Just because the people who wrote this letter have been well treated by ReNew leaders such as William Taylor, Robin Weekes, Rod Thomas and Vaughan Roberts, that doesn’t negate the witness of others who have not been well treated by these leaders.
The people who wrote this letter have done more than just thank conservative evangelical leaders like William Taylor, Robin Weekes, Rod Thomas and Vaughan Roberts.
They have complained that a certain group who have attacked those leaders are doing so for their own agenda, and not showing any concern for the victims.
I should have thought that all Christians would have concern for anyone who has suffered abuse at the hands of another Christian. But surely that concern does not have to be publicly expressed every time before permission is granted to speak about attitudes and behaviours which may need to be dealt with in the light of what has been revealed about Jonathan Fletcher?
The voice of victims should be taken seriously but the hard truth is that they may not necessarily be in the best position to recognise or accept the full picture of what lay behind the abuse and how it was able to continue so widely and for so long. Considering the overlap with people and events at Iwerne, there’s some kind of pattern which needs to be understood and dealt with for the sake of all past or possible future victims, and on behalf of the witness to Christ of evangelicals more widely.
Let opinion be freely aired without fear or recrimination. Surely that’s one of the first lessons of this wretched business.
” they may not necessarily be in the best position to recognise or accept the full picture of what lay behind the abuse”
Why wouldn’t they be? Especially when there is no reason to think that any others are in any better position.
In any case, what we see from this is something different – victims complaining that others are exploiting their experience for their own political agenda.
This letter should be read carefully by anyone who is aware of the attacks made on conservative evangelical leaders in relation to the Jonathan Fletcher affair over the past few months.
Thank you to Anglican Ink for publishing it.
They should be taking responsibility for their own conduct, not blaming somebody else for it, and not complaining when others don’t go along with making a scapegoat of Fletcher.
Hi Chris. Who do you mean by “They”?
The authors of the letter.
Thank you
Correct – those to whom the letter refers need to take responsibility for their own conduct.
Surely the issue here is truth. Until what happened around the whole of the Fletcher group of churches and their leaders is made clear and acknowledged by everyone involved there is no way that bad attitudes and wrong behaviour can be sorted out. But it’s inevitable there will be a variety of views on causation and remedy; and doubtless everyone already has their own opinion as to what lies at the heart of the matter. I cannot think anyone would care any more to suggest that this is simply about one named individual.
So the last thing now needed is attempts by any party (including anonymous victims) to restrict what may or may not be said by anyone who has had an interest or takes an interest in this particular evangelical constituency. What is said may be contentious, inconvenient, prejudiced or a bit of point scoring. Nevertheless defence of freedom for all to speak openly and honestly should be instinctive among Christians whose whole driving force is truth – the only thing around which our unity may be found. I’d suggest expending much energy and many words on trying to silence those with whom we disagree – as this letter appears to do – will only cause further damage rather than repair that which has already been done.
I cannot think anyone would care any more to suggest that this is simply about one named individual
Unfortunately that is exactly what some people are suggesting, in defence of those in positions of leadership. The issue is about power, not truth.
That is not at all what they have suggested. Try reading the letter.
“The issue is about power, not truth.”
That is precisely what the authors of the letter are concerned about.
“Nevertheless defence of freedom for all to speak openly and honestly should be instinctive among Christians”
That is precisely what the authors of the letter are calling for. Those who criticise them are not.
” will only cause further damage”
That is what happens when people speak the truth.
“So the last thing now needed is attempts by any party (including anonymous victims) to restrict what may or may not be said by anyone”
But they aren’t doing that – they are calling to account other anonymous people, for trying to exploit others (i.e. the victims) for their own political purposes
On the one hand these 7 (out of 27) victims claim that that no evangelical leaders put them up to this letter. And yet, on the other hand, this letter echos the Palm Sunday statement from the pulpit of St Helen’s. It reads just like the words of the Captain Reverend. It’s hard to believe that Will T had no prior knowledge or involvement in these people jumping to his defense… and they openly confess he and the other 3 leaders have treated them kindly, in stark contrast to the experience of the other victims.
That is most likely because it is pointing out the truth, in a godly manner – just as were the conservative evangelical leaders.
Sorry i disagree. Will T had to apologise for his Palm Sunday statement the following week because it was wrong and ungodly. Frustrated by that, it seems that he realised the only way he can get his views out is through the voices of some of the 27 victims.
It is interesting how this new letter has been received. Evangelical people who refused to accept anything as truthful from the first victims to speak out (saying things like “I just don’t know enough to comment”) are now commenting on this as gospel truth. People are willing to believe every line of this statement, because it is attacking the advocates for the other (unpopular) victims, and clear has the favour of the main leaders.
The main underlying theme of the recommendation of the 9:38 review was :
“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.”
All that this letter does to me is highlight even more that there needs to be change at the top and that the culture of fear continues (and will continue) as long as these leaders retain their jobs. The very fact that these leaders have treated 7 people (but not all of the victims) well and appear to have supported these people in attacking the IAG (ignoring the awful experiences of the other victims by sweeping their earlier complaints about Fletcher under the carpet), does not reflect at all well. The culture of fear which trickles down from the top is alive and well.
“it seems that he realised the only way he can get his views out is through the voices of some of the 27 victims.”
Really – what is your evidence for that assertion/assumption?
“People are willing to believe every line of this statement, because …”
So far there has been nothing said against the contents of the letter, except (as we see on several posts on this thread) by ad hominem attacks on its authors, and demands that they must be disbelieved because unknown persons disagree with them.
“might only be addressed fully by those having played a key role in the establishment and maintenance of that culture”
Correct, which as we have seen does not on its terms refer to leaders like William Taylor. We have already seen on this site how “Marmaduke Atkins” tried to make out that the Report was saying things which it clearly was not, in its plain words.
“and that the culture of fear continues (and will continue) as long as these leaders retain their jobs.”
What we appear to be seeing is that it is those who oppose those leaders who are trying to maintain a culture of fear.
“The very fact that these leaders have treated 7 people (but not all of the victims) well….”
But its more than that, isn’t it? These 7 are saying that they have been used and exploited by those seeking to attack the conservative evangelical leaders. That raises the unsavoury prospect that it may have happened to others also.
Just because the people who wrote this letter have been well treated by ReNew leaders such as William Taylor, Robin Weekes, Rod Thomas and Vaughan Roberts, that doesn’t negate the witness of others who have not been well treated by these leaders.
The people who wrote this letter have done more than just thank conservative evangelical leaders like William Taylor, Robin Weekes, Rod Thomas and Vaughan Roberts.
They have complained that a certain group who have attacked those leaders are doing so for their own agenda, and not showing any concern for the victims.
I should have thought that all Christians would have concern for anyone who has suffered abuse at the hands of another Christian. But surely that concern does not have to be publicly expressed every time before permission is granted to speak about attitudes and behaviours which may need to be dealt with in the light of what has been revealed about Jonathan Fletcher?
The voice of victims should be taken seriously but the hard truth is that they may not necessarily be in the best position to recognise or accept the full picture of what lay behind the abuse and how it was able to continue so widely and for so long. Considering the overlap with people and events at Iwerne, there’s some kind of pattern which needs to be understood and dealt with for the sake of all past or possible future victims, and on behalf of the witness to Christ of evangelicals more widely.
Let opinion be freely aired without fear or recrimination. Surely that’s one of the first lessons of this wretched business.
” they may not necessarily be in the best position to recognise or accept the full picture of what lay behind the abuse”
Why wouldn’t they be? Especially when there is no reason to think that any others are in any better position.
In any case, what we see from this is something different – victims complaining that others are exploiting their experience for their own political agenda.
This letter should be read carefully by anyone who is aware of the attacks made on conservative evangelical leaders in relation to the Jonathan Fletcher affair over the past few months.
Thank you to Anglican Ink for publishing it.
They should be taking responsibility for their own conduct, not blaming somebody else for it, and not complaining when others don’t go along with making a scapegoat of Fletcher.
Hi Chris. Who do you mean by “They”?
The authors of the letter.
Thank you
Correct – those to whom the letter refers need to take responsibility for their own conduct.
Surely the issue here is truth. Until what happened around the whole of the Fletcher group of churches and their leaders is made clear and acknowledged by everyone involved there is no way that bad attitudes and wrong behaviour can be sorted out. But it’s inevitable there will be a variety of views on causation and remedy; and doubtless everyone already has their own opinion as to what lies at the heart of the matter. I cannot think anyone would care any more to suggest that this is simply about one named individual.
So the last thing now needed is attempts by any party (including anonymous victims) to restrict what may or may not be said by anyone who has had an interest or takes an interest in this particular evangelical constituency. What is said may be contentious, inconvenient, prejudiced or a bit of point scoring. Nevertheless defence of freedom for all to speak openly and honestly should be instinctive among Christians whose whole driving force is truth – the only thing around which our unity may be found. I’d suggest expending much energy and many words on trying to silence those with whom we disagree – as this letter appears to do – will only cause further damage rather than repair that which has already been done.
I cannot think anyone would care any more to suggest that this is simply about one named individual
Unfortunately that is exactly what some people are suggesting, in defence of those in positions of leadership. The issue is about power, not truth.
That is not at all what they have suggested. Try reading the letter.
“The issue is about power, not truth.”
That is precisely what the authors of the letter are concerned about.
“Nevertheless defence of freedom for all to speak openly and honestly should be instinctive among Christians”
That is precisely what the authors of the letter are calling for. Those who criticise them are not.
” will only cause further damage”
That is what happens when people speak the truth.
“So the last thing now needed is attempts by any party (including anonymous victims) to restrict what may or may not be said by anyone”
But they aren’t doing that – they are calling to account other anonymous people, for trying to exploit others (i.e. the victims) for their own political purposes
On the one hand these 7 (out of 27) victims claim that that no evangelical leaders put them up to this letter. And yet, on the other hand, this letter echos the Palm Sunday statement from the pulpit of St Helen’s. It reads just like the words of the Captain Reverend. It’s hard to believe that Will T had no prior knowledge or involvement in these people jumping to his defense… and they openly confess he and the other 3 leaders have treated them kindly, in stark contrast to the experience of the other victims.
That is most likely because it is pointing out the truth, in a godly manner – just as were the conservative evangelical leaders.
Sorry i disagree. Will T had to apologise for his Palm Sunday statement the following week because it was wrong and ungodly. Frustrated by that, it seems that he realised the only way he can get his views out is through the voices of some of the 27 victims.
It is interesting how this new letter has been received. Evangelical people who refused to accept anything as truthful from the first victims to speak out (saying things like “I just don’t know enough to comment”) are now commenting on this as gospel truth. People are willing to believe every line of this statement, because it is attacking the advocates for the other (unpopular) victims, and clear has the favour of the main leaders.
The main underlying theme of the recommendation of the 9:38 review was :
“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.”
All that this letter does to me is highlight even more that there needs to be change at the top and that the culture of fear continues (and will continue) as long as these leaders retain their jobs. The very fact that these leaders have treated 7 people (but not all of the victims) well and appear to have supported these people in attacking the IAG (ignoring the awful experiences of the other victims by sweeping their earlier complaints about Fletcher under the carpet), does not reflect at all well. The culture of fear which trickles down from the top is alive and well.
“it seems that he realised the only way he can get his views out is through the voices of some of the 27 victims.”
Really – what is your evidence for that assertion/assumption?
“People are willing to believe every line of this statement, because …”
So far there has been nothing said against the contents of the letter, except (as we see on several posts on this thread) by ad hominem attacks on its authors, and demands that they must be disbelieved because unknown persons disagree with them.
“might only be addressed fully by those having played a key role in the establishment and maintenance of that culture”
Correct, which as we have seen does not on its terms refer to leaders like William Taylor. We have already seen on this site how “Marmaduke Atkins” tried to make out that the Report was saying things which it clearly was not, in its plain words.
“and that the culture of fear continues (and will continue) as long as these leaders retain their jobs.”
What we appear to be seeing is that it is those who oppose those leaders who are trying to maintain a culture of fear.
“The very fact that these leaders have treated 7 people (but not all of the victims) well….”
But its more than that, isn’t it? These 7 are saying that they have been used and exploited by those seeking to attack the conservative evangelical leaders. That raises the unsavoury prospect that it may have happened to others also.