Dear EN Editor,

Since it would take a month for you to be able to publish our response to your article which names us, and we feel the issues raised by you are important to victims and the gospel – we have made this an open letter to be shared online as well as your paper.

It is right that you continue to shine a light on the dark activities of John Smyth and Jonathan Fletcher. Your article ‘Fletcher Findings on the Way’ (EN, Aug. 2020) names us as two of the evangelicals who ‘dismissed’ Fletcher’s minimising his activities as ‘light-hearted forfeits.’ No other leader is named as standing with us in our concerns.

Since we were both named in your article (without consulting us), it is only right that we clarify that it is not just Fletcher’s self-description of his behaviour we object to. It is, more seriously, the decades of management and minimisation of both Smyth and Fletcher’s abuse, by those who were in their inner circle. Part of that management and minimisation is seen in the silence of those who are now senior ministers in the Renew network.

Your article correctly notes that Smyth was ‘well-known to Fletcher.’ That is correct – the Smyth and Fletcher families were close. The bonds are evidenced in public records of godparents (Jonathan Fletcher’s brother was godfather to to Smyth’s child.) Not only were Fletcher and Smyth well-known to one another, many currently serving leaders who have remained silent about the abuse were close to them.

The outrageousness of the silence from senior leaders can only be fully recognised when one sees how close many of them were to either, or both, Smyth and Fletcher:

William Taylor chairs the Renew network, which your article notes the CE of Thirtyone:eight felt he had to withdraw his speaking commitment from as ‘it would cause victims further distress.’ William met with John Smyth as a young man studying at Cambridge; in subsequent years Fletcher holidayed with William. William eventually became rector of St. Helens Bishopsgate – where Fletcher served a curacy. He remains a trustee of Proclamation Trust – co-founded by Fletcher. 

Vaughan Roberts attended Winchester College, from where the first cohort of under-age boys were tortured by Smyth. Smyth lived near by and spoke at the school CU, often having boys visit his home for dinner or to stay over. One of the best known and brave victims of Smyth was Rev. Mark Stibbe. He notes in an article that he and Vaughan discussed how they were ‘both products of a revival in that school during the 1970s.’ Vaughan eventually became rector of St. Ebbe’s Oxford. He did so after serving alongside Jonathan Fletcher’s brother as his student worker, and after being selected by a panel chaired by Jonathan Fletcher. Since 2002, Pete Wilkinson, Jonathan Fletcher’ nephew, has been Vaughan’s Associate Minister. Vaughan is now President of Proclamation Trust – an organisation co-founded by Jonathan.

A letter to Renew leaders of April 2019 sought to manage the Fletcher scandal. It was signed by William and Vaughan. It is not right that Fletcher’s abuse should be managed by ministers who have been so close to both Smyth and Fletcher. The other two signatories were Bishop Rod Thomas and Rev. Robin Weekes. The former was until recently a member of Fletcher’s preaching group. The latter, as his former curate and successor, has had a career deeply dependent on Fletcher’s patronage.

It cannot be right – not least for the sake of appearances – that the Fletcher scandal have been managed by ministers so close to the men accused of serious abuse. Neither is it right that having had so many opportunities over the years, so few significant leaders have been willing to share what they know of Smyth and Fletcher, that your article had to name us as those who have dissented from the majority approach.

If the reviews reveal that the abuse has been more serious than was claimed by at last years EMA, then it will be all the more necessary that senior leaders who were close to Smyth or Fletcher explain what they knew of their activities, whether they participated in any way, and what they did with any concerns raised by victims. Anybody unwilling to do that should step back from ministry.

Rev. Melvin Tinker & Rev. Dr. Peter Sanlon

1 Our Mission in Britain III, Anvil, 20.3, 2003, p.198: https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/anvil/20-3_197.pdf 

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

13 COMMENTS

  1. This is a very English affair involving the determination of a group from the elite public school world apparently closing ranks to protect their own rather privileged and influential position. And how revealing that some of us in England only get to hear about these things via a Christian news outlet in the USA!

    But well done Melvin Tinker and Peter Sanlon for writing this public letter. Henceforth you may not get many Christmas cards from the group in question, but I somehow doubt you were ever on many of their lists in the first place! And what a pity, and how damaging, that keeping the show on the road seems to have been the number one priority of the group – at the likely expense of any victims involved and many decent evangelicals who will be horrified at what has happened. How depressing it is that writing such a letter becomes necessary between people whose personal witness to the Lord Jesus Christ has been at the centre of their life’s work.

  3. It would seem revealing of the self-importance of these two that they think Evangelicals Now should have consulted them about mentioning their names in relation to their response to Fletcher’s non-apology last year. Their statement signed also by Andrew Graystone, Carl Chambers, Andy Byfield and Gavin Ashenden – ‘Time to come clean: Response to Jonathan Fletcher’s letter’ – is a matter of public record, published on this site and reported in the Church Times.

    Why should EN have had to get permission to report a public fact?

    • It struck me as odd that EN had singled out Pete Sanlon and Melvin Tinker out of the six and put their names on the front page.

      I also think it’s helpful that the above article addresses the issue of the other senior leaders in the ReNew constituency. There seems to be a misconception that it was a case of two bad apples in Jonathan Fletcher and John Smyth and that there was no cover up or abusive behaviour on the part of other senior leaders close to both men.

      Indeed, even the editor of EN could not see a problem in Justin Humphreys of ThirtyOne:Eight (the organisation carrying out the review into JF &Co.) being hosted by JF’s close friends William Taylor, Rod Thomas and Hugh Palmer. See David Baker’s comment under Julian Mann’s article of 31 July, ‘Can England’s conservative Evangelicals be trusted to clean house?’

  4. Agree with the final paragraph to a certain extent, but until 31:8 publish it is purely conjecture – once things are out in the open than conclusions can be drawn.

    As for “managing”, had the letter warning about JF not come from people of the status and respect they hold in their section of the church, it would have been dismissed as another attempt to discredit conservative evangelicals and theologically motivated – and this ignored. Many liberals have already tried to draw lines between the doctrine of penal substitution and abuse (Bishop Wilson and Andrew Graystone as two examples).

    I would imagine Tinker and Sanlon were singled out as they would be classed as evangelicals – don’t know all the names, but at least two of the others wouldn’t be, or at least those two are probably the best known evangelicals from the bunch. They thus give a bit of theological credence to things.

    While accusations of nepotism potentially have some merit, one would have to look at overall hiring practices to draw any meaningful conclusion – it isn’t like the UK conservative evangelical scene is that massive. How strange that people with similar interests know each other and work together!

    While I dread the publishing of the review in many ways – seeing the suffering caused and seeing the way in which someone so trusted apparently misused that power – I hope it prevents similar things happening again and ends all the conjecture and speculation. I hope the report isn’t a political football, with some on one side trying to throw the baby out with the bath water and burn down the house, and the other just closing ranks and viewing fair criticism as a theologically or politically motivated attack.

    • Dear Quid…, the problem is that it is not just conjecture. It is the witness of a variety of victims and there is evidence. Pete Sanlon and Melvin Tinker know that.

      Two of the other signatories – Carl Chambers and Andy Byfield – are also evangelicals and church leaders. Neither would try to draw lines between the doctrine of penal substitution and abuse. I appreciate that there are liberals who will try to use all of this, but the liberals have every right to be concerned where real abuse is taking place. However, there are a number of people who would be classed as conservative evangelicals who have no problem with the theology. They are rightly concerned about abuse. Even conservative evangelical leaders are saying that the ReNew and Church Society senior leaders operate like a cult.

      Yes, of course lots of leaders in the conservative evangelical world know one another. But that’s not the point. The point is that there has been silence and cover up and they have shown time and again that they are not able to operate independently.

      • I mean conjecture in terms of cover up – not abuse. If there was evidence of cover up I would assume they would have presented it. Equally, the exact goings on haven’t been made crystal clear either, though the way in which people from all sides have acted indicates the seriousness of them.

        You say time and time again they have shown they are not able to operate independently, but while I’m aware of a couple of instances which would support that claim, I’m not sure I’ve seen enough evidence (yet) to tar them all with the same brush – If them is Renew/Church Society. It may be there, but I don’t think it’s in the public domain.

        Hopefully the inquiry will be thorough and fair, bringing to account those who should be held accountable and making repeat incidents less likely to occur. I just feel like the Sanlon & Tinker letter is a bit premature unless they know much more than they let on, in which case, maybe share that. If leaders haven’t cooperated with the inquiry, then that is another matter entirely.

  5. Without wishing to state the obvious or cause trouble, Evangelicals Now is not independent, in any meaningful sense of the word, from the ReNew/Church Society senior leaders. EN’s reportage should be scrutinised. If it neglects to focus on the senior leaders around Jonathan, that should be noted. The reason it would have caused distress to victims if Justin Humphreys had spoken at this year’s ReNew conference was because of William Taylor, Rod Thomas and Hugh Palmer leading and hosting on the platform.

    The Trustees of Evangelicals Now, as listed on the Charity Commission website, are Rev Hugh Palmer, Gareth Lewis, Rev Mark Burkill, the Right Reverend Wallace Benn, Adrian Reynolds (Chair) and Tim Thornborough. In the August 2020 EN, they are referred to as Directors and part of the group of Members that “gives oversight to Evangelicals Now”.

    Rev Hugh Palmer is the recently retired rector of All Souls Langham Place, where Rod Thomas gives extended episcopal oversight. It is alleged by a Smyth victim, ‘Graham’, that Hugh Palmer knew about Smyth.

    Tim Thornborough is also an Associate Editor for EN and will be involved in editorial decisions. He attended and preached at Emmanuel Wimbledon under Jonathan Fletcher. The other Associate Editor, John Stevens of FIEC, goes back a long way with the senior ReNew leaders (including Vaughan Roberts and William Taylor) and was part of the group that was called in to “manage” the Jonathan Fletcher situation last year when it all came out. Both Tim Thornborough and John Stevens have written articles in Evangelicals Now.

    Rev Mark Burkill is a trustee of both Church Society and the ReNew Conference, and he is on the Council of Church Society, along with Rev Robin Weekes and until recently Rev William Taylor. He is the vicar of Christ Church Leyton, another church that receives oversight from Rod Thomas. As already mentioned, Rod Thomas is a protégé of Jonathan Fletcher, attended Emmanuel Wimbledon, went on from there into ministry, and was until very recently in Jonathan Fletcher’s preaching group.

    Wallace Benn was until recently a Vice President of Church Society (Rod Thomas is President). He has written for Evangelicals Now. He is a trustee of the Fellowship of Word and Spirit, which is now part of Church Society.

    Adrian Reynolds was until recently Director of Ministry at the Proclamation Trust, where William Taylor, Robin Weekes and Vaughan Roberts are also trustees. He has written for EN. He is associate national director of FIEC working with John Stevens (see above).

    • David Baker, the new editor of Evangelicals Now, is a good journalist. He would not have touched that appalling, self-justifying letter from Fletcher, which EN ran last year, with a barge pole. If I have estimated David rightly, he would not stand for any attempts to muscle him over his coverage of the Smyth/Fletcher scandals.

      • Julian – my apologies for being unclear. I am sure that David Baker is a good journalist! But even journalists are not infallible – they will have a bias as we all do, they have their blind spots and they can fail to grasp situations. My point was about David’s comments on your very good article of 31 July on this website:

        “To me this seems a strange argument. Who better for evangelicals to learn from than the man tasked with investigating the scandal? Imagine the fuss if it had been suggested inviting him, and then a decision taken *not* to… It’s good to have him speak.”

        Justin Humphreys showed, by withdrawing from the ReNew Conference, that he understood the problem with a conference led by Jonathan Fletcher’s close friends who “managed” things. But by his own words above, David showed that he didn’t understand the issues. Maybe this will change. Who knows?

        • Thank you very much Kate. Yes, if he learns from his error of judgement there, then won’t he be an even better journalist? If I had a pound for every mistake I have made as a scribbler, I would be able to retire in some splendour!

          Please send my warm regards to Mike A.

  7. … [Trackback]

    […] Informations on that Topic: anglican.ink/2020/08/13/an-outrageousness-of-the-silence-by-senior-evangelicals-over-fletcher-and-smyth/ […]

Comments are closed.