A celebrated Australian preacher in the Anglican Diocese of Sydney, who is ‘Senior Mentor’ to trainee ministers at its main theological college and preaches to 100,000 listeners a week through a radio show, has said he has ‘only been blessed’ by the ‘friendship and ministry’ of the serial abuser Rev Jonathan Fletcher.
Canon Simon Manchester, who in the 1980s was Fletcher’s successor as curate of St Helen’s Bishopsgate in the City of London, has had a joint letter with his wife published in the June edition of the British monthly journal, Evangelicals Now:
‘We have known Jonathan Fletcher for more than 40 years and only been blessed by his friendship and ministry. Of course it is painful for everyone when questions or accusations must be dealt with as good people are doing. May the Lord enable this process to be kept in proportion, look like it’s in proportion, and be marked by great humility. How good the Lord is to all of us – to protect and provide.’
Fletcher’s victims have described the effect of his abuses, which included beatings, cold baths and naked massages, on their mental health in the report into the scandal published in March by Christian safeguarding charity, Thirtyone:eight.
One survivor said: ‘As a result, I manifest unhealthy and debilitating responses, including shame, low self-worth, anxiety and depression. I am currently on anti-depressants and receiving psychotherapy which I hope will help restore my mental health.’
Another said: ‘These types of behaviour had a significant and detrimental effect on my emotional and psychological well-being, and I recall one beating which made me feel suicidal for some time afterwards.’
Canon Manchester was curate of St Helen’s Bishopsgate from 1982 to 1984 when the influential expository preacher, Prebendary Dick Lucas, was Rector. Canon Manchester has been a regular headline speaker at conferences laid on by the Proclamation Trust, the UK preacher training provider launched from St Helen’s in 1986. Fletcher was a founding trustee of the PT and Prebendary Lucas was its first chairman.
Last year Sydney Diocese’s Moore Theological College appointed Canon Manchester, who retired as Rector of St Thomas’ North Sydney in December 2019, ‘Senior Mentor of the John Chapman Preaching Initiative’. The late John Chapman (1930-2012), who served as Sydney Diocese’s Director of Evangelism, was an Australian evangelist with an international ministry.
Announcing Canon Manchester’s appointment, Moore College said: ‘An important, defining period in his ministry development was in London, where he served as Curate at St Helen’s Bishopsgate from 1982–84 under Dick Lucas.Dick initiated a pioneering lunchtime Bible teaching programme to serve the City of London’s pin-striped community, in which Simon was also involved.’
Moore College said it was seeking to raise A$150,000 to fund Canon Manchester’s position for five years: ‘His outstanding preaching and pastoral ministry have impacted on thousands over the past 30 years. In particular, the radio program “Christian Growth with Simon Manchester” on radio station Hope 103.2, has seen his preaching appreciated by over 100,000 listeners each week across Australia and around the world.
‘By supporting this strategically significant new role, you will be helping to equip a new generation of preachers for future ministry.
‘We are seeking to raise $150,000 to establish this part-time role for 5 years.’
Simon Manchester was appointed a Canon of St Andrew’s Cathedral in Sydney in 2019. This was in ‘celebration of his outstanding contribution to the Diocese of Sydney and to the kingdom of God’, the former Archbishop of Sydney, the Most Rev Glenn Davies, said.
Anglican Ink contacted Moore College for comment on the letter from Canon and Mrs Manchester in the light of the Fletcher victims’ testimony. But the college has yet to issue a statement.AI also contacted Evangelicals Nowwww.e-n.org.uk for an explanation of its decision to publish the letter. Its administrator, Rob Clarke, said the editor, who is Rev David Baker, would respond after he got back from holiday.
Julian Mann is a former Church of England vicar, now an evangelical journalist based in the UK.
Dreadful! I hope someone has reported him to his diocese as a safeguarding risk. Clearly he would be unlikely to follow safeguarding procedures if it was one of his mates. As for EN – shame on them ?
But perhaps Canon Manchester is exercising his right to voice publicly and honestly what he has genuinely experienced from his long friendship with someone who is under considerable public judgement. The fact that what he says is clearly at odds with the testimony of many others should not be a reason for silencing or censoring his testimony. Is not the widespread silence of influential people one of the faults which about which there has been a lot of criticism in this affair? And the publication of Canon Manchester’s letter by Evangelicals Now should not in any way be taken as an endorsement of what it says.
However the wording of Canon Manchester’s intervention leaves us in doubt about exactly what he meant. Exposure of the truth (honesty) and exercise of justice (righteousness) are the first priorities; and ‘proportion’ cannot be used to dilute either of these. It seems strange that someone noted for his preaching should be ambiguous in this way.
I think his intention is very clear. He is gaslighting the survivors & at this point, EN should not be giving him a platform to do that.
How is he “gaslighting the survivors”?
As I indicate above.
No, you haven’t provided any answer above. All you did was demand that Canon Manchester’s testimony of his (and his family’s) experience of Mr Fletcher’s minstry should not be heard, for no stated reason except that it doesn’t fit with the testimony of others.
I am still waiting for a response to my question.
You get it above.
No, I don’t. You have attempted to evade the question – see below. I am still waiting for an answer.
“Clearly he would be unlikely to follow safeguarding procedures”
That is a very serious accusation to make against Canon Manchester. What is your basis for it?
This is the sort of statement a good friend makes when charges are first made or at the start of an investigation. It’s an odd thing to say at this stage of things.
I have kept out of the discussions on these matters since others are more knowledgeable than I am about the facts and alleged facts and implications. However, in the past I have noticed some absurd criticisms of St Helens and my initial reaction to recent criticism has been to take all I read on the matter with a pinch of salt. That may be ridiculous, but I can’t get it out of my head that some people have it “in” for St Helens. Simon Manchester is a fine man and a fine preacher. His words as reported are measured and there is no hint that he is condoning wrongdoing. Perhaps his use of “proportion” is a result of noticing what I have noticed about critics of St Helens.
The author might like to quote the words where Simon Manchester “offers praise for Jonathan Fletcher”. The words he does quote are an appreciation, not praise.
True, and Canon Manchester seems to have been careful to restrict what he wrote to his own experience with Fletcher, which was positive.
Of course, that doesn’t mean Fletcher is innocent either. People who engage in the sort of activities he is accused of may be adept at sensing those who can be suborned to their activities, and keeping their activities quite secret from others.
Yes. I was in no sense commenting on Fletcher’s guilt or otherwise or what action should, or should have been, taken. I have left that to others and will continue to do so.
“We have known Jonathan Fletcher for more than 40 years and only been blessed by his friendship and ministry.”
That is quite possible. There are numerous credible accusations of abuse against Fletcher, including by eminent and tested clergy (e.g. Bishop Lines) but people like Fletcher can often be adept at covering their tracks. It may be that Fletcher gave no hint to Canon Manchester of his other activities.
The fact remains that the accusations of abuse have been made against Fletcher, and Canon Manchester needs to consider that, even if he personally never experienced such behaviour by Fletcher.
Canon Manchester knows only too well that “accusations of abuse have been made against Fletcher”. What he is vindicating, now, is Fletcher’s uncelebrated remark to the effect that different people reacted differently toward him. In the circumstances, and with due respect, whether Canon Manchester has “only been blessed” by Fletcher’s friendship and ministry is not for him to say.
Why is it “not for him to say”? If his experience of Mr Fletcher’s ministry was in fact positive, then of course it is for him to say, and he SHOULD say it.
If his experience is not consistent with others’, then there may be a number of reasons for that. I have already alluded to one possible explanation (i.e. that people who abuse in the way J Fletcher is accused of, often tend to be adept at presenting different faces to different people). But regardless, we don’t get to disregard Canon Manchester’s experience simply because it is not consistent with the testimony of others.
ALL the evidence should be put forward, and that includes positive as well as negative evidence. We don’t draw a conclusion and then refuse to listen to anything that doesn’t accord with what we have already decided – that is just suppressing the truth.
I see it differently. Simon Manchester avoids addressing what Fletcher’s critics are demanding to hear, namely, as to what the leadership knew and when they knew it. However this is not what I would be asking of him. What Manchester should make known straightforwardly is why he and his associates were not persuaded that there was anything wrong about what was going on between Fletcher and those people (now known as victims), who, at the time, presumably “felt a need” to take part in Fletcher’s special ministry. Instead, Fletchers’ associates prevent this question from even being asked of them i.e. by denying that they knew anything about any abuse. Of course, they didn’t know that Fletcher was abusing the likes of Andy Lines, because, in their minds, as in the mind of Mr Lines, at the relevant time, there wasn’t anything going on that was abusive. What I hear from Manchester is disingenuous and mealy-mouthed. We can see that he does not want to appear as a fair weather friend. Well, he certainly is no fair weather friend, but nor is he a friend in time of need for those who were led astray by Fletcher. The Sydney Diocese are currently trying to raise money on Manchester’s behalf. I would not give them a cent.
I don’t think the Diocese (singular) will miss that cent. A parallel of sorts, with some big differences, is my attitude to Billy Graham events. I have only wonderful memories of his 1959 meetings in Australia, at least from my experience in Sydney. As a counsellor I met many people who had “come forward” and my experience and that of others was of a large number of people either re-dedicating their life to Christ or being converted. Sydney Diocese eventually had a consideable number of ministers who had been converted at those meetings, including one who became Archbishop and had a profound influence for good in the Anglican Communion.
But- I also have serious reservations regarding much that happened later in Billy’s career, not necessarily through his fault. There was too much pandering to non-evangelical and liberal churches and my experience with following up people on a list provided after the 1979 meetings was mostly of people who had not really been affected much by Dr Graham’s preaching at all.
My point after all that is of course- I would give unadulterated thanks and commendation to Dr Graham and his organisation and the Protestant Christians of Sydney for the 1959 event in spite of the serious misgivings I had later. It’s a different situation but I think there is a parallel with someone being thankful for someone’s ministry even though that person later is found to have fallen into serious error or into damaging sin.
If that person later is found to have fallen into serious error or into damaging sin, then it is for us all to say so and to heed the advice of Scripture (James 5:16), rather than for a Canon of the Church to say, in effect, entirely the converse.
But that is not what is being discussed here, Canon Manchester is not purporting to speak on behalf of the Church. He is specifically stating what his own experience (and his family’s experience) of Flethcer’s ministry was. You are trying to prevent us from hearing his personal experience.
James 5:16 doesn’t support your point.
I quoted James 5:16 because it gives voice to what those who follow Christ should be doing in the present situation. Many people, like me, have abandoned the institutional Churches, both conservative and liberal, because, typically, they are places, led by professional Christians, that are rife with hostility, unbelief and wickedness. This would also be evident to people who might read relevant comments on this site, whether they would profess to follow Christ or not.
James 5:16 doesn’t refer to abandoning church fellowship, nor is it any comfort to those who delude themselves into thinking that they can free themselves from “hostility unbelief and wickedness” by abandoning church.
The “institutional church” in many ways is a mirror – study it carefully.
“Typically”?
I’ve seen churches led by people who do not proclaim the entire Word of God, who instead pick and choose which parts they resonate with.
I’ve seen some that feel the Church exists to proclaim social issues, but have no interest in what God has to say of our own lives.
And there is a persistent appearance of people who are not perfect.
But I also have seen churches filled with people who have a general understanding of what the Word of God is saying specifically to them, and enthusiastically study that Word to learn more.
I’ve seen people share give-and-take responding to Scriptures, with uplifting laughter breaking out some times, deep and serious reflection at other times, and regularly bringing the participants ever closer to God.
If I had a bad experience with an automobile I would not swear off of them for life. I’d trade the bad one in on another one, maybe from a different brand. I’ve done that because autos are pretty indispensable.
So too is a good church. One can claim to be able to study God’s Word on their own, but I don’t see how the mutual encouragement and different perspectives can be replaced. How do you study the Savior who LOVED to break bread with His disciples in isolation?
“Typically”? I just don’t think so.
Of course we do not forsake meeting with believers and being present with the risen Lord, where the gates of hell do not prevail.
If you know of any colleagues of Fletcher, joining both with him, and with the aggrieved members of their congregations who have been sinned against, and where they are all now confessing their sins, one to another, and praying that they might be healed, then let me know. Those people concerned (including the Safeguarders and critics who want to know who knew what and when did they know it), are behaving, typically, as if Christ did not die for our sins.
I wasn’t responding to anything about Fletcher, I was responding to what you wrote in the post before mine. The “abandoned the institutional Churches” post…
“Simon Manchester avoids addressing what Fletcher’s critics are demanding to hear, namely, as to what the leadership knew and when they knew it.”
Except there is no indication that he is avoiding anything, nor that he has been asked anything of the sort. You have already been told what the leadership knew and when they knew it – you just don’t like the answer. What Canon Manchester has done is share his own personal experience of Fletcher, which it seems was zero abuse. You are trying to prevent him giving that testimony – hardly an indication that you are serious about getting to the truth. Rather, you are trying to obscure it.
“What Manchester should make known straightforwardly is why he and his associates were not persuaded that there was anything wrong about what was going on between Fletcher and those people (now known as victims)”
How could he do that when he didn’t know anything was going on? Your question is akin to “When did you stop beating your wife?” It presumes the truth of something which has zero evidence to support it.
“Instead, Fletchers’ associates prevent this question from even being asked of them i.e. by denying that they knew anything about any abuse.”
Precisely. They knew nothing about any abuse, and that destroys your entire argument.
“because, in their minds, as in the mind of Mr Lines, at the relevant time, there wasn’t anything going on that was abusive.”
No, you don’t have the slightest evidence that they were thinking that way. Stop making things up.
“What I hear from Manchester is disingenuous and mealy-mouthed.”
Yet you cannot explain rationally why it is so. Doesn’t that make you the one who is disingenuous and mealy-mouthed?
“I would not give them a cent.”
I doubt they would accept anything from you. I hope they would not.
What no-one should ever listen to, for obvious reasons, is selectivity with evidence, that edits out anything that does not conform to a random person’s favourite narrative!
Truth of course lies in comprehensiveness, in hearing as many voices as possible.
Many of the people trying to impose a narrative have only the faintest connection, if any, with the events and realities. Their narrative is nothing but a stereotype.
The pet narrative is the one that we never find in the New Testament, which, in this instance, is the narrative according to which we need to hear from as many people as possible, and certainly not from someone not duly connected “with the events and realities”.