In Friday’s Church Times we read the story of the ‘commissioning’ of seven men to positions of leadership in conservative evangelical congregations opposed to the Living in Love and Faith (LLF) process. This commissioning is one that authorises an individual, congregationally trained, to preside over a quasi-sacramental breaking of bread and perform other tasks associated with priesthood. It took place at St Helen’s Bishopsgate and it clearly defies the canons of the Church of England. My own take on the events at St Helen’s Bishopsgate (and All Soul’s Langham Place) is not to repeat what others have said about the schismatic nature of these actions. Rather I want to think about the young men, the Bishopsgate Seven as I shall call them, who are occupying a position of ecclesiological ambiguity for the present. Their position within the structure of the C/E may eventually be regularised, but meanwhile their situation and status are outside the structures, legal and theological, that define our church. How this conundrum is resolved, whether by a formal split or some other formula, is not for me to determine. Only time will tell how this issue is to be played out.
Returning to the Bishopsgate Seven who occupy centre stage in the current drama, it is natural for us to observe how much they are all being placed in a situation of vulnerability as the result of this commissioning. Although, currently, they have the institutional blanket of All Souls and St Helen’s to protect them from challenge, the fact remains that their situation is irregular and outside the statutes and legal structures that govern the Church of England. They have allowed themselves to be clearly identified with an illegal action. Their status as commissioned quasi-ordained church leaders is not, at present, recognised by church (or state) law. The authority awarded them through the act of commissioning is entirely dependent on a protecting group of church leaders who are linked to the St Helen’s network. These churches and their leaders appear to believe that their position of being extremely wealthy and ‘orthodox’ gives them the right to usurp the lawful authority that exists in the Church. If this authorising group is challenged and the status quo of episcopal order restored, the Seven will lose whatever authority they had been granted by the commissioning event. It is not surprising that, so far, the Bishopsgate Seven have not been named. Congregations in the future may think twice about employing or appointing individuals who have been so clearly identified with an act of canonical defiance. Anonymity serves as a necessary protection for the moment, but, realistically, it can only be a matter of time before the names of the Seven leak out into the public domain.
Allowing oneself to be party to an historic act of canonical defiance carries with it risk. If you are a retired bishop, like Rod Thomas, or the Rector of a wealthy prestigious church like William Taylor at St Helen’s Bishopsgate, the risks are clearly less. You have substantial institutional power, having arrived in a position where few would dare challenge your authority, even if you are seen to be acting to undermine the integrity of the Church of England by defying its structural and canonical norms. The risks to the group of anonymous commissioned leaders, the Bishopsgate Seven, are, by contrast, substantial. If their names become associated with this canonical act of defiance, one that may be declared invalid by both church and state, these young leaders will be seen to have made, right at the start of their ministry, a poor decision and one that may blight their entire careers.
I want to think here about the motivations of the Bishopsgate Seven which allow them to accept an irregular form of commissioning at the start of their ministerial careers. Their association with St Helen’s or one of its satellites during training is likely to have given each of these men a unique sense of spiritual privilege. There was inevitably for them a considerable buzz and energy from being part of one of the most important conservative parishes in the world. They have been trained in a church which hosted the ministry of such preaching luminaries as Dick Lucas. The current Rector is also widely known and clearly possesses considerable institutional influence within many C/E conservative networks. The Seven may each hope that this being close to such heroes, past and present, will somehow rub off on their own ministries. The presence of this kind of hero worship as a dynamic of church life appears to be a significant factor in conservative evangelical circles. Conspicuously, the now discredited Jonathan Fletcher does seem to have excelled at the art of captivating and impressing large numbers of followers (groupies?), young and middle-aged, right up to the end of his authorised ministry in 2017. With his ability to exercise charisma alongside considerable patronage power right across the structures of the con-evo world, Fletcher possessed a powerful influence, one not granted even to Diocesan bishops. This institutional power was also enhanced because the theological system he operated within was always prioritising the need for inerrant truth. Theological systems which promote infallibility and leaders who claim to promote such ‘truth’ are, for their followers, very powerful indeed. Those who attach themselves to the holder of such power believe they share it in some way and are thus protected from external challenge.
The Bishopsgate Seven have each attached themselves to an institution (St Helen’s) and the leaders in the network who exercise the power that is possessed by the group. We can name two. The first is the Rector, William Taylor, and the second is the commissioning Bishop, Rod Thomas. Each of these leaders has openly identified with this act of institutional and theological defiance. Their actions will be challenged but nothing will happen to either of them in terms of their current status. Each of the Seven, on the other hand, have allowed themselves to be party to this act of defiance, confident in the power of their admired leaders to protect them. Is this trust in the leaders justified? There is something to suggest that, while both leaders named do still have considerable institutional and patronage power, their current reputation and status as respected leaders in and out of the network is being subjected to challenge. Back in June 2019, when the Jonathan Fletcher scandal erupted into public consciousness via the Daily Telegraph, there was enormous consternation in the circles where Fletcher had been such a dominant figure. Taylor, as Rector of the most prominent church in the con-evo network had little to say about the scandal of power abuse and homo-erotic behaviour at Emmanuel Wimbledon. His subsequent silence on the matter lasted over a year. He claimed at the time that he had himself heard of Fletcher’s activities only in February 2019. Rumours of improper behaviour had been flying around since 2017 and Fletcher’s PTO from the Diocese of Southwark had been withdrawn the same year. Another salient fact which challenges Taylor’s account of events, was the removal of Fletcher from the Iwerne camp in the summer of 2017. We are asked to believe that neither fragment of news had reached Taylor in 2017, even though he was actively involved with Fletcher through their common trusteeship of a charity known as St Peter’s Canary Wharf Trust (known as St Peter’s Barge). If we do accept Taylor’s testimony that, as the unofficial leader of the entire con-evo network in England, he had heard nothing of the rumours, we are led to conclude that his leadership fell short. His style of leadership evidently did not include keeping his ear to the ground and making sure, as good leaders do, that he knew what was going on in the constituency over which he had considerable control and oversight.
The part played by Rod Thomas also does not inspire us with confidence. He had entered the charmed circles of con-evo ‘royalty’ via a different route from the majority of ex-public-school Iwerne men who are prominent in these circles. He had been a member of Fletcher’s congregation in Wimbledon from the time before Fletcher arrived in 1982. He was thus able to be mentored by Fletcher as a teenager, student and ordinand right up to his appointment as bishop. We are asked to believe that Thomas saw and heard nothing untoward about the behaviour of the older man all through this long association. It is unclear whether Thomas was acting as an innocent/dupe. Whatever explanation is brought forward for his inability to see what was going at Emmanuel Wimbledon during Fletcher’s 30 year ministry there, we are not given confidence to believe that Bishop Thomas is a good observer or judge of character. Complete failure of curiosity is the most generous interpretation of the facts we can give to justify the leadership lapses shown by these two men. Other interpretations could be offered. Has the long-term identification with the St Helen’s brand, as represented by these individuals, really been a rational choice on the part of the Bishopsgate Seven?
My focus in this blog has not been about the canonical issues involved in the Bishopsgate commissioning. It is about the apparent public weaknesses in two leading men involved in the irregular commissioning that puts at risk the welfare of seven individuals. An illegal event has taken place to further a political agenda. There is a long-term struggle to make the Church of England conform to an agenda of ‘biblical orthodoxy’ which flies in the face of Anglican history and tradition. Seven idealistic young men appear have allowed themselves to be identified with this struggle. They cling to an institution and to its leaders even though there is evidence of serious past failings in this leadership. When we learned in 2020 that Taylor, as a young adult, was himself a victim of John Smyth in the notorious garden shed in Winchester, there were immediate questions as to whether Taylor could have used his direct knowledge of these events to help prevent subsequent victims in England and Africa suffering harm. Is this yet another example of the institution prevailing over the interests of individuals? Important abusive leaders, like Smyth and Fletcher, both remained unchallenged for a long period because in the conservative culture the cause of institutional power took precedence over the pain of individuals. The recent events in a London church may be a manifestation of a further example of this indifference to the true needs of ordinary people like the Bishopsgate Seven. The real goal seems to be the ambitious plan to take over the Church of England in the name of ‘biblical orthodoxy.’ The needs and welfare of individuals perhaps will always take second place to such a grand scheme and the political demands of powerful organisations.
‘BS7’! Have the lessons of Pilavachi-Smyth-Fletcher still not been learnt? People fret about the possibility of UK legal divergence and Sharia Law being given some role. But can a parallel governance exist in Anglicanism? Does the secrecy around the so-called ‘BS7’ (‘Bishopsgate Seven’ referenced above) smack of Freemasonry practice? Lots of people get sucked into the vortex of charismatic or evangelical enthusiasm, but are later spat out the other end. Let’s hope and pray the ‘BS7’ have a soft landing.
Rebelling against authority is in the DNA of evangelicals and nonconformists, as putting church unity above most other concerns is in the DNA of those from the catholic tradition. If you’re steeped in the histories of Luther, Huss, Zwingli, Wycliffe, Cranmer, Ridley, Latimer, Wesley, et al., you have a deep admiration for those who buck the established tradition and statutory authorities. This would make the SHB 7 very likely not only to agree to the regular commissioning, but to perhaps see themselves as pioneers and heroes. I suspect many others will have that view of them too.
As a note, I thought these 7 had been trained for ordination in the usual way? I think that was said when the announcement was made, though which college or training scheme wasn’t specified.
If the people behind the Bishopsgate experiment are so concerned about ‘orthodox’ teaching and praxis, why don’t they leave the CofE and humbly seek to be received into the Orthodox Church? Then, instead of a DIY experiment, they would encounter the fullness of the Christian Faith, authentically handed down from the Apostles and saints of the Church over 2000 years.
Why not? Because they view their authority as coming directly from the Bible, not mediated through or handed down by saints over 2000 years. This is the cornerstone of evangelical identity, as it was of the Reformation. 1) Every person should be able to read the scriptures for themselves, and 2) the meaning of scripture is plain and easily understood – those are their two most important principles. You can’t understand, or debate with, evangelicals without understanding that’s where they’re coming from.
And I think that’s the reason the LGBT issues stir up so much heat with so many evangelicals. The arguments (justified, in my view) that the teachings of e.g. Leviticus and Rom 1 must be understood in their literary, historical, and social contexts, militate against an ideology claiming that the teaching of scripture is plain and can be understood by the simplest and least educated of people.
It goes without saying that everything ever written must be read in context, Janet. But how does that stop the condemnation in question being extreme and without exception? Does context reverse the meaning? I don’t understand what you are saying here. It would not make sense in a gathering of NT-qualified.
Which condemnation?
I absolutely agree with you, Janet. As you know, I’m an ordinary everyday Christian who’s grown up in that ideology, and only abandoned it with great difficulty and reluctance – its all right for simple issues of ethics and morality, of a generally personal nature, but when you come into areas such as this, needing very specialised knowledge of ancient languages, it breaks down.
The whole point behind it, of course, is that the faith has to be readily understood by simple and least educated people – ‘every man his own Bible scholar’ and ‘an ordinary English ploughboy will know more of the Scriptures than the Pope’ are the famous reformers quotes.
I was only discussing this with a friend last night – about the power implicit in restricting knowledge of that sort, and, conversely, the power of encouraging false certainty based on misinformation. (Which, as we’ve seen recently, can inspire a great deal of damage and harm.) The biggest problem is keeping an essential balance.
Simple: because the OC teaches/practises things CEs don’t, and vice-versa. Agreement on this one point of ethical doctrine, plus credal orthodoxy, isn’t quite enough to make it smooth and easy to transition as you suggest, though some do make it.
A very conservative evangelical – himself a former member of the congregation at st Helen’s (now ordained in ACNA) has written extensive critiques of all this as regards leadership and safeguarding. Worth reading at least one of Nick’s posts to see some insider information – some of which is alluded to or referenced in Stephen’s post here.
https://nickhoward76.medium.com/
Hi Charles, nice to see you here. I hope you and the family are well?
Can you point us to which specific blog you mean? Most of those in the above link refer to the Stephen Sizer scandal.
This is a good place to start.
https://nickhoward76.medium.com/scandalous-justice-cb3d940b575f
Thanks! V. interesting read. Tens (or hundreds) of witnesses ignored in some Church foul ups-two to three is all that are needed etc…..
Hi Janet
Yes it is the article James links to below. I have not read the Sizer ones yet but Nick is himself a messianic Jew so comes at this from that angle.
Charles – the relevance of the Sizer scandal is that it involved many of the same people and the same patterns of behaviour as have been seen in the abuse scandals. In that regard, it is therefore very useful supporting evidence.
Exactly! Odd how justice in our courts rests on letting witness evidence speak for itself, which actually appears to be a bible-derived principle.
Yet in the modern UK, the Anglican Church (plus evangelical para-church groups), is a place where ‘2-3 witnesses’ settling a matter does not always apply. Have lots of abusers been empowered by getting away with ill-treatment of people once, then launched off on a reign of terror, confident in the inability of diocesan mechanisms to catch them.
Complaints might better be addressed to Archbishops, then passed to a totally independent diocesan system. Bishops are inevitably conflicted I suspect, when asked to discipline their own team members.
The article cited by James Mendelsohn above should be studied by everyone concerned for justice and clarity in these murky networks of con-evo coverup. Having read the detailed account of Nick Howard, one is even more concerned for the welfare of the Seven. They have all become seriously compromised, professionally and morally, by their being associated with shenanigans at St H. which are, to put it mildly, acutely dishonest. From the outside, at any rate, the right of this section of the con-evo constituency to claim the moral high ground in the CofE is decisively negated.
The article when read together with the St Helens Letter raises a lot more questions than the letter manages to answer.
A number of the items would be properly sub-judice at this point so I’ll restrict myself to the following; the leadership candidate to one of the centres of conservative evangelicalism reveals that he was once part of a cult that practiced physical chastisement … the interviewing committee doesn’t enquire further and fails to put 2 and 2 together.
‘Letters to a Broken’ is a hugely helpful book, and in particular Ian Elliott’s chapter. He noted how Irish Catholicism was transformed. Removing recalcitrant senior leaders, who tried to remain unaccountable, made a refreshing change.
Consider how the removal of Bishop Eamonn Casey’s mortal remains from Galway Cathedral is now on the agenda, this following allegations or evidence emerging of hidden child abuse. Anglicanism, as Ian Elliott rightly suggests, is simply light years behind the play on this matter.
I have liked many aspects of Justin Welby’s life and witness. But I wonder if a simple question arises: should his connection to John Smyth QC perhaps have led to his resignation or early retirement?
It perhaps need not have done, if he’d been open and honest about it earlier on. But he has continued to mislead and obfuscate, and has lost credibility. The trouble is, there is no means of calling an archbishop to account or disciplining him.
The Irish Catholic answer (as outlined by Ian Elliott) is possibly to remove senior clerics who cannot accept the need for fairness and transparency on child and adult protection. Church members and the media have more power than is imagined. The latest, just breaking, BBC report on Blackburn Cathedral, makes v interesting reading.
1 ) F D Maurice in the 19 th century explained why he didn’t join a “party”.
2 ) The allusion in Romans 1 is by way of a comment (what would the average Roman think of that). In Paul teachings are mixed up with comments.
3 ) The usual shibboleths (e.g not abandoning the synagogue members’ communion ceremonies) are about relations with synagogues and therefore relevant up to at least AD 130. The Jewish religion had more allowances made for it than other religions in the Roman Empire and St Paul teaches not to add to the tribulations of the Jews.
4 ) St Paul always teaches meanings even though it doesn’t look like it, and he names the part when intending the whole (the latter a Greek habit that I don’t like).
5 ) According to something in a source outside the Bible, the people of Sodom at one time had been operating a kind of Bed of Procrustes. The Bible is full of under- (and sometimes over-) statements. It was written this way to catch out those who don’t want us to seek meanings. Human life is an 80,000 year history.
6 ) For the reborn, Holy Spirit belief is the only real orthodoxy and power for conduct in life’s contingencies, and not “influencing”.
7 ) In all (real) language and ontology, the word is never the thing.
8 ) Through the accommodation by a once non-mainstream part of evangelicalism (“influencing”), the Freud / Nash paradigm (ignoring virtue and Holy Spirit living while elevating vague and all-encompassing “orientations”) has been imposed on sociologists and other authorities in many regions of the world, with attendant decline in relating.
9 ) Scriptures became rewritten, both in ink (ESV) and in commentary and altered spin. Jesus’ words, “when you do this (up to at least 130 AD), do it in memory of Me” were intended to mean: remembering the gifts that are in the others.