On December 27th last year a story in the Daily Telegraph gave some detailed information about the unethical activities of Jonathan Fletcher, the former Rector of Emmanuel Wimbledon. I commented on the story, suggesting that the Church of England public relations team might be speedily summoned out of their post-Christmas break to make some statement. In this I was wrong. Evidently the Church House publicity team felt that the alleged misbehaviour of this clergyman was not their affair but could be dealt with by the safeguarding officers in the Southwark diocese. In the event it was not the diocese who acted. The parish where Fletcher had served thirty years, Emmanuel Wimbledon, was put under pressure by victims and ministers. The independent safeguarding body, thirtyone:eight, was then given the task of producing a ‘lesson-learned review on Jonathan Fletcher and Emmanuel Church’ . That review is expected next month, and we hope that it will be published for all to read, as an important part of caring for victims is clarifying the nature of what Jonathan Fletcher did.
When an individual in a large organisation misbehaves, as Jonathan Fletcher (and John Smyth) are alleged to have done, it is never a matter of one bad apple in a barrel. There will be witnesses, bystanders, enablers and colluders in the misbehaviour. No one in an organisation likes to hear that their blindness or inactivity has allowed evil to fester or even increase. The reaction of Fletcher’s bystanders was no exception. There has been until now virtually no comment from the friends and backers of Fletcher over so many years. As I commented in a previous blog piece, the Fletcher story has been accompanied by a great silence.
In the last few days, two conservative evangelical ministers, Rev. Dr. Peter Sanlon and Rev. Melvin Tinker, have broken ranks to suggest that Fletcher’s misbehaviour is an indictment on the whole of the senior level of the so-called ‘ReNew’ constituency. ReNew is the name for an annual gathering of conservative Anglican churchmen and the title is a convenient shorthand for the entire conservative evangelical block in the Church. Its self-appointed leader, William Taylor, runs training conferences to select future leaders and appoints regional leaders to report back to him. Most of this group steer away from charismatic theology and the ordination of women is not tolerated ‘on biblical grounds’. They remain formally part of the Anglican church, while being linked to several fringe bodies, such as GAFCON and AMiE. ReNew is largely coterminous with the old network provided by the organisation called REFORM. It also draws together many of the same parishes and individuals as the Church Society. Many of these ReNew parishes have accepted the alternative episcopal oversight provided to the evangelical constituency in the Church of England who reject the ordination of women. Rod Thomas, the Bishop of Maidstone ministers to this block of parishes. It would be tidier (and more Anglican) to report that Bishop Thomas has a clear ministry of authority and oversight over this network of conservative parishes. But that does not appear to be the case.
Effective power within this conservative evangelical network seems to be shared by the bishop with a network of leaders, all of whom share a common background in Iwerne Camps, public schools and certain prominent parishes. Among these are such centres as STAG in Cambridge and St Helen’s Bishopsgate. Both ministers of those churches are Etonians, friends, and met with John Smyth while students in Cambridge. The precise way that power seems to flow within the ReNew network is not always clear, but nothing seems to happen without the goodwill of a small coterie of de-facto leaders. Among them we have already mentioned William Taylor, but prominent also are Vaughan Roberts and the recently retired Vicar of All Souls Langham Place, Hugh Palmer. It is no exaggeration to suggest that Fletcher has played a significant role in the spiritual and professional formation of each of these men. Indeed, the same thing is true of others who have come to ordination and even prominence in the Church of England through the Iwerne camps/public school trajectory. All were deeply impacted by the camps. Vaughan Roberts has been a trustee of Titus Trust and used to lead on them for several weeks of his summer vacations. Although Fletcher (b. 1942) belongs to an older generation of prominent evangelical Christian leaders, there is no doubt that his influence is still strong with those who have picked up the mantle of leadership after him. All these leaders know each other well. They all attended the same schools, universities and have spent time in the relatively small group of ReNew parishes in England. They each pride themselves on uncompromised clarity in their preaching of the Gospel. By implication they imply the authentic gospel message is nowhere to be heard outside their network. The very close and personal links that bind these ordained leaders in the ReNew network makes it hard to see how any of them could have been ignorant of the rumours which attached themselves to Jonathan Fletcher (and his close acquaintance, John Smyth). This is not, however, an area that the National Safeguarding Team seem to want to explore. If the power of the NST/Core Groups were to be effective within the secret world of the ReNew network, every single of the current leadership would probably have to be suspended from duty for disclosure failures.
The crimes and allegations of crimes against Jonathan Fletcher have not been openly or publicly discussed by any member of the current ReNew leadership. They have neither admitted to knowing about the accusations, nor have they denied knowing about them. As Peter Sanlon and Melvin Tinker have suggested in their piece, there is an ‘outrageousness of silence’. The article which has this title, calls out to this leadership cabal to tell us what they know, no doubt recognising that, as with other examples across the Anglican Church, silence and collusion are almost as serious and committing the original evil deed. How else is one expected to interpret such a blanket of silence which has lasted such a very long time? To put this silence into context, we may quote some words of a long-term supporter of the Titus Trust. He wrote, ‘Jonathan’s perverted and manipulative behaviour has been widely known within evangelical circles for decades. Most of it was in plain sight. He was a classic narcissist. He had this weird and unhealthy guru-like status within Iwerne and Conservative Anglican circles. Like Smyth he cultivated his own select mini tribe. I always kept him at arms length. I was lucky as I was warned off him. And I didn’t fancy his standard modus operandi for ‘personal work’ of naked saunas with young men and an obsession with masturbation, girlfriends etc.’
Peter Sanlon and Melvin Tinker’s article mentioned a letter sent to ReNew leaders in April 2019. That was signed by William Taylor, Vaughan Roberts, Rod Thomas and Robin Weekes. It recognised that many ReNew churches had continued to invite Fletcher to speak despite him losing PTO. It noted that people may wish to contact the four signatories – but neither mentioned victims nor the possibility of reporting abuse to the police or Church of England safeguarding authorities. The letter concluded, ‘Jonathan has had a very significant ministry over the years and continues to be held in great affection by many.’
Further, during the past couple of weeks, there has been a small flurry of discussion about a forthcoming online conference organised by ReNew on the topic of church abuse on September 14th. Justin Humphreys, whose organisation, thirtyone:eight, is involved with the review that is being drawn up over the case of Fletcher, had been asked to speak to the Conference. At first, he accepted but then, after realising that the review on Fletcher in would still be in the pipeline, he decided to withdraw. The leaders of ReNew, organisers of the Conference, have communicated with their followers to explain this withdrawal. It is interesting to read the language used in this explanation because it is in many ways the nearest thing to a public comment from ReNew about Fletcher and his abuse that we have. The statement does not mention Fletcher’s name, but it gives us a small glimpse into the workings of the consciences of those who have presided over a cover-up of serious sexual/sadistic abuse and abuse – which many have known about for decades.
In the statement we read: ‘The ReNew Trustees and Planning Team believe what the Bible says – namely that we all have sins to repent’. This reminds me of the logic put forward by Bishop Benn at the IICSA hearing about sin and forgiveness. General sinfulness can somehow be bundled up with serious sins and then forgiven and forgotten. Leaders in the ReNew network do not apparently carry any responsibility for challenging such shallow and dangerous kinds of reasoning. This sentiment is followed up in the words ‘we all have lessons to learn and because we want to repent of our sins we wanted to help churches learn from people’s experiences and consider how best to respond in a gospel centred way’. What the ‘gospel-centred way’ comes to mean is indicated a little further down, when the document uses that appalling clichéd and offensive sentiment, ‘we apologise unreservedly for any distress caused.’
This short document is all we possess to give us any insight into the current way the leaders of ReNew think about abuse and the failings of their former leader and mentor, Fletcher. From this writer’s perspective, it fails on several counts. It comes over with all the calm arrogance of a Christian body whose confidence is rooted on an inerrant style of teaching and preaching. We are God’s special people, not only because we have all the answers provided by God in his infallible word but because our churches are fuller and wealthier than those of the woolly liberals. There is little charm in this approach and certainly nothing of the humility that we examined in the passage from Micah. Calm elitist arrogance sits badly with the suspected quiet tolerance of toxic evil and the failure to protect and defend victims of that cruelty. The ReNew leaders who produced this document, appear to have the same conscience deficit that is currently apparent in other parts of the Church. Jesus spoke about conscience in the parable of the offering. To paraphrase, Jesus tells the man who is going make an offering at the Temple to turn back and sort things out with his brother before making that journey. We can ask the same thing of the ReNew leaders who are trying to dazzle us with the ‘success’ of full churches and confident ‘gospel-centred’ preaching. No one is impressed if these same leaders with the ‘gospel’ are the ones who have buried information about abuse for decades. In their narrow elitist world there is no need for conscience, let alone learning, growing or discovery on the Christian journey. Mistakes are made but they can be swept under carpets. The need for proper confession of buried evil and the normal application of a Christian conscience does not appear to operate among these Christian leaders. The only seemingly important thing for these leaders is the preservation of the ReNew tribe and the power and wealth that it possesses.
In the last blog post we discussed the absence of the biblical virtues of justice, mercy and humility. In visiting once again the ‘outrageousness of silence’ coming from the ReNew network leaders, I, with Sanlon and Tinker, draw attention to the enormous amount of work that remains to be done by conservative leaders as well as by the central authorities of the Church of England. If the work is not done to restore integrity to its structures and provide justice for survivors, the Church will be seen as irrelevant, toxic and even dangerous to its followers. A Church or network with that burden cannot survive.
Thank you for this excellent commentary. From Alec Waugh’s controversial “Loom of Youth” (1917), allegedly based on his experiences at Sherborne:
“Generalisations are always apt to be misleading, but there was surely no truer one ever spoken than the old proverb: “When one is in Rome, one does as Rome does!” Parsons and godmothers will, of course, protest that, if you found yourselves among a crowd of robbers and drunkards, you would not copy them! And yet it is precisely what the average individual would do…But before this same innocent has been at school two terms he has learnt that everything except money is public property. The name in a book or on a hockey stick means nothing…The code of a Public School boy’s honour is very elastic. Masters are regarded as common enemies; and it is never necessary to tell them the truth. Expediency is the golden rule in all relations with the common room…
“Yes, you know,” said Betteridge, “the higher you get up the school the less you need worry about what you do. The prefect is supposed to be the model of what a Public School boy should be. And yet he is about the fastest fellow in the school. If I got caught in Davenham’s study by the Chief, even if I said I was only borrowing a pencil, I should get in the deuce of a row. But Meredith can sit there all hall and say he’s making inquiries about a boxing competition. He’s trusted…. It’s no use trusting a Public School boy. Put faith in him and he’ll take advantage of it; and yet there are still some who say the Public School system is satisfactory!””
From Cyril Connolly’s “Enemies of Promise” (1938):
“Were I to deduce any system from my feelings on leaving Eton, it might be called The Theory of Permanent Adolescence. It is the theory that the experiences undergone by boys at the great public schools, their glories and disappointments, are so intense as to dominate their lives and to arrest their development. From these it results that the greater part of the ruling class remains adolescent, school-minded, self-conscious, cowardly, sentimental, and in the last analysis homosexual.”
The attitudes described above will have changed *to some extent* as many public schools have: (i) been forced to comply with the Children Act 1989; (ii) turned co-educational (though this has often been a mixed blessing); and (iii) become far more cosmopolitan – and so far less Christian and churchy – as fees have risen in lock-step with the housing market, forcing these schools to chase the international market, children (like undergraduates) being treated ever more like consumers. The attitudes described in this piece – the mental attitude of the erstwhile prefect or monitor – are hopefully, therefore, in run-off.
Of course, the great enablers of the behaviour described are not only the acolytes of these Great Men, but their notional overlords – the bishops – who, desperate for parish share income, have given them effective free…
…rein.
I still had 31 characters!
Thank you for continuing to follow up this important matter, as you say, seeking restoration of integrity across the Church and justice for survivors.
Vaughan Roberts, Team Rector of Warwick
Thank you Vaughan Simon Roberts of Warwick. I expect you are used to being confused with the Rector of St Ebbes Oxford, Vaughan Edward Roberts. I certainly was in a muddle for a moment!
Irrespective of any confusion about names😳, I do think the work being done on your blog is very important.
Create and make in us new and contrite hearts;and make us all pure within.
Too true. I think you’re new? Hi and welcome.
Fulcram has an interesting article on the Pingback page on evangelical theology which I hope some might read as it gives a broad perspective of what goes under that name.
https://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/articles/the-regions-and-tribes-of-evangelical-theology-the-classicists-part-one-classical-conservative-evangelicals/
I’m not sure it’s fair to say that Sanlon and Tinker have only addressed this in the last few days. In September 2019 they wrote a public letter making many similar points. It can be found in a number of places including here: http://anglican.ink/2019/09/23/time-to-come-clean-response-to-jonathan-fletchers-letter/
I also think it’s important to acknowledge that in June 2019 Roberts made a ten page statement about his and others’ knowledge of Fletcher’s abuse. This was made to a gathering of some 2000 conservative evangelical clergy at their main annual conference (the EMA). This statement was much more explicit than that in April 2019 about the sort of things that had been alleged, added that some allegations were more serious than the ones detailed and that Fletcher had in the last week admitted that some of the allegations were true. It also gave a timeline of actions taken to that point. https://walkingwith.uk/EMAStatement.pdf
It was Sarah Hall of Emmanuel Wimbledon who made the statement outlining the edited details of Jonathan’s abuse in June 2019, not Roberts. Roberts said nothing and provided no actual details of the absue himself. He merely provided the introduction and conclusion. But critically he stepped aside and let a little-known woman make the key statement that “In early 2017, two sources informed Emmanuel of unnamed individuals making allegations about Jonathan…” and it waz she (not Roberts) who went on to outline some of what that abuse involved (very much down played, at that). Some might suspect that the reason Roberts didn’t make that part of the statement himself was that he himself had been aware of Jonathan’s behaviour for much longer than the statement suggested (years and even decades before 2017). Indeed, of all they very well known Conservative Evangelical leaders who might have been expected to make such a weighty and sad statement on behalf of the Con Ev wing of the church … perhaps none felt able to make the bold claim that 2017 was the FIRST reporting of the behaviour and FIRST knowledge of the behaviour? Could it be the case that in fact none of the well known ministers coukd boldly make the claim that 2017 was the first anyone was aware if rhe abuse? Sarah Hall was not very well known at all and whilst she had a role as safe guarding officer at emmanuel – anyone who understands this network will know that it is significant who did not make any statment at EMA and who was the one left making the 2017-claim. I put it to you that the reason that Sarah Hall gave the statement was that Sarah Hall was the only person the key players could justifably platform who could not later be charged with dishonesty after reading it.
It is possible that Roberts deliberately misled those ministers about his knowledge of the events – the human heart is very wicked. If he did then I hope that the 31:8 review makes that clear.
I don’t know Roberts, but I have never heard a hint of scandal about his honesty. If he was engaged in a cover up as he gave that statement then it is strange that he called for a lessons learned review.
To me it seems perfectly appropriate that Hall is the one who outlined what the safeguarding team at Emmanuel knew and when – she was the safeguarding officer. It is not prima facie evidence of a cover up – it looks more like an attempt to make it clear that no-one is filtering what she is saying by letting her speak for herself.
Roberts seemed quite explicit that he had only been involved since March 2019 and that Fletcher had only admitted the truthfulness of the allegations to Taylor in the previous week (June 2019).
Hopefully the 31:8 review will bring clarity within the next month. If Fletcher’s abuse was ignored by other leaders then they are guilty of very serious sin and it is right that their reputations are damaged. If they then sought to cover up their knowledge then it is right that their reputations are destroyed. I don’t know whether they are guilty of these things, but we can’t let distaste for someone’s theology make us assume the worst of them. We can be grateful that careful work is being done by 31:8 to expose the truth.
Although it is true Vaughan Roberts said he had only been involved since March 2019, his exact words were “In my role as Chairman of The Proclamation Trust, I have been actively involved since late March”. That is not saying he only became aware of the allegations in March 2019 and is arguably only limiting the disclosure to his role as Chairman of the PT.
Was he involved before then in a personal/other capacity that was not connected to PT? And if Stephen’s quote above is accurate (JF’s behaviour “has been widely known within evangelical circles for decades”) it is to some extent irrelevant when the ReNew Leadership became actively involved.
The link to the Proclamation Trust is explained in Sarah Hall’s statement:
“Emmanuel has also received support from other organisations and church leaders who have come to be aware of some of the disclosures. Some action has been taken in liaison with those other organisations, including The Proclamation Trust and The Titus Trust”)
Although that rather blurs the distinction between church leaders and organisations – how can an organisation itself become aware of things?
The thirtyone: eight review is tightly focused on Fletcher’s involvement at Emmanuel Wimbledon. If it ignores the PT and the rest of the ReNew network, a large gap in understanding will remain. And as already said above, there is no guarantee that thiryone: eight’s review will even be published.
Emmanuel church in Wimbledon was not a parish but a proprietary chapel. This church paid no parish share to the Diocese. The Parish of Wimbledon is totally distinct, liberal and inclusive!
Thank you M Hills for your detailed observations about the announcement in 2019. There is evidence to be uncovered about how much more leading figures in the con-evo world knew of Smyth and Fletcher. We hope Makin and Thirty:eight will get further into the story with their reports.
I am tempted to add that, if Dr Sanlon thinks that it is bad, it must be truly terrible, for he (Dr Sanlon) did much damage in the Tunbridge Wells parish where he had the cure of souls, by establishing an alternative schismatic church elsewhere in his parish to provide a biblically sound, exclusive offering to the ‘yoof’ market, untainted by any liberal or inclusive leanings associated with the C of E. He did this for many months whilst still holding his C of E incumbency, before eventually being persuaded to resign his orders and throw in his lot fulltime with the schismatic church. Still, he may have done the C of E a favour, because there have been (and still are) far too many parishes in TW, and his resignation allowed some small much-needed rationalisation to take place.
But good for him and others for attempting to see Mr Fletcher brought to book.
“the con-evo world”. I do hope people would read the article https://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/articles/the-regions-and-tribes-of-evangelical-theology-the-classicists-part-one-classical-conservative-evangelicals/
to understand a bit more about this “world” which perhaps not all are aware of..
Thanks, Leslie, that is interesting and helpful. Where does Martyn Lloyd-Jones fit into his scheme? Incidentally, my father attended Westminster chapel as a young man. He told of one Sunday when senior pastor Campbell Morgan preached in the morning on ‘Why a systematic theology is impossible’. Assistant pastor Lloyd-Jones then preached in the evening on ‘why a systematic theology is essential.’
John Stott once commented to my father that Lloyd-Jones’ problem was a sense of inferiority because he hadn’t been to public school. Lloyd-Jones had been assistant private physician to the king before going into ministry so an inferiority complex hardly seems justified, but it does show the entrenched public school snobbery.
In the 1990s Wayne Grudem and R.T Kendall got involved with Wimber and the Kansas City Prophets – a detour off the strait and narrow of classic conservative theology which proved ill-fated.
Lloyd-Jones and John Stott had a falling out over where Evangelicals should go. Lloyd-Jones in the first National Assembly of Evangelicals in 1965 was for a mass exodus of evangelicals from the denominations to unite as a body. he was frustrated that they were scattered about in various denominations and thus weak and ineffective. John Stott stood firmly against this believing that schism of this sort was not the way forward.
R.T. Kendall who was a (not immediate) successor came with a general reformed agenda but after Arthur Blessit’s visit to Westminster Chapel moved the Church in a direction that eventually became much more charismatic. He lost entirely the support of Lloyd-Jones who refused to have him be even be involved in his funeral. Kendall still has an input into the more charismatic element being a speaker at, for example, New Wine with an emphasis that seeks some coming together of reformed and charismatic elements in the evangelical world.
There are very different ways and backgrounds in the conservative and evangelical world indeed it is part of the widespread rainbow of ecclesiastical thought not only in the Church of England but across the world (West and East).
Yes, the Lloyd-Jones/Stott falling out was part of the great Downgrade Controversy that split evangelicals worldwide. My father was at that conference and it was in that context that Stott made the rather unkind remark about Lloyd-Jones.
All this is ancient history now, of course, but there are many conservative evangelicals today for whom ‘Come ye out and be ye separate’ is still the rallying cry it was for Lloyd-Jones and his followers then.
I’d never heard of the Downgrade Controversy you mention and had to look it up but I see that it dates back to Spurgeon in 1887/9 and an article on a downgrade in confessional faith.
Yes, I agree that there still is a division between those who want to stay and those who want to go. Jerry Middleton, a Scot, once said it was a bit like the pop group Clash’s song:-
Should I stay or should I go?
If I go there will be trouble
And if I stay it will be double
So come on and let me know.
Still very current.
Yes, my father at least called the 1965 split by the same name but I don’t know how general that was – perhaps It was confined to him and his colleagues, or even to conservative evangelicals in the USA. At any rate, if Stott hadn’t won many U.K. evangelical Anglicans round to his point of view, the C of E would look very different today.
Do you see any result today? Both sides clearly want the others to go.
John Stott’s agenda was to change the Church of England from the inside, and that has clearly been very successful. In some ways the Iwerne network are his heirs, though I have no idea if he was ever involved in them. Presumably he knew Bash, but Stott’s theology was much more developed.
The Reform/Renew constituency are theologically much more in line with Lloyd-Jones, but I’m not in touch with them now so don’t know if L-J is still revered. They do share his purist and fissiparous tendencies. Though by the time we returned to England in 1974 the Westminster Fellowship (for pastors) was reduced to debating whether it was appropriate for clergy to wear coloured shirts!
Ah, I wasn’t thinking of disparate groups with the evangelical world more of the general broad brush evangelical world and the liberal secular world. Both seek to win the old Western Established Churches but the evangelical side is doubtful on whether it is worthwhile. There doesn’t appear to be the same fragmentation on the opposite side but perhaps that’s because there’s no great feeling for the creation of rival institutions, separation just means leaving.
John Stott knew Bash extremely well. He was converted at Rugby School through Bash’s ministry, and Bash mentored him and used to write to him on a weekly basis.
Thank you, that’s interesting. I’d wondered if that’s where Stott got the idea of working towards an evangelical Church of England.
Janet – Stott’s comment to your father would be funny if they weren’t so sad. It is unbelievable to think that a man like Stott SERIOUSLY thought that a man such as the great Martin Lloyd-Jones in anyway felt even an ounce of inferiority around him! Martin Lloyd Jones was not only more senior and a much celebrated Harley Street doctor (where as the junior Stott had no such prior career), L-J then had the most incredibly ministry. He was THE preacher people folked to hear in London at the time. Much as the anglicans have sought to rewrite history and paint their own men as having the more influencial ministry, it quite simply wasnt the case. It was Stott who should have felt inferior in the presence of such an incredibly gifted man. But as you say, it is the entrenched snobbery of public school which genuinely led Stott to think he was more superior to Lloyd-Jones, just by accident of his birth. How foolish!
Yes, my father thought the comment was ridiculous and showed Stott in a bad light. He was very gifted too, of course, and my father continued to invite him to preach at the Urbana Convention.
I only met Stott once and found him patronising. But his book I Believe in Preaching was very helpful when I was starting out in ministry.
There’s a piece in the Church Times about the letter some of you wrote to the lead Bishop.
Hello. I’m jolly Bishop Rodger Prattle Tattle. It’s not called ‘alternative’ episcopal oversight, but rather ‘extended’ episcopal oversight. That’s because I have no real power but just do the bidding of the diocesan bishop and archdeacon, because I don’t really know what I’m doing. They find me jolly useful – I have displaced several vicars and got their con evo churches reduced to half time posts. I zip around doing lots of confirmations and the silly con evo churches think they have a real bishop. William Taylor said that I was jolly useful too.
Dear Mr Parsons
Whilst grateful that you are addressing the subject, I read both this and your blog post of 3rd October in which you refer to: “indications of a thirty-year cover-up” and “stories of spiritual abuse [going] back much further [than 2012]” with some disquiet.
Our God is a God of Justice. Please let us not, in our hurt and rage and shock, direct anger indiscriminately, at those whose only fault was to be friends with someone or mix in his circle; far less (probably through no choice of their own) be sent to a similar kind of school.
Do you have any EVIDENCE, please, of anyone – other than Jonathan Fletcher’s victims – being aware of his abusive behaviour (rather than simply his domineering personality, which was in plain open sight) before 2012? Or do you mean to imply that the victims themselves were covering up for him?
The only person responsible for Jonathan’s behaviour is Jonathan himself.
Anne Atkins
I have heard directly from victims of both Jonathan Fletcher and John Smyth about how others knew and did nothing. About how their complaints were suppressed by those still in ministry and those still at Emmanuel Wimbledon.
I have also heard from victims how it is very common in the ReNew world, when trying to speak up about wrongdoing by leaders, to be accused of anger, rage, feeling hurt etc.
Anne, I do not know you and have never moved in Iwerne circles. But am good friends with a Smyth survivor who included his story in Letters to a Broken Church. And am in regular touch with several people familiar to the con evo world.
Hope you won’t take offence, but finding it difficult to reconcile your comment above with your Telegraph article of 2017 https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/03/anne-atkins-inside-thesexual-apartheid-john-smyths-summer-camps/
There you seemed to indicate a widespread cover-up culture :
“In the same article I mentioned another instance of alleged abuse, the supposed perpetrator also a charismatic leader in an extremely influential world. A week later he attempted to contact me. I still struggle to understand my reaction. I was sweating with fear: sick with it. Terrified all weekend. Why? I was the innocent one…
Because of decades of conditioning, presumably. Part of me must have been rationally frightened of extreme peer disapproval and ostracism for blowing the whistle: part was, I suspect, an irrational response to an intensely powerful personality… which abusers tend to have.
Sadly though and more specifically, I still detect this same sense of hierarchy, this same abhorrence of rocking the boat, at work in the same circles. I have not, thank goodness, been witness to child abuse.
But some years ago I attempted to draw attention to a case of completely different (also shocking) abuse going on in a large and influential Evangelical church. Over several years it proved impossible to get the ear of anyone in authority. Close and old friends in the congregation turned a blind eye and didn’t want to know. One influential member said drawing attention to it was “distracting from the Gospel.”
A couple said they didn’t want to read evidence against the clergyman responsible because they “owed him such a lot.” Numerous people urged that the important thing was forgiveness. Eventually, on the advice of several outside the situation, I wrote to the then Archbishop of Canterbury and was fobbed off by a member of his staff.
It is considered ungodly to challenge leadership put in place by God.”
In both these instances you pointed clearly and quite rightly to a complex culture of complity and fear, in which numbers of people chose to hide their awareness whether through tribal coercion or tribal loyalty. And you also rightly point to a dysfunctional culture that went right up to Lambeth Palace, a place one might have expected to find a different and more engaged response. And you rightly said “It is incredibly difficult to run against the herd… and not be trampled underfoot.”
That has been the experience of many survivors in struggling (across five decades in my case) to have the reality of our stories properly received and accepted.
I hope you will let the Thirtyone:eight (Fletcher)) and Makin (Smyth) reviews know all you have witnessed. Yours is vital evidence…
The evidence of the person whom I quoted about ‘widespread knowledge for decades’ is a quote that needs to be answered by those in a position to do so. It rings true. He was also not a victim but a witness of the evil. I have also off the record testimonies which I did not enclose because frankly people have been frightened to come forward. I am afraid the bad apple argument never works. Abuse within an organisation always involves others in its wake. The single quote I give is evidence though it has to be anonymous for the present. Collusion is inevitable in this kind of evil. This is why it is hard for the survivors to get heard. It is not for want of trying. Survivors are buried by those who have something to hide, the perpetrator and those who collude with him, having been captivated by the perpetrator’s charm and charisma. JF seems to have had this in plenty and there is a suggestion that there are still many under this thrall as there were under that of Smyth.
I am frankly confused on this situation. Having no “dog in the fight” and not having heard of Jonathan Fletcher before (being a Scot this is maybe understandable), I am not sure about the “people knew about this for years” allegation. Perhaps this is true however three things strike me:- that Tim Thornborough, a friend, member of Emmanuel and publisher of Fletcher’s books, should be accused of covering up for him by withdrawing his books for sale and destroying copies ?? I would have thought that was a sign of shocked disapproval. I’m not sure how his books would provide evidence of nasty goings on.
Secondly, that Nigel Stone a senior lawyer and church warden of Emmanuel from 1993 until 2007 said he ‘saw nothing and heard nothing’ during his fourteen years as church warden.
Thirdly, Christopher Ash, author in residence at Tyndale House, Cambridge, and a personal friend of Fletcher’s, said ‘The revelations have taken us completely by surprise; we have been shocked and astonished. When we first heard about them, they were so unexpected that we thought they must be false accusations.’ Really?
Now obviously we haven’t heard from other friends who might feel that these friends were bamboozled but at least some are saying that they were astonished to hear. Well, maybe we need to hear more.
[My references were from Martin Bashir’s interviews]
Stephen is right, Anne, those of us trying to bring things into the light, have struggled with folks telling us things in confidence, but for a variety of reasons not wishing to put their heads above the parapet.
I know of victims who have received telephone calls ostensibly to “ see if they are alright” which they received as dog whistle reminders not to step out of line. Their concerns not mine. Shunning is feared not by the potential whistle blowers but on behalf of their families. That is a powerful tool of abusive leaders.
One of the most telling contributions at last February’s General Synod was the reminder that abusers do not simply groom victims but whole congregations: you will know the power of such people from the fact that Smyth and those who covered up for him were able to silence the very smartest of young people for decades.
Things are changing and the more we speak of it, the easier it will be for those who knew or suspected to clear their consciences. We must be sympathetic and supportive of such people as many are secondary victims. I am less sympathetic for those in authority who
retained silence to sustain leadership prestige.
There are probably (at least) two forces at work here. Firstly, people kind of knew there might be something amiss, perhaps a certain creepiness, perhaps too much enthusiasm, but couldn’t find any real evidence and therefore tried to tell themselves it was their imagination. And on the other hand, that people really didn’t know! As in, the Bishop never gets told, for example. “There’s no point, he wouldn’t do anything”! I do, by the way, believe there is a huge amount of collusion, and indifference to victims, and protection of your own pension. (Why is it mostly only retired clergy who speak out?) But sometimes, that isn’t the reason.
I am dismayed.
I have known both Jonathan Fletcher and John Smyth (rather less well) for most of my life. I also know a number of victims of both men, some of them well. (And, as it happens, many of those named in this post.)
I may be wrong, but as far as I am aware I was the first to speak out publicly about both John Smyth’s abuse (which had indeed been known about for decades, though I didn’t have enough evidence to name him) and Jonathan Fletcher’s, in the Mail on Sunday in late 2012.
I am also friends with the victim who believes himself probably the first to report Jonathan Fletcher’s abuse, to both the police and the relevant safeguarding officers. My understanding from him is that he was believed immediately; the allegations were taken very seriously indeed by both the Church of England and Emmanuel Church; and he couldn’t fault the way he has been treated since.
The fact that Jonathan continued his speaking ministry after his PtO was withdrawn doesn’t necessarily mean those who invited him knew. He is known to have lied about it anyway; and it isn’t the sort of thing one would think to check before inviting a well-known speaker to one’s church.
I know many people who looked up to Jonathan, respected him hugely and would even say they owe him much, who were very deeply shocked – even traumatised – by the revelations. I have only ever come across one who didn’t immediately believe the allegations and consider them very grave and dreadful (and that lone exception didn’t know Jonathan and was only idly repeating hearsay).
I am sorry others have had a less positive experience.
Anne Atkins
Anon, can I say that my local Bishop of Rochester has issued a clear direction that everybody invited to preach must be properly DBS checked no matter what status they may have.
I would have hoped this was completely normal.
Sorry: I didn’t mean my last comment to be “Anon” (which is why I signed it!) I don’t usually respond to blog posts…
Having shared my own experiences I probably won’t comment further, except to explain to Gilo that the particular instance of abuse referred to in that Telegraph article – when we had encountered a very distressing attitude of not-wanting-to-know amongst a minority of influential people in the church; whilst, I should immediately add, the vast majority probably had no idea and I hope would have been horrified – was not sexual abuse. We were the victims on that occasion. My husband’s employing church, St Andrew’s Oxford, suffered us and our five children (two of whom had disabilities and one was merely a toddler) to be homeless – thereby split up and hundreds of miles apart – for the best part of an academic year, after the vicar had told my husband, “Anne needs to be taught a lesson.”
And yes, I have spoken to Thirtyone: eight. I hope I will always speak out when I see abuse or bullying or any kind of wrongdoing… but the whole point of my original article in the Mail on Sunday in 2012 was to attempt an understanding as to why good people sometimes keep silent – and be forgiving.
The only abuser is the one who commits the abuse.
Anne Atkins
Anne, that’s terrible. The Church says it promotes family life (often to the detriment of singles and the elderly) and then it does a cruel thing like that.
I’m sorry you had that very difficult experience.
Anne Atkins: The statement that “the only abuser is the one who commits the abuse” is either false or true-but-pointless, depending on how you intended it.
If a third party discourages and mocks a person who reports abuse, or if a third party encounters clear evidence of abuse but fails to act justly, or even (arguably) if they have good reason to be suspicious but they try to ignore their suspicion, that is additional abuse – not to mention the potential repercussions from the original abuser. It takes a great deal of ignorance (genuine lack of knowledge, not stupidity) to qualify as an innocent bystander. An innocent bystander in a small church can hardly exist, unless they’ve just arrived recently. (In a large church there’s at least a reasonable chance of finding people who are genuinely unaware of this kind of event.) But in any case, people receiving secondary abuse because they spoke up about the original abuse is far too obvious and well-known to be swept aside by a glib slogan.
Well said David R. I have first hand experience of this glib slogan not being true. As a child I was cruelly bullied. The adults, including parents and teachers, knew exactly what was going on over the years. The bullies were never tackled and I was never offered a single word or gesture of comfort.
Who, then, would you single out as being ‘ the abuser’ ?
Nice to ‘see’ you again. Hare.
‘“Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing.” John Stuart Mill
There is never just the abuser at fault, unless the abused and abuser are the only residents on a desert island. Almost all of us are compromised in some way, even those of us actively fighting abuse. This is because, as others have pointed out, abusers tend to groom all those around them, and also because there are often conflicting loyalties at play in the onlookers. It’s not just what we know, but what we ought to have known, or could have known if we had allowed ourselves to. As Jesus said, ‘Those who are not with me are against me.’ There’s no neutrality in the fight against evil.
Hi Hare. It’s been a while. Hope you’ve been well. You’re quite right. I’ve said before, I came to hate the good men who said nothing worse than the actual bullies.
I don’t hate the good men and women who do nothing, though I do they think they need to be made aware of how they have failed in their responsibility. As Barack Obama said, ‘The world is messy and good people do bad things.’ There are many reasons for this, including conditioning; conflicting loyalties and responsibilities; being overloaded with work, affecting judgement; poor physical or mental health – to name just a few. I don’t see how being weak or misguided makes someone worse than an abuser who deliberately injures others.
That’s why I think we need a Truth and Reconciliation Process. We need to. know the truth in order to do better, but punishing people isn’t always the right answer. And the fear of punishment for themselves or others will induce a lot of people to keep shtum.
My experience has been the senior clergy who knew but did nothing. They are more culpable than an inadequate who bullies because he feels vulnerable himself. I wouldn’t necessarily blame members of the congregation for instance.
And someone who “has a go” may just do it once. The senior person has sat down and thought about it. And every day, they wake up and decide again to do nothing.
I think we’re commenting on different scenarios. I was thinking of persistent abusers such as Smyth or Ball, and those who didn’t, for whatever various reasons, take action. Or enough action. Still damaging to the survivors and wrong, but not on the same scale as Ball or Smyth themselves. That kind of abuser manipulates everyone around him, not just his direct victims.
30 years ago my line manager told me a convicted paedophile would be joining my congregation, and I was to tell no one else. He’d served his time, my incumbent said, he intended to reform, and we believe in forgiveness, don’t we? I was unhappy and expressed doubts that we could be sure the man had really changed, but my boss was adamant.
Over the next year or so I observed behaviour that worried me. I reported it to the man’s social worker and spiritual director, but, obeying orders, didn’t warn anyone in my congregation. I did tell my leadership team about him when I was leaving and relieved of my duty of obedience to my boss, so they could keep an eye on him.
I still worry about it. I had a conflict between my own judgement and what I felt to be a religious duty of obedience. I had also been badly bullied in a previous post and had had a bad experience of reporting abuse there, and hadn’t recovered from either. And 30 years ago we had no DSAs to advise, and few clear procedures.
So I feel for those who fail to do what is right, and who may have complex reasons for their failure. I’m sure my boss on that occasion genuinely believed we ought to give the fellow a good chance by telling no one of his past. And being who I was at that time, I don’t know if I could have done any differently. I just feel I should have.
There are, sadly, some senior people who do know what they should do and refuse to do it, in order to maintain their own power and prestige and that of the church. That is very wrong. For the rest of us, ‘we have erred and strayed from thy ways like lost sheep…we have left undone those things we ought to have done, and done those things we ought not to have done, and there is no health in us. Have mercy…’
You’re totally right. I was persistently bullied by one cleric. And every morning, our father in God got up and decided not to speak to him. Different scenario, I agree. And, remember, guidelines were different when you were in that situation. We understand better now that there is no Nuremberg defence. But, particularly in the caste system of the Church, it’s still hard.
“Anne needs to be taught a lesson.” That’s appalling. I’m sorry to hear your family suffered this level of arrogant cruelty. I’m often astonished at the lack of emotional intelligence of some who advance as senior pastors.
I think institutions can be abusers as well. Many survivors have experienced this in the cynical and dishonest way the Church of England and its agents have responded.
One of the issues that these posts is raising but so far is, I think, un-named is grooming. We none of us like to believe ‘bad’ things about people we know, like and admire. We like even less to think that we have been ‘groomed’ by abusers. Yet it happens all the time. I remember hearing a speech in General Synod by a clergy member: his church had been split in two when a clergy colleague was accused and subsequently arrested and imprisoned for sexual abuse. Half the congregation refused to believe it and preferred to ‘split away’. We none of us like to feel , or even know, that we have been duped, so the defence mechanism we use is one of disbelief and then we frequently attack the innocent. Abusers are adept at ingratiating themselves within the community. It is how they manage to abuse with impunity.
Another part of what we are looking at is the “just world hypothesis”. I am good. Bad things happen to bad people. So if something bad happens….. I remember being physically and verbally attacked in Cornmarket by a very prominent local individual. When the Bishop heard about it he came straight over to me and said “What did you do to provoke it?” I had done nothing except see him, his wife and then 2yr old, smile at them and say Good morning”. I was on the receiving end of his rage over an event which had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with me, but I had the misfortune of ‘being there’.
Anne, you are right to raise the problems you as a family had in Oxford. But good things did come out of it, You were a greatly valued member of the community where you found a home. You are remembered there with enormous fondness and gratitude for all you gave to them. It was obviously not your expected or even intended outcome when you moved, but there were very positive spin offs.
Bless you, Anne Lee. I had not really intended to contribute further (though am learning much) but your comment has made me tearful. I had no idea we were appreciated. We came full of enthusiasm to contribute, but it soon turned into a truly terrible time for us. My family and close friends tell me I am still in trauma.
(And if only we had “found a home”, a house we could have functioned in, we would have stayed.)
Dear Anne, so sad to hear that you were treated in that brutal and appalling way.
I agree, with mustard!
“…suffered us and our five children (two of whom had disabilities and one was merely a toddler) to be homeless – thereby split up and hundreds of miles apart – for the best part of an academic year, after the vicar had told my husband, “Anne needs to be taught a lesson.””
Isn’t this the sort of thing they do in dictatorships?
I very much hope that Anne and her family have been able to land on their feet, but this will have created the sort of emotional scarring that can take years, if not decades, to heal.
There are those who have experienced abuse from close friends of Jonathan Fletcher. The extensive silencing and manipulation of victims, the bullying, the denigrating, gaslighting, lies, misuse of bible passages to control others and make them feel guilty and ashamed…all of this is abuse. Sexual and physical abuse are not the only categories of abuse, but also psychological and emotional abuse. There is very clear evidence of this.
So sorry you had such an awful experience. I cannot comprehend how someone who believes they have a calling to ministry can behave in such a despicable, cruel way.
Anne, sorry this was meant for you. Think I pressed the wrong button!
You were brave and strong to speak out. Each of us that speaks makes it easier for the next person, so thank you.