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.
Thanks. I think I left out a focus on masculinity, of a certain kind.
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.
Interestingly my particular Crusader group, although broadly evangelical, did have a range of theological views; and, when we got into our teens, we were definitely encouraged to think through our faith and ask questions about it. So we differed in that from Iwerne. There was no emphasis on either physical prowess or patriotism.
Just a wee reminder to people not to link to the Daily Mail as it's not a suitable source - if you want to illustrate it being awful just tell folk about it and they can Google it if they want.
I belonged to The Girl Crsaders Union back in the day - and even then I was uncomfortable that 'The Gospel' seemed very tied up with not going to the cinema, not wearing make-up and not wanting a boyfriend! Very confusing for a teenager and I was so thankful for a wise university chaplaincy.
...
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,
That's partly to what I was alluding with "the theology they cite, and attitudes to theology". Though in relation to the Surviving Church guest post, the paragraph following the one you quote suggests that the "setting" of the camps led to a less conscious assimilation of the teaching. (ie that the author took it on board - internalised it - without going through an external questioning phase.)
And the Nash wiki page points out, under Theology:
Nash considered R. A. Torrey to be his theological mentor, and valued the Keswick Convention, encouraging his leaders to attend. In line with Keswick thought, Nash spoke of "being dead to sin" (Romans 6:7) using the analogy of a dead dog in the gutter: "A touch of the foot would show if it was only sleeping: it would instantly respond where a dead dog would not." One of Nash's favourite books was Torrey's Why God Used D. L. Moody.
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.
My take is that their differences in public are rather greater than their differences in private.
And I wonder if there are attitudes in common relating to accountability and being "under authority".
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.
It does seem likely but, given church attendance in 1969, I wouldn't be surprised if the CofE contained the majority of evangelicals.
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).
...
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,
That's partly to what I was alluding with "the theology they cite, and attitudes to theology". Though in relation to the Surviving Church guest post, the paragraph following the one you quote suggests that the "setting" of the camps led to a less conscious assimilation of the teaching. (ie that the author took it on board - internalised it - without going through an external questioning phase.)
What that paragraph describes is not so much assimilation of any teaching as such, so much as group think bourne of shared experiences and (a certain amount of) exhaustion. [As an aside; it may be worth bearing in mind that in the paragraph I quoted, the comparison is with OICCU at its most evangelical - Tom Wright would have been president during his Calvinist Phase just a few years earlier].
And the Nash wiki page points out, under Theology:
Nash considered R. A. Torrey to be his theological mentor, and valued the Keswick Convention, encouraging his leaders to attend. In line with Keswick thought, Nash spoke of "being dead to sin" (Romans 6:7) using the analogy of a dead dog in the gutter: "A touch of the foot would show if it was only sleeping: it would instantly respond where a dead dog would not." One of Nash's favourite books was Torrey's Why God Used D. L. Moody.
Right, and the post I cited makes reference to this to that towards the end in not particularly complimentary terms. I'm not sure this bears much scrutiny as theology (knowledge of God) so much as a set of guard rails that one stays inside in order to be judged 'sound'.
Ok, on the theology ... or 'theology' behind all this ...
I've not read the report or the Wikipedia pages but only the very interesting snippets helpfully posted here by various Shipmates. But I was not surprised to see Keswick cited. With all due respect to the Keswick Convention there was a kind of - to my mind - skewed and unrealistic 'higher life' / 'dead to self' emphasis there which channelled elements of exacting 19th century 'Holiness Movement' prudishness and squeamishness into both Anglican and Free Church evangelicalism.
The emphasis on 'self-emptying' and self-abnegation could lead to serious psychological harm. I don't think there's any 'accident' in Evan Roberts the Welsh Revivalist having a break-down, and I suspect it was more than the pressure of a relentless schedule of preaching and prayer meetings.
I think we forget how Puritanical evangelicalism in its various forms could be a generation or so ago. My late wife was brought up in a very low-church evangelical CofE environment which, whilst not overtly 'fanatical' certainly discouraged cinema attendance and non-churchy activity.
It's only a hop, skip and a jump from that to the kind of thing Bash advocated.
My friend who attended Bash camps back in the '70s is incredibly disciplined and very fit, even though he is by no means a Charles Atlas. He was encouraged to do Canadian Air Force exercises and to live a very sober and disciplined life. He certainly never witnessed any abuse but I think he would acknowledge that he has had to work hard to develop social skills and to think more broadly than the prevailing hegemony there allowed.
Any emphasis on discipline and self-denial can topple over into extremes. St John Chrysostom is said to have damaged his kidneys and stomach by extreme ascetic practice. Then you've got the RC flagellants and so on.
I think what we have with Smyth is a kind of toxic overlap between rather triumphalist forms of Victorian imperialist 'Muscular Christianity' and the close-knit and rather stultefying atmosphere of old-fashioned boarding schools etc.
That's probably an over-simplification but that's my two happ'orth.
These things were probably far less intense in the kind of circles @Baptist Trainfan describes.
On the 'Roman mission' of 597AD and the conversion of England ...
Yes @Telford and others, there were already Christians in the 'Celtic' parts of Britain and in some parts of Anglo-Saxon England when St Augustine of Canterbury arrived. King Ethelbert of Kent had married a Christian, a Frankish princess, I think.
But by and large, Christianity was confined to the west and north and among the 'Britons' rather than the Anglo-Saxons. Bede tells the story of the 'British' (Welsh) bishops walking out of a meeting with Augustine as he didn't stand when they entered, thereby indicating that he didn't recognise the validity of their orders. Strip out all the whishty-whishty romanticism about 'Celtic Christianity' but there does appear to have been tensions between the indigenous British Church which had existed since Roman times and the mission the Pope sent to the pagan Anglo-Saxons.
These were more jurisdictional and procedural rather than doctrinal - issues like the form of the monastic tonsure, a monastic rather than episcopal structure in the 'metropolitan' sense, the dating of Easter.
My friend who attended Bash camps back in the '70s is incredibly disciplined and very fit, even though he is by no means a Charles Atlas. He was encouraged to do Canadian Air Force exercises and to live a very sober and disciplined life. He certainly never witnessed any abuse but I think he would acknowledge that he has had to work hard to develop social skills and to think more broadly than the prevailing hegemony there allowed.
Both this and the discussion of the end of pietistic theologies reminded me of another post on the same site; written by someone who had spent rather longer within Iwerne circles it explores the psychological impact it had on him and others:
.The more I look at this whole business, and the whole concept of these elitist camps, I can't get over how diametrically opposite it seems to anything Jesus did or said. But I suppose that's exactly the sort of big picture step back and think about it that this corner of the church - erm - discourages.
...Both this and the discussion of the end of pietistic theologies reminded me of another post on the same site; written by someone who had spent rather longer within Iwerne circles it explores the psychological impact it had on him and others:
I find much of that post depressingly unsurprising, and not just the following:
Iwerne was profoundly authoritarian – as the use of the title ‘Officer’ indicates. Unquestioning obedience to the upper echelons was expected. The ultimate accolade was ‘He’s sound’ – by which we meant that all his thoughts were diligently shaded from the light of reflection, scholarship, and experience. Camp talks were vetted privately for orthodoxy beforehand, and subject to detailed public criticism afterwards.
The theology was banal, stern, and cruel – a set of suffocatingly simple propositions held with steely eyed zeal. Its insistence on penal substitution and nothing but penal substitution embodied and tacitly encouraged the notion that ultimate good depended on violence. Without penal substitution, John Smyth would have had no thrashing shed in his back garden.
We loved hell, and needed it. We were glad that it was well populated – particularly by people who hadn’t been to major public schools – because that emphasised our status as members of an exclusive club of the redeemed. If hell hadn’t existed, or had been empty, we wouldn’t have felt special. We were elected – socially and theologically – and proud of it: if everyone were elected, it would make a nonsense of election.
The theology chimed perfectly with our politics, our sociology, and the grounds of our self-esteem...
Ok, on the theology ... or 'theology' behind all this ...
I think what we have with Smyth is a kind of toxic overlap between rather triumphalist forms of Victorian imperialist 'Muscular Christianity' and the close-knit and rather stultefying atmosphere of old-fashioned boarding schools etc.
That's probably an over-simplification but that's my two happ'orth.
Putting "theology" in quotes seems apt, but as far as they were (and maybe still are) concerned, it's theology. In relation to Smyth himself, I would also bear in mind the following (from the Makin Review):
8.4 John Smyth ... attended his first Iwerne camp at Easter 1964, when he was 22. Contributors to the Review have noted that this was interesting in that the Reverend Eric Nash (“Bash”), who founded the Iwerne Trust and ran the camps made an exception for John Smyth, his young protégé, seeming to escalate his leadership with Iwerne despite his lack of connection to an elite public school. John Smyth did not attend the camps as a child, so had not “risen through the ranks”, but was sought out by Nash, seeing him as a strong Christian and a gifted Barrister, who would be offering something to the Iwerne camps.
I doubt Smyth would have forgotten this exceptionalism, nor the extent to which his background contrasted with those around him.
Also, in relation to Scripture Union:
11.3.1 John Smyth became a Trustee of the Iwerne Trust in 1970 and went on to be the Chair of the Trust from 1974, until 1982. This has been noted as a rapid rise through the ranks, mirrored in his position in the Iwerne Camps. Contributors to the Review have noted that he won great favour with Eric Nash (“Bash”) finding this unusual given his education and family background. John Smyth was also a trustee of Scripture Union from 1971. The Scripture Union Executive Summary report gives details of this appointment, for example:
"... In Smyth’s case, the process appears to have been very artificially implemented in order to expediate his appointment as a trustee which placed him in a significant position of power and influence without any prior assessment of his suitability to undertake this role."
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.
It sums up to a 'T' recent "discussions" and "facilitated conversations" undertaken - LLF anyone?
From the report it's very hard to glean exactly what level of control/oversight SU had over the camps. A lot of what we read appears to be the product of an internal retrospective with the Titus Trust giving limited information to SU.
"... In Smyth’s case, the process appears to have been very artificially implemented in order to expediate his appointment as a trustee which placed him in a significant position of power and influence without any prior assessment of his suitability to undertake this role."
It's not clear what metrics for 'suitability' they would have applied and what metrics would have been variously acceptable to SU and the Titus Trust. Certainly in the case of the latter, this extract from the report seems apposite:
At this time and with breath taking hypocrisy, John Smyth warned a victim of another
individual, Jonathan Fletcher. He said to him that it was wrong for the Iwerne camp
people to allow Fletcher to attend camps, whilst he was barred from attending
(Incidentally I find the wording strange, in that it mixes fact finding and conclusion).
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.
It sums up to a 'T' recent "discussions" and "facilitated conversations" undertaken - LLF anyone?
From the report it's very hard to glean exactly what level of control/oversight SU had over the camps. A lot of what we read appears to be the product of an internal retrospective with the Titus Trust giving limited information to SU.
"... In Smyth’s case, the process appears to have been very artificially implemented in order to expediate his appointment as a trustee which placed him in a significant position of power and influence without any prior assessment of his suitability to undertake this role."
It's not clear what metrics for 'suitability' they would have applied and what metrics would have been variously acceptable to SU and the Titus Trust. Certainly in the case of the latter, this extract from the report seems apposite:
At this time and with breath taking hypocrisy, John Smyth warned a victim of another
individual, Jonathan Fletcher. He said to him that it was wrong for the Iwerne camp
people to allow Fletcher to attend camps, whilst he was barred from attending
(Incidentally I find the wording strange, in that it mixes fact finding and conclusion).
This did very much make me wonder what Smyth knew about Fletcher and how
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.
It sums up to a 'T' recent "discussions" and "facilitated conversations" undertaken - LLF anyone?
That culture, sadly, exists in lots of places.
It is rife in many nonconformist organisations. Mrs RR and I have been declared 'persona non grata' types, squeezed out of ministry and (eventally) found solace in the COE. But it seems to be happening here too.
The 'Church Times' has many pages devoted to the JS affair.
From the report it's very hard to glean exactly what level of control/oversight SU had over the camps. A lot of what we read appears to be the product of an internal retrospective with the Titus Trust giving limited information to SU.
"... In Smyth’s case, the process appears to have been very artificially implemented in order to expediate his appointment as a trustee which placed him in a significant position of power and influence without any prior assessment of his suitability to undertake this role."
Reading around, it seems likely that SU had no practical oversight of the camps. My reading is that Smyth got himself appointed as a trustee to ensure that continued to be the case. This relates to what I was saying about attitudes to ‘accountability and being "under authority"’.
In relation to their trustees, I wonder whether either body (or many others) had anything resembling a robust selection process back then.
It's not clear what metrics for 'suitability' they would have applied and what metrics would have been variously acceptable to SU and the Titus Trust. Certainly in the case of the latter, this extract from the report seems apposite:
At this time and with breath taking hypocrisy, John Smyth warned a victim of another individual, Jonathan Fletcher. He said to him that it was wrong for the Iwerne camp people to allow Fletcher to attend camps, whilst he was barred from attending
(Incidentally I find the wording strange, in that it mixes fact finding and conclusion).
Indeed. I think a quote from the 31:8 Independent Culture Review into Titus Trust (page 82) might be pertinent:
The Trust’s response to JF [Jonathan Fletcher]
“From a Titus Trust perspective, when you're talking about JS [John Smyth], you're talking about something in 1980. There is distance. There was distance time wise. There was distance legally, there was distance in terms of who was still involved in the work. When you talk about JF, all that evaporates. There's no distance. And therefore, you're looking at a very different set of issues, because there are people who know Jonathan well.”
Time-wise, there's an overlap - The Makin Review started work in 2019, the 31:8 Review was published in 2021, and they do reference each other.
The Makin Review contains the following:
13.1.34 In his contribution to this Review Jonathan Fletcher advises "although I knew John Smyth, were not friends. On a couple of occasions he was very critical of me publicly”, and “I attended Iwerne Minster for 60 consecutive years and although I was not as [ ] as John Smyth when he joined, yet nonetheless I attended every "camp" when he was an "officer". Jonathan is said to have also collaborated over who should offer continuing pastoral care to a victim (of John Smyth) and to have been part of the key discussions regarding John Smyth in Zimbabwe.
NB In relation to any further discussion (or not), please note that Jonathan Fletcher is still alive, he was charged in July with eight counts of indecent assault and one count of GBH, pleaded "not guilty", and the case is ongoing.
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.
It sums up to a 'T' recent "discussions" and "facilitated conversations" undertaken - LLF anyone?
That culture, sadly, exists in lots of places.
It is rife in many nonconformist organisations. Mrs RR and I have been declared 'persona non grata' types, squeezed out of ministry and (eventally) found solace in the COE.
Sorry to hear. All too common.
The "squeezed out" club is well populated with some of the best folk.
Indeed. I think a quote from the 31:8 Independent Culture Review into Titus Trust (page 82) might be pertinent:
The Trust’s response to JF [Jonathan Fletcher]
“From a Titus Trust perspective, when you're talking about JS [John Smyth], you're talking about something in 1980. There is distance. There was distance time wise. There was distance legally, there was distance in terms of who was still involved in the work. When you talk about JF, all that evaporates. There's no distance. And therefore, you're looking at a very different set of issues, because there are people who know Jonathan well.”
That's a very curious way for a trustee qua trustee to express themselves. There seems to be a lot of mixing of registers between the two reports (as well as the Pilavachi one)
Given that ++Justin was due to retire in 2 years (I believe) would there already be some plans in place re succession and continuity that are now accelerated? Also is the traditional alternation of high and low church appointees still a thing?
It might be but I was more under the impression that it has been shifting more towards an alternating 'academic/manager' pattern.
Thing is, whether it's a 'high/low' or 'thinker/doer' or 'arty/sciencey' or whatever kind of pattern it's an impossible job and I take my hat off to anyone who even attempts to do it.
At an evening with friends yesterday we were discussing this - among other things. One person present informed me that the Archbishop of Canterbury doesn't have to be a bishop first, or even a member of the Church of England. I found this very hard to believe but she said this is according to her son who is a vicar. Is it true?
At an evening with friends yesterday we were discussing this - among other things. One person present informed me that the Archbishop of Canterbury doesn't have to be a bishop first, or even a member of the Church of England. I found this very hard to believe but she said this is according to her son who is a vicar. Is it true?
Well, Archbishop Edmund the Unwilling did serve briefly in the late 15th Century under Richard IV despite having no clerical background. He was however excommunicated for dressing as a nun and fighting in the dormitories.
At an evening with friends yesterday we were discussing this - among other things. One person present informed me that the Archbishop of Canterbury doesn't have to be a bishop first, or even a member of the Church of England. I found this very hard to believe but she said this is according to her son who is a vicar. Is it true?
Yes and no. You have to have been ordained deacon and priest before you can be consecrated as a bishop. There is no additional consecration for an Archbishop - it is not a distinct order from the bishops. However, there is historical precedent for lay people being ordained deacon and priest on successive days before being consecrated, and this was (if memory serves) the case with St Thomas Becket. It is also not necessary that they be a member of the CofE, or even an Anglican. An Old Catholic or Lutheran bishop, or one from any other church with orders recognised by the CofE, could be appointed to serve in the CofE. It's vanishingly unlikely but not impossible.
However, there is historical precedent for lay people being ordained deacon and priest on successive days before being consecrated, and this was (if memory serves) the case with St Thomas Becket.
If I recall correctly the king wanted to stuff his friend and political ally into this top Church role, but it didn't really work out in the way that he'd hoped...
However, there is historical precedent for lay people being ordained deacon and priest on successive days before being consecrated, and this was (if memory serves) the case with St Thomas Becket.
If I recall correctly the king wanted to stuff his friend and political ally into this top Church role, but it didn't really work out in the way that he'd hoped...
Yep, though further googling suggests he was already a deacon when appointed, it was only priesting and consecration that were done in rapid succession.
I once knew an elderly priest who had served as Lay Reader in his Sarf London parish for many years, and who had always wanted to be ordained. It didn't happen until quite a long time after his retirement from secular employment, but a certain formidable Bishop of Southwark took him under his wing.
The man concerned was duly ordained deacon, and then ordained priest a week later (IIRC). He wasn't on his deathbed, or anything like that, but continued to serve his church and parish for several more years. I sometimes went to the daily lunchtime service, which he often celebrated, and which he referred to as *Marss*...
Bishops sometimes exhibit a degree of pastoral care and sensitivity, though the Bishop concerned wasn't always known for it...
All this is by the way, I suppose, but it has been said on these boards, and in the press, that the Church of England does often function quite well at grass-roots level. This is true of safeguarding, with parishes trying their best to follow the rules, and taking the issue seriously. FatherInCharge's latest newsletter, whilst mentioning the Welby affair, makes the point that safeguarding is - or should be - everyone's concern.
With talk of bishops who are not real bishops even for those of their own community it reminds me of the Bishopric of Osnabrueck in Germany. At the end of the 30 years War it was decided that the bishopric would alternate between Catholic and Lutheran bishops.
The last of the Prince bishops was the second son of King George III of England appointed bishop in the year of his birth (1764) and remaining bishop until the secularisation of the bishopric in 1803. Of course he did not celebrate any pontifical functions but he drew the revenues of the see. After Napoleonic times pope Leo XII re-established the see as an exempt diocese immediately subject to Rome. - One of the quirks of history.
An Old Catholic or Lutheran bishop, or one from any other church with orders recognised by the CofE, could be appointed to serve in the CofE. It's vanishingly unlikely but not impossible.
However given the ABC has a seat and vote in the House of Lords, does he (or she) have to fulfill at least the requirements for being an MP (British citizen, Republic of Ireland citizen, a citizen of a commonwealth country who does not require leave to enter or remain in the UK, or has indefinite leave to remain in the UK).
An Old Catholic or Lutheran bishop, or one from any other church with orders recognised by the CofE, could be appointed to serve in the CofE. It's vanishingly unlikely but not impossible.
However given the ABC has a seat and vote in the House of Lords, does he (or she) have to fulfill at least the requirements for being an MP (British citizen, Republic of Ireland citizen, a citizen of a commonwealth country who does not require leave to enter or remain in the UK, or has indefinite leave to remain in the UK).
I suspect that they would need to have or be able to get a visa to enter the UK as they would for some purposes be employed (they would be taxed via PAYE, for example). I'm not sure about citizenship requirements - Wikipedia suggests yes, but the citation given doesn't seem to address the matter. I would guess that, were such a person appointed, they would either be fast-tracked to citizenship or there would be an agreement that no-one would challenge their right to sit in the Lords so long as they didn't attempt to exercise that right.
Indeed. I think a quote from the 31:8 Independent Culture Review into Titus Trust (page 82) might be pertinent:
...
That's a very curious way for a trustee qua trustee to express themselves. There seems to be a lot of mixing of registers between the two reports (as well as the Pilavachi one)
Yes - which brings several questions to mind. There seems to be a wide range of approaches to producing these reviews. Regarding the findings, I suggest that anyone considering becoming a trustee should read a few before agreeing.
There's also a good three-parter on HTB that they've posted more recently.
Hmm. Quite a lot there from Hatty Calbus. On her personal experience, in the third article, which addresses safeguarding and the lessons from Hillsongs:
I shall only cite here my harassment experience at HTB from three leaders: a married one telling me I was “a peach” and asking if I had a boyfriend; an engaged one trying to put his arm round my waist and on another occasion running his finger down my back, which I also saw him do to another woman; a different married one touching my backside. He and a man with a reputation as a womaniser were put forward for ordination and are now vicars [the backside one is Mr “Sex O’Clock ” etc, now actually in charge of a resource church, which I’ve omitted in case it’s too specific]. A senior leader dismissed this as “generalisation;” another said I “shouldn’t be looking at the behaviour of these male leaders.” I say the options here are a) I’m a mad fantasist; b) boys will be boys – it doesn’t matter or c) a culture can be inferred and that matters.
In my pieces about the influence of HTB, I looked at its charity, the Revitalise Trust, and the questionability of some of its trustees, then at the safeguarding danger of following the megachurch model. The two issues come together in another member of the leadership body, its Patron Richard Chartres, Bishop of London from 1995 to 2017, who used to attend HTB’s Focus annual summer holiday, with his loud shirts a humorous tradition.
...
Chartres’ dislike of bureaucracy definitely extended to safeguarding procedures for vulnerable adults. [Read the article for the details.]
...
Rather than resigning in disgrace, Richard Chartres retired in 2017 accepting outpourings of praise and the grandeur of a peerage, becoming the Right Reverend and Right Honourable the Lord Chartres GCVO – Baron Chartres, of Wilton in the County of Wiltshire. And none of the above was deemed serious enough to disqualify him from being appointed Patron of Revitalise, the charity to a significant degree determining the Church’s direction. To give him such a prominent role shows a continuing disregard for victims. For all the periodic bouts of handwringing and pious statements, how is anyone to believe that those with most power in the Church of England really care if lives are destroyed by abuse?
On another aspect of HTB culture, Hatty Calbus' first article addresses the funding of HTB's Revitalise Trust. It overlaps with and references Andrew Greystone's article on HTB's major donor, Paul Marshall, which chrisstiles linked to earlier this year. From the Church Times, which also picked this up:
...Sir Paul has worshipped at Holy Trinity, Brompton, since 1997, and was a member of the board of St Paul’s Theological Centre, one of the founding partners of St Mellitus, for which he is a donor. Today, he sits on the board of the Church Revitalisation Trust (CRT), incorporated as a charity in 2017 “to further the church planting activity which was previously undertaken by Holy Trinity Brompton” (Features, 21 April 2017). Within its network are more than 100 congregations, plus 30 larger resource churches.
Under the Church of England’s Strategic Development Programme, millions of pounds were allocated by the Church Commissioners to fund plants in the network. An independent review of SDF recorded that 14 per cent of all funds had gone to projects exclusively run by Revitalise (Church Revitalisation) Trust (CRT), and a further 29 per cent to projects in which CRT was involved along with churches of other traditions (News, 10 November, 2023).
...
In a recent essay for the Alliance, Sir Paul wrote: “Sometimes it feels like our civilisation is intent on forgetting the virtues upon which it is founded: Every human soul is sacred; We should love our neighbours as ourselves; With rights come responsibilities; With privilege, comes duty.”
PERHAPS it is in this light that we should look at the extraordinary saga of Sir Paul Marshall’s tweets. Sir Paul is an incredibly rich member of the congregation of Holy Trinity, Brompton. He funds its theological college, St Mellitus, and the UnHerd website, besides owning half of GB News, which pays Lee Anderson £100,000 a year as a presenter. He is also bidding for the Telegraph newspapers and The Spectator, something that worries liberal opinion.
The charity Hope Not Hate dug out — and the podcast The News Agents reported — a number of really demented and unpleasant things that he had re-posted on the social-media site X (formerly Twitter) last year, such as “a matter of time before civil war starts in Europe. The native European population is losing patience with fake refugee invaders.” And he “liked” a post that said: “If we want European civilization to survive we need to not just close the borders but start mass expulsions immediately. We don’t stand a chance unless we start that process very soon.”
Thanks @pease for two very informative posts. I realise how out-of-touch I am with affairs in some parts of the C of E, although I am still a member (albeit now non-communicant).
There seem to be at least three *churches* within the C of E:
1. The HTB-style evangelicals;
2. The traditionalist Anglo-Catholics, with their *flying bishops*;
3. The rest of the parishes - High, Low, liberal Catholic, open evangelical, middle-of-the-road etc. etc. which don't belong to either of the first two categories, but which are beavering away on their own patches, trying to keep the rumour of God alive.
Maybe (1) should break away entirely, (2) should join the Church of Rome, or maybe an Orthodox denomination, and (3) could join up with the existing (but small) Lutheran Church in Great Britain...
Of course, it won't happen - all that property, money, legal stuff, etc. etc..
There seem to be at least three *churches* within the C of E:
1. The HTB-style evangelicals;
2. The traditionalist Anglo-Catholics, with their *flying bishops*;
3. The rest of the parishes - High, Low, liberal Catholic, open evangelical, middle-of-the-road etc. etc. which don't belong to either of the first two categories, but which are beavering away on their own patches, trying to keep the rumour of God alive.
There are also the conevos who used to be a lot bigger, but who are now on many issues running as junior partners to the HTB crowd.
The other dynamic which those links touch upon is that St Melitus is by some measures the largest ministerial training facility within the CofE, and flip side is that there are corners of the church that struggle with institutional reproduction. So you could imagine a more homogenous church without HTB/Reform, but it would also be a whole lot smaller.
Of course, it won't happen - all that property, money, legal stuff, etc. etc..
I mean, fighting to keep ones institution as it 'was' is - whatever we may think about it - a strategy with some validity, but ISTM the other factor is the prestige of being the 'official' and national church.
Ahem ... there aren't Orthodox 'denominations', there are different 'jurisdictions' but that's not quite the same thing (although it can feel like it at times 😉).
I think the conservative evangelicals within the CofE constitute a subset within @Bishop Finger's categories 1) and 3) with some imagining themselves as a category 4) and that they are bigger and more significant than they actually are.
Ahem ... there aren't Orthodox 'denominations', there are different 'jurisdictions' but that's not quite the same thing (although it can feel like it at times 😉).
I think the conservative evangelicals within the CofE constitute a subset within @Bishop Finger's categories 1) and 3) with some imagining themselves as a category 4) and that they are bigger and more significant than they actually are.
Yes, point taken re con-evos, as @chrisstiles also points out.
Apologies for using the word *denomination* in respect of Orthodoxy - I had a feeling it was the wrong term, but couldn't think of another...
There is already a route across the Tiber for High Church refugees. I think the traffic has dwindled since it was laid out.
If you mean the Ordinariate, yes, it does seem to have faded somewhat. One of the problems (as a group at Our Place found out) was the fact that they couldn't have the church building, though they could have rented it...in the end, they simply joined the mainstream RCC.
The ordinariate never made sense to most English Anglo Catholics because they never wanted to keep Anglican liturgy. They want and wanted to create a home that is liturgically Roman within the roomier structures of the church of England. Never ever going to embrace the ordinariate. Also a complete fantasy, but when has that ever discouraged the fervent?
Well, several of the A-C churches in this Diocese use the Roman rite for every service. Without wishing to go off on a tangent, I can only assume that they do this *because if it's Roman Catholic, it must be Right!*
Two priests from this Diocese took themselves, and part of their flocks, to the Ordinariate, but very soon all were assimilated into the mainstream RCC (resistance was futile!).
In all fairness, both priests were instrumental in reviving the life of the parishes to which they were sent, but they took no Anglican liturgy with them...
Comments
Thanks. I think I left out a focus on masculinity, of a certain kind.
host warning - Daily Mail link
this pile of ordure.
Please don't link to the Heil without a warning.
Ta very much!
L
Epiphanies Host
And the Nash wiki page points out, under Theology: My take is that their differences in public are rather greater than their differences in private.
And I wonder if there are attitudes in common relating to accountability and being "under authority".
It does seem likely but, given church attendance in 1969, I wouldn't be surprised if the CofE contained the majority of evangelicals.
And they might have done, if it wasn't for John Stott. Reprising 1966, ‘Is John Stott Mad?’ ‘Has Lloyd-Jones gone off his rocker?’, neither Martyn Lloyd-Jones nor John Stott appear to have acted with any "greatness".
What that paragraph describes is not so much assimilation of any teaching as such, so much as group think bourne of shared experiences and (a certain amount of) exhaustion. [As an aside; it may be worth bearing in mind that in the paragraph I quoted, the comparison is with OICCU at its most evangelical - Tom Wright would have been president during his Calvinist Phase just a few years earlier].
Right, and the post I cited makes reference to this to that towards the end in not particularly complimentary terms. I'm not sure this bears much scrutiny as theology (knowledge of God) so much as a set of guard rails that one stays inside in order to be judged 'sound'.
I've not read the report or the Wikipedia pages but only the very interesting snippets helpfully posted here by various Shipmates. But I was not surprised to see Keswick cited. With all due respect to the Keswick Convention there was a kind of - to my mind - skewed and unrealistic 'higher life' / 'dead to self' emphasis there which channelled elements of exacting 19th century 'Holiness Movement' prudishness and squeamishness into both Anglican and Free Church evangelicalism.
The emphasis on 'self-emptying' and self-abnegation could lead to serious psychological harm. I don't think there's any 'accident' in Evan Roberts the Welsh Revivalist having a break-down, and I suspect it was more than the pressure of a relentless schedule of preaching and prayer meetings.
I think we forget how Puritanical evangelicalism in its various forms could be a generation or so ago. My late wife was brought up in a very low-church evangelical CofE environment which, whilst not overtly 'fanatical' certainly discouraged cinema attendance and non-churchy activity.
It's only a hop, skip and a jump from that to the kind of thing Bash advocated.
My friend who attended Bash camps back in the '70s is incredibly disciplined and very fit, even though he is by no means a Charles Atlas. He was encouraged to do Canadian Air Force exercises and to live a very sober and disciplined life. He certainly never witnessed any abuse but I think he would acknowledge that he has had to work hard to develop social skills and to think more broadly than the prevailing hegemony there allowed.
Any emphasis on discipline and self-denial can topple over into extremes. St John Chrysostom is said to have damaged his kidneys and stomach by extreme ascetic practice. Then you've got the RC flagellants and so on.
I think what we have with Smyth is a kind of toxic overlap between rather triumphalist forms of Victorian imperialist 'Muscular Christianity' and the close-knit and rather stultefying atmosphere of old-fashioned boarding schools etc.
That's probably an over-simplification but that's my two happ'orth.
These things were probably far less intense in the kind of circles @Baptist Trainfan describes.
On the 'Roman mission' of 597AD and the conversion of England ...
Yes @Telford and others, there were already Christians in the 'Celtic' parts of Britain and in some parts of Anglo-Saxon England when St Augustine of Canterbury arrived. King Ethelbert of Kent had married a Christian, a Frankish princess, I think.
But by and large, Christianity was confined to the west and north and among the 'Britons' rather than the Anglo-Saxons. Bede tells the story of the 'British' (Welsh) bishops walking out of a meeting with Augustine as he didn't stand when they entered, thereby indicating that he didn't recognise the validity of their orders. Strip out all the whishty-whishty romanticism about 'Celtic Christianity' but there does appear to have been tensions between the indigenous British Church which had existed since Roman times and the mission the Pope sent to the pagan Anglo-Saxons.
These were more jurisdictional and procedural rather than doctrinal - issues like the form of the monastic tonsure, a monastic rather than episcopal structure in the 'metropolitan' sense, the dating of Easter.
But all that is by the by ...
Both this and the discussion of the end of pietistic theologies reminded me of another post on the same site; written by someone who had spent rather longer within Iwerne circles it explores the psychological impact it had on him and others:
https://survivingchurch.org/2019/11/26/smyth-fletcher-iwerne-and-the-theology-of-the-divided-self-charles-foster/
Also, in relation to Scripture Union:
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.
It sums up to a 'T' recent "discussions" and "facilitated conversations" undertaken - LLF anyone?
From the report it's very hard to glean exactly what level of control/oversight SU had over the camps. A lot of what we read appears to be the product of an internal retrospective with the Titus Trust giving limited information to SU.
It's not clear what metrics for 'suitability' they would have applied and what metrics would have been variously acceptable to SU and the Titus Trust. Certainly in the case of the latter, this extract from the report seems apposite:
(Incidentally I find the wording strange, in that it mixes fact finding and conclusion).
That culture, sadly, exists in lots of places.
This did very much make me wonder what Smyth knew about Fletcher and how
It is rife in many nonconformist organisations. Mrs RR and I have been declared 'persona non grata' types, squeezed out of ministry and (eventally) found solace in the COE. But it seems to be happening here too.
The 'Church Times' has many pages devoted to the JS affair.
In relation to their trustees, I wonder whether either body (or many others) had anything resembling a robust selection process back then. Indeed. I think a quote from the 31:8 Independent Culture Review into Titus Trust (page 82) might be pertinent: Time-wise, there's an overlap - The Makin Review started work in 2019, the 31:8 Review was published in 2021, and they do reference each other.
The Makin Review contains the following: NB In relation to any further discussion (or not), please note that Jonathan Fletcher is still alive, he was charged in July with eight counts of indecent assault and one count of GBH, pleaded "not guilty", and the case is ongoing.
Sorry to hear. All too common.
The "squeezed out" club is well populated with some of the best folk.
That's a very curious way for a trustee qua trustee to express themselves. There seems to be a lot of mixing of registers between the two reports (as well as the Pilavachi one)
Thing is, whether it's a 'high/low' or 'thinker/doer' or 'arty/sciencey' or whatever kind of pattern it's an impossible job and I take my hat off to anyone who even attempts to do it.
Opinions may vary on that score, but I also note that FInC has put the following Mass intentions on the news letter for three of next week's services:
1. Justin Welby and his family;
2. All victims of abuse;
3. All church leaders.
Could he have included anything (or anyone) else, or has he covered all the bases?
Well, Archbishop Edmund the Unwilling did serve briefly in the late 15th Century under Richard IV despite having no clerical background. He was however excommunicated for dressing as a nun and fighting in the dormitories.
Yes and no. You have to have been ordained deacon and priest before you can be consecrated as a bishop. There is no additional consecration for an Archbishop - it is not a distinct order from the bishops. However, there is historical precedent for lay people being ordained deacon and priest on successive days before being consecrated, and this was (if memory serves) the case with St Thomas Becket. It is also not necessary that they be a member of the CofE, or even an Anglican. An Old Catholic or Lutheran bishop, or one from any other church with orders recognised by the CofE, could be appointed to serve in the CofE. It's vanishingly unlikely but not impossible.
If I recall correctly the king wanted to stuff his friend and political ally into this top Church role, but it didn't really work out in the way that he'd hoped...
Yep, though further googling suggests he was already a deacon when appointed, it was only priesting and consecration that were done in rapid succession.
The man concerned was duly ordained deacon, and then ordained priest a week later (IIRC). He wasn't on his deathbed, or anything like that, but continued to serve his church and parish for several more years. I sometimes went to the daily lunchtime service, which he often celebrated, and which he referred to as *Marss*...
Bishops sometimes exhibit a degree of pastoral care and sensitivity, though the Bishop concerned wasn't always known for it...
All this is by the way, I suppose, but it has been said on these boards, and in the press, that the Church of England does often function quite well at grass-roots level. This is true of safeguarding, with parishes trying their best to follow the rules, and taking the issue seriously. FatherInCharge's latest newsletter, whilst mentioning the Welby affair, makes the point that safeguarding is - or should be - everyone's concern.
The last of the Prince bishops was the second son of King George III of England appointed bishop in the year of his birth (1764) and remaining bishop until the secularisation of the bishopric in 1803. Of course he did not celebrate any pontifical functions but he drew the revenues of the see. After Napoleonic times pope Leo XII re-established the see as an exempt diocese immediately subject to Rome. - One of the quirks of history.
However given the ABC has a seat and vote in the House of Lords, does he (or she) have to fulfill at least the requirements for being an MP (British citizen, Republic of Ireland citizen, a citizen of a commonwealth country who does not require leave to enter or remain in the UK, or has indefinite leave to remain in the UK).
I suspect that they would need to have or be able to get a visa to enter the UK as they would for some purposes be employed (they would be taxed via PAYE, for example). I'm not sure about citizenship requirements - Wikipedia suggests yes, but the citation given doesn't seem to address the matter. I would guess that, were such a person appointed, they would either be fast-tracked to citizenship or there would be an agreement that no-one would challenge their right to sit in the Lords so long as they didn't attempt to exercise that right.
Meanwhile: Hmm. Quite a lot there from Hatty Calbus. On her personal experience, in the third article, which addresses safeguarding and the lessons from Hillsongs: Another of her articles, on Richard Chartres links these issues:
There seem to be at least three *churches* within the C of E:
1. The HTB-style evangelicals;
2. The traditionalist Anglo-Catholics, with their *flying bishops*;
3. The rest of the parishes - High, Low, liberal Catholic, open evangelical, middle-of-the-road etc. etc. which don't belong to either of the first two categories, but which are beavering away on their own patches, trying to keep the rumour of God alive.
Maybe (1) should break away entirely, (2) should join the Church of Rome, or maybe an Orthodox denomination, and (3) could join up with the existing (but small) Lutheran Church in Great Britain...
Of course, it won't happen - all that property, money, legal stuff, etc. etc..
There are also the conevos who used to be a lot bigger, but who are now on many issues running as junior partners to the HTB crowd.
The other dynamic which those links touch upon is that St Melitus is by some measures the largest ministerial training facility within the CofE, and flip side is that there are corners of the church that struggle with institutional reproduction. So you could imagine a more homogenous church without HTB/Reform, but it would also be a whole lot smaller.
I mean, fighting to keep ones institution as it 'was' is - whatever we may think about it - a strategy with some validity, but ISTM the other factor is the prestige of being the 'official' and national church.
I think the conservative evangelicals within the CofE constitute a subset within @Bishop Finger's categories 1) and 3) with some imagining themselves as a category 4) and that they are bigger and more significant than they actually are.
Yes, point taken re con-evos, as @chrisstiles also points out.
Apologies for using the word *denomination* in respect of Orthodoxy - I had a feeling it was the wrong term, but couldn't think of another...
If you mean the Ordinariate, yes, it does seem to have faded somewhat. One of the problems (as a group at Our Place found out) was the fact that they couldn't have the church building, though they could have rented it...in the end, they simply joined the mainstream RCC.
Two priests from this Diocese took themselves, and part of their flocks, to the Ordinariate, but very soon all were assimilated into the mainstream RCC (resistance was futile!).
In all fairness, both priests were instrumental in reviving the life of the parishes to which they were sent, but they took no Anglican liturgy with them...