The events surrounding allegations of the Revd Jonathan Fletcher’s abuse of those over whom he had personal influence and authority not only begs comparisons with the John Smyth case, but also raises questions concerning the kind of culture which enabled these men to engage in such deplorable acts with apparent impunity.
Many, not least the victims themselves, feel that a kind of treachery has taken place. There is treason against the King, the Lord Jesus Christ, such men claimed to serve, having done things in his name in the cause of ‘sanctification’ and ‘discipline’. There is also a feeling that those who should be concerned with bringing the truth out into the open, and, who presumably would preach hearty sermons on 1 John 1:5-7 about not ‘walking around in darkness’ but ‘walking in the light’ and only then ‘does the blood of Christ cleanse us from all sin’, are so chary of doing so. Instead they reach for euphemisms such as ‘spiritual manipulation’, and then go out of their way to try and manage and contain what is a great embarrassment to them. This is seen in the two letters written to regional ReNew leaders dissuading others to use Jonathan Fletcher in their ministries because while ‘no matters of criminal concern have been raised’ (how are they qualified to judge?), there are ‘genuine significant issues’. In the second letter victims are urged in the first instance to contact Emmanuel Wimbledon, the very church in which the alleged abuses took place! This is hardly standard safeguarding procedure. And most significant of all, in relation to what we have been discussing, is that all the signatories are closely linked to Jonathan Fletcher himself.
What we have is in effect an evangelicalised expression, with all its impediments for the cause of the Gospel, of the ‘Establishment’ which has operated in the higher echelons of British Government and Civil service for so long. Here is John le Carre reflecting on the kind of environment in which the MI6 traitor Kim Philby thrived, ‘Effortlessly he played the parts the Establishment could recognise…effortlessly he copied its attitudes, he caught its diffident stammer, its hesitant arrogance; effortlessly he took his place in its nameless hegemony.’ Writing of the Secret Intelligence Service of Philby’s day, le Carre could be describing a certain brand of Anglican evangelicalism, ‘Within its own walls, its clubs and country houses, in whispered luncheons with its secular contacts, it would enshrine the mystical entity of a vanishing England. Here at least, whatever went on in the big world outside, England’s flower would be cherished. “The Empire may be crumbling; but within our secret elite, the clean-limbed tradition of English power would survive. We believe in nothing but ourselves.”
It doesn’t take that much of a leap of the imagination to see how this applies to the Anglican conservative evangelical scene today. There is an evangelical hegemony made up of those which stem from the elitist Scripture Union ‘Bash camps’ held at Iwerne minster (named after its founder, E. J. H. Nash, popularly known as “Bash”- aimed to reach ‘the best boys from the best schools’ e.g. Eton, Harrow, Winchester etc.). They seek to ensure that while the ‘Empire’ (read ‘Church of England’) is crumbling, they will survive, which is why it is important they curry favour with the Established church to keep their buildings, maintain succession and ensure control over anything which would bear the name ‘conservative evangelical’- whether it be Proclamation Trust, ReNew, AMiE or GAFCON UK (it is striking how the same few names keep coming up- related by school, training or even marriage).
We are not simply describing a sociological phenomenon, with ‘assumed privilege’, but a theological one.
In his ‘J.I. Packer: An Evangelical Life’, Leland Ryken, drawing on Packer’s own experience, pinpoints the different theologies and so directions taken by those from the ‘Bash camps’ as represented by John Stott and a more Puritan outlook, represented by Packer.
Regarding the ‘Bash camps’ Ryken asks, ‘What kind of theology did such privilege produce?’ He answers, ‘It resulted in an outlook that reflected a certain social grooming. This does not mean that people like Stott and Nash denied human sinfulness. It means that Stott’s aristocratic upbringing, reinforced by the Bash camps, led to a relatively optimistic way of describing human nature. His upper-class lifestyle isolated him from much of the seamier side of life. (John King, in his book The Evangelicals, notes that the paradigm that Stott and then many of the other “Bashers” followed enabled them to reach the ministry without leaving the world of privilege: elite public school education, summers at the Bash camp, college and theological education at Cambridge university, and ordination in the Anglican Church.). Additionally, the Puritans, who have been such an important influence in Packer’s life, were less likely to hold interest for someone with an upper class orientation. After all, the Puritans were scornful of aristocratic privilege and deeply conscious of human privilege.’ He goes on to observe, ‘For Packer, Stott’s approach to evangelical renewal in the Church of England was “too bland for the reality of our pastoral world.” In particular, it lacked a sufficient view of human sinfulness. There was an additional dimension as well: Packer’s approach was more intellectual than Stott’s, despite the latter’s reason-orientated sermon style. Stott and his followers stressed pietistic community based on experience, while Packer stressed the importance of thinking in the parish.’
John C. King said that in order to understand the British Evangelical mind, it was necessary to understand the “Bash camp mind”, ‘Controversy is eschewed by “Bash campers”; it is held to be noisy and undignified- and potentially damaging. As a result many issues which ought to be faced are quietly avoided. Any practical decisions that must be made are taken discreetly by the leadership and passed down the line. The loyalty of the rank and file is such that decisions are respected; any who question are likely to find themselves outside the pale…It does not give a place to the process of argument, consultation and independent thought which are essential to any genuine co-operation, inside the church or outside the church.’
Since those early days, the situation has not significantly changed, if anything it is worse. There is ‘too bland an outlook’ held by Stott’s successors (without having Stott’s intellect) with regards to the state of the nation and the institutional church and especially of its leadership (indeed, its present Archbishop is from their own stable which psychologically will make it more difficult for some of them to be openly critical, for this, in the words of Captain Hook, would be ‘bad form’).
Why is it, for example, that given the utter disgrace and overt liberalism of the July General Synod in 2017 did we not hear one voice raised in specific public criticism by the ‘Anglican evangelical leaders’ of the large churches such as William Taylor, Hugh Palmer, or Vaughan Roberts (or even former Gafcon chairman UK- Paul Perkins)? Is this simply ‘not done’? Is there a concern not to rock the ecclesiastical boat for fear of being threatened? It was Dietrich Bonhoeffer who wrote, “Silence in the face of evil is itself evil. God will not hold us guiltless. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act”. The silence of these men in offering specific criticism of the national scene is deafening.
It is even more dispiriting when what is perceived to be taking a stand is then denied, as has happened with the statements made by William Taylor of St Helens. On the one hand there may be ‘temporarily impaired relationships’ (which some over optimistically took it as a ‘break’ with the C of E) only to be followed by a signalled retreat that they ‘will be full and active members of the deanery and diocesan structures.’ This was only surpassed by St Helen’s Bishopsgate congratulating Sarah Mullaly on her nomination to the Bishopric of London!
Reference has been made to the way the Establishment elite perpetuates itself.
Here one has to raise a very serious question viz a viz GAFCON. Why was Andy Lines (also a product of this culture and apparently abused by his mentor, Fletcher) selected and by whom to be chairman of GAFCON UK and missionary bishop? People are critical of the way Bishops in the Church of England are selected, but at least there is a selection process, with representatives, discussion and two names being put forward. Who was consulted in the case of Bishop Andy? Such lack of transparency does little to build confidence and strengthens the perception that the ‘same old same old’ is in operation as in the days of Packer and Stott and of which Dr Lloyd Jones was most critical seeing such a dominance as being detrimental to the evangelical cause.
The appointment of Jonathan Juckes as the President of Oak Hill College appears to be more of the same as further evidence of the Anglican evangelical hegemony. Many are bewildered and bemused as to why someone who has not published anything of a theological nature, or contributed as a national or international speaker and having no advanced theological degree could be appointed? Not least as he was heading up the search committee for the new President! But Mr Juckes does have one thing going for him -the right pedigree: Winchester College, Bash Camp, St Helen’s Bishopsgate and Proclamation Trust. The suspicion invariably grows as to whether here we have another instance of the ‘old school tie’ at work.
But patronage to ‘key churches’ and colleges is one thing, allowing men like Fletcher and Smyth to ruin lives and for others to circle the waggons if not to protect such men, to protect the ‘sacred’ organisations which have produced them and allowed them to thrive is something else. The Bible is very clear on what God thinks of favouritism (James 2:1ff) and those using their position to abuse Christ’s ‘little ones’ (Mtt. 18:6ff) such that Anglican evangelicals have no excuse.
At the EMA Vaughan Roberts said: “There is much here that does not reflect well on our constituency. Serious questions will need to be asked about what went on and how it was able to continue. To the extent we have been complicit in a culture which allowed this to happen, real and deep repentance will be needed. Change will be necessary”. Is this an admission that they were complicit? Who will assess that? What will this repentance look like? What change should take place? When a police constabulary, hospital trust, local authority, or school fails to the extent that it is dangerous, an external investigation is launched. Who will be asked to this in this instance?
It would be a great encouragement to many, not least the poor victims who feel trashed, if this was translated into concrete action: open transparency and impartiality, the public disavowal of assumed privilege, the dismantling of the evangelical aristocracy and honouring those God has gifted who are not from this stable, and most important of all, telling and not concealing the truth.
This used to be called, and probably still is, the old boys network.
Every branch and denomination has its favourites, whether on merit or connections.
Yes, opportunities for vocation and progression should be spirit led and based on merit in an ideal world, but this issue is not just confined to evangelicals.
I think it’s a good thing this is brought into the light. I’ve seen many a good priest passed over for Bishop because they had the wrong ‘school tie’, and also seen rapid promotion to the episcopate for seemingly no reason.
Yes, I have his number. Don’t you? ?
Personally, my thinking has been that the humblest man makes the best leader- essentially, unless there is some overwhelming need for a particular qualification or skill, choose the humblest among the qualified.
We would be much better off if rather than selecting bishops and other “leaders” according to breeding and schools (church of England) or popularity contest (TEC), we selected leaders based on their humility before God.
Seriously, how many bishops in western Anglicanism believe that God will hold them accountable for the actions they take in episcopal office? That their eternal souls are at risk when they offer flippant answers when challenged on their latest “pastoral guidance” which violates Scriptural prohibitions?
It beggars belief. Then again when they are so keen to appease the world, and shape the Church in its image and not God’s, should we be surprised?
Funny but true. A big decision at the local level was made because the Holy Spirit placed the answer at the top of a Google search list even though common sense and thorough research had rejected it two years before. There have been times in my own life when behind the eight ball a door has unexpectedly opened. I would like to think the Holy Spirit opened my eyes and encourage me to walk through.
This is hard to read digest. How God is held to be of no account. groups that self promote from within its self (a club).I know that God is sovereign I long to see the transparency in which the article speaks, so far i hear no repentance being expressed as of yet. Again i am reminded of Easu sought repentance with tears but his heart was hardened and he found no opportunity to do so, now i know from my own heart to come to God quickly seeking him and seeking forgiveness.
Dear Alpha, the Anglican church is it near death? Maybe, in the light of compromise with the advocation of same sex”marriages”abandoning scripture, vestiges of orthodoxy being done away with, things look bleak. But even there God can breakthrough in revival , renewal,restoration, Iam reminded that God will always vindicates His name for its own sake. He will not be silent or see his glory trashed. At times such as this those in Christ are to pray and stand accordingly.
I used to associate evangelical with the Great Commission and saving of souls rather than a particular style of worship. I baulk at equating evangelical with orthodoxy. It may or may not be. Today in our world evangelical tends to come out as Anglican lite theologically. This is not to say we don’t need a revving up of our spirit but shouldn’t we wretched sinners still do that thing on our knees?
There are people who describe themselves as evangelical Anglo-Catholics, and when asked for their views on justification by faith alone they seem to confirm it. They seem to be mainly people who love pomp and ceremony while having their basic doctrine along evangelical lines.
alpha- I think your last sentence uses the word “justification” is the way James uses it. Paul used it in the sense of being declared righteous because of what Christ has done for us, not in us or through us. Good works are of course an essential result of justification, but I agree with Luther when he said that justification by faith alone is the central doctrine of salvation on which the church stands or falls.
alpha- I suppose I am a “Biblicist” but I believe that Paul was writing with full apostolic authority. Are you saying that what he wrote was wrong?
alpha- I believe that all Scripture is “God-breathed”, as Paul puts it. I don’t see any contradiction between Jesus’ words and those of Paul. Jesus was stating the fact that his true disciples will be people who follow God’s ways, people who have a genuine faith. There is no justification or salvation by works there. In fact, I think that from God’s point of view our salvation is from God alone and we can contribute not a speck towards it. From our point of view there are warnings not to fall away and so on, but God will not let us finally fall away if we are truly his. If you are suggesting that we should not take the Book if Romans, for example, as authoritative teaching from God, I’m afraid I have to disagree with you strongly, as would most orthodox Christians down the ages.
“Typo” edited later
Justification is by faith alone, but if faith is alone, without works, it is not faith.
This sort of thing makes the moderator unhappy. THIS moderator has been known to shoot first and ask questions later. He thinks that there’s nothing like a good piece of hickory…
Please don’t rush to put out ‘acceptable’ versions of posts that are awaiting moderation. Posts discussing posts about posts usually get the hickory.
Yes, ‘evangelical’ is a slippery word, and certainly does not mean, in practice, submission of one’s own mind to the mind of God (and from that starting point trying to understand him). The greatest issue facing the Church since the 19th C has always been: Does it perceive that the God it professes to worship is the Creator of all things visible and invisible? Stott persuaded many that understanding God as Creator was not part of orthodox belief.
‘It is most unfortunate,’ he wrote, ‘that some who debate this issue (evolution) begin by assuming that the words “creation” and “evolution” are mutually exclusive. If everything has come into existence through evolution, they say, then biblical creation has been disproved…. My acceptance of Adam and Eve as historical is not incompatible with my belief that several forms of pre-Adamic ‘hominid’ may have existed for thousands of years previously. These hominids began to advance culturally. They made their cave drawings and buried their dead. It is conceivable that God created Adam out of one of them.’ And so on.
Scientists do not confuse the words ‘creation’ and ‘evolution’ – only theologians who cannot bring themselves to choose between believing what Scripture says in affirming that God is the Creator of the world (throughout, not just in Gen 1) and believing what the wise men of this world tell them to believe. His heirs are John Lennox and Alister McGrath, both entertaining, urbane, Oxford men, from the same cloth as those who are currently the topic of conversation.
All today’s scandals involving paedophilia and homosexuality in the Church, the embracing of ‘gay pride’, the theft of the symbolism of the rainbow (as sign of the Creator’s mercy, remember), the questioning of the reality of sexual differences and the redefinition of marriage are outworkings of our failure to worship him who made heaven and earth (Rev 14:7). We drink the wine of Babylon’s raging fornication at our peril.
Steven- Your quotation from Stott in no way shows that he did not insist that God is the creator (or Creator, If there is any difference with a capital letter).
It wasn’t necessary back in Bible writing days to go into the detail that the light was really extremely low entropic plasma or photons when the rapid expansion took place. Things change. No one calls it the Big Bang anymore. It did start hot but very orderly; not chaotic like the explosion of a mortar shell. Amazing. Just think the elements heavier than iron most likely came from very far away. Anyway, I worship the God of creation and find the mechanisms therein interesting but nothing to lose faith over.
[…] In this post on the subject on Anglican.ink, an interesting observation about one of the participant…: […]
Excellent article, and I think your sentence,
“But patronage to ‘key churches’ and colleges is one thing, allowing men like Fletcher and Smyth to ruin lives and for others to circle the waggons if not to protect such men, to protect the ‘sacred’ organisations which have produced them and allowed them to thrive is something else.”
is exactly right. When I was at boarding school one of the absolute ‘No No’s!’ was to expose wrongdoing, no matter how wrong! It is a part of our traditional culture which I personally dislike intensely because as you have said it leads to cliques,elites and corruption within the Church.
Like J I Packer I have Puritanical leanings.
I understood that John Stott was part of the Westminster Chapel Puritan Conference for some years until there was an “expulsion” by Dr Lloyd-Jones after the latter’s 1966 talk on separation for evangelicals (a position often misunderstood by some of the Dr’s “opponents” in the matter). Both men remained friends.
Adding to my comment above, I think there is some confusion in my mind between the Puritan Conference, the Westminster Fellowship and the Evangelical Alliance! The tenor of the comment stays the same.
[…] Cornel Wilde Anglican Ink The English, the evangelicals and the elites: The school for scandals […]
I come from the happy position of being a Church of England evangelical layman with no link whatsoever to, and little knowledge of, the group of ‘leading evangelicals’ which is now in trouble. They don’t come over as a great advert for how top tier English public schools provide the best material for Christian leadership do they? Incidentally, neither does that kind of school automatically provide a reassuring mark of quality when it comes to leadership in our secular politics: overweening self confidence, useful establishment connections, and a high sense of personal entitlement are no substitute for intelligence, a broad experience of life, sound judgement and personal integrity. Certainly, lack of genuine humility (the ability to accept the objective truth about oneself) is a major deficiency in anyone who aspires to leadership.
And the damage which this classy clique of evangelicals may have done to our Church of England could turn out to be very significant for the reason mentioned in the above piece. The cultural Marxist agenda of sexual politics which is sweeping through the church at an alarming pace can only be halted by those with unassailable theological argument, a prophetic voice (powered by prayer), and determined political action at every structural level within the church. In every instance this would involve speaking out very loudly, coherently and tirelessly. In short it would require mass support of all true evangelicals (along with other like-minded members of the church), under a well coordinated, bold, and highly competent leadership. The fatal enemy of such a fightback would of course be any kind of factionalism, snobbery, or disputatious grouping. In the light of what has been revealed over the last week or so, need I go on?
A small number of us have regularly commented on sites like this one, wondering why leading evangelicals have been so silent on the great issue which is destroying our church. I believe a major reason has now been uncovered, and it really is indefensible. Archbishop Foley Beach, in his recent interview on Anglican Unscripted, pointed sadly but honestly and courageously to the good Christian people there are in England who, nevertheless, are not minded to overcome their factionalism. He’s spot on. It’s a glaring and disgraceful fault.
I have no interest in digging through the mire of any particular leader’s shortcomings; we’re all sinful muppets in one way or another. Whoever is involved in ridiculous and damaging personal behaviour or destructive group demarcation, they need to stop it, grow up and move on. And then we could pick ourselves back up, joyfully, newly liberated from the immaturity of playground squabbles and the strangulation of the old school tie, and get stuck into the same down and dirty fight that was the hallmark of Jesus’s ministry throughout those 3 years when everything changed forever.
Amen brother. I thoroughly agree.
Thanks, Fr K. But I see Disqus has marked my comment as spam. You can never really know what’s going on when this happens, and there’s no obvious way to sort it out – another reminder of how relatively easy it’s going to be to kill off free speech on the internet!
It wasn’t spam at all. I hope it has not been removed for some other reason.
You only have to look at what they are doing on YouTube to see freedom of speech is gone.
Anglican Unscripted would be advised to start backing their videos up on bitchute before the purge hits them as well.
One complaint from Brother Justin is probably all it would take these days
[…] The English, the evangelicals and the elites […]
I think it was a great mistake of the author’s to denigrate Jonathan Jukes in the way he did without any evidence but that of appearances and speculation. This childish ploy of tarring people with the same brush simply by association is ridiculous and unworthy. I was not a Iwerne man but read Theology at Cambridge with Jukes. He is a man of the greatest integrity and faithfulness to Christ to whom these revelations about Fletcher will come as a most terrible shock. People like Fletcher are very cunning at hiding such things when they must. Also, it is very good news for Oak Hill to have him, a very intelligent man – his first degree was a FIRST from St. Andrews – with very considerable parish ministry and a first class expositor’s and preacher’s mind. Too many theological heads of colleges may have great academic qualifications but their ivory tower insularity is too often their downfall since it masks inadequacies in other important areas of Christian ministry. And are international speaking engagements and publications really so important? I would argue that it takes a better brain and a braver believer to build a thriving church than to write a book. I think you really must respect the principle of presumption of innocence until proven guilty or you risk making the same egregious mistake as Welby has over Bishop Bell.But then I am just a simple Anglican rural parish priest trying to feed his flock and keep the wolves in sheep’s clothing at bay: so what would I know!
Just to echo the above comment, I am a former curate of Johnny Juckes (please note the author of the article spelled his surname incorrectly, so perhaps does not know him very well). So while noting this personal connection may well create a bias, it also makes me aware that, far from any sense of using connections to gain a new post, Johnny served as Chairman of the Kingham Hill Trust (which runs Oak Hill) for many years. This was a sacrificial leadership role (given he lived in Hull, in the north of England, while the two institutions of the trust, Oak Hill and Kingham Hill School, were in the south) that saw a flourishing of the two institutions of the trust.
In his parish leadership, he saw a slowly declining church into vibrant evangelical ministry, including a number of those he trained going into neighbouring and further flung churches to renew them. I could go on, but I simply wish to note that the normal route to preferment in the Church of England (join diocesan committees, maybe do a doctorate along the way, become a residential canon or archdeacon or theological college principal, become a bishop) has done little for the orthodoxy or vibrancy of parish life in the Church of England.
As I understand the situation, Johnny had a lead role in the interviews for the new principal and it was the other members of the panel who saw that he had such a strategic vision, that they asked him to consider the role (in other words, he did not seek it). They saw the strategic need he could fill for the institution and Johnny and his wife were obedient to the call — a painful leaving of the parish after 20 years. I am writing this without having spoken to Johnny about this article (we haven’t been in touch in awhile), and so I am simply trying to address what I see as a swipe at someone who does have the ‘pedigree’ noted by the author, but who lived and ministered in greater Hull for twenty years, which not many from that grouping have done (that is, minister very far from London and the Home Counties).
I would agree with some observations made in the article, but would note that Johnny’s leadership at Oak Hill includes training both those within the Church of England as well as those without. And, from my point of view, his appointment is not an example of an ill-qualified leader, but one exceptionally qualified for the task, which is to train leaders for parish ministry in the task of preaching the Word of God and evangelising a post-Christian culture. He has done this faithfully and is an outstanding leader.
Thank you for reading — Clifford Swartz (school chaplain in the UK, grew up in the Episcopal Church, USA).
Just to echo the above comment, I am a former curate of Johnny Juckes (please note the author of the article spelled his surname incorrectly, so perhaps does not know him very well). So while noting this personal connection may well create a bias, it also makes me aware that, far from any sense of using connections to gain a new post, Johnny served as Chairman of the Kingham Hill Trust (which runs Oak Hill) for many years. This was a sacrificial leadership role (given he lived in Hull, in the north of England, while the two institutions of the trust, Oak Hill and Kingham Hill School, were in the south) that saw a flourishing of the two institutions of the trust.
In his parish leadership, he saw a slowly declining church into vibrant evangelical ministry, including a number of those he trained going into neighbouring and further flung churches to renew them. I could go on, but I simply wish to note that the normal route to preferment in the Church of England (join diocesan committees, maybe do a doctorate along the way, become a residential canon or archdeacon or theological college principal, become a bishop) has done little for the orthodoxy or vibrancy of parish life in the Church of England.
As I understand the situation, Johnny had a lead role in the interviews for the new principal and it was the other members of the panel who saw that he had such a strategic vision, that they asked him to consider the role (in other words, he did not seek it). They saw the strategic need he could fill for the institution and Johnny and his wife were obedient to the call — a painful leaving of the parish after 20 years. I am writing this without having spoken to Johnny about this article (we haven’t been in touch in awhile), and so I am simply trying to address what I see as a swipe at someone who does have the ‘pedigree’ noted by the author, but who lived and ministered in greater Hull for twenty years, which not many from that grouping have done (that is, minister very far from London and the Home Counties).
I would agree with some observations made in the article, but would note that Johnny’s leadership at Oak Hill includes training both those within the Church of England as well as those without. And, from my point of view, his appointment is not an example of an ill-qualified leader, but one exceptionally qualified for the task, which is to train leaders for parish ministry in the task of preaching the Word of God and evangelising a post-Christian culture. He has done this faithfully and is an outstanding leader.
Thank you for reading — Clifford Swartz (school chaplain in the UK, grew up in the Episcopal Church, USA).
I think this paper is very significant, but what I’m most waiting for is a response to the challenge laid down at the end. Will Vaughan Roberts et al rise to it?
Since the article doesn’t offer any real alternative, why does it matter whether Roberts responds or not? The “challenge laid down at the end” is merely nice-sounding phrases with nothing concrete.
Evangelicals in England have been very good at subtlely dragging each other down over the decades. This may well prove to be just more of the same.
Unfortunately nothing seems to change in Britain.
It sounds concrete to me:
“It would be a great encouragement to many, not least the poor victims who feel trashed, if this was translated into concrete action: open transparency and impartiality, the public disavowal of assumed privilege, the dismantling of the evangelical aristocracy and honouring those God has gifted who are not from this stable, and most important of all, telling and not concealing the truth.”
I think it matters very much whether Vaughan Roberts responds and acts. To continue concealing the truth, circling the waggons and keeping things ‘among the chaps’ is to fail to ‘live in the light’ as Christians should.
The priority must be justice and care for those who were abused rather than covering it up. And action against the abuser(s) rather than keeping it hush hush and allowing Jonathan Fletcher to continue to act as though ‘he didn’t know he was doing anything wrong.’ The behaviour outlined in the latest Anglican Unscripted is appalling!
Then after being honest, open and just, the next stage should be dismantling the structures based on privilege and position rather than God’s calling and gifting. It means no longer ‘favouring’ people because of background or friendship but seeking to grow and plant churches in humility recognising the way that God chooses to work as described 1 Corinthians 1:18-31, rather than thinking the way to do it is to ‘win the influential and put them in positions of leadership.’ And no longer ‘protecting people’ just because they are a ‘good chap’, when their behaviour says something quite different.
Rusty, sorry, but it isn’t concrete at all. It is no different to saying we all want “world peace”. Everyone says they want “open transparency”, “impartiality”, etc etc, even when they may disagree radically on where the real roots of the problem lie, and how to deal with them.
I have no issue with Vaughan Roberts responding to anything, but I suspect this article places very little real pressure on him to make any comment.
Unfortunately they’re keeping their heads down and seeming to be hoping it will go away. Part of the problem of what Cornel unpacks is that there is very little accountability, as they close ranks. Anyone who challenges it is immediately dismissed with whatever they can make stick rather than by engaging with the criticisms (which is why I suspect Cornel is a pseudonym).
If you want a something more concrete, how about they clarify who Vaughan is representing in his statements and who the ‘walking with team’ is?
It would make sense to hand the ‘walking with project to some well respected qualified leaders who are not simply ‘part of the gang’ and at least not Iwerne boys or linked inextricably with Jonathan Fletcher.
It would seem right to me to exclude Jonathan Fletcher from attending the EMA and Emmanuel Wimbledon at least out of kindness to the victims and to make it more difficult for him to intimidate other possible victims.
And it would make sense to clarify exactly how Vaughan intends to, in his words, ask Serious questions, ask how they have been complicit, ask what went wrong and how it was allowed to continue, and how they are going to change. So, who exactly (naming names) will do that, how will it be impartial, what will be the timeframe and how will the reflections and actions be declared?
“is immediately dismissed with whatever they can make stick rather than by engaging with the criticisms (which is why I suspect Cornel is a pseudonym).”
That doesn’t make any sense at all. Using a pseudonym (and I suspect that is what it is also) doesn’t make this more convincing. It rather raises the suspicion that the author himself doesn’t want to be accountable for his opinions.
“ask Serious questions, ask how they have been complicit, ask what went wrong and how it was allowed to continue, and how they are going to change.”
Which the article doesn’t ask. It is merely innuendo, suggesting that people who have been associated in some way with Iwerne must have been complicit, and then making some general “motherhood” statements of principle.
As I point out above, ++Foley Beach was a priest in TEC, and Rev Gavin Ashenden held a highly-sought-after post in CofE for many years – mere innuendo would indicate neither is to be trusted. Which I don’t believe.
Using a pseudonym means that people have to engage with the argument rather than dismiss it because of the author (it also means they have to read it carefully if they want to try and work out who wrote it – and there are people desperate to find out the author)
I’m guessing you’ve never experienced the people that Cornel is taking about, I have, since university and I have counted many as friends (I’ve even worked for one) but the hold in the conservative evangelical world is deeply concerning and anti-gospel once you get to the bottom of it.
“Using a pseudonym means that people have to engage with the argument rather than dismiss it because of the author”
The sort of people who do that will dismiss the argument anyway as soon as they see where it is going. They certainly won’t “engage” with it. And many others won’t bother reading an article that could have been written by someone with no knowledge of the issue – you may have answered your own question as to why Vaughan Roberts apparently feels no interest in responding. Either way, using a pseudonym is only negative in this context. And then there is the issue I raised above – the concern that the author is not prepared to use his real name (assuming it is a pseudonym, which seems likely) so as to avoid accountability for his opinions viz-a-viz his actions.
As to your second point, I have more knowledge than you might think. However, I really do not see the point of a “let’s-compare-who-has-more-knowledge-of-English-conservative-evangelicals-once-we-decide-on-a-definition” contest – what does it solve?
I was only guessing as you seemed to have been particularly upset about the ACNA, and didn’t seem that perturbed by things in England, happy to stand corrected, I certainly wasn’t trying to compare experience ‘out-evangelical’ you, but I can see that it could have looked that way, sorry about that.
Personally I don’t think they’re going to engage with anyone, pseudonym or not, which is a terrific shame as I think it will only hinder the gospel and accelerate decline. To me, it seems a sad indication of hypocrisy from people I have learnt a great deal from, but now are appearing to be a sham and no different to the world around us. This could have been an opportunity to change things. But it hasn’t worked over the last 30 years, why should a scandal make any difference. Sad days.
Fair points, and unfortunately I cannot say you are wrong in your fears. Still, let us pray that things turn out differently.
Just a personal reflection: I had never heard of Jonathan Fletcher until these recent revelations. I have been involved with both the New Wine and Alpha Course streams of evangelism and yet Jonathan Fletcher did not feature. Also my training in ministry included a year at StAndrew the Great (previously the Round Church) in Cambridge a large conservative evangelical church with a long history as an important centre for conservative evangelicalism- still never heard of the fellow.
Jonathan Fletcher was curate at the Round under Mark Ruston.
You don’t say what your timeframe was, but according to the crosspreach website he preached at St Andrew the Great 14 times (that is, 14 times when the sermon was recorded and made available on their website) over the last 30 years or so, most recently in 2014- so pretty clearly everyone in the leadership there knew who he was.
https://www.crosspreach.com/speaker/3266/jonathan_fletcher
Which is rather my point: a forgettable experience
He was curate at the round church (now stag) under Mark Ruston, certainly no stranger.
Jonathan Fletcher was curate at the Round under Mark Ruston.
There appear to be a number of agendas at work by the author of this article, whoever “Cornel Wilde” may be:
“Here one has to raise a very serious question viz a viz GAFCON.”
Really – why? Mr Wilde does not explain.
“Why was Andy Lines (also a product of this culture and apparently abused by his mentor, Fletcher) selected and by whom to be chairman of GAFCON UK and missionary bishop?”
He is a missionary bishop of ACNA, chosen by the House of Bishops. Is Mr Wilde really not aware of this?
“(also a product of this culture and apparently abused by his mentor, Fletcher)”
What is the point being made by this innuendo? Apparently Lines must be a failure or inadequate merely because he is “a product” of a culture – what is Mr Wilde really implying?
“People are critical of the way Bishops in the Church of England are selected, but at least there is a selection process, with representatives, discussion and two names being put forward. Who was consulted in the case of Bishop Andy?”
So now Mr Wilde is defending CofE selection processes? Bishop Lines is a missionary bishop. That is what is done when a mission is so small that it cannot yet justify the processes of a church.
“Such lack of transparency …”
No, it actually seems to be a lack of research by Mr Wilde as to how missionary bishops are chosen in ACNA.
Well, Lines was chosen in an unusual fashion (that is to say, not a conventional nomination by a diocese or network within ACNA), but yes, within the canonical process of ACNA. Here is Archbishop Beach, in the announcement from the Gafcon Primates meeting that preceded the consecration:
“The Gafcon Primates have asked our Province, the Anglican Church in
North America, to take on the task of providing a missionary bishop for
Scotland. Our Province was formed at the direction of Gafcon 2008 after
many of the Provinces of Gafcon had provided the same kind of
oversight for clergy and congregations in North America. They have
asked us to consecrate Canon Andy Lines.
Our College of Bishops discussed and decided to accept this
responsibility. Following the Canons of our Province, the Executive
Committee of the Province was not only consulted, but also voted
unanimously to support this endeavor. We also appointed an oversight
Committee of Bishops to provide guidance and accountability for Canon
Lines as he walks through our consecration process and to support him
after he is consecrated a bishop. Archbishop Robert Duncan is chair of
the committee which consists of three diocesan bishops: The Rt. Rev.
Bill Atwood, The Rt. Rev. Charlie Master, and The Rt. Rev. David Hicks.”
Gafcon Statement 8 June 2017 Foley Beach
Thanks Tj. That seems to show that there is nothing untoward about either the choice of Bishop Lines or his oversight.
I would have thought most provinces would choose and oversee missionary bishops by a similar process.
Apparently, some assumed that Gafcon would first establish a Crown Nominations Commission, with most of the votes going to those evangelicals with comfortable appointments in the CoE, plus the Archbishop of Canterbury, and they would enjoy several months of meals in expensive restaurants while discussion options, and they would then put forward the name of a former national health service employee who was clearly known to be an evangelical by virtue of being able to run a multi-media projector and went to the right school. Since that is how the apostles did it.
MichaelA, one other thing I note, is that it is not uncommon for English writers to see “Gafcon-UK” which is a tiny fragment of the 50 million Anglicans in Gafcon provinces and networks, as the be all and end all of the entire organization. Hence, many references to “Gafcon” in the British press and among members of the CoE are to “Gafcon-UK”. And it is often difficult to distinguish which they mean. These same folks have a great difficulty envisioning that the Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion) has more people attending its churches than England, Canada, TEC, Scotland, Ireland, NZ, Brazil, etc. combined.
Nailed it, tj. I prefer the term FCA-UK myself but still, Gafcon is commonly used.
The press also tries to make links between FCA-UK, which anybody can join with little scrutiny, and AMiE which is directly under supervision of the Gafcon Primates.
I think the question being raised was, what was the process of recommending Andy Line’s, were the English Gafcon members given any part in it? Or was it just a case of the same old gang putting forward another one of the gang. The links between those mentioned in terms of a minority of schools, one particular camp and a few particular churches are clear. As a number of people here have commented, there are many more conservative evangelicals involved in gafcon, but it seems to be the same old people who self-appoint and make these recommendations, Jonathan Fletcher was one of them- Proclamation trust, Reform and Renew, Church society, friends of St Ebbes trust, etc and from these shores that self-selecting ‘elite’ seems to have continued into the next generation where they have also been to the same school, done the same curacies etc. I don’t think cornel was questioning the ACNA so much as asking questions as to who pulled the strings on this shore a question at least raised by Andy Lines being from the same old school, camp, church background as the others.
Rusty Shackleford, I don’t disagree with what you are saying. In fact, the quote from Foley Beach I posted makes if clear, I think, that the choice of Andy Lines was not something that originated within ACNA.
Honestly, as an American, the plethora of evangelical groups in England is bewildering, as so many seem to hold many tenets in common. Having this hold over into the “post Church of England” parishes is very troubling.
“I think the question being raised was, what was the process of recommending Andy Line’s”
I don’t think it was – the article casts aspersions on ACNA’s selection process, since it is clear that +Lines was the choice of ACNA.
“I don’t think cornel was questioning the ACNA so much as asking questions as to who pulled the strings on this shore”
Since ACNA made a clear choice at the highest level, yes “Cornel” was questioning ACNA. Squarely so.
“a question at least raised by Andy Lines being from the same old school, camp, church background as the others”
??? How is that question “raised”? You are trying to suggest that anyone who attended an English conservative evangelical church and went to one of these camps is somehow suspect. Think about that. ++Beach used to be priest in TEC and Gavin Ashenden+ held a reasonably high office in the CofE hierarchy – by your reasoning that makes them suspect also.
Dear Michael,
I really don’t think that Cornel has an issue with the ACNA. They are an ‘accidental player’ in the article, the article is about a specific group of people who control specific posts in the English evangelical world (it isn’t even relevant to Scotland or Wales as they’re not bothered about them).
I suspect Cornel Wilde would count himself among the evangelicals in England, what he is raising is that they have an ungodly hold in England which is highlighted by the way that Jonathan Fletcher got away with what he did and is still being protected. (See the latest Anglican unscripted -ordaining our wives for insight into the insidious control and protection in the iwerne circles).
“I really don’t think that Cornel has an issue with the ACNA.”
The wording of the article would beg to differ with you. “Cornel” whoever he is clearly has an issue with ACNA, with Gafcon, with FCA-UK, and with AMiE.
“the article is about a specific group of people who control specific posts in the English evangelical world”
I wouldn’t have have a problem if he was doing that. But he is not being “specific” at all. Apparently Andy Lines is to be linked with Jonathon Fletcher in some way, but we are not told how. “Cornel” implies that others are also, but also without explaining how. [It should be obvious that I do not accept that just because Andy Lines or anyone else was abused at an Iwerne camp as a youth thereby makes them part of the “Iwerne circle”, hence my serious concerns about this article]
Similarly “the English evangelical world” is incredibly broad. Apparently it includes FCA-UK and AMiE, but we are not told on what basis.
I again point out that the level of innuendo in this article would also cast aspersions on people like Foley Beach and Gavin Ashenden because of their respective past associations with TEC and CofE, if applied to them. [And let me add, I do not automatically trust anyone, and I am quite prepared to consider such aspersions – provided there is serious and concrete evidence to back them up. Mere innuendo is not enough. Accusations against Fletcher are backed up, but so far it doesn’t even come close in Lines’ case]
I was just trying to respond with what I thought Cornel was getting at, I think you’re reading too much into it, which seems slightly ironic given that you accuse him of too much innuendo which you can’t read into.
Of course you’re free to take exception, just trying to give a different perspective.
Suit yourself. I have no idea what you think I am “reading into” the article. My main complaint is a lack of specificity in the article, i.e. I still have no idea what the author’s real issue is with Andy Lines, ACNA, AMiE or Gafcon (whichever organisation of that name he meant), nor why he even mentioned them.
It looked to me like you were reading an awful lot of negativity towards ACNA into the article given that the ACNA isn’t actually mentioned. I’m sorry you feel the article isn’t clear enough for what you’re looking for. Not that I wrote it.
Oh I see, you may have missed my post above where I raised this.
To explain: The article queries how Andy Lines was chosen for his role as leader of AMiE. The simple answer to that is that Andy Lines is a missionary bishop of ACNA. That means he was commissioned by ACNA for his work in Britain and Europe, and acts under its authority.
The article may not mention the word ACNA but it is talking directly about it.
All very well but it remains unclear what is the abuse of which Jonathan Fletcher is said to be guilty. It is said not to be sexual, nor to involve minors, so what precisely is the nature of this ill-treatment?
Your comments regarding Rev’d Jonathan Jukes as President of Oak Hill fail to determine the most import factor in his appointment; whether or not he is good at his job. My own denomination, the Free Church of Scotland, appointed as Principal (President) of its college, the Edinburgh Theological Seminary, the Rev Iver Martin, who like Jukes has no advanced theological degree, is largely unknown beyond our denomination, has written no books, but is doing a superb job in what is essentially an administrative, promotional and ambassadorial role, rather than one that is directly academic.
Oh, it was definitely sexual in nature, but as far as we know did not involve direct sexual activity between men. Masturbating in front of men over whom he had spiritual oversight, requesting that they do the same, and weird cultic naked rituals involving nudity and spanking–all sexual in nature.
These examples were discussed in a recent Anglican Ink podcast.