In writing my reaction to the Daily Telegraph story on December 27th, there was one point where I got things completely wrong. I speculated that communications experts at the top of the Church of England and the ReNew network would be working hard over the week-end after Christmas to respond to the reporting of Gabriella Swerling and her team. Nothing has, in fact, appeared, as far as I can determine, from either source. Instead of the great publicity crisis there has been a Great Silence. No one in the Church of England has said a thing, either through an official statement or through one of the safeguarding organisations that look after this side of the Church’s life. Jonathan Fletcher’s former church, Emmanuel Church Wimbledon (ECW), no doubt feel that their backs are covered by the earlier announcement of a Review under the leadership of Justin Humphreys and his organisation 31.8.
The absence of comment to the vivid Telegraph reporting cries out for some interpretation. What is going on when a major national newspaper describes a scandal in the Church of England but this story is met with blanket silence? Do they really think that the general public is going to ignore the account and move on? It is here that I, as an independent commentator, can make a confident prediction. The general public are not about to move on. Those who know about it are appalled at the story and they are expecting decisive action from the leadership of the Church of England. They want the Church to indicate that past behaviour, such as the Telegraph reported, can never happen again. Without such statements and a determination to take action, the public is going to believe that the Church is losing (has lost?) the will to remove the appalling blight of bullying, sexual harassment and power games from within its midst. In other words, the person in the street will conclude that the Church has become institutionally abusive. Because of that it will be a place to be avoided at all costs.
These are strong words and I cannot, in this short piece, attempt to suggest all that the things that should be done to drag the Church back from becoming irredeemably tainted with this label of being institutionally abusive. In any secular organisation, if a scandal of this size broke, there would be sackings and resignations. Responsibility for failure would have to be apportioned and acknowledged. It is only when this kind of cathartic cleansing has taken place, that the public can allow that organisation another chance to show itself as redeemable. Such resignations do not happen in the Church, but there is still the need for the outside observer to have grounds for believing that there are changes, real changes, in the pipeline.
How has the Church arrived at a place when it cannot say or do anything significant to respond to a scandal of this size? One could make the argument that the Church publicity machine was taking a break after Christmas and that key personnel were scattered to various parts of the world on holiday. That may be in part a reason for the silence, but another reason may be that the Church authorities that operate out of Lambeth Palace and Church House are completely cut off from knowing anything about what goes on in Emmanuel Wimbledon and the other ReNew congregations. Jonathan Fletcher, in other words, is a maverick clergyman over whom the Church has had no control or oversight for nearly 40 years.
Back last year, Justin Welby made the extraordinary claim in a television interview that John Smyth, the notorious figure involved with Iwerne camps and harsh physical beatings of young men, was not Anglican. Whether or not he believed this statement, which was patently untrue, is probably beside the point. What Welby’s statement said to me was that the official Anglican publicity machine was seeking to limit the impact of the Smyth scandal by seeking to separate the Church from any association with him or the Iwerne camps. In one sense the publicity machine was correct. Iwerne camps (later called Titus) had been held for 60 or 70 years completely outside Anglican episcopal control. They operated like an independent franchise and were answerable only to their own trustees. When the scandal of Smyth’s misbehaviour did break in 1982 and a report was prepared, there was no attempt to circulate that report beyond a small powerful clique within the organisation. No bishop or archdeacon was ever given sight of it. In this way, Iwerne trustees linked to REFORM and the Church Society were acting as totally independent of the central Church of England structures. At some point the Church has tacitly surrendered overseeing of part of its structure to the group of leaders and congregations we now know as the ReNew constituency. These were being given the right to behave exactly as they wished, free from episcopal control.
The Emmanuel Wimbledon scandal has revealed something l which dwarfs the misbehaviour of a single individual. It has shown up how an episcopally ordered Church has allowed the relinquishment of oversight of a sizeable part of its own structure. This in turn has allowed corrupt individuals to exercise power without any checks on their behaviour. In my judgement the Great Silence is taking place because the central church authorities have no understanding (or interest) in this part of the Church. How can the central part of the Church promise to do anything to stop future scandals if hitherto it has had no input of any kind? The only response, one we are seeing, is startled impotent silence. The structural independence and power of ECW and the ReNew group has come to be revealed with startling clarity. Whatever Justin Welby’s past relationship with many of the leaders inside the Fletcher circle, and we suspect they are extensive, his role as Archbishop gives him absolutely no power to wrest back any of the control these groups have acquired. Looking back over the past twenty years, I suspect that a battle to assert control over the Con-Evo (now ReNew) group was fought and lost the time of the Jeffery John debacle in 2004. Archbishop Rowan tried and failed to appoint Jeffery John as Bishop of Reading. One suspects that the negotiations which went on behind the scenes may have resulted in even more power flowing to the Con-Evo group in which Fletcher was prominent. The situation of the dying days of 2019 has revealed clearly that the authority of the Church does not operate in every part of its structure. In a scandal involving the effectively independent branch represented by ReNew, the central body has nothing to say. They have been banished from any involvement with ReNew and its power and money for nearly twenty years and probably much longer.
The Great Silence, as far as the central Church of England communications department is concerned, is because they have had no input into that part of the church for a long time. The Great Silence from the ReNew/Con Evo constituency can be explained because that is how they always operate. The Smyth scandal and now the Fletcher scandal are both notable for the way that they have involved long term secrecy. Individuals, including many survivors, have been threatened, cajoled or shamed into silence so that the secret scandals would not come out. Thanks to the Telegraph, those days are over. The Church both at the centre and at its ReNew fringes have now to deal with the new realities. The challenge for everyone is to discover ways to convince the fair-minded outsider that our national Church is not institutionally abusive. That is a hard task but we must make a start now.
Good article, thank you. Actually, I am fast coming to the conclusion that the Church of England IS institutionally abusive. The ReNew leadership is definitely abusive.
Yes. It’s too easy. And, not incidentally, no one checks to see that those without PTO are not active.
“You have the right to remain silent”
On the rare occasion a senior clergy person does actually comment, they do seem to put their foot in it. They’ve tried all kinds of stances, for example deflection: calling out and decrying beastly corporations for abuses, only for it to be be pointed out that they actually themselves invest in the same bodies they accuse. Denials are patently ludicrous too etc.
No, I suspect their advisors, such as they are, have recommended saying nothing at all.
By making even minimal comment they risk identifying that they own the problem. Speaking out has almost no upside for them.
Conversely, one Con-Evo apologist does regularly speak out on this blog. I suggest the impact of his statements is the exact opposite of what he intends. He confirms what we think about them, why many of us left this way of life behind, and redoubles our resolve to counter the malevolent side we so clearly experienced and see. He also multiplies the google traffic to the site exposing the people he thinks he’s defending. Trying to out-clever clever people, is a futile pastime.
The Anglican Church bears little resemblance to a conventional organisation with a simple mission and a hierarchical chain of command. As has been pointed out here and many times before, power exists in enclaves of the most popular leader clusters usually with or attracting significant wealth. Money still is power, particularly in the church.
The central (non) leadership relies on this money to prop up its own organisation. It can’t say anything even if it knew what to say.
Meanwhile, a happy new year to everyone!
You think wrong (assuming you mean me).
(1) I don’t intend any impact. I just intend that the debate be as nuanced and as accurate and informed as possible. I thought all debaters intended that. Too often what one hears is either (a) a witch hunt, savouring every detail and not pausing to think whether more innocent constructions could be put on at least some actions, or (b) totally lacking in forgiveness. Scroll back if you do not believe me. Yet neither of those is renowned for being either a Christian approach or a liberal approach.
(2) You speak as though you know what I ‘intend’. In that (see above) you are inaccurate. But why would you think you knew what another person intends? Liberals do not understand nonliberals at all well – this is well documented, and is best shown in the conversation between truth seeker Jordan Peterson and Cathy Newman. ‘So what you’re saying is…’ ‘No.’ – and so on ad infinitum. Ideology and truth-seeking are 2 different worlds. One is scholarly, the other is not, by definition. Also one is honest and the other is not.
(3) ‘Them’ – so ‘they’ are an amorphous mass. Stereotyping is not good, and ‘othering’ is worse. I apologise if I am othering liberals. I have debated them over many years, and patterns emerge, which I am describing.
(4) ConEvo? Then why do some ConEvos tear their hair out over my biblical thinking which lurches between all points on the conservative – radical spectrum? That is what can happen when a person is a genuine truth seeker. To belong to a tribe can be ideological. I am an independent, but an independent who realises that some things classified as conservative are what people have generally previously thought. And they have sometimes generally previously thought them because in some cases they are no more nor less than common sense.
Christopher, I don’t agree that your thinking is always biblical, if what you write here is any measure of it. The reason other conservative evangelicals have wrung their hands in despair over what you write is because at times it lacks kindness and empathy. From what I have seen, you have no understanding of abuse or trauma, and you lack the humility to see that.
Quite a psychological analysis of someone you have never met and know little about.
When someone’s healthy development is interfered with, that is very difficult to put right (hence the awful trauma which you mention, and what are now referred to as ‘mental health problems’ that afflict people who are within the sexual revolution culture). Many have been saying the same for years with regard to the dating/seduction culture, early and premarital intercourse. If these things have no overall life-pattern in mind, then they are bad news (if they were not bad news already). Do I believe in grooming? Yes, it is the same as seduction. Seeming to say one thing but having a different message and end in mind. Is that honest by Christian standards? It is not honest by any standards.
My thinking is under no obligation to be biblical, since neither I nor anyone else is under any obligation to accept the biblical way of looking at things. Or any other way of looking at things. Obviously. We should accept them if they fit the facts and realities – which is why I broadly accept the Christian way of looking at things.
However, if you have particular examples of nonbiblical thinking, then do highlight them.
We should not be kind towards abuse, nor towards witch hunting, nor towards framing of debates in binary ways. We should be truthful and accurate, kind and loving to people but not to harmful ideas and principles (and in debate it is generally ideas and principles that are what is under discussion). And as a byproduct that is always the kindest approach in the long run. And we are not in a short-term world but in a ‘long run’ world.
Grooming isn’t quite the same as seduction. Grooming is about differences in power. So an adult may groom a child. Seduction is about a relationship between equals. So a woman may seduce a man in order to overcome reluctance.
I just thought that it could be an equal matter only if both intended the same outcome or lack of outcome – in each of which cases seduction would not be needed. Otherwise one is seducer and one is seduced, which is not equal.
The amount of power each has is equal. Otherwise it’s rape!
One is the leader and the other is the follower.
I’m so glad you replied. I was worried that you wouldn’t.
Well said Tiger.
Though this group of churches has a Bishop designated for alternative episcopal oversight, my understanding is that it was the Bishop of Southwark that removed JF’s PTO. This would therefore place it as a diocesan concern and not one of Lambeth Palace or Church House. It is completely ludicrous, not to mention unsafe, at just how much autonomy each diocese has but without a complaint being made about the Bishop of Southwark’s handling of the case the wider church can only advise as to how they respond they cannot actually do it, so the great silence has been decided by Southwark and I assume the Con-Evo group of churches.
I think the question you ask about how long have people known is highly pertinent and it would be hoped that this falls under ‘context’ in the review but I doubt it will because this surely opens a new can of worms. The information I supplied to the review was germane to this and they have not responded which probably says it all!
Historically Southwark diocese are non-communicative and secretive, the Bishop’s twitter page is even written by comms and so far it has worked for them, before this no huge scandals have emerged and though I feel desperately sad for JF’s victims a small part of me hopes this will also bring scrutiny to Southwark diocese.
Thank you Stephen for your post. May I correct you on one small matter? It was Bp Richard Harries who tried to appoint Jeffrey John to Reading, not Rowan Williams. The appointment of Suffragan bishops was in the hands of the Diocesan at least in those days, when Suffragan appointments were less ‘public’ than they are now. See Stephen’s post of December 26th re the advertisements for 4 Suffragan Bishops in the Church Times.
However, you have highlighted a very important point. Jonathan Fletcher had his permission to officiate removed in, I think (but please correct me if I am wrong) 2017. There seems no ‘official’ route to go down to discover when a priest no longer has the right to officiate, unless they are on the Lambeth List. I doubt many people refer to that list, even if they are able to. I believe it is only Diocesan Bishops, perhaps Suffragans and possibly Diocesan Safeguarding Advisers who have access to it. And I doubt if all people who have had their PTO taken away are on that list. If Priest A invites Priest B (who longer has a licence or PTO) to take part in an event, it is very unlikely that they will make any checks. Priest B is also unlikely to mention the fact that they have no authority any more. See also not only Jonathan Fletcher, but also Peter Ball. From different ends of the spectrum.
However, what is raised here is potentially a much more interesting conundrum. I think, especially post IICSA, everyone now realises that sexual abuse is wrong. And the question raises its ugly head when sexual activity with somebody over 16 is legal and consensual in the context of a religious institution. The NSPCC has had a campaign “Close the Loophole” so that it is illegal for ALL adults to engage in any sexual activity with any young person under the age of 18 in their care. It is high time that Ministers of Religion are not exempt from the rules that govern, eg teachers and that the lawyers at Church House Westminster and the Government set about changing the rules to include clergy as a matter of extreme urgency.
But the question that is coming to me clearly in all this saga with Jonathan Fletcher and, indeed, John Smyth is how does the church define abuse? When there is no obviously clear link with sexual activity? We seem to understand now that physical abuse as meted out by John Smyth is abuse. But the abuse of Jonathan Fletcher is much more difficult to define. I met with Ken Blue (an author who has written extensively on this subject) from the United States in the late 1980’s to discuss this very issue and we came up with the name “spiritual abuse”. At the time it was not well understood and research I did with church people provided some very interesting results. Similarly bullying. A lot of the behaviour of both Jonathan Fletcher and John Smyth could be described as bullying. Bullying damages the personal integrity of the target in a way which is very similar to the damage done by sexual…
Anne. Linda Woodhead records a meeting between Richard Harries, Jeffrey John and Rowan himself at Lambeth on July 4th 2003. Jeffrey was pressurised to withdraw his candidacy by the Archbishop. Linda seems to indicate that the decision was very much what Archbishop Rowan had decided. I wanted you to know that I do try to get things accurate though my time window for this article was extremely tight. As for the question of defining abuse, I would probably start at the issue of abuse of power. It is normally possible to detect when one party in a relationship has the greater power. When there is a mismatch of power, it is right for the stronger party to be alert to the ethical dangers that are inherent in this imbalance. Ethical sensitivity should be able to prevent bullying, abuse and exploitation. JS and JF seem to have had little or none of such ethical awareness.
Hi Stephen! You are absolutely right about the place of power in relationships and the potential for the abuse of power. However, re Jeffrey John, you said: “Archbishop Rowan tried and failed to appoint Jeffery John as Bishop of Reading”. You are absolutely right that it was pressure from Rowan which made Jeffrey John withdraw in July 2003. But he did not appoint Jeffrey John, earlier in the year, Bp Richard did.
Oh, the importance of semantics!
Anne Lee says, “If Priest A invites Priest B (who longer has a licence or PTO) to take part in an event, it is very unlikely that they will make any checks.”
I beg to differ. A minister who did not check that a clergyperson they have invited to preach or preside in church has either a licence or permission to officiate would be seriously at fault. If a minister from outside the diocese is invited to minister, the Bishop’s office ought also to be consulted. Even if in an emergency I asked a minister with a licence or PTO in another diocese to minister on my behalf (say, in a case of sudden illness while a priest with a licence or PTO in another diocese is staying with me), I would inform the Bishop’s office as soon as I could so there could be a record of what happened.
In a way it is a shame that incumbents and priests-in-charge cannot simply invite brother and sister clergy to minister in the way they used to. But what used to happen enabled unsavoury people to hide behind a cloak of ministerial practice, so perhaps the new way of doing things is better – even if it is also more time-consuming.
I think the difficulty may be where an incumbent is used to a particular person being an approved minister, and doesn’t realise the situation has changed. If Vicar A invites Cleric B, previously unknown to them, to preach, A will (hopefully) check to see that B has a licence or PTO. But if B preached at A’s church twice last year, or A knows B has preached at other churches and at conferences, it may not occur to A to check.
Even if they do check, they may not get the information. I was listed in Crockford as having PTO several months after I had notified the Archbishop’s office that I had given it up. And not all clergy have Crockford; or may have only the print edition which is out of date before it is published.
You know. With all I know about the abuses, if the person I asked to help out said they had PTO, and I would ask, I wouldn’t check.
“In any secular organisation, if a scandal of this size broke, there would be sackings and resignations. Responsibility for failure would have to be apportioned and acknowledged.”
The Church is not a secular organisation in which peremptory retribution and image-preservation may be the instinctive response, with no care for due process or justice. In a period when investigations are being made, and the subject may be regarded as ‘sub judice’, silence is the entirely appropriate response – or maybe a ‘holding’ comment explaining why no action or comment is being made.
The problem is – and it’s a huge problem – that all too often image preservation seems to be the Church’s top priority. That is why so many complainants have met with either no response or an unhelpful one. This has been amply demonstrated: at the IICSA hearings, in our book ‘Letters to a Broken Church’, on Panorama and by Channel 4, and in multiple online discussions. The Church has shown very little concern for due process or justice.
That’s the background to this blog.
At one level I agree with you Angus but silence to survivors is re-abusive and sadly all too often the church uses it to manipulate, by playing on the vulnerabilities of the abused psyche. If I honestly believed that when the Telegraph article broke someone from the diocese did their best to reach out to survivors of JF, apologise for what they were going through and explain why at this time no one can comment but provide a likely timeframe for doing so, I would feel the silence to be a considered response. I do not believe that though, I believe victims were met with silence which they will internalise as re-abusive and will add to their feelings of not being ‘heard or seen’ and will inevitably present problems with long term healing and resolution. I, with medical professionals have worked hard with Southwark to explain that silence is a choice, it is as much a response as words but I doubt they really ‘get it.’
Generally people are driven to journalists by desperation because the silence overwhelms them, because something happening is better than nothing. Going to the press is a sign that people are reaching their limit and needs intervention to stop it spiralling into tragedy.
Well said, Trish.
The then Dean of Guildford advised me years ago that if you’re not getting a response from the Church you should go to the media, because negative publicity is the only thing that spurs the Church to take action.
Stephen Parsons makes many crucial points in his piece. Is it possible to try to save the Church? That’s certainly a worthy goal.
As a kid I was taught that by acting as good Christians, people would be attracted to the faith. They would see Christ in us and how we showed love to one another. And join us.
The reverse is happening.
A loner priest dedicated to holiness may be shocked at comparisons with secular organisations. But the Church out-secularises the secular world in almost every department.
2,000 years ago, our Saviour shared the distaste for secular practices in the Temple. He was furious with the investment bankers and foreign exchange dealers.
Every part of Church life is infiltrated with secular principles, from its finances to the promotion of the cause. Business thinking, an anathema to many I know, has even found its way into the reading list for ordination training.
It does make sense to have properly trained and vetted people looking after various areas of Church life of course.
Without true rigour being applied to Church methods, you’re left with the “Daddy knows best” school of management. That power conferred upon him by innocents has often led to significant abuse.
The head-in-the-sand approach has been completely ineffective in countering the serious flaws in operation at the centre of the Church.
Whilst the national media may be at fault, it’s not always wrong.
Is there a way back for the Church, from this?
I wonder whether the lack of response is connected to bishop Rod Thomas being the one who issued Jonathan Fletcher’s first press release on his behalf? And the fact that Rod Thomas was\is part of one of Jonathan Fletcher’s preaching groups?
Plus, Rod is frightfully busy doing all those confirmations and meetings with other ‘evangelical’ bishops.
Or has he retired yet? What difference would it make? Would anyone notice?
But I agree with you Rusty. That ought to be investigated.
I suspect silence as a response to abuse is de riguer for all churches.
Recently, the first phase of my litigation against my former diocese, parish, and bishop was heard in court. Little of substance transpired, with most of the time taken up by scheduling future happenings, but the diocese did move for dismissal on the basis that Bob Malm acted alone.
That’s a pretty incredible contention. He corresponded repeatedly with the diocese, styled himself as a priest, met with police at the parish, used the honorific “Fr.” (Which he normally never does), appeared in court in clericals, and now the diocese claims it has no connection? That is absurd and outrageous.
BTW, in the meantime I have started an online petition, focusing particularly on the matter and its effect on my mother, dying of COPD. If anyone can sign and/or share, that would be wonderful. It’s at http://chng.it/SsfyJhd8ys
As always, thanks and Happy New Year!!
PS It bears mentioning that the motion for dismissal was not granted. We go to trial on March 27.
Happy New Year to you and your mother, too, Eric.
I’m sure you’ve come across this already Stephen, but it’s quite relevant here. https://twitter.com/seaofcomplicity/status/1214909794508783618
Thank you, Trish and others for highlighting the devastating impact on survivors of meeting a wall of silence. And Eric, so sorry for what you are going through.
The first time I reported I met resistance. This time I have been heard with compassion, but then silence about what is happening. Some of this I understand is sub judice, while the police are involved. The rest seems to be more about privacy and GDPR. I am researching how I can challenge that. When you have broken the silence of secrecy, abuse and shame, it’s devastating and excruciating to be met by silence, whatever the reason.
I hope the good things start moving again soon.