‘It’s a very distressing thing about evangelicalism – we are not very good at responsible domestic debate,’ wrote John Stott in 1995 in Third Way. His words still resonate today; we evangelicals are people with strong convictions and a passion for truth. How do we debate hot-button issues in a way which glorifies Jesus?
When it comes to talking about such matters as the Fletcher and Smyth scandals, there are rightly additional challenges and sensitivities too. Somehow, though, we have to find Christ-like ways of discussing these things both in en and elsewhere.
One forum where issues can be debated here is the Letters page. Like any newspaper, publication of a letter should never be taken to indicate that en agrees with the views within it; we have published a letter from an atheist before! That is now made explicit at the top of this page. Inevitably, speaking generally, some views will seem objectionable to others; such is free speech, which is vital. But what does get published is mild compared with some of the letters which are not.
In recent months en has received two letters from Jonathan Fletcher, neither of which were printed. We did, however, publish a letter last month from his friends Simon and Kathy Manchester. This has generated a range of responses in various places. Some say the letter was so offensive it should never have been published. Others say that in learning from scandal it is important to hear all voices, and not perpetuate the old – or indeed, create a new – ‘culture of fear’ by shutting them down. A third view has pointed to freedom of speech and warned against a secular-style ‘no-platforming’. Still others have argued that evangelical culture only changes when different views are aired and challenged; and that is why it was published.
Speaking to some of the Fletcher survivors – and en has been in touch with ten or 11 in recent months – it is clear that they themselves have varying views. Some (and indeed victims of other abuse) have made it clear to en that they were not personally upset by the publication of the Manchester letter, and see it as legitimate for a letters page to express such views, even though they disagreed with the sentiment.
A much smaller number have intimated that, whatever the intentions behind the letter, it felt as though it was condoning abuse, and triggered distressing memories and feelings. Having reflected on this, we consider that, despite having a strong commitment to free speech, it would have been better not to have published this particular letter. We are sorry. We continue to listen carefully. As a result, one thing en is now doing is to seek more wisdom on these matters from those with professional safeguarding expertise.
Talking about this or any difficult issue is never easy. Thus how we all do so is vital. One Fletcher survivor wrote to en recently: ‘There has been a real exposure of the lack of grace, both in the abuse but also now in the way we have dealt with it. I fear that we have demonstrated that we are good at preaching grace and even receiving it, but lousy at offering it.’ We do not know what specifics he had in mind. But we can surely all agree we need grace in our interactions. Or as Free Church of Scotland minister John Watson (1850-1907) reputedly said: ‘Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle you know nothing about.’
