Has he now gone or is he going at some future date?
That is unclear at the moment. I have just had a conversation with a retired bishop friend who told me that the thinking among some current bishops is that JW can (in one case "should"") continue to perform as ABC until at least Christmas. IMHO that attitude shows just how rhinoceros skinned and tin-eared these people are.
A pro-tem ABC needs to be put in place now, at least for the ceremonial/state things such as the Commonwealth Day service.
This problem isn't going away - far from it. There are more things being dragged into the light, including the Ruston Report.
Has he now gone or is he going at some future date?
I assumed that, once the King had granted permission, Welby would at that moment cease to be Archbishop. Surely he's not likely to stay in post until his official retirement date in just over a year's time?
This problem isn't going away - far from it. There are more things being dragged into the light, including the Ruston Report.
It would be interesting if the Rushton Report got more circulation; apart from anything else people are more aware of how cults work, and it would land rather differently than when it was first written.
Has he now gone or is he going at some future date?
That is unclear at the moment. I have just had a conversation with a retired bishop friend who told me that the thinking among some current bishops is that JW can (in one case "should"") continue to perform as ABC until at least Christmas. IMHO that attitude shows just how rhinoceros skinned and tin-eared these people are.
A pro-tem ABC needs to be put in place now, at least for the ceremonial/state things such as the Commonwealth Day service.
This problem isn't going away - far from it. There are more things being dragged into the light, including the Ruston Report.
Has he now gone or is he going at some future date?
That is unclear at the moment. I have just had a conversation with a retired bishop friend who told me that the thinking among some current bishops is that JW can (in one case "should"") continue to perform as ABC until at least Christmas. IMHO that attitude shows just how rhinoceros skinned and tin-eared these people are.
A pro-tem ABC needs to be put in place now, at least for the ceremonial/state things such as the Commonwealth Day service.
This problem isn't going away - far from it. There are more things being dragged into the light, including the Ruston Report.
London or York could do ceremonial stuff.
Yeah, there must be precedent for who does what in the event of a vacancy at Canterbury. I would assume under most circumstances the Primate of England can deputise for the Primate of All England.
@Arethosemyfeet ++York is one of the two signatories to the letter that prompted +Newcastle to issue her first statement - you can find it on the Newcastle website. Read it before deciding if he's the right person to deputise.
@Arethosemyfeet ++York is one of the two signatories to the letter that prompted +Newcastle to issue her first statement - you can find it on the Newcastle website. Read it before deciding if he's the right person to deputise.
I'm not judging whether any particular individual is the right person to deputise, just noting that the CofE does have an order of seniority. If the individual holding that office is not credible to deputise for Cantuar they certainly aren't credible in their current role and should resign.
York and London would appear to be favourites, in respect of seniority. Who comes next? Durham?
Mine own Diocese (Rochester) is junior only to Canterbury...and isn't too far from London, where most of the big national quasi-religious events take place...
The Diocese of Canterbury is looked after on a daily basis by +Dover, so she may have a few extra duties (she is, I think, technically a suffragan bishop, but with a remit for the whole diocese, and not just a part thereof).
The rest of us won't notice the lack of an ABC unless some major national event needs religious stuff to be done...
For reference, you can find Mark Ruston's report of 1982 in the appendices to the Makin Review (starting page 166). And some of it is quoted directly - eg point 6 of the report, detailing the scale and severity of the abuse, is partially quoted in section 6.3.2 of the Review. And even back in 1982, it was recognised that criminal offences had been committed:
6.3.4 While child protection legislation may not have been in place at this time, other legislation was clearly known about and relevant in 1982 and to this case. Indeed, it was explicitly identified by the initial ‘investigator’ in his report that John Smyth had committed offences going as far as to give exact sections of legislation that applied, stating the abuses were: “Technically all [criminal] offences under the Offenses Against The Person Act of 1861, Sec. 47”.
There's also something chillingly Machiavellian about the Iwerne vision. Convert public school boys to evangelical Christianity then when they attain positions of power and influence they can 'bring the nation back to Christ'.
It's not a new vision, however. The original conversion of England was largely from the top down - Augustine of Canterbury first converted King Æthelberht.
When Augustine arrived he worshipped at a church that had been there for at least 200 years
There's also something chillingly Machiavellian about the Iwerne vision. Convert public school boys to evangelical Christianity then when they attain positions of power and influence they can 'bring the nation back to Christ'.
It's not a new vision, however. The original conversion of England was largely from the top down - Augustine of Canterbury first converted King Æthelberht.
When Augustine arrived he worshipped at a church that had been there for at least 200 years
Right, and there were resident British bishops, but the Anglo-Saxon settlers were overwhelmingly not Christians.
Christianity had been present in Britain since as far back as the Roman occupation, so maybe Augustine's mission in 597 could best be described as a re-conversion?
There seems some uncertainty as to whether the building used by Augustine as a base - the present-day St Martin, Canterbury - had actually a church in late Roman times, but I take @Telford 's point.
Perhaps the time has come for the C of E to be closed down, switched off, and then switched on again - rather along the lines of rebooting a reluctant PC...
Christianity had been present in Britain since as far back as the Roman occupation, so maybe Augustine's mission in 597 could best be described as a re-conversion?
There seems some uncertainty as to whether the building used by Augustine as a base - the present-day St Martin, Canterbury - had actually a church in late Roman times, but I take @Telford 's point.
Perhaps the time has come for the C of E to be closed down, switched off, and then switched on again - rather along the lines of rebooting a reluctant PC...
There is still a lot going for it, in parishes everywhere. Perhaps it needs to be turned upside down.
There's also something chillingly Machiavellian about the Iwerne vision. Convert public school boys to evangelical Christianity then when they attain positions of power and influence they can 'bring the nation back to Christ'.
It's not a new vision, however. The original conversion of England was largely from the top down - Augustine of Canterbury first converted King Æthelberht.
When Augustine arrived he worshipped at a church that had been there for at least 200 years
Right, and there were resident British bishops, but the Anglo-Saxon settlers were overwhelmingly not Christians.
I accept that the King of Kent's subjects would become nominal Christians if he told them they were Christians
At this remove, so many centuries later, it's hard to know how nominal (or not) the new converts were.
It is true, however, that Ethelbert's granddaughter, Eanswythe, founded the first Benedictine nunnery in England, which flourished for many years. The Benedictines were (and still are, of course) noted for their practical faith and hospitality, so may well have had a positive impact on the lives of the people of 7th-century Kent.
Who would you suggest as interim officiant(s) at any ceremonial occasions that may occur @TheOrganist ?
They could do a lot worse than see if Richard Chartres can be persuaded to come out of retirement for the ceremonial things, or ask Rowan Williams if he's prepared to do some. Both have a suitable sense of gravitas - much needed - and both have clean hands when it comes to the litany of f*ck-ups of the past 12 years. Many of the current bishops are the people who have been advising JW in recent days ...
@pease And Mark Ruston is the person described by JW as being the most influential on his decision to put himself forward for ordination - as quoted in a long interview in The New York Times when he became archbishop - and at one point he was Ruston's lodger. Bearing in mind Ruston and Welby were both involved with the Iwerne camp and that JW had shared a dormitory with Smyth and was the dormitory captain (a bit like a prefect) is anyone seriously suggesting the subject of Smyth and his proclivities didn't get mentioned?
Who would you suggest as interim officiant(s) at any ceremonial occasions that may occur @TheOrganist ?
They could do a lot worse than see if Richard Chartres can be persuaded to come out of retirement for the ceremonial things, or ask Rowan Williams if he's prepared to do some. Both have a suitable sense of gravitas - much needed - and both have clean hands when it comes to the litany of f*ck-ups of the past 12 years. Many of the current bishops are the people who have been advising JW in recent days ...
Yes. Either (or both) would be eminently suitable.
@pease And Mark Ruston is the person described by JW as being the most influential on his decision to put himself forward for ordination - as quoted in a long interview in The New York Times when he became archbishop - and at one point he was Ruston's lodger. Bearing in mind Ruston and Welby were both involved with the Iwerne camp and that JW had shared a dormitory with Smyth and was the dormitory captain (a bit like a prefect) is anyone seriously suggesting the subject of Smyth and his proclivities didn't get mentioned?
I could well believe there was a culture of silence around it, even if "everyone knew".
@pease And Mark Ruston is the person described by JW as being the most influential on his decision to put himself forward for ordination - as quoted in a long interview in The New York Times when he became archbishop - and at one point he was Ruston's lodger. Bearing in mind Ruston and Welby were both involved with the Iwerne camp and that JW had shared a dormitory with Smyth and was the dormitory captain (a bit like a prefect) is anyone seriously suggesting the subject of Smyth and his proclivities didn't get mentioned?
I could well believe there was a culture of silence around it, even if "everyone knew".
Quite. I know loads of things (NOT safeguarding related) that ‘everyone knows’ but are never said out loud.
York and London would appear to be favourites, in respect of seniority. Who comes next? Durham?
Five bishops automatically get a seat in the House of Lords (as opposed to waiting for a vacancy). They are Canterbury, York, London, Durham and Winchester, but I don’t know if there’s any order of seniority among them
Who would you suggest as interim officiant(s) at any ceremonial occasions that may occur @TheOrganist ?
They could do a lot worse than see if Richard Chartres can be persuaded to come out of retirement for the ceremonial things, or ask Rowan Williams if he's prepared to do some. Both have a suitable sense of gravitas - much needed - and both have clean hands when it comes to the litany of f*ck-ups of the past 12 years. Many of the current bishops are the people who have been advising JW in recent days ...
Yes. Either (or both) would be eminently suitable.
Richard Chartres? Clean hands? I would have thought that, at the very least Chartres' association with the Martin Sargeant business, and the death of Fr Alan Griffiths would rule him out.
@pease And Mark Ruston is the person described by JW as being the most influential on his decision to put himself forward for ordination - as quoted in a long interview in The New York Times when he became archbishop - and at one point he was Ruston's lodger. Bearing in mind Ruston and Welby were both involved with the Iwerne camp and that JW had shared a dormitory with Smyth and was the dormitory captain (a bit like a prefect) is anyone seriously suggesting the subject of Smyth and his proclivities didn't get mentioned?
I could well believe there was a culture of silence around it, even if "everyone knew".
Quite. I know loads of things (NOT safeguarding related) that ‘everyone knows’ but are never said out loud.
In my experience, people don't talk about stuff they consider to be confidential, and people (boys) avoid talking, at the time, about stuff of which they are deeply ashamed.
I think more particularly relevant is the overlap of British public school and Anglican conservative evangelical culture, including: the remnants of "stiff upper lip"; learning not to cry; no snitching, no dobbing in; tenderness and intimacy being something that should happen privately, in secret. These don't seem very compatible with the attitudes required by safeguarding.
It's not hard to see how the specific legacy of the Bash camps could create a culture even more hostile to the principles of safeguarding (wikipedia article on EJH Nash):
In 1969, it could be said that much of the leadership of the British Evangelical church had been "Bash campers". King goes on to say that in order to understand the Evangelical mind, therefore, 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 liable 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 it.
Which seems to have been carried on to HTB, home of the Alpha course (and also where Justin Welby was a lay leader when he was put forward for ordination):
Rob Warner says: "Alpha can therefore be summed up as Bash camp rationalistic conservatism combined with Wimberist charismatic expressivism... this is a highly unusual, even paradoxical hybrid." Gumbel himself will only admit an indirect link. Andrew Atherstone says "parts of Gumbel's Alpha course had their roots in the basic gospel foundations provided by Iwerne."
...
Whereas Bash understood individual conversion, he just felt the Church should be led by a patrician elite for the good of society as a whole. It doesn't require much squinting to see the issues that poses for even conevo theology.
I don't think this posed many issues at all for those involved - many of whom were (and still are) nice people, living in nice house, with a sense of duty and entitlement that isn't far removed from patrician elitism.
My particular concern isn't so much how specific unhealthy and toxic cultures arise and persist, but the extent to which the theology they cite, and attitudes to theology, informs, promotes and perpetuates them. I'm not convinced it's as straightforward as Bishop Rose suggests.
...
Whereas Bash understood individual conversion, he just felt the Church should be led by a patrician elite for the good of society as a whole. It doesn't require much squinting to see the issues that poses for even conevo theology.
I don't think this posed many issues at all for those involved - many of whom were (and still are) nice people, living in nice house, with a sense of duty and entitlement that isn't far removed from patrician elitism.
My particular concern isn't so much how specific unhealthy and toxic cultures arise and persist, but the extent to which the theology they cite, and attitudes to theology, informs, promotes and perpetuates them.
For all the talk of theology they are actually profoundly anti-intellectual, so I think the causation runs the other way. There are wrinkles in emphasis, but fundamentally one could start off with the broad theology they espouse and land somewhere completely differently.
Also, just bear in mind that things differ quite significantly between the conevo and HTB circles - although both of them have had separate issues with safeguarding.
I missed the deadline for editing, but this post at the surviving church blog illustrates my first paragraph, through the experience of someone who went through the system:
"But after reading Graystone I now regard my pleasant feelings about those camps with a certain degree of suspicion. For one thing, why have I not got — and why did I not have, twenty-five years ago, before ageing set in — the slightest memory of any of the talks given to the whole camp, or of any of the numerous Bible readings and Bible studies for officers and senior campers, which I attended? It’s odd, because the sentimental CSSM choruses that we all sang, over and over, are stamped on my memory: I could sing you a dozen of them if you could endure it! Were these the emotionally-charged honey which carried the pill of Iwerne teaching into my system? By contrast, I can certainly remember bits and pieces from Bible readings and Bible studies in the Christian Union, where the atmosphere, though quite intense, nevertheless partook much more of the general feel of university life, in which you discussed and critiqued your ideas, and your peers with different beliefs could scrutinize them."
There's also a good three-parter on HTB that they've posted more recently.
Who would you suggest as interim officiant(s) at any ceremonial occasions that may occur @TheOrganist ?
They could do a lot worse than see if Richard Chartres can be persuaded to come out of retirement for the ceremonial things, or ask Rowan Williams if he's prepared to do some. Both have a suitable sense of gravitas - much needed - and both have clean hands when it comes to the litany of f*ck-ups of the past 12 years. Many of the current bishops are the people who have been advising JW in recent days ...
Yes. Either (or both) would be eminently suitable.
Richard Chartres? Clean hands? I would have thought that, at the very least Chartres' association with the Martin Sargeant business, and the death of Fr Alan Griffiths would rule him out.
I'm not familiar with the case (or cases?) you refer to.
Who would you suggest as interim officiant(s) at any ceremonial occasions that may occur @TheOrganist ?
They could do a lot worse than see if Richard Chartres can be persuaded to come out of retirement for the ceremonial things, or ask Rowan Williams if he's prepared to do some. Both have a suitable sense of gravitas - much needed - and both have clean hands when it comes to the litany of f*ck-ups of the past 12 years. Many of the current bishops are the people who have been advising JW in recent days ...
Yes. Either (or both) would be eminently suitable.
Richard Chartres? Clean hands? I would have thought that, at the very least Chartres' association with the Martin Sargeant business, and the death of Fr Alan Griffiths would rule him out.
The terrible case of Alan Griffin didn't happen on Richard Chartres' watch, that was the sainted Sarah. The Sargeant case is one that lies at the door of the Diocese of London's auditors and then the archdeacons, not the bishop.
In 1969, it could be said that much of the leadership of the British Evangelical church had been "Bash campers".
Thank you, Wikipedia, for totally ignoring all non-Anglican evangelicals! I suspect that, in the 50s and 60s, evangelicalism was much stronger within Baptist, Congregational and independent (etc) circles than it was in the CofE. The great Welsh preacher Martyn Lloyd-Jones had huge influence among Evangelicals, but he was a lifelong Nonconformist (and believed that Evangelicals should secede from the CofE).
Interesting.
My father ( 1915 - 2001) also worked for Scripture Union from 1947 to retirement, but right at the opposite extreme from EJH Nash, as a children’s evangelist working alongside local village churches, almost entirely Nonconformist. He too ran summer camps for youngsters, often children of farm-labourers. But essentially his theology was the same, though practised very differently. One of the key factors in the success of his work was that it was so well grounded in and supported by the churches he visited throughout the year.
Interesting.
My father ( 1915 - 2001) also worked for Scripture Union from 1947 to retirement, but right at the opposite extreme from EJH Nash, as a children’s evangelist working alongside local village churches, almost entirely Nonconformist.
While the Iwerne camps may have come under the SU banner on paper, they seem to have been run as very much of their own thing, and it's very unclear what visibility - if any - the wider SU had of their activities.
I was reading Wiki on Iwerne camps, and laughed out loud when it said that other camps were run for pupils at "lower ranking private schools". I suppose they weren't seen as future captains of industry and business, but would the theological approach be less abrasive and muscular? It's a fascinating insight into the interactions of religion, class and politics. Presumably also they weren't beaten to a bloody pulp.
York and London would appear to be favourites, in respect of seniority. Who comes next? Durham?
Five bishops automatically get a seat in the House of Lords (as opposed to waiting for a vacancy). They are Canterbury, York, London, Durham and Winchester, but I don’t know if there’s any order of seniority among them
IIRC seniority is then based on length of Lords tenure
I was reading Wiki on Iwerne camps, and laughed out loud when it said that other camps were run for pupils at "lower ranking private schools". I suppose they weren't seen as future captains of industry and business, but would the theological approach be less abrasive and muscular? It's a fascinating insight into the interactions of religion, class and politics. Presumably also they weren't beaten to a bloody pulp.
There was (IIRC) a special category for ‘Northern Schools’
York and London would appear to be favourites, in respect of seniority. Who comes next? Durham?
Five bishops automatically get a seat in the House of Lords (as opposed to waiting for a vacancy). They are Canterbury, York, London, Durham and Winchester, but I don’t know if there’s any order of seniority among them
IIRC seniority is then based on length of Lords tenure <snip>
I think some particular arrangement was made to get women bishops into the house, seniority notwithstanding.
In 1969, it could be said that much of the leadership of the British Evangelical church had been "Bash campers".
Thank you, Wikipedia, for totally ignoring all non-Anglican evangelicals!
Well, that’s the beauty of Wikipedia—you can go in and edit it to correct it. (Of course, that’s also the downside, in that others can edit and get it wrong)
I was reading Wiki on Iwerne camps, and laughed out loud when it said that other camps were run for pupils at "lower ranking private schools". I suppose they weren't seen as future captains of industry and business, but would the theological approach be less abrasive and muscular? It's a fascinating insight into the interactions of religion, class and politics. Presumably also they weren't beaten to a bloody pulp.
I was a member of "Crusaders" and went to several similarly-organised camps, complete with "Commandant" ("Commy"), "Adjutant" ("Adjy") and "Quartermaster". Although Crusaders - now "Urban Saints" - is a vastly different organisation today, it was founded to focus on a particular group: boys attending "public" (i.e, private) day schools. So they weren't live-in boarders; nor (in those class-ridden days) would their parents be likely to send them to mix with the "hoi-polloi" at Sunday School.
This was my own background and, when I grew up in 60s, it was noticeable not only that virtually all the members of my own Crusader group came from the same background, but that most of the groups themselves were situated in upper-middle-class neighbourhoods (I think the two biggest were Morningside and Corstorphine in Edinburgh, which rather bears this out).
Thank you, BT. I'm struggling with the idea of muscular Christianity, I am guessing that it involves control of one's body and carnal feelings, a sacrificial attitude of service to others, and a devotion to Christ. I guess that it also involved a sense of patriotism, and esprit de corps. My own school sang "40 years on", but didn't have an evangelical undertone.
I think that originally 19th century "muscular" Christianity was not necessarily evangelical. Major proponent was Charles Kingsley who was Broad rather than Low Church. Emphasis on moral rectitude and "healthy mind in healthy body" rather than - indeed, as opposed to, characteristically evangelical emphases.
I think that originally 19th century "muscular" Christianity was not necessarily evangelical. Major proponent was Charles Kingsley who was Broad rather than Low Church. Emphasis on moral rectitude and "healthy mind in healthy body" rather than - indeed, as opposed to, characteristically evangelical emphases.
Which is absolutely the ethos received by my school and its chaplains (2 across my time there) in the 1990s. ‘Honesty and sport, less of the unclean thoughts’ basically.
Comments
That is unclear at the moment. I have just had a conversation with a retired bishop friend who told me that the thinking among some current bishops is that JW can (in one case "should"") continue to perform as ABC until at least Christmas. IMHO that attitude shows just how rhinoceros skinned and tin-eared these people are.
A pro-tem ABC needs to be put in place now, at least for the ceremonial/state things such as the Commonwealth Day service.
This problem isn't going away - far from it. There are more things being dragged into the light, including the Ruston Report.
I assumed that, once the King had granted permission, Welby would at that moment cease to be Archbishop. Surely he's not likely to stay in post until his official retirement date in just over a year's time?
ETA cross-posted with @TheOrganist.
Make Anglicanism Great Again. (Acronymizes perfectly.)
It would be interesting if the Rushton Report got more circulation; apart from anything else people are more aware of how cults work, and it would land rather differently than when it was first written.
London or York could do ceremonial stuff.
Yeah, there must be precedent for who does what in the event of a vacancy at Canterbury. I would assume under most circumstances the Primate of England can deputise for the Primate of All England.
@Alan29 +London? You have got to be kidding.
I'm not judging whether any particular individual is the right person to deputise, just noting that the CofE does have an order of seniority. If the individual holding that office is not credible to deputise for Cantuar they certainly aren't credible in their current role and should resign.
Mine own Diocese (Rochester) is junior only to Canterbury...and isn't too far from London, where most of the big national quasi-religious events take place...
I say we try going a few months without one and see if it makes any difference.
The Diocese of Canterbury is looked after on a daily basis by +Dover, so she may have a few extra duties (she is, I think, technically a suffragan bishop, but with a remit for the whole diocese, and not just a part thereof).
The rest of us won't notice the lack of an ABC unless some major national event needs religious stuff to be done...
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/nov/13/clergyman-who-could-be-on-selection-panel-knew-about-john-smyths-abuse
The article also refers to other senior figures who were involved.
When Augustine arrived he worshipped at a church that had been there for at least 200 years
Right, and there were resident British bishops, but the Anglo-Saxon settlers were overwhelmingly not Christians.
There seems some uncertainty as to whether the building used by Augustine as a base - the present-day St Martin, Canterbury - had actually a church in late Roman times, but I take @Telford 's point.
Perhaps the time has come for the C of E to be closed down, switched off, and then switched on again - rather along the lines of rebooting a reluctant PC...
There is still a lot going for it, in parishes everywhere. Perhaps it needs to be turned upside down.
I accept that the King of Kent's subjects would become nominal Christians if he told them they were Christians
It is true, however, that Ethelbert's granddaughter, Eanswythe, founded the first Benedictine nunnery in England, which flourished for many years. The Benedictines were (and still are, of course) noted for their practical faith and hospitality, so may well have had a positive impact on the lives of the people of 7th-century Kent.
They could do a lot worse than see if Richard Chartres can be persuaded to come out of retirement for the ceremonial things, or ask Rowan Williams if he's prepared to do some. Both have a suitable sense of gravitas - much needed - and both have clean hands when it comes to the litany of f*ck-ups of the past 12 years. Many of the current bishops are the people who have been advising JW in recent days ...
Yes. Either (or both) would be eminently suitable.
I could well believe there was a culture of silence around it, even if "everyone knew".
Quite. I know loads of things (NOT safeguarding related) that ‘everyone knows’ but are never said out loud.
Five bishops automatically get a seat in the House of Lords (as opposed to waiting for a vacancy). They are Canterbury, York, London, Durham and Winchester, but I don’t know if there’s any order of seniority among them
Richard Chartres? Clean hands? I would have thought that, at the very least Chartres' association with the Martin Sargeant business, and the death of Fr Alan Griffiths would rule him out.
I think more particularly relevant is the overlap of British public school and Anglican conservative evangelical culture, including: the remnants of "stiff upper lip"; learning not to cry; no snitching, no dobbing in; tenderness and intimacy being something that should happen privately, in secret. These don't seem very compatible with the attitudes required by safeguarding.
It's not hard to see how the specific legacy of the Bash camps could create a culture even more hostile to the principles of safeguarding (wikipedia article on EJH Nash): Which seems to have been carried on to HTB, home of the Alpha course (and also where Justin Welby was a lay leader when he was put forward for ordination): Meanwhile I don't think this posed many issues at all for those involved - many of whom were (and still are) nice people, living in nice house, with a sense of duty and entitlement that isn't far removed from patrician elitism.
My particular concern isn't so much how specific unhealthy and toxic cultures arise and persist, but the extent to which the theology they cite, and attitudes to theology, informs, promotes and perpetuates them. I'm not convinced it's as straightforward as Bishop Rose suggests.
For all the talk of theology they are actually profoundly anti-intellectual, so I think the causation runs the other way. There are wrinkles in emphasis, but fundamentally one could start off with the broad theology they espouse and land somewhere completely differently.
Also, just bear in mind that things differ quite significantly between the conevo and HTB circles - although both of them have had separate issues with safeguarding.
https://survivingchurch.org/2021/10/08/iwerne-camps-and-conservative-evangelicalism-memories-and-reassessment/
Specifically:
"But after reading Graystone I now regard my pleasant feelings about those camps with a certain degree of suspicion. For one thing, why have I not got — and why did I not have, twenty-five years ago, before ageing set in — the slightest memory of any of the talks given to the whole camp, or of any of the numerous Bible readings and Bible studies for officers and senior campers, which I attended? It’s odd, because the sentimental CSSM choruses that we all sang, over and over, are stamped on my memory: I could sing you a dozen of them if you could endure it! Were these the emotionally-charged honey which carried the pill of Iwerne teaching into my system? By contrast, I can certainly remember bits and pieces from Bible readings and Bible studies in the Christian Union, where the atmosphere, though quite intense, nevertheless partook much more of the general feel of university life, in which you discussed and critiqued your ideas, and your peers with different beliefs could scrutinize them."
There's also a good three-parter on HTB that they've posted more recently.
I'm not familiar with the case (or cases?) you refer to.
The terrible case of Alan Griffin didn't happen on Richard Chartres' watch, that was the sainted Sarah. The Sargeant case is one that lies at the door of the Diocese of London's auditors and then the archdeacons, not the bishop.
My father ( 1915 - 2001) also worked for Scripture Union from 1947 to retirement, but right at the opposite extreme from EJH Nash, as a children’s evangelist working alongside local village churches, almost entirely Nonconformist. He too ran summer camps for youngsters, often children of farm-labourers. But essentially his theology was the same, though practised very differently. One of the key factors in the success of his work was that it was so well grounded in and supported by the churches he visited throughout the year.
While the Iwerne camps may have come under the SU banner on paper, they seem to have been run as very much of their own thing, and it's very unclear what visibility - if any - the wider SU had of their activities.
IIRC seniority is then based on length of Lords tenure
There was (IIRC) a special category for ‘Northern Schools’
I think some particular arrangement was made to get women bishops into the house, seniority notwithstanding.
I was a member of "Crusaders" and went to several similarly-organised camps, complete with "Commandant" ("Commy"), "Adjutant" ("Adjy") and "Quartermaster". Although Crusaders - now "Urban Saints" - is a vastly different organisation today, it was founded to focus on a particular group: boys attending "public" (i.e, private) day schools. So they weren't live-in boarders; nor (in those class-ridden days) would their parents be likely to send them to mix with the "hoi-polloi" at Sunday School.
This was my own background and, when I grew up in 60s, it was noticeable not only that virtually all the members of my own Crusader group came from the same background, but that most of the groups themselves were situated in upper-middle-class neighbourhoods (I think the two biggest were Morningside and Corstorphine in Edinburgh, which rather bears this out).
Which is absolutely the ethos received by my school and its chaplains (2 across my time there) in the 1990s. ‘Honesty and sport, less of the unclean thoughts’ basically.