In March 2017 at a retreat centre near Rye in Sussex, an invitation-only conference took place at which thirty six individuals were present. They were linked to one another through the fact all were men, all ordained and each had some connection with Jonathan Fletcher, the retired Vicar of Emmanuel Wimbledon. Invitations had been sent out in May 2016 for this gathering, and those invited appeared to be the personal selection of Fletcher. The conference had happened before but there are no details available of where it had been or who had attended. For this 2017 gathering, sixty were invited and of those, 60% accepted and were present at the Oast Houses Retreat Centre in March. From an examination of the first list of invitees, we discover that we have an almost complete Who’s Who of the REFORM/ReNew network in England. In short, there is, from looking at the thirty six names that did attend in March, a fair representation of the entire UK con-evo network. Jonathan Fletcher was clearly the one in charge of all the proceedings at the conference.
In writing this post, I would ask the reader to be aware of the significance of the date March 2017. Two things had happened earlier that year, both of which were to impact significantly on the con-evo world of REFORM/ReNew. At the beginning of 2017, the authorities of the Diocese of Southwark withdrew permission to officiate (PTO) from Jonathan Fletcher. He was at that point still a powerful figure right across the Anglican evangelical world. I can be excused in this post for not setting out again the reasons for this ban. They have already been shared in the public domain. But the fact of an inhibition on Fletcher’s ministry was important because of his powerful and influential hold over so many clergy and institutions at the time. He had for decades enjoyed real power. This he possessed through patronage, wealth, social charisma and a huge range of contacts. In particular, there was an entire generation of evangelical clergy, now in their 50s, who looked to him as their mentor. When the sudden fall came, it would have dismayed some of those close to him. But the effect on his ongoing ministry seems, in practice, to have been minimal. Many clergy and congregations seem not to have been told what had happened. If they did know, many simply ignored the fact that Fletcher was now non-grata with the wider church. Invitations continued to flow in and Fletcher, now officially retired, was able apparently to enjoy continuing to minister as he wished. He gave talks in 2017 at a Retreat run by St Andrews the Great Cambridge and a series of talks at St Michael Chester Sq. His public ministry was finally only brought to a halt when he was ‘outed’ by stories in the Daily Telegraph in June and December 2019.
The second important event of February 2017 was the Channel 4 programme about John Smyth. This event must have been a talking point among the attendees of the gathering as many present were the generation to have known him from attendance at the Iwerne camps as schoolboys or students. The impact of the exposure of Smyth was undoubtedly significant on the conference. Did those present argue for disclosure of what they knew or a cover-up? I think we can take a guess.
This conference held in March 2017 had no overriding theme. It was described as a meeting of ‘Jonathan Fletcher’s Group’. These were the individuals, in other words, who had chosen to be present in order to interact with Fletcher. With the help of Crockford online, which lists the training and careers of all the UK Anglican clergy, I was able to examine the profiles of all those present. This allowed me to work out how 36 careers had, at some point, interacted with the powerful figure of Fletcher. For over half the attendees, he was the one they looked up to at Iwerne camps; for others he was the one who had fostered a vocation into Christian ministry. Every one of them in some way had a significant attachment to Fletcher which made them keen to be at this conference. The age profile of those present was similar, and all had embarked on the path towards ordination at some point in the 70s and 80s. Each had attended one of the main residential evangelical theological colleges in England. Especially popular were Wycliffe Hall in Oxford and Ridley Hall in Cambridge. What I appeared to be witnessing in this conference was a gathering of some of those who had fallen under Fletcher’s spell. They were coming together to pay their homage to their mentor and patron. Their ministries were in part inspired by the influence of Fletcher’s personal charisma. There was, of course, a further loyalty, one to the theology, traditions and tribalism of the REFORM/Church Society networks. This they shared with their mentor.
Does the fact that there was this apparent private gathering of Anglican clergy to meet their highly respected, even if officially discredited, guru, really matter? After all, these clergy might claim that they did not know anything about the Southwark ban. That argument might work for many of those present, but for the fact that, in the room, there were three serving bishops. One was Julian Henderson, the Bishop of Blackburn (coincidentally nominated by Fletcher for membership of Nobody’s Friends in 2016). His recent comments on the CEEC video have been the cause of controversy. The others were the Bishop of Plymouth, Nick McKinnel and the flying Bishop of Maidstone, Rod Thomas. Another clergyman, Andy Lines, soon to be consecrated bishop by the American ACNA network, attended. Of the rest there were some well-known names from the evangelical world. The age-range of those attending was, as we have indicated, relatively narrow. We may suggest that the loyalties reflected in the group date from the time when Fletcher had his maximum influence in the Church -the mid-70s up to the end of the 80s. His hold over the evangelical world has still been strong since the 90s, but a new generation of leaders has begun to replace him.
A day visitor to the 2017 conference was the legendary Dick Lucas. He had presided as Vicar over St Helen’s Bishopsgate for a generation. Now in his 90s, Dick’s presence there helped, no doubt, to give the conference a sense of continuity with the past and possibly helping to bolster Fletcher’s own, now declining, influence in the REFORM world.
As I mentioned in the previous piece in connection with Bishop Rod, there was something jarring and probably highly irregular about the direct consultations between a serving Bishop and a discredited clergyman. Now that I discover that there was this further meeting attended by two other serving bishops, I am still more alarmed. What should happen when a PTO is withdrawn for safeguarding reasons? Although one would not expect a notice in the London Gazette to announce such a change of status, the whole point of taking away a PTO is to make the church safer. Are we to believe that bishops are ever kept in the dark over these matters? If none of them knew, then the safeguarding system is dysfunctional to the point of being useless. If they did know, that suggests a gung-ho attitude to safeguarding which makes each of the three a safeguarding risk. Clergy and bishops have been suspended from duty for such failures. Was their loyalty and desire to pay ‘homage’ to Fletcher greater than their desire to keep the church safe and protect the vulnerable? I am not going to describe the activities attributed to Fletcher, but, suffice to say, he was and is considered to be a serious safeguarding risk. We can allow, in the absence of other evidence, the ignorance of ordinary parish priests towards Fletcher’s behaviour. But something is going very wrong if serving bishops are kept out of the loop (or deliberately exclude themselves) in such a serious affair.
The very fact of a conference in 2017 presided over by Jonathan Fletcher in the presence of three serving C of E bishops makes a nonsense of the safeguarding protocols of the Church of England. Bishop Rod Thomas, who was officially overseeing Fletcher, seems to have had no authority in the situation. From what we can surmise he was behaving like a member of a Fletcher cult. I use that word carefully, but it is the only word that allows me to describe the way that Fletcher kept people like +Rod in thrall to him over several decades. From his days in Cambridge in the mid-70s to his thirty-year tenure at Emmanuel Wimbledon, Fletcher’s influence has been very strong in the Church. With the investigation to be published by thirtyone:eight next year, we hope to understand more of the healthiness or otherwise of that ministry. In the meantime, this blog will be questioning why the Church has seemed unable (unwilling?) to maintain any authority over a maverick and possibly dangerous ministry.
Thanks for this. Are you able to share who the invitees/delegates were?
I am happy to share the names but I don’t want anyone to think of this as some kind of shaming process. Although I do not understand finding JF as an attractive mentor, those who did are not being blamed for anything, especially if they did not know anything about his activities. Who is to know what they knew? We have to assume innocence for the most part. Write to me at parsvic2@gmail.com
Disturbing. Do we know exactly when Fletcher’s PTO was removed? I’ve seen numerous references to the beginning of 2017 but not an exact date. I’m not doubting what you have written Stephen, but is it absolutely certain this meeting occurred before the removal of the PTO?
This meeting occurred in March 2017 after Jonathan Fletcher’s PTO was removed in February 2017.
Thank you and sorry: I got my words muddled up there. That the meeting occurred after the removal of the PTO really is astounding.
The take-up rate was marginally less than 60% since 2 ”younger” replacements (tho’ still over 50 of course) were on the final list having not been among the original 60 invites.
The whole thing was planned beginning from 9 months before the removal of the PTO. The finalising letter was only in the same month as that removal, probably earlier. Even in the unlikely event that it had been known about at the time of finalisation, cancelling the entire conference would have been a drastic step. And a costly step. It would also be an unaccountable, illogical step- what would be gained? All other participants stood to lose, and no-one stood to gain. In any event, they were in theory free to invite whom they chose, laypersons included (the nature of the event would have ruled that out but would not have made it illegal or wrong).
The normal course of events would be for a male individual to become a Iwerne officer at the time they embarked on ministerial training, normally with an existing Iwerne background. Once they had passed that crucial hurdle onto the officers’ list, they would be on this putative/virtual list of Conservative Evangelical clergy for life, barring their own choice or becoming charismatic etc.. As to the average church size represented by this leadership, I take off my hat.
Happy Christmas, Christopher!
Happy Christmas!
Christopher. With respect I think you are missing the point. The discussion is not to do with how long the conference had been in the planning, how expensive it was, or how many were coming (though who was there is much more pertinent of course). No one is suggesting it should have have been cancelled at the last minute. The issue is why Jonathan Fletcher (and others in the know) thought it was in any way appropriate for him to still be leading this event in the light of his PtO removal and the reasons behind it.
I agree, David. And if Jonathan Fletcher insisted on continuing to attend and lead the conference, those who knew of his loss of PTO should have withdrawn. This is especially true of the 4 bishops who were there.
Whether or not they knew his PTO had been removed – and the reasons for it – the whole episode highlights the inadequacy of the present system. As Stephen has so ably pointed out.
Janet. Greetings. Just to add – the present system has just been changed since then. Access to PtO information by those who need it will now be available.
Thanks, David. I thought that system wasn’t going to be in place until May? If sooner, that will be very good news.
David – the change only takes effect from 1 May 2021: see my comment (below) at 5.52 pm on 23 December.
Thanks David. (‘With respect’ I know is not a favourite phrase of many and has been identified as a cliche which withholds more than it grants. Leaving that aside,) I mostly agree with you. I am not sure Jonathan Fletcher was leading the event precisely, let alone single handedly, but he has in other ways been identified as the presiding spirit (because of who defers to him), and secondly is the one person referred to by first name only. It could be that the removal of PTO took place later on in Feb, and JF may well have been bashful understandably about sharing the fact or the details – especially given those – who might have been among the first expected to know – who say they were long unaware of the removal; he may also not have wanted to disrupt well laid plans.
I have now received further clarification from someone in a position to know:
‘It was called ‘The Jonathan Fletcher Group’, the invoices were in the name of The Jonathan Fletcher Group, and he gave the keynote talk every evening. Re PTO I believe it is confirmed he lost his PTO from 1 Jan, so it would have been “investigated”, considered and the decision taken in 2016.’
So there was time – a minimum of 2 clear months – for the news of Fletcher’s ban to circulate among the bishops and those closest to him and/or to Emmanuel, Wimbledon. We don’t know exactly who had heard the news, but it would be very surprising if none of those present had.
There was time also to ask Fletcher to stand down from leading the conference and, failing that, to cancel their own bookings.
Stephen,
Firstly, thank you for your investigations here (and in many other places). You are truly exposing some very murky darkness with the light of the truth.
There is one point I’d like to respectfully correct you on, though. In your second paragraph, you say “He [Fletcher] was at that point still a powerful figure right across the Anglican evangelical world”. You need to insert “conservative” before “evangelical”
As far as I know, Fletcher, and the entire Reform / Renew / Church Society grouping, including people like Dick Lucas and Rod Thomas, only have power amongst Anglican conservative evangelicals, who are only about a third of the total evangelical Anglican constituency. There are also Anglican open evangelicals (a centrist grouping represented by the Fulcrum network) and Anglican charismatic evangelicals (as represented by the New Wine network.
I am sure you are familiar with the well-known “watercourses” paper from Graham Kings which identified these three streams. Although 17 years old now, and criticised by some, I would say Kings’ analysis is still valid and insightful.
The open and charismatic streams are each approximately equal in size and together amount to the other two-thirds of Anglican evangelicalsm. They have markedly different approaches to the conservatives. For example, both open and charismatic evangelicals are egalitarian and strongly supportive of female clergy and bishops, which instantly suggests the conservatives have no power or influence amongst them.
I don’t think that open or charismatic evangelicals have the same level of problems as conservatives. There aren’t the same power dynamics in the former two streams, and I can’t identify any really dominant personalities. Nicky Gumbel is possibly the most senior figure amongst charismatic anglican evangelicals, followed by a few leaders in New Wine, but I don’t think any of them have any real power over their churches or clergy in the same way as Fletcher or Lucas. Whilst I’m less familiar with open evangelicals, I doubt there’s anyone amongst them who exercises any real control.
The conservative evangelicals do have an elitist mentality and present themselves as the only evangelicals in the Church of England. Let’s take care not to validate this, and always put them in their real place as just one of the three streams.
Thank you David. I am course aware of these distinctions. I keep using the REFORM/ReNew description as a more accurate one. Part of the problem is that the ReNew lot think of themselves as ‘the’ evangelicals in the C of E. It is helpful to have your extra bit at the bottom. I do not think we disagree but it is easy for me to leave something out when I write things in a 24 hour cycle as this one was. I work on the basis that if you cogitate too long the topicality is lost. This is topical for a variety of reasons. The ReNew lot have a case to answer.
Hi Stephen, I don’t think we disagree in the slightest. And I couldn’t produce anything like the quality or quantity of your writings, which I think are unique and important. I’m glad my own church has nothing to do with ReNew!
Thank you, David, for drawing our attention to Bishop Graham Kings’s ‘watercourses’ paper published in ‘Anvil’ in 2003 and which, having read your comment, I found via Google. (“Canal, River and Rapids: Contemporary Evangelicalism in the Church of England” Anvil Vol 20, No. 3, 2003). I had not previously seen it. I agree that Bishop Graham’s analysis is both valid and insightful.
Hi David, thanks for your kind words. I’ll put a link to the paper below to help others find it. I thought it was pretty well-known but clearly there are some who haven’t yet seen it. I did once read some criticism of it somewhere (can’t remember what or where), but I haven’t seen a better study of 21st century anglican evangelicalism, nor do I think the situation has changed that much since it was written. If it is problematic in any way, I’d love to know the details.
Paper: https://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/articles/canal-river-and-rapids-contemporary-evangelicalism-in-the-church-of-england/
Jonathan Fletcher agreed not to exercise PTO in February 2017.
Thank you Tiger Tea. I had always assumed that there was some sort of background inquiry first by the Southwark safeguarding authorities but this has never been made clear. I rely on the Telegraph reporting on this one.
I have always assumed the removal of the PTO was the culmination of a disciplinary process but it’s strange to read he “agreed” not to exercise his PTO. What does that mean? Is it possible to disagree/refuse to accept the removal of a PTO?
I am not familiar with any of the background other than what I have read here, but it seems possible that this came about under the provisions of Section 16 of the CDM 2003 (as amended) ‘Penalty by Consent’ and that would have been in the course of a disciplinary process if the parties, ie., the complainant and respondent both agreed to the penalty and the Bishop approved and took no further formal action.
Apologies. I didn’t get that exactly right, although it is essentially the likely explanation of what happened. Easiest to quote the relevant provisions from Section 16, which I hope are clear:
16 Penalty by consent
(1) Where the bishop considers that the imposition of a penalty by consent might be appropriate, he shall afford the complainant and the respondent an opportunity to make representations and, if the respondent consents to the imposition of a penalty under this section and he and the bishop agree as to the penalty, the bishop shall, subject to subsection (2) below, proceed accordingly and thereafter no further step shall be taken in regard thereto.
(2) Where it is agreed that prohibition for the life or resignation is the appropriate course the respondent or the bishop may, within the period of seven days following the date of the agreement, withdraw his agreement and the prohibition or resignation shall not be implemented in pursuance of this section.
Reading Emmanuel Wimbledon’s response to the first Telegraph article again, it states the decision was made by the Bishop of Southwark:
“The Bishop of Southwark decided that Jonathan Fletcher could no longer hold Permission to Officiate in the Diocese of Southwark”
So maybe not a voluntary agreement after all. More interesting however would be if Robin Weekes (Vicar of Emmanuel Wimbledon) was in attendance in March 2017. That he was informed from the beginning is also confirmed in the response:
“In early 2017, the current vicar and the safeguarding officer became aware from two separate sources that unnamed individuals had made allegations…”
https://www.emmanuelwimbledon.org.uk/Groups/325392/Emmanuel_Wimbledon/About_Us/Safeguarding/Safeguarding_Statement_21/Safeguarding_Statement_21.aspx
Continuing the theme it’s worth looking again at the EMA Statement (also June 2019) which gives chronological details but misses out the removal of the PTO and therefore the date from which you might expect Fletcher to have been persona non grata.
“In early 2017 two sources informed Emmanuel of… allegations. An immediate safeguarding report was made to the Diocese. We understand they promptly passed information to the Police, who concluded that no police action would be taken. The diocese did not recommend any further action…. Starting in late 2018, concrete allegations have been made…”
And later on:
“Southwark Diocese has said that in 2017 they commissioned an independent safeguarding assessment. Based on the information then available, this concluded…there was a risk of Jonathan behaving …in a manner which may be harmful. The Diocese made formal contact with Jonathan to explain this”.
What none of these statements make clear is when the diocese told anyone else about the PTO. If they really did tell nobody and gave Emmanuel the impression no further action was needed, the safeguarding failure must presumably be with the diocese.
Let’s hope the 31.8 Report will clear things up.
Rowland: The grant or withdrawal of Permission to Officiate (PTO) is entirely within the gift of the diocesan bishop. It is revocable summarily: no disciplinary process is involved or required before withdrawal or revocation of PTO and there is no right of appeal against the bishop’s decision. (Whether a decision to revoke PTO could be the subject of a judicial review challenge is problematic and untested. )
Stephen raises such an important point in this article – either there are serious problems with the Church of England safeguarding processes, or the bishops concerned knew but disregarded the PTO and safeguarding issues and attended this conference anyhow. Not good. Answers are needed.
The 2017 invitation-only conference looks like a last desperate attempt to shore up a soon-to-disintegrate dynasty.
To those of us well outside this tiny kingdom, it can almost seem bizarre that anyone would be attracted to it, but nevertheless, the “pull” of the man was very strong to achieve 60% attendance.
Given the age demographic cited, the acolytes were likely personal JF recruits. For them, he represented a pillar of faith, and maybe still does. People don’t easily remove their metaphorical arms from such a pillar. JF’s public exposure would certainly have encountered strong mental resistance before the wider constituency decided to sacrifice him.
As has been pointed out before, the con-evo world is a narrow, but not an homogeneous one. Former JF disciples must find a new leader to fall in behind. I am perfectly sure that a new younger elite will have stepped deftly into the breach.
In essence these power struggles may be singularly unappealing to those outside this narrow world, but are an inevitable consequence of the cult of an individual.
Spare a thought for those impressionable young men (now in their late 50s), some of whom may have been subject to JF’s “light hearted forfeits” and have given their whole lives to a religion crafted in his image, now expected simply to switch to someone else. That’s tough. Many will have tacitly endorsed his methods, but now have to change position and publicly step away from his influence, but questioning and further public statements are of course prohibited by the group omertà.
Picking an external fight with the C of E by the StHB brigade is a distraction attempting to divert the troops from the internal power struggles and disruptions.
The 60% take up is probably a result of the smallness of the venue. I had a look at it. From the website it appears that the capacity is very limited. https://www.theoasts.co.uk/
It looks like an amazing venue though and it is interesting to note that it has a sauna which ‘Jonathan Fletcher’s Group’ could make use of. From what I read in the daily mail, Jonathan Fletcher loved naked saunas with other men. You say this was a male only conference?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7829163/Church-England-reverend-Jonathan-Fletcher-77-Wimbledon-south-London-fresh-abuse-claims.html
Yes, it was men only, and they had to be aged 50 or over. The conference wasn’t a one-off, it seems to have been held regularly.
It seems very unlikely, in such a close-knit group with connections going back 40 years or more, that they didn’t discuss the revelations re. Smyth and Fletcher’s difficulty with Southwark Diocese.
I’ve seen the list of names, and I knew several of them from my days at Wycliffe Hall in the 1980s. Their coterie appeared to be close knit then, and they’re still attending invitation-only conferences together all these years later. Incidentally, it wa sonly at Wycliffe that I ewer heard Jonathan and David Fletcher’s names mentioned, which confirms what David says above about the different streams of evangelicals.
Another of the attenders, whom I didn’t know at Wycliffe but encountered some years later, once observed to me that ‘Galatians is all about the Law’. When I countered that Galatians is usually understood to say that God’s grace is supreme over the Law, he replied, ‘We have to have the Law so that we know who’s in and who’s out.’ Of course he regarded himself as ‘in’.
Most charismatic and open evangelicals would be horrified both by that wilful misreading of the epistle, and the eagerness to know who is ‘out’. Jesus says so clearly that we can’t easily tell the difference, and there are going to be a lot of surprises at who we find in heaven.
For some people that craving to be part of the ‘inner ring’, as C.S Lewis termed it, seems to trump everything else – but Jesus showed us that the marginalised and despised know most about the kingdom of heaven.
Thank you for this helpful article. One comment. With regard to who should have known about the withdrawal of Fletcher’s PTO there was no national list that a bishop or other authorised person could access to get that information. That has only just been set up. That also meant that an important communication gap was easily exploited by any with an interest in hiding ‘awkward’ information.
One of our legal experts may be able to clarify this, but I thought that if a cleric with a licence, which isn’t the same as PTO, has it removed, another bishop considering relicensing them must approach the bishop that removed it. And if they are unfrocked, which also isn’t the same, the prospective new bishop must also approach their own archbishop, and the former one if different. Things may have changed, and the precise legal terms are important, but it does suggest some sort of mechanism. Otherwise, how would a new bishop know? It does suggest a slapdash way of approving PTOs. You are supposed to have a DBS check. In which case, the blemished record would be discovered.
You may well be right. I was only referring to PTO’s in my post.
I am hoping that thirtyone:eight will clarify this issue about the removal of the PTO and who knew when. My sources tell me that a variety of people did hear about it in the con-evo world by the spring of 2017. I cannot of course reveal everything I hear which is based on reported conversations and not actual documents. As I said in my piece, there is no point in having a system like this if the people who need to know, are not told. Certainly +Rod needed to know and he has not put out a statement (like William Taylor) claiming not to know about the PTO withdrawal.
Crockford entries indicate whether a cleric has PTO. However, that depends both on dioceses immediately notifying Crockford if PTO is removed, and people issuing invitations to preach or lead consulting Crockford every time. In practice many won’t.
However, there ewer people at the Last Houses conference who must have known. Certainly Fletcher himself did, and didn’t take it very seriously. That ought to be grounds for further disciplinary measures against him.
The National Ministry Register (Clergy) Regulations 2020 [SI 2020 No. 1538] approved by General Synod on 25 November 2020 and made on 11 December 2020, come into force on 1 May 2021. Under the regulations, when in force, the registration officer (as defined) for every clerk in Holy Orders (including bishops) must provide the specified ‘registration information’ to the Archbishops’ Council, who will establish the register. The information will include, inter alia, the name of the clerk and “(c) the form of authority to exercise ministry which the clerk has” and “(d) the area, place or activity to which the authority relates.”
Regulation 5 provides: “Where the authority of a clerk in Holy Orders to exercise ministry is terminated, or ceases for a limited period, in circumstances of a kind mentioned in paragraph (2), the registration officer for the clerk must, within 24 hours of the termination or cessation taking effect, inform the Archbishops’ Council of the termination or cessation but not of the circumstances.” The circumstances listed in para (2) (broadly, ‘disciplinary circumstances’, but also that the clerk “has voluntarily withdrawn from ministry”) include that “the clerk’s permission to officiate is withdrawn.”
Thus, although revocation of PTO, or a disciplinary termination or suspension of authority to exercise ministry, will not be recorded on the register, that clerk’s name will (or should) be removed swiftly from the register following a regulation 5 notification, which will be a publicly available register. So, if, after 1 May 2021, a clerk’s name is not on the register, that will signal a warning to any one who may wish to invite the clergyperson to fulfil any ministry function in his/her benefice. It must surely follow that if a cleric invited or allowed someone whose name was not currently on the register to preach or lead worship in his/her church, that would, of itself, be misconduct. Hopefully, checking of the register will become routine.
Surely an incumbent does not have the authority to invite someone to minister regularly in their benefice on their own cognisance? You would have to ask the bishop, and the Bishop’s office would do the checks. No need for every incumbent to know how to do the checks.
If your sources have information which might affect the outcome of the review – please ask them to send intel to thirtyone:eight
jfsafeguardingreview@thirtyoneeight.org
It’s also important to send information to the NST in situations where CofE safeguarding has been ignored.
zena.marshall@churchofengland.org
thirtyone:eight cannot clarify things without being given all relevant information. Nor can the NST necessarily know such information – unless it is given to them. It is important that your sources help the NST join up the dots.
Incumbents can and do ask other clergy to minister regularly. That’s what PTO is for. And if someone they’re used to inviting has PTO withdrawn, there isn’t necessarily a way for them to know that.
Of course the invitee should have the integrity to say they no longer have PTO. Fletcher clearly wasn’t that honest.
No, I mean, they have to have PTO. In the current diocese. If it’s withdrawn, when an incumbent asks the bishop about using them, the bishop says, no. If they move dioceses, you ask the new bishop, the bishop gets a DBS check before granting PTO. Or should. You can’t ask just anyone. Now if someone has had PTO removed, and hasn’t moved, but everyone just keeps it secret, I can see how that would work! And it’s monstrous. I also know of Readers who have taken emeritus and not sought PTO, and therefore not had a DBS check, who just carry on. I don’t know of specific cases, but I imagine it would work with self supporting ministers, too. And possibly retired clergy moving in. That would depend on the incumbent’s knowingly breaking the law on safeguarding. But just getting anyone to take services without asking the bishop… How often does that happen? Serious question. Do clergy habitually just by-pass the bishop?
‘incumbent’s knowingly breaking the law on safeguarding’
Indeed and with no thought on the consequences. Some twenty years ago, a full time stipendiary priest from another diocese, was welcomed into the vicarage in my local village. We were told that he was on long term sick leave. A few months later the truth came out. He was on bail for historic child sex offences. Until the first day of his trial, he protested his innocence, when he changed his plea to guilty on all charges. After a few months in prison he moved elsewhere, changed his name, I have no idea where he is. There were ructions in the community at the local vicar’s naievity and duplicity. He moved on but the numbers attending church on a Sunday fell to three or four and have never recovered.
On a related matter, clergy are sometimes suspended for a short time for conduct unbecoming (such as a former Abbott in the diocese of Winchester, for two years). That process seems to be opaque. How does anyone find out the details. When the slate is wiped clean after suspension, what does that mean for future supervision?
A former sex offender did move in to a friend’s parish. They disclosed their history, and the system kicked in. Visit from the safeguarding advisor, signing behavioural agreements… It got a bit sticky, but that was partly because people thought nothing had been said. The borderline between confidentiality and secrecy. But in theory, there’s a system, and it should be ok. He was being supervised by the whole parish, effectively.
You’re referring to clergy inviting other clergy from outside the diocese?
Some clergy have PTO in multiple dioceses. This is often the case where they frequently minister outside their home patch. And there is – or wa sin my day, it may have changed – permission to ask a given outside speaker, say once a year or so. This allows for speakers from mission agencies, other charities, and special events such as missions. So, if a parish is used to having Fletcher or the Rev. A.N. Other to speak at an annual mission or discipleship service, it may not occur to the vicar to check PTO every time. THey’d be used to assuming he was kosher. Especially, perhaps, if they had been mentored by him earlier in their ministry,
That may have to change, and perhaps has already changed. But in the huge welter of paperwork and multiple conflicting (and often urgent) demands faced by incumbents, I can see how it might get overlooked. That’s why checking PTO has to be made much easier.
No, actually. I meant you can’t invite just someone off the street! If someone turns up in your church whom you don’t know, there’s a checking process that should kick in. What I’m envisaging is incumbents not engaging with that at all. If Jonathan Fletcher just carried on as if nothing happened because the Bishop kept it secret, that’s one thing. If he turns up a hundred miles away in a parish with a young Anglo-catholic priest who’s never heard of him, Father Holy Thing is supposed to contact the bishop before slotting him into his ministry team.I understand about visitors and occasionally. I’ve been that person! But I’m wondering how often these things are just ignored?
Checking should be much easier as from 1 May 2021 (or a short time thereafter to allow for registration officers to input the required information): see my comment above about the new regulations. It will be a single online register to check: if a cleric’s name is not on it, then the vicar/rector/priest-in-charge must act on the basis that he or she does not have PTO or other authority to exercise ministry in the C of E.
Conservative evangelicals tend to be sticklers for the law. However they can circumvent issues by creating their own bishops etc.
Compliance with Church legal provisions is of course only a very small part of how people get their way. In the scheme of things, wealth and the threat of withholding large quotas tends to be of much greater influence.
Charismatic Anglican evangelicals aren’t very interested in rules and regulations. I recall attending an Induction service where the new cleric made the requisite promises to obey Church laws (or however it was phrased) and then promptly joked about ignoring them.
In my experience of this genre, any Tom Dick or Harriet can get up and talk and they frequently did. Mostly they were chums of the vic. Some were ordained. I’d be very surprised if checks had been made on them, but I could be wrong.
Just as an aside, the “O” of PTO presumably refers to Communion? In such a case the evangelicals don’t tend to do a great amount of Eucharist anyway. If the officiating has a broader scope then my above comments apply.
Not just Communion, Steve.
This post in July 2018 on the Law & Religion UK website is informative and provides the relevant links: https://lawandreligionuk.com/2018/07/23/permission-to-officiate-the-new-policy/
Thanks David
Yeah. Readers need PTO too, once they have retired. Hence my comment above about not doing so.
Listening to “Carols from Kings” on Radio 4, I realised I wanted to wish everyone a happy Christmas. Forgive the interruption to the subject flow!
Best wishes
Steve
Oh yes! Thanks! And also with you! 😀
Happy Christmas to all my readers. I normally do a Christmas reflection at this time but there is too much going on this year!
There’s a beautiful Christmas reflection here. http://countryrector.blogspot.com
Happy Christmas Stephen, and Frances. And to everyone. Some reason to be relieved, anyway. I’m looking forward to a service.
Hi EA, only just found this ,but thank you! I will respond by wishing you and your family and the Blog community a new year which is happy, healthy and healing.
Happy Christmas everyone. Sunny here in Whitby.