The Bishop of Maidstone, Rod Thomas, who oversees 147 conservative evangelical parishes across the Church of England, has revealed that he wrote to the Archbishop of Canterbury offering to resign over his handling of the Jonathan Fletcher abuse scandal. But Justin Welby wrote back expressing confidence in Bishop Thomas’s ‘leadership in this regard’.
Following last month’s report by Christian safeguarding charity, thirtyone:eight, into Fletcher’s abuses, Bishop Thomas has sent a ‘pastoral letter’ to vicars under his delegated episcopal oversight.
In the letter sent to vicars on April 6th, two days after Easter Sunday, Bishop Thomas wrote: ‘I want to assure you that I believe it is right to hold myself to account (emphasis his) and will also be following up those recommendations in the report that relate to the wider church. Specifically, I am a suffragan of the Archbishop of Canterbury and am accountable to him. Accordingly I have written to him with a full account of how I first came to hear of Jonathan Fletcher’s abusive behaviour in September 2018 and what I did in the months that followed. In my letter, I made clear that if he believed I had acted inappropriately, I would resign.’
Bishop Thomas quoted with permission Archbishop Welby’s reply to his resignation offer:
‘I am very grateful to you for writing so fully and openly to me about your knowledge of the events around Jonathan Fletcher. It is a shocking and tragic matter and as you rightly identify it is very important for us to listen carefully to all who have been abused and all who feel their trust has been ruined and are concerned about how they move forward. I am very glad to learn of the steps you have taken and are continuing to take.
‘It is a gospel imperative that we care for all and value all and so ensuring we are a safe church for all is a key part of our calling. I am very pleased that you are writing to the clergy and do pass on my own concerns about these matters. I want also to thank you Rod for the leadership you are showing in this regard and pray for you in all that you are undertaking.’
The lessons learned review into Fletcher’s abuses, commissioned by Emmanuel Church where the serial abuser was vicar from 1982 to 2012, made 66 recommendations and identified 18 themes. In ‘Theme 2: Healthy leadership, governance and accountability’, the report said ‘aspects of unhealthy culture’ across the conservative evangelical constituency ‘might only be addressed fully by those having played a key role in the establishment and maintenance of that culture to no longer enjoy the influence they have had to date (i.e. considering their positions and stepping down)’.
Commenting on Bishop Thomas’s pastoral letter, safe church campaigner Kate Andreyev, herself a survivor of conservative evangelical bullying, wrote on Twitter: ‘What about the Jonathan Fletcher 31:8 recommendation that those who held key roles in the constituency should resign?’
Bishop Thomas told frontline clergy in his letter: ‘I want to encourage all leaders (lay and ordained) to read the thirtyone:eight report carefully and to take time to consider the broad recommendations (cf. #29-66) in the most appropriate way.
‘Clearly, all the recommendations need to be carefully worked through and implemented, but there are a number which can be immediately addressed.’
Since the UK Parliament passed the Safeguarding and Clergy Discipline Measure in 2016, safeguarding administration has increased significantly for frontline clergy and parishes. With parish clergy posts being cut across the CofE, a growing number of ministers are looking after multiple churches. Without the paid personal assistants and administrators available to bishops and archdeacons, such clergy are often reliant on volunteer administrative support for compliance with complex safeguarding processes and can be subject to spot-checks by diocesan officials on whether they have conducted risk assessments on stacked chairs or the placing of signage.
Anglican Ink last month reported that Bishop Thomas remained a member of Fletcher’s preachers’ group, which met at his south-west London home, for at least four months after hearing about his abusive behaviour. Local preachers’ groups of conservative evangelical clergy, like Fletcher’s, were a spin-off from the Proclamation Trust, the preacher training provider Fletcher co-founded in 1986 and of which he was a trustee until 2000. Such groups tend to meet about every six weeks in the home of a senior minister. Invited members present sermons in advance of being preached in their churches for critical evaluation by their peers.
Following Bishop Thomas’s latest pastoral letter, AI put this question to the Lambeth Palace press office: what was Bishop Thomas’s explanation to Archbishop Welby as to why he continued in Fletcher’s preachers’ group until February 2019, having heard about the safeguarding concerns around Fletcher in September 2018?
AI also asked about the appointment process for Rod Thomas as Bishop of Maidstone in 2015:did the Archbishop discuss the relative merits of potential conservative evangelical candidates with Fletcher or correspond with him on this matter?
Archbishop Welby and Fletcher became associated in the 1970s through the Iwerne evangelical camps at which the savage serial abuser John Smyth groomed victims from the ‘top 30’ English boarding schools. Fletcher was also a member of the Nobody’s Friends dining club hosted by the Archbishop of Canterbury at Lambeth Palace.
No Lambeth Palace spokesperson has responded to AI’s questions.
Julian Mann is a former Church of England vicar, now an evangelical journalist based in the UK.
“Anglican Ink last month reported that Bishop Thomas remained a member of Fletcher’s preachers’ group, which met at his south-west London home, for at least four months after hearing about his abusive behaviour.”
That sounds quite reasonably short, given the need to make enquiries, and noting that Fletcher denied and obfuscated at every opportunity.
Bishop Thomas wrote that he found out about Rev Jonathan Fletcher’s “harmful activities” in September 2018. He could – and as a bishop, should -have sought advice on what to do from Southwark Diocese as he was a Provincial Episcopal Visitor there. However Bishop Thomas remained with other more junior clergy in the preaching group that Jonathan Fletcher led until February 2019. However there was also the conference in January 2019 which Rev Fletcher attended as a minister in good standing. Bishop Thomas only wrote to make other ReNew clergy aware that there was a problem in April 2019, over six months after he found out about the “harmful activities”. Of course JF had lost Permission to Officiate back near the beginning of 2017.
It is also worth noting that Bishop Thomas did not try to hand in his resignation. He merely wrote, he says, to tell the Archbishop of Canterbury that he would resign if Archbishop Welby thought he should. Bishop Thomas did not publish the letter that he wrote (so we don’t know what he “officially” told the Archbishop) and nor did he publish in full the Archbishop’s response. ++Justin has a long personal connection to Jonathan Fletcher, John Smyth and the Iwerne camps, and his reputation has been tarnished by his treatment of the Smyth victims. The Archbishop does not have a good record on safeguarding and would be very unlikely to suggest that Bishop Thomas should resign, given his behaviour in other matters. Moreover, the reviewers of the ThirtyOne:Eight Jonathan Fletcher report, respected safeguarding professionals, said clearly that those who had key roles in the ReNew constituency (Bishop Thomas definitely has a key role) should resign and no longer enjoy the influence that they have had up to now.
“It is also worth noting that Bishop Thomas did not try to hand in his resignation”
Nor should he have done so. Calls for his resignation are merely mischievous.
“Bishop Thomas wrote that he found out about Rev Jonathan Fletcher’s “harmful activities” in September 2018”
He wrote that he first heard about them then, and we can be quite sure that he only heard a fraction of what would come out later, because several people have said the same thing – Fletcher denied and obfuscated from the start. He did not admit the full extent of what later came out.
“He could – and as a bishop, should -have sought advice on what to do from Southwark Diocese…”
How do you know he did not? Furthermore, if he did, how do you know Southwark Diocese was forthcoming with whatever it knew at that stage? Southwark Diocese does not look at all good in this episode – for example, its failure to invite any respresentation from the congregation in its initial enquiry.
‘Calls for his resignation are merely mischievous.’
The reviewers from the safeguarding charity Thirty One: Eight said that those in key roles (which would include Bishop Thomas) should resign. You think that these respected safeguarding professionals are being mischievous?
Really – the reviewers said Bishop Thomas should resign? That would be remarkable, since he was not in a key role.
Do you have a link to support your assertion? Let’s see their reasons for saying +Thomas should resign.
MichaelA, it may help to put this matter in the right perspective. Are we to understand Bishop Thomas to be a shepherd of the church of God, which He has purchased with His own blood, Acts 20:28. As I understand it, there is a specific complaint against the Bishop (voiced by Marmalade Atkins), namely, that he failed to take advice from Southwark Diocese. I would have thought that is neither here nor there, given that, by the Bishop’s own admission, effectively, he could not tell the difference between a brother in Christ and a wolf amongst the flock. Indeed, he knew nothing about any “harmful activities” until quite late in the day – and you can vouchsafe for him, can’t you?
Hi Chris, it would help if you could articulate what your point is – your post is very difficult to follow. You don’t appear to have “put this in the right perspective”, but rather obfuscated.
“a specific complaint against the Bishop (voiced by Marmalade Atkins), namely, that he failed to take advice from Southwark Diocese.”
I asked Ms Atkins a question about that, which has not been answered. Here it is again:
Ms Atkins instead raised a separate issue, claiming that the reviewers had called on +Thomas to resign. I found this surprising, and asked for a link to this alleged call for resignation.
I’m sorry Chris, but I don’t think that puts anything into right perspective at all. I have already responded on the issue of taking advice from Spouthwark diocese – “Marmelade” is yet to answer.
“and you can vouchsafe for him, can’t you?”
Why would I need to? +Thomas says he didn’t know about Mr Fletcher’s activities until a few months before he was removed from ministry. Nobody has suggested to the contrary, nor have they suggested any reason why +Thomas should have known about them.
“he could not tell the difference between a brother in Christ and a wolf amongst the flock”
Yes, that happens too often, in all churches. These people don’t broadcast their activities. For example, there may be dodgy people involved in your own church right now, whom you haven’t detected. Some things take time to come to light.
MichaelA, you are right that there may well be dodgy people, in my own Church, who I have not “detected”. In fact, that observation also serves well to put this matter in the right perspective, for what we are clearly lacking i.e. in relation to the Fletcher matter, is a biblical mind. Thus if I were an overseer appointed in the church of God – as distinct, say, from the Church of England – then I would have to take it that my failure to detect a deceiver harming the flock as being more than enough cause to reproach me. Certainly I would not be going to the eminently reproachable Mr Welby for his opinion as to my shortcomings. For a start, It’s not as if the Church of England has been purchased with the blood of the Lamb.
“my failure to detect a deceiver harming the flock as being more than enough cause to reproach me”
Even if that were a valid summary, you are shifting the goalposts again: Marmelade is not merely “reproaching” +Thomas, but demanding that he stand down. Quite a different thing.
“For a start, It’s not as if the Church of England has been purchased with the blood of the Lamb.”
No church has been. Christ holds the angels of the churches in his right hand, but only walks among the lampstands.
“I would not be going to the eminently reproachable Mr Welby for his opinion as to my shortcomings.”
No-one is forcing you to. How is it relevant?
Yes, I am “shifting the goalposts” i.e. away from every religious group that has not been purchased with the blood of the Lamb. That is exactly what I am doing.
No, that’s not what I said, nor is it what you are doing. A bit of honesty in debate, please! You tried to characterize Marmelade’s posts as “reproaching”, and therefore suggested I was trying to shield +Thomas from mere reproach. But that is not correct – Marmelade called for the resignation of +Thomas, without apparently any clear basis for doing so.
“every religious group that has not been purchased with the blood of the Lamb.”
That is every religious group, including your own. The church as a whole has been purchased by the blood of the Lamb – but scripture never tells us that any particular religious group has been so purchased.
As I read you, MichaelA, you said that I was “shifting the goalposts again”. We may differ concerning what that involves. Be that as it may. I did refer, merely (in the first person), to “reproach”. The unstated biblical reference was 1 Timothy 3 v 2. Be that as it may.
Yes, I do attend services that are conducted by a particular religious group, which, by the way, I would scarcely say has been purchased by the blood of the Lamb. However we seem to be on very different wavelengths, my friend. As I see it, the entire conversation concerning Jonathan Fletcher and the conservative evangelical movement in England, is being conducted, here and elsewhere, and on both sides, without any regard at all to relevant biblical considerations. That says a lot about so-called Christians who identify as Anglican; whether they are conservative or liberal, in their professing Christianity, is beside the point.
“As I see it, the entire conversation concerning Jonathan Fletcher and the conservative evangelical movement in England, is being conducted, here and elsewhere, and on both sides, without any regard at all to relevant biblical considerations.”
That is how I see your contribution. Thank you for articulating it so well.
I am not a party to your conversation because it is informed entirely by political considerations outside the interests of the Body of Christ. That is exactly why I asked you above concerning whether we are to understand Bishop Thomas to be a shepherd of the church of God, Acts 20:28. I have no interest in his status as a career cleric. You do.
Again Chris, your ability to project is exceptional – I see your comments on this thread as being “informed entirely by political considerations outside the interests of the Body of Christ.” We will have to agree to disagree on that.
I have already answered your query about Acts 20:28, and I in turn queried your application of scripture to pastors in the church of God. My point was and is that nobody in this thread (including yourself) has so far come up with any reasonable scripture-based critique of +Thomas.
MichaelA, I will not agree to disagree with you. You have not answered my question re Acts 20:28. You have bald-faced ignored it; but moreover, you are engaging in sophistry, in relation to this matter (i.e. against Marmalade Atkins and Rusty Shackleford). Not only that, your comments would appear to be aiding the unhealthy culture that has been outlined by the relevant Report. The only ground, here, that you have to stand on is the fact that the Report does not name Thomas, for, by the same token, it does not identify William Taylor, Vaughan Roberts and Robin Weekes. You might therefore be instructed by the “Anglican Futures Trustee’s statement on the Fletcher reports”, Anglican Ink, 28 March 2021.
As I have already said, this debate is not motivated by biblical principles. So I would very much hasten to add that none of this amounts to a demonstration of how we should behave towards our brothers and sisters who have also sinned against God and his people. Therefore I would submit the text, James 5 v 16, as a fine “reasonable scripture-based critique” of Thomas, and also his peers and the notorious scapegoat who is Jonathan Fletcher.
“Not only that, your comments would appear to be aiding the unhealthy culture that has been outlined by the relevant Report.”
That is a contemptible allegation, and a false one. It says nothing about me (as it is demonstrably not true) but it says a great deal about you.
“the notorious scapegoat who is Jonathan Fletcher.“
Scapegoat? No, he is not a scapegoat, but a serious sinner against the body of Christ. Your attempt to excuse him in this way does you NO credit.
“The only ground, here, that you have to stand on is the fact that the Report does not name Thomas”
The Report neither names nor implies any wrong-doing by +Thomas. Rather, the only ground you and Marmelade have is a vain attempt to pretend that the Report conflates the unhealthy culture of Jonathan Fletcher with the entire conservative evangelical movement.
“As I have already said, this debate is not motivated by biblical principles.”
On the contrary – I have been motivated by biblical principles throughout. So far I have not seen the same from you.
You have merely referred to James 5:16, but you have not applied it. I look forward to you and Marmalade confessing your sin of making false allegations against +Thomas. Marmalade Atkins has asserted that the 31:8 report characterises +Thomas as one who “played a key role” in the “unhealthy culture of Jonathan Fletcher”. Now it appears that you have joined him in that false allegation. The Report clearly does not do that.
Finally, I have answered your question about Acts 20:28, and I have responded with queries to you which you have been unable to answer. Your accusations of “sophistry” are mere projection.
MichaelA, your reply does not progress the debate any further. In relation to Fletcher, I will respond to you, as follows.
Fletcher is said to have remarked that “different people responded differently [to him]…”. No doubt that is true, and that may be said both before and after his behaviour was exposed. Those who spurned him, like Lee Furney, were not his victims. Those who failed to spurn him were also not his victims, for he sinned with adult partners. Certainly those people are being referred to as victims because Fletcher enjoyed an imbalance of power. This is not a relevant biblical consideration. Thus he is a ready scapegoat, and I do not mean that his professional colleagues are responsible because they knew certain things at certain times. If so, what can they possibly say before their Saviour, Christ, who suffered for them? Those people responsible were those complicit in the wickedness that Fletcher instigated; no more and no less than was Fletcher, himself, a complicit party, if and when he was first introduced to deceit and decadence amongst professing Christians. There is nothing that we can do other than confess our sins and pray for one another that we may be healed (James 5 v 16). The Church of England and its evangelical constituency has a safeguarding policy, rather than the promises of God. We are making our choice, here and now.
“There is nothing that we can do other than confess our sins and pray for one another that we may be healed (James 5 v 16).”
There is a lot more that we can do. That is why Christ and his Apostles left us their teaching.
“The Church of England and its evangelical constituency has a safeguarding policy, rather than the promises of God.”
Every church has the promises of God. So does every Christian. Bearing false witness is not following the promises of God.
On the contrary, my reply did progress the debate. It called you out on your falsehoods and failure to apply scriptural principle. That you cannot handle this is nobody’s fault but your own. The rest of your post appears to be merely an attempt to deflect, using sophistry.
No, Jonathan Fletcher was not “a scapegoat”, however much you try to spin him as such. He sinned, and was rightly deposed from ministry.
“Those people responsible were those complicit in the wickedness that Fletcher instigated”
Who has suggested otherwise? But the point of this thread is that Marmalade (and now you) tried to argue that the Reviewers’ Report found that +Thomas was complicit in Fletcher’s wickedness. The Report found no such thing.
I am not a party to your conversation because it is informed entirely by political considerations outside the interests of the Body of Christ. That is exactly why I asked you above concerning whether we are to understand Bishop Thomas to be a shepherd of the church of God. I have no interest in his status as a career cleric. You do.
MichaelA, I’ll give you a tip. Read comments – mine and others – at face value, and don’t make assumptions based on your pet narrative.
MichaelA, can you point to where I am “demanding” that Bishop Thomas should stand down please? All I have done is to point out that the reviewers judged that those in “key roles” should stand down, and that Bishop Thomas would certainly be someone in a “key role” in Jonathan Fletcher constituency. The reviewers made the recommendation on the basis of all the evidence that they had received and not just about Jonathan Fletcher but also about the leadership culture of the constituency.
“The reviewers made the recommendation [that +Thomas resign]” No, they did not. You are merely reading into the report what you want to see. Ref. my post above.
“the reviewers judged that those in “key roles” should stand down, and that Bishop Thomas would certainly be someone in a “key role” in Jonathan Fletcher constituency”. Once again, you leave out crucial words. Read the very passage you cite from their report – it says that those who played key roles in the establishment and maintenance of Jonathan Fletcher’s unhealthy culture should stand down. At no point do they suggest that +Thomas was one of these, nor is there any other reason to think he was. You are trying to conflate the entire Conservative Evangelical movement with JF’s unhealthy culture, and you have nothing to go on but that.
“can you point to where I am “demanding” that Bishop Thomas should stand down please?”
You are not? That is great to hear. As I wrote above, calls for +thomas to resign are merely mischievous.
‘+Thomas says he didn’t know about Mr Fletcher’s activities until a few months before he was removed from ministry. Nobody has suggested to the contrary, nor have they suggested any reason why +Thomas should have known about them.’
Bishop Thomas has never said he knew about Fletcher’s ‘harmful activities’ before the latter’s Permission to Officiate was removed in February 2017. Bishop Thomas has said he first knew about Fletcher’s abusive conduct in September 2018, some 18 months after Fletcher lost his PTO.
Together with three other conservative evangelical leaders, Bishop Thomas was a signatory to the statement to the ReNew network in April 2019 informing regional leaders about the removal of Fletcher’s PTO and warning them against inviting him to preach in their churches. The Thirtyone:eight report refers to this statement in its timeline, though it does not name the signatories.
This statement said: ‘Jonathan’s lack of PTO could have adverse disciplinary and gospel consequences for the ministry of any clergy who invite him. We are deeply saddened at having to write in these terms, where Jonathan has had a very significant ministry over the years and continues to be held in great affection by many.’
+Thomas does indeed say that, but he has also been shown to be less than trustworthy with sharing private details with others re: Kate Andreyev, including consulting Jonathan Fletcher, does that not show a level of reverence and relationship that is very close? Unfortunately we are in such a mess here that merely trusting people’s words has gone out of the window, especially where other behaviour seems suspect and connected.
Having Justin Welby vouch for you means nothing, except that if you are brought down he may be brought down too. Welby needs +Thomas to try and keep hold of the evangelicals.
I am not concerned with other claims or innuendo about +Thomas – if he thinks such things important, no doubt he can respond to them himself.
My point is that Marmalade Atkins claimed on this thread that the 31:8 Report characterises +Thomas as playing a “key role” in the “Jonathan Fletcher constituency”. It does not do so.
Hi MichaelA.
Google ‘walking with’ and that should take you to the website where you can access the report. Click on ‘Independent Review’ and then the link under ‘Independent Lessons Learned Review by ThirtyOne:Eight’. Go to page 11 and scroll down to Recommendation 2. Under that there is a grey box entitled: ‘Theme 2: Healthy leadership, governance and accountability’.
It says: ‘There have been changes to leadership and governance and accountability structures within ECW since 2012 and many of these are positive. However, some concerns still remain.
‘It is the opinion of the Reviewers that the aspects of unhealthy culture at ECW and more broadly across the affected CE constituency might only be addressed fully by those having played a key role in the establishment and maintenance of that culture to no longer enjoy the influence they have had to date (i.e. considering their positions and stepping down). It is not for this review to determine the details of how this should take place, but it should be recognised and considered as a necessary part of a demonstrable commitment towards a safer, healthier culture.’
As the bishop to this constituency, bishop to those at Emmanuel Church Wimbledon, former Chair of REFORM and President of Church Society, Bishop Thomas is definitely one in a ‘key role’ in the constituency. He himself clearly recognised this, because he took it upon himself to write to the Archbishop of Canterbury to ask if he should resign and then put out a letter / statement regarding this.
Nobody was named. This was one of the terms of the review set by Emmanuel Church Wimbledon. But it’s fairly obvious who those in key roles in the constituency are.
Thank you for admitting that the Review did not refer to +Thomas at all. And despite your “interpretation”, examining the report does not show any reason to think it is intended to refer to +Thomas.
You write “Bishop Thomas is definitely one in a ‘key role’ in the Conservative Evangelical constituency.” Of course, but that does not implicate him in anything. As the reviewers point out: “It is important to note that the Reviewers are not suggesting all CE (conservative evangelical) organisations are implicated in this report.” If any cogent allegation is to be made against +Thomas, it doesn’t come from this report.
The next point is very important and I will cover it in a separate post.
Marmelade, you cite a passage from the Review report: “…the aspects of unhealthy culture at ECW and more
broadly across the affected CE constituency might only be addressed fully by those having played a key role in the establishment and maintenance of that culture to no longer enjoy the influence they have had to date“.
Without saying so directly, you invite the reader to ASSUME that the phrase “that culture” is referring to the entire Conservative Evangelical constituency. However read in context, it clearly is not; Rather, it is referring to the “unhealthy aspects”, i.e. those specific people and attitudes involved in fostering or covering up Mr Fletcher’s actions. There is no indication in the report that +Thomas had anything to do with that.
Your interpretation is useful to those who would like ALL leaders of the Conservative Evangelical faction to step down, regardless of any involvement or knowledge of Mr Fletcher’s misdeeds, but even if the Review had any basis for saying that, its not in fact what the Review is saying.
No, I am not inviting the reader to think that it refers to the whole conservative evangelical constituency. I haven’t said or implied that. I am not referring to all leaders either.
I am referring to the long term close circle of senior leaders around Rev Jonathan Fletcher. Bishop Thomas is certainly one of that close circle.
What I wrote is precisely what you have been doing. The Report does not refer to +Thomas as playing a key role in the unhealthy culture of Jonathan Fletcher. It does not draw any adverse conclusions about +Thomas at all.
You have tried to argue that because (i) the Report refers to those playing a key role in that unhealthy culture, and because (ii) +Thomas played a key role in the conservative evangelical constituency, that therefore (iii) +Thomas played a key role in the unhealthy culture of Jonathan Fletcher. That is in fact your only argument, and it is not correct.
Your argument relies entirely on conflating the unhealthy culture of Jonathan Fletcher with the entire conservative evangelical constituency.
The report did refer to Bishop Thomas. As already explained, Emmanuel Church Wimbledon insisted on no names, but the report refers to Bishop Thomas as ‘the Provincial Episcopal Visitor (PEV)’. In the same way that the report refers to Rev Robin Weekes as ‘the Vicar’ of Emmanuel Church Wimbledon. The PEV would be considered to have a ‘key role’ both in connection with Emmanuel Wimbledon and all the other churches in the constituency of which he is bishop.
“The report did refer to Bishop Thomas.”
No it doesn’t refer to him at all in the way that you have been trying to claim.
“The PEV would be considered to have a ‘key role’ … ”
Again, you are trying to spin. The Report refers to those playing a key role in the establishment and maintenance of the unhealty culture of Jonathan Fletcher. At no point does the report suggest that such culture was the same as the entire Conservative Evangelical movement.. Your entire argument may be summed up as: “Jonathan Fletcher was a conservative evangelical. Rod Thomas was a leader of the Conservative Evangelical movement, therefore the report must blame Rod Thomas in some way for Jonathan Fletcher”. In fact the report does not do so.
That’s not true. There are far more links between Rod and Jonathan than that. And it’s also a case of knowing how these guys work. They are interlinked, their circles are small, and the venn diagrams would have a field day.
Exactly Rusty.
What I wrote is true – Marmalade has attempted to use the Report of the Reviewers in an attack on +Thomas. He did so by conflating the “unhealthy culture” of Jonathan Fletcher with the entire conservative evangelical constituency.
The Report not only does not do that, but makes quite clear that it is not intending to do that.
“There are far more links between Rod and Jonathan than that”
Indeed, and far more “links” between Jonathan and some of those who have attacked +Rod on this issue. Apart from anything else, they are all in the same church. But that doesn’t change the fact that Marmalade has tried to cite the Report of the Reviewers as an attack on +Thomas, and it is not.
No MichaelA. I didn’t claim that the report named Bishop Thomas. I said that it referred to him – which it does. I am being factual – the PEV is a key role in the Fletcher culture / ReNew constituency.
Your summing up is what is incorrect and in fact, spin.
You did not just claim that the Report “referred” to +Thomas. You claimed that it found that +Thomas played a “key role” in the “unhealthy culture” of Jonathan Fletcher, thus attempting to enlist the weight of the Report and its authors in your own attacks against +Thomas. But the Report specifically does not do that.
Erm…no, that’s not what I did. I’m not interested in ‘attacking’ anyone. Just being factual about what the report said.
Of course, aside from Bishop Thomas, there is also the Revd William Taylor and others who would be in “key roles” in the constituency and also have long term links to Jonathan Fletcher.
The report also says that those in key roles at Emmanuel Church Wimbledon should stand down. Surely that has to include the vicar the Revd Robin Weekes?
Welby won’t know any of the details about who knew what or who said what, and when they did so. I think rod should make his explanation of what he knew and did, public. That is what the 31:8 IAG requested. Fill in the gaps. Let those who know what the other relevant info is, evaluate the situation
Let those who know what the other relevant info is, evaluate the situation
Auguste, are you referring to God?
I think the Bishop should be making his explanation as to what he did not know and why.
My general observation is that when news comes out about Person X and the knives come out for Person Y, those with the knives have an agenda outside of the news about Person X.
[…] of Sheffield, Pete Wilcox and the suffragan Bishop of Maidstone, Rod Thomas, who has delegated oversight of the church due to its opposition to women bishops, issued a joint […]