new “elders” with no consultation with the congregation. I was asked to sign a letter commending them to the church – of course I couldn’t do that in good conscience, so I resigned, and have now left.
Hi Trevor,
I would be interested in talking to you more about this offline – my email is bobmildew @ p m.me
Hi Bob, unfortunately that email address (bobmildew@pm.me – right?) is not recognised. Can you give a brief response to my comment here?
That recommendation may be appropriate for Emmanuel Church Wimbledon with its present status, but so far as I am aware there is no Canonical authority or legal basis for ‘Elders’ in the Church of England, and it is not really clear how this role has come about in some C of E churches.
Equally puzzling is how they relate to church wardens and PCCs who do have legal status, and to what extent congregations have any say in their ‘appointment’.
But these are just comments. I realise they may not be relevant to your situation and they imply no criticism of churches which are not under a bishop’s jurisdiction.
I appreciate it’s not relevant to most CofE churches. From the perspective of an independent church, elders, appointed with the consent of the congregation, are important precisely because there is no bishop or higher authority to refer to. They should enable healthy debate, and checks and balances on a pastor who could otherwise become domineering and unaccountable.
Spent some years myself in a C of E church where the vicar appointed elders (and not all that old in some cases). They seemed to be “yes people” he could shield himself behind and avoid stroppy people like me on the PCC.
On the PCC we also had those sticklers for proper procedure and law whom I grudgingly respect especially so now with the benefit of years.
There didn’t seem to be much objection to the “elders” but I suppose it’s not much different from engaging church workers and giving them some authority to do their jobs.
Nevertheless it seemed not quite right to me, even then.
I was a curate in a church where there were elders, appointed by the vicar. The vicar used to play off the PPC, elders, and staff management team off against each other. The churchwardens had very little leadership role other than counting the collection. This was a long time ago, and the church had had elders for at least 15 years before that. As far as I can see from their website, they don’t have elders now.
It was a feature of charismatic/evangelical churches, and I think part of the charismatic renewal of the 70s.
I recognise so much of the behaviour in this report from my time in South West London circles and to me also it is this culture that is the most interesting part of the report rather than what may have happened
One thing that puzzles me in the report is the characterisation of the preaching in ECW as “intellectual”. It is clearly “rational” in the sense of appealing to clear, well communicated and structured lines of reasoning in exposition (in implicit contrast to an emotional or experiential spirituality) but it is formulaic and structured, in the way of a Hollywood method actor or my son crafting a GCSE history essay to gain maximum marks by adopting the structures that he has been taught in class. There is little intellectual curiosity, anything that is not four square scripted is “unhelpful” (as laid down by the club) and so there is little room for examination.
When I did some lay preaching I was told that there is only one sermon for every text and if I depart from that I would be errant (and never asked again). Berean it is not, except within the permitted confines of the received interpretation (what I’ve heard memorably described as “tweedy Calvinism”). The circle is discplined but closed (and even inaccessible if you are a comprehensive boy like me who doesn’t have the right background)
What I was reminded of again, reading the report, was CS Lewis’s concept of the Inner Ring in “That Hideous Strength” – ” –
“this was the very first thing Mark had been asked to do… but the moment of his consent almost escaped his notice…. for him it all slipped past in a chatter of laughter, of that intimate laughter between fellow professionals, which of all earthly powers is strongest to make men do very bad things”
Nobody was bad in this case; except Fletcher, Smyth and some people who could have stopped it early. But there was an inner ring and human nature is to be attracted to it. Our leaders must be on the watch for this as they learn their lessons prayerfully
There are signs of frustration in the survivors’ world. We’re just a few days after this report and is anything going to change?
We’ve also had the SU report (such as it was) since then and again the response from the supposedly Christian organisations where said abuses arose, ranges from fudge to damp squib.
One thing this blog has done effectively, in my opinion, is to maintain a steady flow of exploratory articles. This need to continue, not just here but on other social media and in the national press and television.
As a Surviving community we will also be more effective if we act in concert. Loan voices get muted, or “unfollowed”.
And still not a word from JF! The arrogance of the man is beyond belief.
One of several surprises in the SU report about John Smyth published yesterday (at paragraph 6.27) was the fact that Jonathan Fletcher led ‘Iwerne D’ camps in Ireland.
Also some new details about Smyth, but maybe those should be on another thread. Much more has yet to be revealed.
I fear that keeping up with the abuse news has proved impossible. One report in a week is quite enough. By the time I get round to absorbing the Smyth stuff, my comments will be out of date!
Much credit must go to those who, over the years, have consistently and skilfully maintained pressure on a scourge in our churches.
There is now an increasing momentum for change, and a growing intolerance for techniques of coverup.
To become redundant owing to the ubiquitous spread of healthy worshipping communities, would be a great thing. Of course we’re a long off from that chimeric dream, but thanks for all you are doing here as part of wider honesty movement.