This blog post has been updated with a message from the conference organiser Jaqui Wright.
53 years ago, at an important meeting of the National Assembly of Evangelicals in London, John Stott, the unofficial leader of all evangelical Anglicans in Britain, resisted strong pressures encouraging him and his fellow evangelicals to leave the national Church. Many conservative Anglicans, both inside and outside the Church of England, wanted to be part of a new trans-denominational evangelical body. Stott successfully persuaded Anglican evangelicals to stay and remain part of the Church of England. Although he was successful in resisting this pressure, there is still a tendency among many conservative Christians to sit lightly on their Anglican membership and seek links with other groupings. Some, such as GAFCON or the Anglican Mission in England (AMiE), have the Anglican name in the titles, while possessing a somewhat loose connection to the official structures of the Church of England or the Anglican Communion. Keeping many such disparate groups together within the broad tent of Anglicanism has, over the years, been a challenging task for Church leaders. Next year we will see once again the gathering of the world-wide Anglican Communion bishops at Lambeth 2020. The many divisions that currently exist will once again be exposed to full view. One wonders if a Conference of this kind will ever be able to be held again.
What I have been describing is a Church where centrifugal forces and pressures towards schism are constantly in evidence. There is, however, one particular facet of the Church’s life which holds things together in spite of a constant tendency to fragment. I am not referring to the Church’s position within English law or the resources of the Church Commissioners to provide pensions for those who serve in salaried posts. No, the unity of the Church is made possible because of the work of bishops. Bishops do not normally allow themselves to get involved when congregations hive off into semi-autonomous units, but they do take an interest when cases of immoral conduct emerge. The power they have in this situation is important. They can and do withdraw licences and permissions to officiate. Those with PTOs are particularly vulnerable to having their ability to take services withdrawn. There is no appeal against this action as far as I know and it is an instrument of real and effective power granted to bishops. In effect it gives every diocesan bishop the right to decide who and who is not able to act as his/her representative in the parishes of the diocese.
In January 2017 the Bishop of Southwark, no doubt after months (years?) of enquiry, withdrew the PTO from Jonathan Fletcher, a retired priest living in London. This event attracted absolutely no attention outside the circles occupied by Fletcher. However, within the circles of his influence, it was a seismic event. Jonathan Fletcher is a major player in the group called Renew. Renew is the brainchild of William Taylor, Rector of St. Helen’s Bishopsgate. It currently comprises churches affiliated to it, and what was formerly Reform (co-founded by Jonathan Fletcher), AMiE (plants churches outside C of E), and Church Society (education and patronage society). Renew has an annual conference and regular regional groups led by ministers Taylor selects. The most recent conference included an international GAFCON speaker – signalling Taylor’s desire to extend his Renew control to that movement in its English expression. All Souls is a crown appointment, so not a CS church. But it is a Renew church by affiliation. Robin Weekes, the current Vicar of Emmanuel Wimbledon, Fletcher’s old church, chairs the Southwark Renew group of ministers. All these networks are inextricably connected, apparently under the control of William Taylor.
The action of the Bishop of Southwark against Fletcher had an instant effect within this constituency of Renew where it could be seen as threat to the considerable power exercised by its leaders. The wealthy parishes within it and the patronage and influence they exert through the institutions under their control means that Renew and it leaders have substantial power in the Church of England as a whole. The Renew group could be said to have a control almost equivalent to the House of Bishops. The scandal of Fletcher’s suspension could be seen to be a major threat to this continuing influence.
In June this year, the Daily Telegraph published an account of the background to the story of Fletcher’s suspension. This spoke of sexual misconduct and spiritual abuse. I do not propose to go over that material again. The reaction after the breaking of the Telegraph story had two parts. First of all, apart from very brief press statements from the Renew leaders, there was a rather unconvincing ‘apology’ from Fletcher himself. He apologised for harm done but claimed not to know who were his victims. His former parish in Wimbledon also offered a help-line for his victims. The second reaction we noted on this blog was the way that the Internet suddenly seemed to eliminate all mentions of Fletcher, including his sermons and other references to his existence. It was as though someone (with power) had made a decision to make him disappear. Somebody somewhere was alarmed by the exposure of this story and was hoping very much that it would go away. Thus, the story remains left hanging in the air and little new information has been allowed to leak out over the past months. But when an individual of influence appears to have been misbehaving over thirty plus years, it is hard to see that new material will not eventually come trickling out.
A new twist in the story has arisen this past week. It relates not to Fletcher himself but rather to an apparent state of disarray among the current leading members of the Renew network. The current point of interest concerns a day conference for May 2020 entitled ‘Church as a Refuge’ to be held at All Souls Langham Place but promoted by the Church Society, the education arm of Renew. It is featuring as a main speaker Dr Diane Langberg from the States. She is a top-notch speaker and an expert on Complex Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and the way that it is often found in cases of child sexual abuse.
An organisation which sponsors a conference on this theme is to be commended. It extends the Church’s knowledge and understanding of how to deal with past abuses. To quote the publicity sent out by Ros Clark, the conference is designed ‘to enable better understanding of power, control and abuse within the Church’. When the conference was first announced it contained an endorsement from Vaughan Roberts, the Vicar of St Ebbes Oxford and a key Renew player. He is an important figure in the Fletcher saga since all the official, somewhat terse, press statements from Renew about Fletcher carried his name. But that endorsement for the conference has now disappeared. Can we possibly read from this that some among the Renew leadership are embarrassed by the fact that All Souls/Church Society is sponsoring such a conference so soon after the revelation of the Smyth/Fletcher scandals?
The most notable feature around these scandals has been the complete failure of the current leadership, including Roberts, to come forward to say what they know about the Fletcher/Smyth abuses. A conference of this kind endorsed by the entire Renew leadership might represent a positive step forward by the network to look at abuse and its aftermath. But, by the simple act of withdrawing endorsement on the part of Roberts, we are left to draw quite different conclusions. Behind the scenes of a very well defended and secretive leadership clique, we detect strong disagreements. These will be not only about the desirability of the conference itself, but also the ongoing issue of how to navigate the continuing fall-out of the Smyth/Fletcher scandals. We do not know the details, of course. The dynamics of such a disagreement are likely to centre, not on the welfare of the numerous survivors of both men’s abuse, but how best to preserve the reputation and power of the Renew coalition and the various organisations allied to it.
The conference of May 2020 is, in itself, a thoroughly positive initiative. I may apply to go to it myself. But the power and effectiveness of the conference will be damaged unless it is accompanied by a commitment to sort out the abusive past practised and concealed by members of the Renew network and its leaders. Meanwhile we surmise that any open discussion of abuse is perhaps rattling cages and consciences in places where there is something to hide. Everything about the Fletcher/Smyth affair and the way that it seems to centre around a cluster of conservative Anglican organisations sends out a smell of long-term conspiracy and secrecy. Can such a conference do anything to wash away the guilt of thirty years of secrecy and cover-up within the Renew network? It may do something to help but we suspect that any improvement will be weakened by apparent strong disagreements within the leadership of these powerful networks. This makes the conference appear to be more like a fig leaf, attempting to cover up something shameful rather than the beginning of a new chapter. Our welcome of this positive initiative thus has to be tempered with some strong reservations.
Since writing this piece and having drawn information from the Church Society website, it has been drawn to my attention that the conference is an independent initiative. This new information would have changed some of the emphases of my piece, including my intended unreserved endorsement of it taking place. However, the Renew network and the churches attached to it remain a controversial setting at the very least. The organiser Jaqui Wright has asked me to include the following
The Church as a Refuge conference is the idea of Jacqui Wright, a survivor. If she can spare one person or family the heartache and grief that she and her family have experienced, then it will all be worth it.
The overarching aim is to prevent further instances of abuse occurring in churches and Christian organisations. Within this aim, the first objective is to raise awareness about the abuse of power in Christian contexts among the leaders of churches and Christian organisations – and those whose task it is to hold those leaders to account. A second objective is to begin developing a clearer pathway to help victims. Skilled support for traumatised survivors is difficult to find in the UK. We therefore need to hear the voices of survivors.
There appears to be much speculation on social media about the arrangements for the conference. For clarification:
- This is not a conference about conservative evangelical Anglicans. The problem of abuse in Christian contexts is not confined to one denomination. People from all denominations or none are welcome to attend;
- Jacqui Wright asked Rev Hugh Palmer if All Souls Langham Place would host the one day event and we are grateful that he has agreed to hire the venue to us;
- Jacqui has invited Dr Diane Langberg to be the main speaker and to pay her costs;
- Jacqui and her family have created the website which is still a work in progress (subject to change) and made arrangements for delegates to buy tickets online;
- Revenue from the tickets will be used to offset expenses in relation to the conference and will be held in a separate charity account (not for profit) with an independent signatory;
- The financial risks involved in holding the conference are born only by Jacqui and Cliff Turner (her husband), not by anyone else;
- Cliff will chair the conference. (He has significant experience of chairing conferences as he has previously been the independent chair of three local safeguarding boards);
- We have been asking organisations and churches across denominations to publicise the conference. Various people offered their endorsement of the conference when they heard about it, including Vaughan Roberts. We decided to change the Home page of the website for a supporters’ page instead. However, this is on hold as we have been dealing with incorrect information spreading around especially online;
- Rumours on social media suggest we are being manipulated by others who allegedly are seeking to do ‘window dressing’ or put a ‘fig leaf’ over past organisational sins. We find these untrue comments upsetting. Like everyone, we don’t know what we don’t know, but neither are we entirely naïve. We respectfully ask that people would refrain from speculation. Please contact us directly with your concerns and seek the facts before sharing judgements. Email info@churchasarefuge.com
- We are seeking to do this conference for the glory of God and his church. Everyone is welcome! We appreciate your support. Cliff and Jacqui 10.11.19
Although I have made some critical comments about the setting of this conference, the idea of holding it and the speaker are thoroughly to be commended. Please support it if you can. If it is a success it may wake a few people up who are in complete denial about the topic of abuse and power
The nettle is not being grasped that what is again being referred to as ‘secrecy’ in the case of Smyth was not secrecy tout simple but (a) was standard practice for the day; (b) sprang from a belief in forgiveness and restoration, resolving things and bringing closure and a full stop – rather than the present belief in eternal damnation in the here and now; (c) was not optional but actually demanded by the wish of the boys’ parents (and here we are speaking of the Winchester contingent) not to prolong the issue for their victim sons.
In fact Vaughan Roberts together with others like Bp Watson and Johnny Juckes are testimony to what a continuingly good thing the Winchester revival was – as opposed to its perversion by Smyth.
According to Private Eye, Hugh Palmer knew of the Smyth beatings in the 1980’s having visited one of his victims in hospital. If so, why was nothing said by the Revd Palmer then or since on this matter? It is very difficult for any impartial observer to be anything but cynical about the motives for the setting up of this conference by one who has remained silent.
Certainly there are reasons to speak, but there are also good reasons not to, primary among which is that once the chitchat starts (and the fact that people are taking an unhealthy interest in the chitchat is demonstrated by the never ceasing flow of verbiage, repetition, and attention to minute detail) it never stops, it just escalates. I am so surprised that people do not understand that point.
It is basic that ministers of the gospel, at least those who have thought things through, prioritise. They biblically avoid chatter because they know the internal nature and source of chatter. And (more than this) because existing pressing priorities would not leave any space for it, even if it were wholesome (which it only sometimes is). Supposing someone wasted a lot of time on speculation, they might later regret the time that could not any longer be used for other things.
The people that are being singled out are actually those who have priorities right. Do those who are doing the singling out have their priorities right in terms of proportion of time/ministry devoted to gospel work and pastoral work?
Christopher, I am surprised (read appalled) by what you say, even if it is being trotted out by the powers that be, The ‘standard practice for the day’ argument doesn’t really work. Firstly, it was not the wish of all the boys’ parents. Some of them were persuaded to let others deal with it. And it was not for the Iwerne leaders to do the forgiving. The wrong was not done to them. As someone has already said elsewhere, it was covered up because the families involved were close friends and because of who John Smyth was socially – if he had been a local gardener or cleaner they would have reported him to the police straight away. Reporting abuse and serious crime (as this was) does not mean a lack of forgiveness or condemning someone to eternal damnation.
The second silly thing being trotted out in conservative evangelical circles as an excuse for not reporting him is that John Smyth promised never to work with teenagers again. How could they trust the word of someone who had just behaved so abusively? The plain fact is that Smyth went on to abuse young people in South Africa and a boy ended up dead in a swimming pool. Again, his promises were only trusted because of the close connections and because of who he was socially. Of course he went on to abuse again, as abusers do!
The third silly thing is being said in response to the very proper question, “What about the victims?” Some are forwarding the ridiculous argument that no one knew that the abuse would have the long term effect it did on the victims/survivors. Hello…what planet are these people on?
The endorsement of the-powers-that-be is no recommendation, and all of us would take a critical (not necessarily adversely-critical) view of what they said.
(1) What you say about the parents assumes that I have more knowledge than I have, so I can’t be held accountable for not having it. The danger is to have knowledge of (say) 2 families and generalise on that basis. Unless a majority of parents wanted publicity (highly unlikely) and unless John Thorn is inaccurate or not telling the truth in his Winchester book (again unlikely) then any publicity for the minority would in any case rebound onto the unwilling majority.
‘Standard practice for the day’ arguments always work to an extent provided that the characterisation is accurate. I am not going to hold people to account for doing what was approved and normal practice in their own time. It is unmerciful to do so. Second, I am not going (in a totalitarian manner) to suppose that any culture that does not act like the UK of 2019 is ipso facto stupid. More often such an attitude springs from ignorance of any culture other than one’s own, which is not a good start. Third, great shortcomings in the standard practice of that day existed, as indeed they do in the standard practice of today, namely the danger of letting the amoral media loose, appeasing them (and our own occasionally gossipy instincts) and quashing helpful and good ministries as collateral damage.
Reporting someone does not mean consigning them to eternal damnation; but saying that they will always remain bad as long as they live does mean that.
On point 2 I agree with you and I have never made that argument.
On point 3 ditto.
Further, I question whether, as you put it, ‘the families involved were close friends’. Too many families were involved. Mark Stibbe says around 20 Winchester boys were involved; Alan Wilson says a minority of the UK abused were from Winchester. And yet the UK total usually given is around 26. Because of those who have distanced themselves from the whole thing, and because of the secrecy of the operation, and because of its diffuse nature, real numbers will doubtless have been higher. At any rate, while one can think of dyed in the wool Winchester families who must have known each other well, it is impossible to generalise about more than a fraction of the parents.
Christopher, the problem is that your ‘standard practice for the day’ argument does not work because the characterisation is not correct. I am not supposing that any culture that does not act like the UK of 2019 is ipso facto stupid. My point stands – it would have been standard practice at that time to report an abuser if said abuser had been a cleaner or gardener.
I do not think that points 2 and 3 can be separated from point 1, when it comes to them deciding what to do.
The families that were close were those of Smyth and the Iwerne leaders involved in dealing with the abuse when it came to light.
Good points – of which we need more. For example:
I actually disagree. Supposing a Winchester College cleaner or gardener had been the culprit. Then the parents would presumably again have not wanted to run the risk of the press being involved. Nothing to do with the school’s reputation, more about protecting the boys and drawing a line under things and moving on – a positive step.
As for acting like Christians – what could be closer to the characterisation ‘acting like Christians’ than (a) giving support, as happened in 1982 and again when requested in 2012-3; (b) believing in forgiveness; (c) acting decisively to stop JS?
Your final comment however is cryptic, even regarding the identity of ‘that network’.
And Christopher also, they were supposed to be Christians. They should not have been content to just behave in whatever way they could get away with in those days. As Christians we are not called to just do what everybody else is doing. They should have behaved like Christians. They were called to do something far better than what happened.
Sadly, I have seen again and again how that network expects the weakest and most vulnerable to bear the brunt of situations. Christian leaders should know better.
Christopher, from the point of view of the Iwerne leaders, it was all about protecting the work of Iwerne. It was not about doing what was best for the victims. I don’t know how anybody can say that the victims were protected.
I am deeply troubled by your ‘drawing a line under things and moving on – a positive step’ comment. How does that work for the victims? Do you really think that the way it was dealt with helped them? The effects on them prove the opposite.
No, the victims were definitely NOT given proper support. Have you seen some of their comments? Would you like to ask them if they feel that they have been supported properly? Why do you think there is a legal action against the Titus Trust?
Acting decisively to stop JS? Sorry – can you just re-read what you have written? Just remind me what happened when he went to Africa….
To take your 4 paras one by one
(para 1) That’s a false either/or. Secondly it’s an unsupported assertion – what is your source of knowledge? Thirdly it’s a totalising generalisation without allowing room for nuance. Fourth, it goes against the stated evidence on the matter – D Fletcher, the 2 priorities were that JS be stopped and that the men he beat be cared for. Fifth, it neglects the positive evidence of extended care for the victims – both as witnessed inadvertently by myself and as attested by the Ruston report (from the word go, in other words). Sixth, it does not present any evidence that a victim asked for support and was turned down. There were enough of them – at least one of them must have been turned down, surely? But such does not appear in the records or anecdotes. Seventh, when a victim asked for support even over 30 years later that was centrally provided by more than one giver.
(para 2) You seem to be saying that when a bad thing happens it should continue to dominate your life interminably. That doesn’t sound too good. This para makes sweeping generalisations about victims as though they were all the same. But they obviously weren’t and aren’t (though there will be common threads and denominators). Not in how much they suffered. Not in how well they dealt with it. Not in psychological background. You cherry pick the more vulnerable as though they were the more typical. You also aim to speak on behalf of the vast majority who have not spoken out on the matter.
There are those who have moved on, successfully, and perhaps demonstrated thereby that that was the best step to take.
On the topic of how much people suffered, a fair proportion suffered (badly for sure) on only one occasion or very few occasions. Yet you lump these into those for whom this is to be treated as a life-defining all-consuming irresoluble matter. Is that always accurate?
(para 3) As mentioned – who was turned down? The positive evidence is for actual support both in 1982 and earlier this decade – in other words, whenever it was requested or obviously required. Further blanket generalisations about (for the sake of argument) 30 different individuals, and further treating of particular cases as typical.
(para 4) This para seems to assert that forcing a well known and leading barrister to leave the country with his family is not a decisive action. Is it a meek action? It also treats Africa events as real at the time when they were obviously unreal and future at the time, and should have been so much better foreseen.
Christopher…it’s getting late, as we used to say to the kids. God bless.
Tiger tea. Your points are good. The problem with Christopher Shell’s responses are that they are so similar to the responses given by the constituency, that each little piece of evidence is dismissed as too small and therefore the big picture is never developed.
Sadly Smyth is not the only one, as the Jonathan Fletcher situation shows.
Unless those who know what happened stop stifling the facts, we can only talk about the smaller things, which as time goes on are substantiated by other revelations, such as that of Hugh Palmer’s knowledge.
All Christopher seems to do is minimise everything even as it all stacks up.
We need openness not closing of ranks, and until that is actually offered, those involved in this scandal and associated with it need to stop complaining.
Yes good points Rusty. Thank you
This is just another branch of the church that has tolerated perpetrators and the inevitable following cover up!
No worries this offence stretches from the most junior parish officer to the current Archbishop of Canterbury.
What the Church requires, if you discount completely disbanding, is a conference on why no one, young or old or of any ethnic or sexual background should be abused by officers of the church in any way whatsoever, but as the phrase goes, ‘when hell freezes over’!
Thanks Tiger Tea for engaging with Chris. I have tried in the past and found it very difficult! It’s important for the sake of other people who read this blog that they see the reasons why his ideas are mistaken. I have found that if you are still suffering from the effects of long past troubles, it is your own fault, according to many people, you are picking scabs! Some folk can’t see that it is because the hurt was never treated, and so never healed.
That’s not right – my ideas are nuanced and a bit more subtle than you are making out, partly because I am able on some points on this particular issue to have more detailed knowledge and thus not fall into the stereotypes (even fashionable stereotypes) that others without the specialist knowledge may well fall into.
Also to say ‘his ideas are mistaken’ will be seen to make no sense since I have 1000s of ideas. Are all the 1000s of them mistaken? This sounds like insufficient rigour and excessive generalisation, which will be bound to bring inaccuracy.
When engaging, it is not good to sideline people as outsiders as Athena did in that comment (least of all on a site that is specifically anti bullying). People can only speak the truth as they see it. They ought not to be penalised, or ganged up upon, for doing so, since the only alternative is to speak untruth as they see it. (Which would not be preferable. Note that most people stick comfortably with the crowd, anyway – present company excluded.) Least of all on issues where their specialist knowledge is greater than that of their interlocutors. I think those are principles of engagement on which most would agree.
English Athena, I’ve seen some of your comments before and think they are very accurate.
Dear English Athena, sorry didn’t reply properly to this. Thinking of you. As you know, you are not picking scabs or refusing to move on. It takes as long as it takes to recover. Far more compassion for survivors and acceptance of this needed. This is something I am learning, albeit slowly. Blessings, Tiger Tea.
English Athena: You are absolutely right. Of course as individuals we can respond differently. I experienced physical abuse in a C of E primary school in the 1940s (the fact that it was a C of E school with a headmaster ruling small children in a reign of terror, to my mind, is all the more shocking). My first experience was a violent assault – punched full-force in the right ear at the age of five or six. Then there were ‘beatings’ by another teacher for absolutely trivial or spurious reasons.
At the time I felt, as a child, a strong sense of injustice. Then, later, at state grammar school, I was ‘mildly’ sexually abused by a PE teacher along with practically all the junior school – several hundred boys. (Here there are parallels with John Smyth. When the headmaster heard about this, the PE teacher ‘disappeared’ overnight never to be seen or heard of again.)
Maybe children were more ‘innocent’ in those days, but it was only later as an adult that I realised that one teacher at the C of E primary school was a paedophile and these spurious punishments (in the form they took) were probably for his sexual gratification.
Nevertheless, I put these experiences behind me until at some point much later as an adult something triggered this realisation which has nagged and remained with me, now into my late 70s.
It is sadly too obvious now that my relatively ‘mild’ sufferings in the 1940s and 50s, far from being unique, were happening all over the place. People who say about corporal punishment “It never did me any harm” speak only for themselves. As I have said elsewhere, we owe a debt of gratitude to Baroness Mary Warnock (of Winchester) for legislation to put a stop to this kind of thing happening to later generations in primary schools.
Exactly. Victims’ sufferings are (a) typically great, (b) hard to eradicate, (c) liable to grow over time in many cases, (d) liable to spread their tentacles into other areas of life, (e) liable to debilitate proper functioning.
The disputed points were in different areas from this. (a) Whether help had ever been refused. (b) Why, if it had been, this failed to show up in the records official or anecdotal. (c) Why the records showed the opposite. (d) Whether we ought to think in terms of a typical victim given extremely varied amounts of exposure and recovery. (Answer: no.) (e) Ought our envisioned typical victim to be at the unhealed end of the spectrum? (Answer: there is no typical in the first place). (f) Several suffered only once or twice, and 38 years ago – must this dominate their lives? Or is that just a bandwagon? (g) Ought we to give equal voice to a one-size-fits-all stereotyped perspective, or ought we to give greater weight to perspectives depending on specific knowledge?
We certainly had an abnormal number of the bad teachers RW mentions – it is certain (and predictable) that they proliferated in the wake of the sexual revolution and the media’s and broadcast arts’ and press’s public/normalised amoral attitude. People should have listened to the Christians.
Christopher, so what is your detailed/specialised/more specific knowledge?
Just that I attended and have met and/or am acquainted with some 100 Iwerne individuals, and with the now multitudinous published data on this case. Others will have greater knowledge than mine. It is not equitable nor accurate that this be assumed to be on the same level as stereotyping hearsay.
One example: one needs to have experienced Iwerne horseplay to understand its reality and ubiquity (think: medical students, catholic seminarians, and other collectives effectively not expected to marry or at least not till age of c30).
Half the time people are being judged negatively by people without the knowledge to do any such thing, effectively judged for being old fashioned and/or inhabiting a particular culture. But obviously people will inhabit different subcultures, that is a given. What is so superior about the judgers’ subculture?
Sorry is that not just another way of saying ‘some of my best friends were victims’. Sad and horrific in itself, but in no way does it enlarge your personal experience of what actually happened.
So I’ll repeat what I said. People’s judgement on any issue should be graded in value according to their specific knowledge. That is an uncontroversial point.
None of my best friends were victims. None even of my (more-than-nodding) acquaintances from Iwerne days.
No you miss my point, the commonly used phrase ‘some of my best friends are…’ is used to display that the person speaking has no personal knowledge and therefore nothing helpful to offer.
Exactly – a lack of knowledge which contrasts with my own vantage point.
Which has nothing particularly helpful to offer so probably should be kept to yourself.
Rowland, I am sorry to read of your childhood experiences. Sadly, this is not the first time I’ve heard of a church school headmaster abusing his pupils. In one village the headmaster and vicar were in cahoots as part of a paedophile ring.
As you say, the kind of thing was happening all over the place, and long before the permissive 60s. I’m sorry you are (understandably) still feeling the effects of the abuse, and hope you are able to find some peace.
Thank you, Janet.
My iPad ‘went down’ and everyone was spared a longer post! This headmaster was using the birch on children of primary school age in the 1940s (I would have thought almost certainly illegal even then), and I believe it may have been the Rector who put a stop to that, but the cane was substituted.
The Rector was quite a distinguished and respected priest, who went on to be a provost and a bishop. He was doubtless an exemplary person, but corporal punishment was accepted as almost the norm at that time, and was imposed by the juvenile courts as well as in schools.
It seems extraordinary now, but Cyril Garbett (who confirmed my mother), later Archbishop of York, advocated corporal punishment.
It may have been happening long before the permissive 60s. But why ask the question ‘When was it happening?’ (to which the answer is: always, even when there are smaller numbers) rather than the question ‘At what rates was it happening?’ when the graph always peaks at the 70s and early 80s, even allowing for the passage of time. Behaviour was permissive when society and the media were permissive and proud of it.
Otherwise (for example) 14 instances in one year will be equated with 1400 in another year. After all ‘it was happening’ in both years. Yes – but….
You see therefore why I (like so many) strongly emphasise the importance ofprecision and nuance.
Apologies if these observations are extraneous. I may be missing the point, and perhaps these should be on the John Smyth thread, but how (as we are told happened) when a victim was visited in hospital were the facts concealed in any post-war decade? Hospital staff are, rightly, always on the lookout for ‘unnatural’ injuries.
I’m not at all sure that Keith Makin’s brief is wide enough to pick up such matters. Essentially he is looking at C of E responses – not other peoples’, except the Titus Trust and the SPG to the extent that they are willing to participate. It is on record that those two bodies and Winchester College have provided or funded some counselling. I remind myself, however, that victims have already gone to law, so we ought to wait and see.
I don’t offer any comment about the forthcoming conference.
This is a response to Christopher Shell sent anonymously from a Smyth survivor. Words and opinions have real consequences in terms of individual suffering. This discussion of the events around Smyth/Fletcher should now come to an end.
Dear Christopher, I write as an anonymous victim of John Smyth. I have suffered in silence for 35 years. I find some of what you write deeply, deeply offensive and reabusive of myself. Since the story broke, the victims have seen evasiveness and deceit. No one from the Iwerne set has made any attempt that I have seen to reach out. There is no one standing up for the truth.
You say that help was offered in 1982. In the most general terms Mark Ruston did, but I did not know how affected I would be over the years, and I never asked for professional help then. It is simply untrue to say that Titus/Iwerne have offered help since 2013 or 2017. Titus flatly refused to offer counselling for the reporting victim in 2013. David Fletcher would know my identity and has made no attempt to offer help. There has been no attempt to check we are OK. We remain isolated, and some still deeply traumatised.
I find some of your attempts to belittle the abuse, to belittle the long term effects, to praise the response of Titus/Iwerne as deeply deeply offensive. Those comments make me angry and sick in my stomach. There can be no apology for the way the Iwerne movement has responded. Any apologist for their behaviour becomes an abuser of myself. Welby’s comments about Smyth not being Anglican were just untrue, and hurt deeply.
I am still looking for anyone from that tribe to stand up and say “How awful. Are you alright ? This is what I knew. Can I do anything for you ?”.
So sorry for all you have been through & continue to go through – we all are.
Please understand that we all agree that truth is the answer. Truth and precision are inseparable. When you read what I say it will rarely be opposite to the received or stereotyped view, but it will be more nuanced. In fact, as all agree, less nuance is less good.
As a reasonably educated independent, I certainly belong to no ‘tribe’ (and do not like tribalism – even sites like this need to guard against groupthink) because I can think for myself. Victims include both the abused and the falsely accused – again, all agree. The expectation that events of 37-41 years ago must be centre-stage is a new one, and it does no-one credit to pretend that that expectation is not new. Please also understand that in various discussions on contemporary issues, one has encountered for some years those who wish to close down all discussion (and precision and nuance) by citing suicidality. Please understand that although this will in many cases not be the same as Violet Elizabeth saying she will scream till she is sick, there is always that potential – which is what enabled Carl Beech to be believed for so long. There simply has to be nuance and precision. I do not know why anyone would work against that.
An example of nuance and precision – John Smyth was Anglican in some ways and not in others. The same goes for Iwerne. What we should not agree with is the exaltation of lesser precision at the expense of greater. Goodness knows there are several specific points I have made that have not been addressed. It is good that we both love truth. And everyone should show that they do indeed love truth.
It is not clear why people meant to think that, given that (a) Mark Ruston did offer original help, and (b) people were free to approach Iwerne leaders for decades afterwards, it was the leaders’ fault that they did not in fact do so. The fact that they did not do so till 2012 (when the social climate encouraged it) is in accord with the idea that most things in life belong to their own time-period, which is something that all of us assume many times daily. Your awful suffering will not be typical of the substantial number of victims who suffered only a couple of times, but it seems typical enough – just, it ought not to be taken as typical of all: rather, as being an individual and not atypical testimony that is fully bad enough in your own case. Each person can speak for themselves.
It’s unpardonable that anyone suffered even on a single occasion. We have already gone through here and on the TA website that “consent” by a minor is impossible as a matter of law. Someone tried to tell me that Smyth was in loco parentis. What nonsense, and how misconceived.
I’m not making any point about Iwerne or Titus Trust trustees. Simply, that no one should fool themselves that these assaults on minors and adults were anything other than criminal acts.
I absolutely agree.
I have never met anyone who fooled themselves of that. Why therefore is the point being made? Tell me whom you have in mind. There seems to be a binary presupposition that there are only 2 possible points of view and A equals not-B. The criminality was first identified by Mark Ruston in his report.
I’m guessing that it’s because the reality of the response (despite what has been said) and the circling of wagons fails to express the seriousness of it all. And the pressure is still on to keep a lid on things.
Stephen, my apologies, I’ve just seen your line ‘that the discussions about Smyth and Fletcher should come to an end.’
I have had to make a decision about the tone of the discussion and it was getting to the point where it was no longer courteous or kind. That is not a comment on every contribution but on the general feel of what was being said. Several recent contributions have been deleted.
Please try everyone to engage courteously with each other on this painful sensitive subject of abuse. A serious issue is a conference being held in May of next year at All Souls. What do people think? I have raised queries about the venue. Am I right|?
Your clarification about the Conference and the message from its organisers is helpful but I would need much more information about the organisers, the intended programme and links to other bodies Etc before I could make any kind of juidgement. No doubt the web-site when it is up and running will provide some of this.
None the less, it is undeniable that, in many cases, the Church in the past has not been a place of refuge but is implicated in abuse and this must always be a factor. It is also undeniable that class, the ‘public school’ system and the establishment in it broadest sense are factors which have facilitated abuse and its concealment. The ‘Bash Camps’ were aimed at an elite who were at the major public schools. In the 1950s, the Scripture Union (I think) ran a series of similar camps for the oiks who were at minor public schools and even grammar schools. They were run on military lines with a Comandant, an Adjutant and Officers and they offered a militant evangelical Christianity which put me off evangelicalism for life and verged on the bullying. Nick Duffield runs an interesting website called ‘Wounded Leaders: British Elitism and the Entitlement Illusion’ which is instructive in the context of this post and others similar. Begining at 5th May, 2014, there is an entry about my old school (https://woundedleaders.co.uk/truth-boarding/) in which I comment that there was a notion of ‘omerta’ and this still operates in many ways. Nothing can justify or excuse what many children and teenagers went though and this abuse has fed into the CofE.
Nick, I would like to say how grateful I am to you for running this blog and your excellent posts. It mus be hard work to sustain it but I do appraciate it.
My apologies, Stephen, for getting your Christian name wrong.
I have had to remove a comment because it crossed the boundary and became too personal about another contributor. Please observe the courtesy of discussing ideas raised by the blog and avoid personal criticisms.
The conference sounds like a good idea to me.
Bringing in education on trauma to a Church in denial has got to be a step in the right direction.
Denial of past wrongs, as we know, is endemic across all types of churchmanship.
Denial can occur as a group, and obviously also as individuals.
I can still sense the corporate “shock” in many of these esteemed institutions. Most, if not all, were set up and maintained with the unrebuttable presumption that their intentions were profoundly right and good. It truly is a shock to discover terrible evidence to the contrary.
Denial doesn’t suddenly just turn into full realisation and restoration. Readers of this blog will be well aware of how slow the progress is.
Relentless hammering away at resistance only serves to strengthen it. We must be gracious with those we consider stubborn or thick skinned. Paul used to be Saul. Sometimes only an intervention from on high will do the trick.
Painful though it is we must be patient with those not up to speed with the destructive effects of abuse. Many will themselves have been part of that system. It is possible to be completely unaware of damage done to the self, sometimes with realisation only dawning many decades after the fact.
I applaud the decision to hold the conference. I’m tempted to attend and see what I can learn.
For anyone interested in conferences around the issue of trauma it is well worth getting on the mailing list of Survivor’s Voices. As a support group helping people from any trauma its fully inclusive nature and its professional recognition means it holds some extremely good conferences with well accredited speakers but places go fast.
One of the problems of the word ‘conference’ is that people take it to mean that the speakers are properly informed but I went to one where speakers were not accredited, had no working experience in the field and no checks and balances from their peers. Just liked the sound of their own voices which is not only arrogant but dangerous.