The recent debates and discussions that have come out of the Jonathan Fletcher/Emmanuel Church Review have had a considerable impact both on individuals and the wider Church. All of us have now passed beyond the point of being shocked by the revelations. Those who were in any way associated with JF, will by now have arrived at a new stage. This is to take stock and consider afresh how the revelations have affected their personal faith. There is also the need to look at the Christian networks they belong to and ask themselves whether their loyalties have changed in any way. For some, this taking stock may have been extremely painful. Some have looked up to JF for decades so that their Christian identity is bound up with having had him as a mentor or guru. They will be asking themselves, ‘how much of my Christian conviction has been created by my dependence on JF’s personality and in the way that he exercised a strong influence over me? What is left now after he has been shown to be to be a false prophet concerned with the preservation of his power and image?’ Others will be asking themselves other questions, those which were put out by the Review itself. ‘Is my current post or position within the Church tenable when I owe it to the patronage of JF and his circle? Am I now caught up in an institutional structure which was created by a dishonest and unedifying scramble for power? Can I continue when so much rottenness at its base has been revealed?’
Speaking for myself, I have not had to go through these painful stages of realisation. Jonathan Fletcher had been completely unknown to me until fairly recently. Stories about him were circulating at the start of 2019, and the first Daily Telegraph exposure in June of that year did not surprise me in any way. I reveal this detachment from the world of JF, not with any sense of smugness, but with a real feeling of sadness for all those who were (and are) living in thrall to his influence. Over the years when I have been trying to study closed Christian groups and cults, I have noted this phenomenon of surrendering responsibility to a religious leader. Once this fateful decision has been made to become the disciple or follower of a particular leader or guru, certain things happen. Few of them are helpful to the long-term well-being of the disciple or the guru. Nevertheless, each seems to gain in the short term. From the perspective of the follower, the main gain is the sharing of and access to the leader’s version of truth. Suddenly, issues about morality, the meaning and purpose of life are made clear. Instead of doubt there is certainty. The leader, the supremely wise individual, has, it is believed, access to levels of insight and wisdom which are given him by his special spiritual status. All cults and closed Christian groups seem to practise a version of this surrender to a ‘realised’ leader.
One of the weaknesses of conservative Christianity is the claim that there is only a single version of truth and teaching. There is a single way of reading the Bible and the leaders and their group possess it and proclaim it. This ‘truth’ is completely above any need to debate or even discuss. Such a claim is extraordinary when we think about it. It totally ignores the wide variety of cultural and historical manifestations of Christianity that exist. The expression the Bible ‘clearly teaches’ is also palpable nonsense for those who actually take the trouble to read the text for themselves. Consistency and clarity are not there to be found in the Bible, but only in the imagination of one who keeps the book firmly closed. Only in the context of a carefully supervised reading of selected passages during a sermon on Sunday mornings, can this illusion of coherence and consistency be maintained. For the rest of us who study it for ourselves with the help of commentaries, the Bible turns out to be a highly complex work, full of insight, nuance, paradox and mystery but not clarity. It does not suddenly become easy to understand, just because a preacher declares it to be the infallible word of God and makes numerous selected quotes to back up a line of teaching.
The world of conservative evangelical Christianity is an extraordinary one for those of us who are not part of it. We ask many questions of this group, but we often fail to receive answers. How does conservative Christianity place such enormous weight on some ambiguous verses in Leviticus on the gay issue, while virtually ignoring some straightforward prohibitions on divorce given by Jesus? Does Christianity ever have the right to operate as a privileged but closed system of knowledge, unwilling to engage properly with the disciplines of learning which have developed over the past 500 years? Christianity is not at its most attractive when it claims to have the ultimate truths connected with human life, while shutting out debate with others who see things differently. If debating is ever closed down on the grounds that ‘authority’ has decided that there are settled opinions which must be followed, some of us rebel.
Within the world of the conservative Anglicanism, as exemplified by JF, St Helen’s Bishopsgate and All Souls, the inerrant authority of Scripture, interpreted by the godly ‘sound’ preachers gives a semblance of unity to the whole institution. If the appointed leader has the divine authority to preach the word of God, this logically allows him to exercise control in other areas of church governance. If any part of this authority is shown to be shaky, then the rest of the authority structure is under threat. The democratic impulse is not one well cultivated in these circles. If the hard line preaching on moral issues is ever contested, the institution must push back strongly. Any concession to another version of truth puts a possible doubt over the legitimacy of the leaders. JF skilfully used the structures of conservative Anglicanism to maintain an enormous amount of power for himself. He used the power of the institution to resist challengers within. More importantly, he had power as the preacher of the infallible word of God. To oppose such a leader, is to oppose God himself. Who wants to be on the wrong side of God?
The unseemly initial response by William Taylor to the Fletcher Review on Palm Sunday from the pulpit at St Helen’s, was revealing. https://anglican.ink/2021/04/05/william-taylors-palm-sunday-criticisms-of-the-fletcher-report-from-the-pulpit-of-st-helens-bishopsgate/ It seemed like the reaction of a man who felt that his personal power was under attack. Although Taylor apologised for his remarks a week later, this first reaction was an understandable outburst in at least two ways. First of all, Taylor probably owes an enormous amount to JF. Taylor’s spiritual formation, as well as his place as leader of St Helen’s and current head of the ReNew constituency, all seem to be linked to his personal and professional ties to JF. The way that patronage has operated during JF’s period of influence suggests that no appointments were ever made to a post as central as St Helen’s without the blessing of JF. In the second place the structures of the con-evo section of the Anglican church are indebted to JF’s work in the past. The Review went as far as suggesting that this whole edifice of the con-evo institution needed dismantling and rebuilding to cope with the aftermath of JF’s disgrace. Such a process would of course directly impact Taylor himself and his position as overall leader. He was, clearly, rattled by this suggestion, and his first instinct was to lash out against it and also declare the advisors’ other supplementary comments ‘political’. The main Review had avoided naming individuals, but the extra comments from the advisors had no such inhibition.
The power to control an institution without challenge has always been the goal of cult leaders and other authoritarian leaders of religious groups. From my perspective, the ReNew constituency is such an authoritarian network. As such it cannot tolerate questioning or dissent. If any part of the structure, the leadership or doctrine, is challenged, the whole system goes into panic defensive mode. All the complaints about bullying and other forms of power abuse that we hear from these networks (there are several ongoing at present) have a high degree of credibility. They are credible because an organisation that needs to be without error is also likely also to be disproportionately aggressive in the way it defends itself. The Bible, the institution, the doctrine and the leaders – all have to be part of seamless whole that knows no doubt or error. The logic of infallibility as a doctrine of the Bible is extended to the whole structure, including leadership decisions. No questioning of leaders, decisions or structures can be tolerated. That would undermine the fantasy of perfection and certainty which holds the whole structure together. It is this promise of certainty available to the followers that gives the leaders much of their enormous power.
Commentators on the Church in 2021 have been speaking of the enormous changes that are predicted as the result of the pandemic. The thirtyone:eight report on Emmanuel Wimbledon may be seen by historians as of equal importance. The Review will perhaps mark the moment when the complacent secretive structures of conservative Anglicanism were prized open for the first time. The flaws and corruption seen within helped to dispel the myth of infallibility and certainty for these leaders. This expression of Anglicanism may be allowed to flourish in a quite different way in the future. Without the arrogance of certainty with claims to divine truth, the ReNew network may come to serve the wider church in a better way. With a new attitude of humility, chastened by its clear past failures, especially in its failure to respond to abuse, it might eventually come to serve the wider church in a form that enriches other Christians groups, rather than trying to dominate them.
I wonder what was made of the reading from Acts at the Eucharist this morning? Not much sign of the conservative evangelical lobby holding all things in common and selling all they have in order to give to the poor. So much for ‘Bible believing Christians’.
Come and have tea.
Oh yes. The more people know they’re in the wrong, the more aggressive they get.
I also wonder what was made of the readings from the Song of Solomon which we have had at Morning Prayer this week? Or do they ignore the lectionary and run instead with their chosen themes or sermon series? The lectionary makes us read stuff we would well choose not to read.
That’s two separate sequences. Clergy, doing the morning office, will be on BCP. Sundays, if you’re on CW, you’re supposed to still do the CW readings for Sundays, even though there’s no set themes. In my experience, the high Anglo-Catholics insist on having the OT and don’t read the Epistles, and the Evangelicals just have one reading which is a bit random. Both naughty.
I’m out of touch now, but what you say the high A-Cs are doing is the opposite of how I was brought up – only the Epistle and always New Testament. It was quite a surprise to me when first encountering any Old Testament readings in the Communion service. Did this start with ASB or one of those earlier experimental modern liturgies of the 1960s/ 70s?
In the far-off A-C days which I first mentioned, the chalice was never handled by the communicant, nor administered by a lay person. The priest presented it to the communicant’s lips. The common cup, as generally known, would have been the norm in non A-C parishes. No one got worked up about these things then – it was just accepted as being the diversity of the C of E in meeting the needs of everyone under a single church umbrella.
Well, the BCP readings for each day are still there in the book, one OT, one NT. The CW has a sequence for Sundays; usually OT, NT and Gospel. It is tweaked from time to time, but the idea is that you read them all, and that way, your congregation hear the whole Bible read (ish) over a three year period. That’s got to be good.
Matins and Evensong (Morning and Evening Prayer, if you prefer) fulfilled that function. Probably only in the cathedrals the entire psalter also recited now – and by no means in all of them.
Which function? Every parish church should manage to do a service on a Sunday! With readings.
A complete reading of the scriptures Including the Psalter. But I know one Cathedral which edits out verses of the psalms not considered to be currently ‘PC’.
I have mentioned on TA today a priest I know who has eight churches. I’m sure he does his best, but some comments simply don’t reflect the reality of country parishes (and urban ones which share a single incumbent) so, perhaps, yes ideally what you say in a church in every benefice – but simply not possible in every church. I hope we can leave it there.
The lectionary itself often edits out ‘non PC’ chunks. But this leaves people with the impression they have to be very careful what they say to God, and that in turn produces a kind of spirituality not grounded in reality. It also leaves outsiders with the impression that the Church knows nothing about the kind of lives they lead, and has nothing to say to them.
Except that much of it is left out, and many of the passages that are in the lectionary are heavily redacted. Especially the OT and Psalms. Which often leads to a false reading.
I think the idea of a lectionary is very useful, but it really ought to cover everything.
Sorry to be liturgically picky….
People saying the Daily office will probably use the CW daily office lectionary – I don’t know many who use the BCP lectionary. On Sundays, CW abandoned the ASB themes and tends to read consecutively from one week to the next – it is a more Biblical lectionary! But yes, many evangelical churches would not know a lectionary if it bit them in the ankle.
You are right that many evangelical do not use the lectionary, but your implied argument is damaged by failing to recognise how many read from “The Bible in a year” calendar for precisely the reasons that Janet mentions above. In general the evangelicals I know guide their bible study programmes compared with the lectionary as “More and deeper”
The lectionary is (a) imposed, (b) incomplete, (c) artificially truncated at points, to suit the compiler, (d) decontextualised. Each of these 4 shortcomings is removed by the use of a Bible in a Year scheme.
Technically so is BCP given that Common Worship is supposed to make commonality in worship but seems like it’s less now than before. I even know of a local church using the Sunday Missal, not to mention many churches using the UK 1928 prayer book which parliament declared illegal. Still I think it is very good to look at bits we would rather not even if you have the full 3 readings and a lengthy sermon that is still unlikely. Many people avoid anything controversial like that passage from acts or that entire section at the end beginning with R, I think?
Rowland, you’re right about the Psalms, of course. It is possible to do something about those in a parish church, but it’s not as easy. But, unless you’re dealing with a situation where some churches in a benefice no longer have services of any sort every Sunday, there’s really no excuse for not exposing your people to the Bible. I find clergy very oriented towards a totally priestly ministry! Saving all your presences, Reverend Sirs et Mesdames. Several members of congregations over the years have told me only clergy can read the gospel! This is coming from their incumbents. There are nearly always people who can take services. And the Bible should be read! *thumps tub*.
Oh, and I’m totally with the Cathedral Canon who refused to read the bit about dashing children’s heads against a stone in front of the choir!
But if you duck that reading, you miss the opportunity to preach about what we should do with feelings like hatred and a longing for revenge. And those are very human feelings, which everyone experiences at one time or another (definitely not excluding choirboys!). If those feelings aren’t acknowledged and brought into the light, they might result in someone living for years with festering resentment, or perhaps carrying out major or minor acts of revenge.
For the last couple of decades of my preaching ministry (i.e. when I had my own parishes and could choose the sermon topics) I adopted a policy of reading all the set lessons and preaching on the most difficult.
Sure, but not at evensong! No sermon!
There ought to be a sermon! What’s a cathedral doing omitting a sermon at evensong?
Every day? Big work load!
A brief comment is enough. I once heard Richard Holloway preach a very good sermon in 4 minutes. And with one of the revenge psalms, there could be a simple comment that we all have vengeful feelings from time to time, and we can bring them to God – but not act on them. That doesn’t even take any preparation.
Does anyone know of a Cathedral which preaches, even briefly, at literally every service? Even if there’s likely to be very few people? In practice, midday eucharists are likely to have retired clergy presiding. Would they want to do that? Straight question. I only know two, and they don’t.
When I was a curate at Bradford Cathedral I think we had a talk of some sort at every service, except said weekday morning and evening prayer which was basically just staff prayers. But if there was a sung service there was certainly a talk.
Before that, when I was an ordinand at Wycliffe I used sometimes to go to evensong at Christchurch. They never had a talk on weekdays but I think it would have done me good if they had.
That was a long while ago of course.
A brief comment on the readings takes no preparation and very little time, and I really think there’s no excuse not to do it. I don’t think I’ve ever taken a service myself without teaching of some kind – though it might be disguised a little!
I can only answer about Chester, Lincoln, York and Winchester. Sermon at Evensong on Sundays – none on weekdays other than, possibly, Saints’ Days and Festivals. At Winchester the main Sunday Eucharist now follows the RC pattern of a ‘homily’ rather than sermon.
I have attended weekday midday Communion at Lincoln and Lichfield, and was surprised that they both included a homily. The priest at Lichfield was elderly and retired; at Lincoln a young man from a local parish, and both of them charming and welcoming in conversation afterwards. A lovely experience in such lovely settings.
Chester includes a congregational hymn at Evensong on weekdays. I wish this could be universal. Lincoln often includes an Office hymn to plainsong – there is such beauty – and variety – available in C of E liturgy.
My information may not be up to date, as I last visited them in 2017 to 2019.
Thanks. I’d agree about a sermon in all services in a Sunday. But not through the week. But the main Sunday service should definitely have a sermon! And, where we started, all the Bible readings.
Really?
Most have short sermons. I normally do a different sermon for each parish church which in the countryside is many, even shared.
Stephen, don’t forget that Holy Scripture has inerrancy precisely WHILE it “conveys” the impression you describe. This is because almost everyone, just the same as the fundamentalists, is forgetting to teach the meanings. The meanings were always meant to be taught. What “christians” for example believe in the real Holy Spirit, or see Him in the Old Testament, or realise He is what Ascension is about, what helping each other in perseverance is about, what evangelising is about, what counting the good cost is about, how many gifts we are supposed to have (unvetoed)? It isn’t inerrancy that’s wrong, it’s those people’s fake teaching about it; no real Holy Spirit = no equals to Mr Fletcher.
I love the Bible profoundly, with all its nuances that you describe Stephen, and for that reason I learnt Greek and Hebrew to read the original text. The idea of surrendering my thinking to a leader or guru I find appalling. I can’t understand why anyone would do it. Crazy world.
Hi David, I suppose that there is a moment when one is young in learning and one’s teachers know a great deal more than one knows oneself. At that time, it is possible that one will encounter [a] teacher[s] who present[s] a vision so coherent and so many leaps ahead of what one had had hitherto that one can effectively become a disciple of that teacher. I am not ashamed of it – for example, after Jesus, I an so impressed with the vision of Chesterton and Lewis that I generally assume that they will be further advanced than me in a great proportion of what they say.
Chris, a very helpful point. I think you are right: the natural thing for me was to take on board the beliefs of the people through whom I came to the Lord. Alongside much that was excellent, I absorbed two doctrines from the Iwerne outlook as a twenty year old which I then had to abandon later on when I reached my own understanding. I recall feeling angry in my forties with the way I felt I had been misled on two points that I came to see were actually contrary to Scripture. I had to forgive.
Their view on these matters was strange in my eyes, because it went against the great love of Scripture that the movement had taught me.
I guess we are all capable of misleading others through our own well-intentioned blindness. Jesus warned of blind guides. Easy to be one.
David, when I became a Christian I vowed I wouldn’t follow a teacher or a denomination only the bible. I may have been young but it was probably the best thing I did even if it has meant lots of thoughtfulness.
Michael, our hearts beat as one. Google my website for articles, books and more arising from that thoughtfulness!
Will the conservative evangelical constituency show humility? Would we? If we discovered our leadership had some considerable rot at the core what would we do?
Let me ask a dangerous and please rhetorical question: knowing what we know now, would we admit we were wrong about the EU? Would our friends? Our constituency of followers?
My point is this: people rarely admit there was anything much wrong. And rarely do anything about it. Usually there’s denial, then minimisation: “it wasn’t much. He didn’t have any influence here. Our church isn’t like that.”
Then there’s blissful ignorance. I would hazard a guess that many people will know almost nothing about what went on with JF et al. Because they don’t read the press. They’re told not to.
Will people who prefer not to think for themselves, all of a sudden start doing so. No, of course they won’t!
Unfortunately I suspect that when the fuss at the top has died down, the enforcers can return to their lairs and normal service will be resumed, if it hasn’t done so already.
Looking for humility following the fall of pride, fails to understand the meaning behind the arrogance of certainty: fear. People actually certain of their position are in a good place to show grace, not pride. Anger is attack as a means of defence. Obnoxious people are often hurting. I’m certainly not saying it’s easy to address them, but attacking may be counterproductive.
There are always some people who question – and often get shunned or attacked for it. They’re brave souls. I remember one of the elders at St. Michael-le-Belfrey, a veteran from David Watson’s days, saying (apropos the Kansas City Prophets phase): ‘Looking back over the last 25 years, we’ve gone down a lot of dead ends.’
If there are the kind of revelations we’re now seeing about some of the ConEvo leaders and network, more people question. Certainly some are doing so now, and they will need support and gentle encouragement.
But you’re right that many will just shut their ears and eyes and build the barricades higher.
I support debate and discussion on the bible both within and without the Church. In part that is why I feel I must challenge a key point made in this piece that it is only among Evangelicals and Conservatives who are authoritarian and who won’t have any discussion on their view of the world or the bible. In the later case some “liberals” have equally authoritarian and “this is the view of God” apporoaches. Again this can often lead to abuse due to that power imbalance. To think that it is unique to Christians or even the conservatives among those is not only to be misguided but potentially dangerous.
Michael, Stephen does say above that conservative evangelicals are authoritarian in that they believe only one view of the Bible is correct. He does not say, however, that that’s true only of conservative evangelicals. He discusses them here, and in other blogs of late, because of the continual revelations of various kinds of abuse in that sector which have been coming to light.
In my own experience, I’ve encountered dogmatic and authoritarian people in all wings of the Church. It seems to be only the extreme ends of the Evangelical and Catholic persuasions which are highly organised, however; and the ConEvo network is now much more powerful.
I might add that I’ve also known conservative evangelicals who were more open and reasonable than the ReNew constituency seem to be.
I understand Janet but I have met people who were/are just as authoritarian, powerful, and abusive in the so called “liberal” and mainstream wings of the Anglican church. For reasons I don’t understand they just get less press.
Include that it is possible to claim to be liberal or at least a modernist an be as immovable on your views of what the bible says.
1) Yes, that’s what I said above.
2) The ConEvos are getting a lot of press just now because the reports of reviews into two noted ConEvos have just been published, and further revelations are still coming out. With two more reviews into Smyth still to come, and Fletcher being investigated by police, this isn’t going to go away quickly.
Two or three years ago a lot was being written about Peter Ball, and before that it was several other Anglo-Catholic abusers in Chichester Diocese.
On point 1) I diagree with your point on powerful.
Otherwise that was what you were saying in general terms. However as a close friend of some victims I think needs to be said without making excuses when the rest of the article already did that.
I’m not quite sure which about about ‘powerful’ you’re disagreeing with. There are powerful individuals of all persuasions. But the most powerful grouping in the Church of England at present is the conservative evangelical constituency. They’re exercising a lot of patronage, and receiving millions in funding for Bishops’ Missionary Orders churches (e.g. the cluster of Bristol Emmanuels, offshoots of ECW). Evangelical charismatics are also in quite a dominant position. Combine the two and you have a powerful lobby.
And they attempting to deflect criticism by a number of tactics, including saying, ‘What about criticising that grouping over there?’
Well it isn’t my experience in the parts of the Anglican church I have dealt with. Just because the don’t have a collective banner doesn’t mean that the liberal movement, or the colonel at prayer nominalism doesn’t have power.
And by the way thank you for having the courage to share you story.
I would just like to say I stumbled on this blog today and I probably won’t be back but only because I am busy normally. It has been an interesting read and I am glad people are trying to help survivors of the church. One thing I would like to clear up having read further back in the articles this reads like JF was a figure of the elite who groomed the elite in special elite school camps for his abuse. I can assure you this was not the case; it was by no means a requirement to go to an elite school or attend a camp to find yourself in a position where you were groomed. Many didn’t fit those qualifications at all, I know they were and some are still my friends. I didn’t attend Emmanuel, at first some ideas or hints from some of my friends seemed a bit unorthodox but nothing that seemed really radical. Later one friend said something, but then laughed and pretended he’d been joking, the rest of us in the room were baffled. It would be much later it would make sense. If I read the articles correctly then PTO was withdrawn more than once for different reasons. Despite many friends suggesting I should I never joined Emmanuel, I met JF only once over tea and Jaffa cakes after he had officially retired, it was a pleasant and long conversation definitely not elitist: I am not from the elite and wasn’t raised to be deferential but courteous to all. Ignorance isn’t bliss it’s just not knowing. Later I discovered things though only now did I know about the newspaper article. Hindsight made things clear. Those friends suddenly made me think why hadn’t I realised? Why hadn’t I helped? At the time many of them were taken in too deep to realise; others didn’t know what to say. That’s history, now all we can do is support each other and look out for the future.
Welcome to Surviving Church! Stephen (and other contributors) tackle abuses of power wherever in the Church (all churches) they find them. It just happens that ConEvos are in the spotlight at the moment.
I hope your friends are able to find the help they need to recover from their ordeal, and their disillusionment.
As I said the only reason I won’t often be back is because I am normally busier.
Thanks Michael, and welcome. Absolutely fair points. I remember being utterly gobsmacked when a church warden expressed surprise when I said “Well, you know what he was like” , after he left. She thought we were friends!
You attended Emmanuel Wimbledon and knew Fletcher? You too must have some useful insights.