by Hatty Calbus
Something common to the recent abuse scandals in the Church of England has been a connection with HTB. The latest is with Mike Pilavachi and Soul Survivor, whose evangelising success and closeness used to be hymned by Nicky Gumbel. https://x.com/god_loves_women/status/1658531348347342848?s=61&t=Ao5_W_2mTy-7Nu6qyWc4Mw Much of this is well known, but drawing out connections needs the background. The network is so dense I’m likely to have missed links. (And it might be better represented diagrammatically, if anyone would like to have a go.)
The Iwerne Evangelical summer camps were founded for boys and youths from the best public schools by EJ Nash (‘Bash’ – 1898-1982, Trinity College, Cambridge, curate at Emmanuel Church, Wimbledon). Nash was succeeded by Revd David Fletcher (1932), whose brother Jonathan Fletcher (1942, curate at St Sepulchre’s/the Round Church, Cambridge 1972-76), like Pilavachi, was granted a longterm abuser’s fiefdom, in his case at Emmanuel Church. Jonathan Fletcher attended Iwerne from 1955-2017 (many facts here come from Andrew Graystone’s book Bleeding for Jesus). John Smyth (1941, Jesus College, Cambridge, lawyer) was chairman of the Iwerne Trust from 1974-81. He and Jonathan Fletcher both felt entitled to indulge a taste for homoerotic sadism, exploiting many youths in their spiritual care, who were manipulated into massages and/or naked beatings.
Within that elite world, the existence of both groups of prey was an open secret for decades. But Smyth died in 2018 saved by other best-public-school-Christians from the justice system. An inquiry has, to say the least, lacked urgency. Fletcher was only finally investigated when victims resorted to the press. A hushed up investigation into Smyth in 1982 (by coincidence, the year Fletcher arrived in Wimbledon), was carried out by Mark Ruston (1916, Jesus College, Cambridge, vicar at St Sepulchre’s/the Round Church, Cambridge). Justin Welby (1956, Eton, Trinity College, Cambridge) was a Iwerne ‘officer’ (it was all very military and manly) who gave talks. He lodged with Ruston in Cambridge and was mentored by him. Ruston also mentored Jonathan Fletcher. Fletcher in turn mentored both Welby and Nicky Gumbel (1955, Eton, Trinity College, Cambridge, ex-lawyer).
A pronounced Iwerne and HTB senior-clergy duplication is joined by the overlap of both with Eton and Cambridge, especially Trinity College (“filthy rich,” says The Tab), which occurs so often I’ll now abbreviate it to TCC. There are HTB’s three vicars up to 2017: John Collins (1925-2022, Clare College, Cambridge), Sandy Millar (1939, Eton, TCC, ex-lawyer), who put Welby forward for ordination, Nicky Gumbel (1955, Eton, TCC, ex-lawyer) and Gumbel’s close friend from school Nicky Lee (1954, Eton, TCC) who was associate vicar. There’s also former curate John Irvine (1949, ex-lawyer), involved in the early Alpha course who led HTB’s first ‘plant’. And Welby, having been brought to faith at TCC by Lee, was a lay leader at HTB, mentored by Collins and put forward for ordination by Millar.
Revd John Stott (1921-2011, TCC), an adjutant and camp secretary at Iwerne, was not at HTB, but is much cited by Gumbel. Millar was not at Iwerne, but was a lawyer contemporary of Smyth’s at Cambridge. Bishop Richard Chartres (1947, TCC) was not at Iwerne, but attended HTB’s Focus holiday every year, and like Millar, Welby, Gumbel and Lee was at TCC. Welby, Gumbel and Lee were Eton and TCC contemporaries and friends.
And then there are the Colmans. Sue Colman (1959) was a curate at HTB. She and her husband Jamie (1958, Eton, lawyer) donated Malsanger Park, which HTB described as its “home in the country.” Jamie Colman was at Eton with Welby, Gumbel and Lee, preceded by Millar. He was mentored by Smyth. Irvine, Millar and Gumbel were lawyers before they were HTB clergy, Jamie Colman was a lawyer married to HTB clergy. And Smyth was also a lawyer, the professional and Church connection with Jamie Colman leading him and his wife having to admit to giving Smyth hundreds of thousands of pounds over nearly thirty years till 2017, “despite knowing that the barrister had admitted beating boys and showering naked with them.” https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/10/colmans-mustard-heir-admits-charity-funded-child-abuse-barrister/ Gumbel appointed Sue Colman safeguarding minister at HTB. Smyth and his wife stayed in the flat of another lawyer – fellow barrister, HTB lay leader and friend of Gumbel, Jane Auld, in 2016.
I wrote previously about Timothy Storey’s abuse. He is in prison for abusing girls as young as thirteen. The vicar at his hunting ground, St Michael’s, Belgravia, was Charles Marnham (1951, Jesus College, Cambridge). Marnham was previously the HTB curate who devised the Alpha Course. I have not been able to discover if he is another Iwerne alumnus. St Michael’s is a small church, but Marnham apparently not only noticed nothing amiss with his youth worker’s behaviour with girls, but made him responsible for safeguarding training. After Storey’s convictions, he made no statement and still saw no need to put any safeguarding information on the church’s website.
One victim told the church authorities of her abuse and Storey was withdrawn from ordination training but was employed as administrative assistant in a London parish. When one of the victims reported her rape, she had received the response that the Church must consider Storey’s “welfare and needs.” https://www.churchtimes.co.uk/articles/2016/26-february/news/uk/diocese-admits-safeguarding-failure-over-rapist-ordinand A further senior clergyman to put Storey before his victims, Hugh Valentine (1956) was the diocesan safeguarding adviser. https://www.iicsa.org.uk/reports-recommendations/publications/investigation/anglican-church/pen-portraits.html There was a curate at HTB, John Valentine (1963), who prior to that was at St Michael’s with Marnham. He was only at HTB two years and may be completely blameless, and unrelated to Hugh Valentine, but given how it works, relationship looks likely.
And there is one final, significant lawyer: Jonathan Coad. Like Marnham and Ruston, he is a graduate of Jesus College, Cambridge, former bass player in the band at HTB, bass player at an HTB plant. Described by Private Eye as a “legal bruiser,” he advertises his services as “protecting top brand and corporate reputations” and is currently helping Soul Survivor, whose “brand” has been rather damaged by Pilavachi. “A grateful Justin Welby” – in Coad’s words – has been another client. Private Eye reported that Welby “likes to point out that the church’s central safeguarding budget has grown exponentially under his leadership” – without mentioning that the criteria for giving compensation to survivors have been tightened and ten times less money has been spent on them than lawyers.
The density of the connections might distract from the wider question of why HTB has links to all four recent Anglican abuse scandals. Within the network, there are those who might be called ‘abuse adjacent’ and there is the question of complicity and collusion. Some will protest, “Guilt by association!” – but their world is tightly tribal, which has worked mostly to their advantage. Apart from the institutional bonds, there is the supper party circuit. A common feature of abuse is those nearby not knowing. But there are always people denying, avoiding, minimising, deflecting, rationalising, seeing without seeing, hearing without hearing. https://www.premierchristianity.com/features/soul-survivors-the-inside-story-of-how-mike-pilavachis-abuse-was-uncovered/17824.article And, to state the obvious, particular responsibility lies with those in positions of responsibility. There’s a sharp comment in the Meghan Markle drama Suits. When a director pleads he didn’t know about some fraud, one of the hotshot Harvard lawyers retorts, “It was his goddam job to know.”
It might be said that those who don’t see abusers as abusers won’t see their victims as victims – and recognise their devastation. This can become all too clear when the abuse finally gets exposed. The senior leader in this network is obviously Welby. Gumbel has no hierarchical role but certainly a very elevated unofficial position and, with his leadership conferences, leadership courses and leadership podcast, could surely have something expected from him. He wrote of Fletcher in 2012, “My admiration for Jonathan knows no bounds.” Graystone says Smyth and Welby exchanged Christmas cards till the mid-nineties and Private Eye has reportedthatWelby also sent Smyth money. https://x.com/frstevenhilton/status/1813710323410706754?s=61&t=Ao5_W_2mTy-7Nu6qyWc4Mw Both Gumbel and Welby were then clergy. When everything came out, Welby did speak belatedly, and, victims said, inadequately, about Smyth. His eventual comments to Premier Radio about Pilavachi seemed oddly inarticulate and again inadequate (“Here was a youth work that was remarkable on the appearance, but was abusive, deeply abusive, internally … there was abuse. We need to be honest about that. We need to be transparent. I, from all that I hear and are going on asking questions. The work on transparency is being well done.”) There seems to be no record of any comment of his about Fletcher and Storey’s protracted abuses, which also continued far into the era of safeguarding procedures.
Gumbel has made no comment about Pilavachi, despite victims being part of HTB’s ‘family’. https://x.com/drstevelewis/status/1778074172406595726?s=61&t=Ao5_W_2mTy-7Nu6qyWc4Mw Nor, despite his Iwerne involvement, did he make a statement showing concern for Smyth or Fletcher’s victims. And there is his close connection with the Colmans, who were so invested in Smyth. When a woman was raped at HTB’s Focus holiday in 2018, the police said she was receiving support from specialist officers. The church issued a cold little statement saying it was a police matter. As a former lawyer, Gumbel would have known he could express pastoral care without prejudicing the case. After the revelations comes absence.
Welby comes from HTB and has made it central to the future of the Church – despite the money and megachurch influence I previously tried to show are safeguarding red flags, despite Revitalise patron Chartres with his terrible safeguarding record and despite links to the four recent Anglican abuse scandals. The problem is not Welby and Gumbel’s vulnerability when they were very young to Iwerne, but their apparent fear, as powerful adults, of facing what abuse is and does. The robbed, beaten victim bleeds in the road while the priest looks the other way and keeps walking.
It just keeps on, doesn’t it? Never any resolution, never any justice, never any changes. I find it so, so depressing.
It’s what used to be commonly referred to as a “closed shop”. It’s not good for us, obviously not good for the multitude of victims, and I would argue, not much good for the members of the elite either.
The remarkable intersection of top public schools, Iwerne alumni, attendance at TCC (other colleges are available) landed gentry and law school populates the top echelons of HTB, an elite “virtual diocese” now, controlling what remains of the Church of England. Almost anything goes. They’ve recently codified the leadership of non ordained people I gather in celebrating communion? No one has the power to stand up to the ruling caucus.
If you think you can rise to the top and join them from elsewhere, I’d forget it. Many will carry on trying.
When people are chosen and favoured less by ability and more by where they went to school it’s really ultimately bad news for all. I resent what they’re doing a lot less because I have some insight into how elitism works. Many of these chaps are unsuited to their leadership responsibilities. Weakness is the predominant observation. I’m almost embarrassed for them, the decisions they’re not taking when they obviously should. Their lack of ability would get them fired in a competitive business environment. The “club” is a vital protective shield they all depend on.
That’s not to say there isn’t gifting there. There often is. But as has been frequently argued here, gifting is no guarantee of good character, of honesty or morality. Often there’s an inverse correlation.
I’m certain these aren’t the right people to be running the Church. As much as anything else, the continuing safeguarding blunders are driving more people away as public scrutiny grows. The vast Soul Survivor “leadership training academy” must be questioning the very foundations of what they’re preaching.
Roman Catholicism is possibly further down the trajectory on abuse discovery. Catholicism may be turning the corner, with all parties now largely accepting the need for robust inquiry processes. Ian Elliott’s chapter 5 of ‘Letters to a Broken Church’ contrasts this progress with the dire situation in Anglicanism. I used to feel saddened at Church collapse and reduced numbers of Anglicans. But is this an inevitable consequence of grotesque ill-treatment of people? Older people maybe stay put, but with limited future commitment of time or money. But do younger victims (lay members, ministry trainees, junior clergy) often leave entirely? We must hope that younger victims of ill-treatment do not give up on the quest for real spirituality.
One significant name missing from this otherwise excellent blog is that of William Taylor of St Helen’s Bishopsgate , currently leading a secession of this faction from those of us not wishing to become part of a Bash Nash Tribute Band
There is only a pusillanimous response from the current timorous leadership.
Really strong Christians do not run in fear the abusers and their enablers, they stand up for the victims, call out the complicit, and are prepared to pay the price of integrity and humble discipleship.
I was once sent an email from one of the followers of this theology in which the writer said that following them made her feel like an “elite Christian”.
I could not have put it better myself.
Far better to wash the feet of the poor.
The conservative evangelical arm is largely diametrically away from anything Charismatic like HTB obviously, although how genuinely Charismatic most congregations are, is debatable.
The conevo world has its own dynamics, with a tendency to disaggregate and isolate into discrete seemingly self-contained centres like StHB, JPC, or ASLP. However high level thinking is shared. Whilst the Charismatic/HTB arm is takeover mergers and acquisitions-ville.
It’s also fascinating to see central characters in both wings of evangelicalism sharing the same antecedents, such as Iwerne.
Politically senior bods tend to do “soft left” publicly, on the one hand but take funding from the right wing part owner of GB News on the other.
On which note, see the article from Prospect Magazine a few issues ago:
https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/ideas/media/65415/the-marshall-plan-paul-marshall-gb-news
Thanks! Does-‘The Widow’s Mite’-perhaps come to mind?
Another link is that many Iwerne alumni trained for Anglican ministry at Wycliffe Hall in Oxford. Nicky Gumbel was there at the same time as me, along with John Cook, Angus Macleay, and a number of others who became conservative evangelical leaders. David and Jonathan Fletcher trained there too, as did John Irvine.
Incidentally, the noted Iwerne alumnus, evangelist, and renewal pioneer David Watson was a curate with John Collins – but in a working class parish. How many Iwerne alumni now would be prepared to serve in a poor or deprived area? I hope there are still a few.
David Watson preached at Jesmond on The Rich Fool, easily 45 years ago. I was struck by his humanity then, and the vivid scene of an enormous balloon which he gradually inflated, only to be pricked at the culmination of his discourse. I’ve never forgotten it, although I struggle to remember what I had for breakfast.
Watson became a Charismatic, which bewildered us at the time.
An authentic concern for the poor would go a long way In today’s Church, whichever persuasion we might be.
Luxury rectories or church halls and other buildings have drained people’s pockets. Yet are the poor the real priority when we read the gospel?
Luxury rectories? I haven’t seen one of those.
In the late 1980s the Church of England published a report led by the late Bp David Sheppard, called ‘Bias to the Poor’. It argued that the gospels, and the Bible in general, do indeed prioritise the poor. That’s my reading too.
They’ve been showing their biases for years now: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/analysis-and-features/god-s-bankers-how-evangelical-christianity-is-taking-a-hold-of-the-city-of-london-rsquo-s-financial-institutions-2270393.html
“Actually, in this day and age, if someone earns £1m, I mean firstly you’re giving 80 to 85 per cent away in taxes – income tax, national insurance, VAT – then you provide for your family’s education, shelter, warmth; at the end of the day, there’s not much left for what you might call yourself.”
Christians are in the thick of the City. Some have fabulous wealth and many end up at London churches. Because the Church eyes their money so gleefully, and accepts their tithes voraciously, it cannot then turn round and critique the origins of this wealth. Neither can it allow them or us to feel at all uncomfortable about it all.
Those of their number with a predisposition to running things soon realise they can call the shots. And they do. It’s one large cosy club, the entrance requirement being an expected largesse with the debit card.
Funny how the tiny 2005-‘MakePovertyHistory’-booklet by Nicky Gumbel does not appear to frequently refer to banks or large corporate players. Are evangelical Church problems often produced-exacerbated-sustained by over-confidence, and a lack of humility on issues where leaders have limited insight or knowledge?
Interesting it’s assumed people will pay for their children’s education – and that’s put ahead of shelter and warmth. It says a lot about that culture.
I was at Cambridge in the period when David Watson became charismatic. He had a tremendous influence on the Christian . I shared a set of rooms with 2 others. One of them, who unlike myself and the other, had attended a prestigious public school got the charismatic bug and would be singing in tongues at 3am. The other 2 of us went to speak to Mark Ruston as it confused us. I suppose my distrust of the charismatic style stems from there. I am now a liberal catholic which is far more amenable to me.
True safeguarding requires a suspicious mind and a recognition that abusers look for weak adult insiders – “beacons”, some call them – to cultivate in order to gain access to vulnerable children, youths, and adults. This is true for current, socially popular gnostic movements, as well as “charismatics”, “school chums”, “conservatives”, or any other group relying on in-group approval. Abusers will become doctors, priests, youth workers, sports coaches, trusted administrators; spend years in voluntary work; do whatever it takes to be accepted as “one of us” and have one’s “peccadillos” or “private struggles” or “siding with the marginalised” left unquestioned. It helps that
male solidarity is so engrained in power structures inside as well as outside the church.
No organisation dealing with vulnerable people is immune from the duty to be aware of their own vulnerability to be exploited, nor is exempt from the duty to know there is no sacred caste. Above all, safeguarding requires respect for the vulnerable: and that is lacking in church leadership.
Welcome, Vinaigrette Girl! And well said. Good to have you with us.
I actually think everybody is ‘vulnerable’, and that future Church policy should reflect this. ‘Letters to a Broken Church’ changed my perspective in a lot of ways. Chapter 5 by Ian Elliott is only 4-5 pages but it’s an excellent read. The Anglican adult and child protection problem is possibly not akin to-‘malfunctioning radar’-(or the threshold for suspicion being set wrongly). It’s maybe far worse than that! The Bible directs us to follow the evidence of 2-3 witnesses. Letting the evidence speak for itself is what secular courts and inquiries do. Why can the Church not let this happen? The victim numbers in some situations are incredibly large. Is evidence on a large scale “missed” or “suppressed”? The article above by Hatty Calbus is very interesting.
David Watson had a warmth about him which I found compelling. It contrasted markedly with other experiences of my childhood. Others felt this too and we were taken down to York partly to sample a service at his church there. Watson was away speaking somewhere else! The service at St Ms seemed way over the top and it was a decade or two before I seriously explored the Charismatic world. However I didn’t forget the warmth.
What you see on stage is not necessarily the same as the speaker in private. The tendency amongst each of the 3 Anglican genres mention here, is to “roll out” more of the same. If a speaker is great, platform him (rarely her). Do a big mission. Enable a year-for-Christ. Expand. Expand. Expand.
I was drawn in by the Christian healing ministry and by musical worship. Ironically, David Watson had poor health and died before his time. He mentioned in his book “Fear no evil” how he believed God was trying to speak through his suffering to say that he wanted intimacy with David, and not so much David’s [grand] Ministry. In this still small voice God was finally present. Somehow in the razzmatazz this lesson was quickly forgotten by me, and perhaps by many others.
Did David Watson, John Stott and Michael Green have a gigantic influence, often with people who never heard them speak? One of their positive features, as someone who valued and still treasures their books, was a humility expressed around some of their own life troubles.
Therein, possibly, lies the difference when looking at major evangelical Anglican abuse scandals. Authoritarian abusers were gifted an open door to do what they liked, when their bullying was not initially confronted. A licence to do as they please, with a spiritual flag flying, was about much more than individual or isolated abusers.
The support network meant to protect was invisible and/or ineffective. The collapse in the Anglican Church is not related to a few high profile abuse cases running in the tabloids. The everyday abuse and exploitation of adults may leave a far bigger problem across the denomination.
Catholic background writers or commentators have sometimes alluded to this. The sexual abuse of children or vulnerable young adults is a demonic sin, but any group slack enough to let this get hidden probably takes even less interest in everyday bullying of ordinary adult church members.
Secularisation of society leaves many Christians as ‘the-odd-person-out’ among family-neighbours-colleagues. When bullied or savagely ill-treated, after years of decades of quiet witnessing, and forced out of churches and church groups, the result can be quite devastating. ‘I told you so…’ becomes the message back from friends-colleagues-neighbours.
My University CU (Southampton) booked Watson for an evangelistic mission in around 1973 … sadly he had to pull out at the last minute due to ill-health and a local minister stepped in as substitute. So I never heard him.
Thank for your memories of David Watson. I heard him speak at a mission to Oxford University in 1974. I was in fact not terribly impressed but I can speak of a kind of purity and innocence about those far off days when no one seemed to be building empires of power. There was also no big speakers going round receiving love offerings and getting rich. Even in the cold light of history, sex scandals had not, seemingly, yet been invented though, no doubt they existed. In other words ‘charismatic power’ did not translate into other less savoury expressions as is often true of today. In another blog piece, I expressed the belief that John Wimber had some of the last century innocence, whatever we may think of his teaching.
As an undergraduate in York in the 1970s I heard David Watson on many occasions and welcomed him to the University to speak. He was a remarkable person of clear, sincere and humble faith with a wonderful gift for communication. As a young adult in my late teens and early twenties he had a huge impact but no one revered him or given celebrity treatment. He was also open about his vulnerability to depression and the realities of doubt. I believe he would have been horrified at the behaviour of those who have now been exposed as abusive.
One other thread that runs through this story is the anti-intellectualism of many of those involved. Nash was openly dismissive of theological study and there is a strong tendency to dismiss rigorous intellectual enquiry or questioning as ‘liberal’ and therefore dangerous. How is it possible that so many have been through Cambridge or Oxford and yet remain theologically so weak?
Anti-intellectualism is indeed a common thread in this.
I was at the heart of the network described in this post .. brought to faith by Jonathan Fletcher (to whom, despite everything, I therefore have an abiding gratitude), nurtured by Iwerne, a member of CICCU in the ‘seventies, a lodger in Mark Ruston’s house.
But my reading theology for a first degree was regarded as decidedly suspect (all that liberal influence!), as was made very clear in a remarkably unpleasant conversation with David Fletcher, following which I severed all connexion with the Iwerne network.
The conversation was a ‘disciplinary breakfast’ .. I’ve not seen those mentioned in the threads yet .. engineered by Mark Ruston in his kitchen because I’d had the temerity to become engaged at the tender age of twenty-one, rather than committing myself more single-mindedly to the Lord’s work.
I find it so puzzling, so ironic, and so desperately sad, that these flawed men – often (homo)sexually repressed – did both so much good and so much damage. But I remain deeply grateful to God for what they did for me.
Very fair points, John, and thanks for sharing them. Like so many of the issues raised, there are layers of complexity. Evangelicalism is strong on apologetics and bold on presentation. Lots of us are first drawn by the witness of evangelicals, yet perhaps grow wary of some elements with time and experience.
Ambivalence can be a point of extra pain for some abuse victims. Many years ago, a university tutor described the pain of some abuse victims they had encountered.
They noted how isolated and neglected younger people can be vulnerable, and at times face this perverse problem. Naming and shaming of an abuser can simultaneously bring painful proceedings, plus remove a person who engaged with a highly vulnerable person and gave them attention which they craved or needed.
On first hearing this it seemed crazy, but decades later I start to see what the tutor meant. It was not condoning abuse, but realistically considered a wider picture present at times, where ambivalent feelings can be harder to deal with for some victims.
Bullies need to be confronted, but the consequences are not always easy to manage.
I suspect another twist is at work. Some evangelical para-church groups do wonderful inner-city work with deprived children. A formula soaked in discipline pays a dividend. But when that authoritarian approach is transferred to managing adult groups it just brings pain and problems.
The ‘disciplinary breakfast’: that’s a new one for me, but I can just imagine it!
I encountered JF at university, and felt positive and unquestioning about his ministry. Many decades later I’m re-evaluating a great deal of what I grew up with.
You raise a very important point with your reference to ‘re-evaluating’ (y)our early experience of believing – perhaps worth an article to itself on this site.
It saddens me that, entirely understandably, some of those who post in these threads have given up on the church because of negative experience of some of its ministers. And conversely, as a retired vicar myself, my deepest regrets are about those (probably more in mumber than I know) whose faith I have hindered rather than helped because of my own shortcomings.
(These are structural as well as personal issues – the way the church allows, or even encourages, insufficiently-accountable personality-based ministry. Allied to the vulnerable trustingness of a new convert, or indeed any young believer, that’s fertile ground for abusive behaviour.)
Part of Christian maturing is, surely, to become increasingly less dependent on any other Christian – especially these spiritual parent-figures (“Call no man ‘Father'”) – and more truly dependent on God alone. The church’s role should be to foster that process .. and yet so often the most ‘successful’ churches appear to be those who most infantilise their members!
Einstein allegedly commented: ‘Honour your master, Jesus Christ, not only with words and songs but, rather, foremost through your deeds’. Perhaps good advice for charismatic-evangelical groups, and Bishops failing to deal with ill-treatment of people?
Sad, sad, sad. As a young convert back in the 70’s I really believed, and hoped that the radical charismatic movement was indeed the wonderful ‘new thing’ we were promised. How soon did the vision fade, and the realisation of betrayal set in? (That’s a long, long story.) I met David Watson once and liked him – he was human and believable.
The real rot set in with the Restoration movement, Watchman Nee and others – what had begun as a rediscovery of intimacy with God suddenly became a takeover with very militaristic overtones seeking to impose a first century world order on those Christians who were ‘serious about God’, ‘born of the spirit’ etc – ‘come ye apart and be holy’ (I think that was Martin Lloyd Jones’ call.) David realised what the danger was and opposed it, only to see his wife forced out of leadership at St M’s while he was in New Zealand.
This latest incident with CEEC is straight out of the same mould – a pre-planned take over and a seizure of power in the name of ‘pure religion’ (which, didn’t someone say, was to care for the poor, the widow and the orphan?) in order to impose a crude, very authoritarian fundamentalism on the church. The arrogance of William Taylor’s latest statement is unbelievable – anyone who doesn’t think like ‘us’ is impure, faithless and ‘failed’. What happened to humility?
As Hattie makes clear, an elitist, wealthy, public school and Oxbridge ‘establishment’ clique (I won’t repeat the crude expression which comes to mind) is seeking to reassert its dominance. And, in the process, conniving at protecting criminals and denying justice to their poor victims. All power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
At the moment I feel there’s more integrity and honest dealing in the Freemasons and the daily ‘Morning Star’. At least you know where you are with them!
Doesn’t the epistle of James give some pretty clear advice – and a few dire warnings – to people like this, about what is awaiting for them? And for those who curry friendship with rich abusers? Ah, but of course, we only choose, and believe the bits we like. The Holy Spirit is only in the business of comforting the comfortable after all.
As someone said to me on Sunday morning, taxing the toff-factories out of existence can’t come soon enough.
Forgive my sarcasm – I’ve had enough of these pious frauds. Where is St Francis of Assisi when we need him? And why is the ‘same mighty power which raised Christ from the dead, at work in us’ so helplessly weak in the face of church cliques and corruption? It all makes me feel I’ve been wasting my life living for Christ this last 53 years.
You haven’t been wasting your life in living for Christ. It’s people like you who show up how far from following the carpenter of Galilee these arrogant, power-hungry people really are.
“Experience is a great teacher but the fees are expensive” etc….. Many of us have been ill-treated, deceived, humiliated and exploited. Participating in the visible Church inevitably means potential for immense joy and pain.
Romans 16 has a brief and humble-‘self reference’-from Tertius. A few lines earlier we read: ‘I urge you, brothers and sisters, to watch out for those who cause divisions and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned. Keep away from them. For such people are not serving our Lord Christ, but their own appetites. By smooth talk and flattery they deceive the minds of naive people.’
There are two interesting observations (or questions) looking at the report above, which on initial consideration might appear to fuse or be in conflict. Some abusers have been elite intellectuals, with powers of persuasion and deception. Yet in the case of the Anglican Church, has the method of abuse concealment often been elementally simple? Spiritual abuse by senior leaders is uncomplicated in essence: “We have the truth, we are appointed by God, anyone who opposes us is a ‘troublemaker’ and needs to be evicted from the Church.” The official Anglican Church (sham) antidote appears to embrace a huge complexity of reports and committees.
I think what we are possibly up against is very clever people using primeval simplicity to silence and sideline critics. A lesson from-‘Letters to a Broken Church’-is the Chapter 5 section about a lack of Anglican will to evict Archbishops or Bishops found to have covered up abuse. Ian Elliott contrasts this with progress in Irish Catholicism.
Will Bishop Eamonn Casey-‘rise from the dead’-out of Galway Cathedral crypt? That Irish Catholicism sees a need to discuss the question points to the progress made there. We must hope and pray that Anglicanism makes momentum in the same positive direction………
Does the Anglican Church display cowardice in the face of abuse being uncovered?
The Bishop of Down and Dromore (David McClay) made a public apology after a Dec 2023 compensation settlement. One victim of Canon W G Neely received £100,000. Yet have neither David McClay, nor Ireland’s Anglican Primate (John McDowell), made any statements actually naming Canon W G Neely?
Does the rot in protection of adults and children reach to the very top? ‘IRISH TIMES NOTES 27 APR 2020 Church of Ireland Notes from ‘The Irish Times’ has a ‘New Primate’ report. One line reads: ‘The new Primate is a native of East Belfast where his faith was nurtured in Mount Merrion parish where the rector was the late Canon Billy Neely.’ A simple question for the Primate: is that a reference to CANON W G NEELY?
PS – Sorry, folks. It is James chapters 4 and 5 I was thinking of, not John. I will say no more!
I don’t claim to know much about this, but safeguarding, TTC and the CofE have a rather poor recent track record as well, in another interesting little offshoot to all of the above, if you care to look.
Much that masquerades as Church is pretty dire.
May I repeat a claim that this space is church. A respectful, cordial (usually) thoughtful and considerate meeting of souls. We wrestle with the struggles of our faith. In doing so, and in mutual support, we worship together. Personally I value greatly the diverse contributions we share here. Thanks to all and to God.
The blog article above becomes more topical after reading page 40 of the 19th July to 1st Aug Private Eye. It asks about a Justin Welby connection to John Smyth QC…………
The Private Eye article James refers to alleged that Justin Welby gave donations to John Smyth even after learning of the abuse. As far as I know no denial has been issued from Lambeth Palace.
Hatty Calbus, greetings from Australia. Magnificent article. The smoking gun re Welby is still lost in the haze from my first skim through
What advocates and Criminologists are currently working on in is data mapping. We take data from sources such as public records Broughtons press articles and Royal Commission and State enquiries then data match not only names of offenders but names of those who enabled them or were on post with them to build a map of the grey networks of enablers of criminal abuse as well as links between offenders.
The work has currently mapped links between abusing RC clerics and religious and those who enabled them . It’s being done by Dr Jodi Death at the University of Queensland based on FBI data and intelligence mapping data which created grey network maps linked to organised crime.
A similar project using available IICSA data could be used to expose not only the Iwerne and Pivalacci linkages but hot zones within Anglo Catholic provinces eg Chichester Oxford Cambridge ( Lambeth oversight) the insidious SSC Forward in Faith and the other usual suspects.
Your writing in this space is magnificent.
Thank you, Richie. I’m very interested to learn more about this. Would it be possible for you to DM me on Twitter/X?
Hi Hatty
Will do. The really positive thing that happened with the research was it also involved victim-survivors coming forward with support in Newcastle Australia.
The researchers also did a pilot project based from data in Victoria based around evidence that was put forward to the Victorian State enquiry which preceded our national Royal Commission.
Previous to this there was only one advocacy group Broken Rites that listed known Catholic abusers. From my initial research it seems in the UK a central list of known abusers has not really been attempted.
R