Have any lessons been learned?

Between 2019 and 2021 Emmanuel Church Wimbledon appear to have spent about £250,000 more than usual on 'professional fees' and 'other expenses'. [1] This time covers the period during which they were managing the allegations surrounding their former vicar, Jonathan Fletcher. It is therefore reasonable to assume that some of this eye-watering sum was spent on trying to ensure that such terrible harm could never occur at their church again. Indeed, between 2019 and 2021, they commissioned the safeguarding charity Thirtyone:eight to undertake a Lessons Learned Review.

As regular readers of this blog will know, earlier this week, a jury found that Jonathan Fletcher had committed at least sixteen acts of indecent assault on a man over a period of approximately 25 years. The first reports of this finding appeared in Evangelicals Now and the Daily Telegraph on the evening of Monday 11th May 2026.

It took Emmanuel Church, Wimbledon a further three days to update their website with a statement about the findings. It cannot be because the trial took them by surprise - this statement replaced one which referenced the dates of the proceedings.

The statement is an edited version of a statement put out by the Diocese of Southwark dated the 11th May.

It would appear that despite spending nearly a quarter of a million pounds the leadership of Emmanuel Church Wimbledon have learned absolutely nothing about how to care for the victims of Jonathan Fletcher or create a culture which is "healthy and safe."

Here are ten lessons-learned which Anglican Futures offers for free.

1) Say sorry

Althought at least half the incidents of indecent assault, including the most brutal one, referred to in these findings, taking place while Jonathan Fletcher was minister of Emmanuel Church Wimbledon there is not one word of apology or regret from them. A visitor to the church's website would not be able to find any apology or any reference to the church's acknowledgement of how widespread and deep the harm continues to be.

2) Respond in a timely manner to events.

It is surely wrong that those impacted by the findings of the court had to wait three days for a statement from the church where Jonathan Fletcher served the majority of his ministry. It gives the impression that this hearing and those affected by it are essentially incidental to the life of the church under the current church leadership.

3) Use your own words.

Using an amended version of another statement compounds the sense that the current church leadership are simply not interested in what has happened and how it might affect others. This appears to be a case of the lazy adoption of the wording of professionals being prioritised over genuine pastoral care.

It also lays the current leadership open to criticism for errors made and words chosen by others and reveals very clearly what has been taken out.

4) Don't make the perpertrator out to be a victim.

Jonathan Fletcher was not "subject to an 'examination of the facts" hearing", as if it was something he had to endure unfairly. In fact he was the subject of the hearing because he had been indicted by the CPS on a number of counts, had pleaded not-guilty at a previous hearing and such a trial was necessary.

5) Get your facts right.

The charge of Grievous Bodily Harm was not "dropped" - it remains on file and could therefore be revived. What happened was the judge ruled that a vital part of the prosecution's evidence for this count was not admissable because the defence had not had the opportunity to interrogate its findings. It was not a decision that the count lacked merit.

Similarly, the judge was clear that the only disposal available to her was "an Absolute Discharge." She did not say that she believed it to be "suitable" and in fact spent some time explaining why an alternative supervision order was not possible.

6) Don't minimise the offences.

All the above serves to minimise the offenses. A a position made worse because while the Diocese of Southwark statement is accurate - the court found these offences to have taken place between 1973 and 1999 - "a period of more than twenty years" - Emmanuel's is not. Why the leadership of Emmanuel Church, Wimbledon think they know better and have therefore edited this part of the statement to read, "over a period of almost twenty years" is something that if it is not minimisation they will presumably want to explain.

Emmanuel also fail to note that while there were eight counts on the charge sheet, they represented at least sixteen acts of indecent assault, nor that Fletcher had groomed the individual from the age of 13.

7) Don't whitewash out the survivor.

The Diocese of Southwark Statement includes a comment from the Bishop of Southwark, which reads:

“Our Safeguarding team has worked to support the survivor in this case and will continue to offer support to them. I would like to pay tribute to the survivor’s courage and strength in sharing their experiences and I acknowledge that this process has been very costly for them. While it cannot undo the pain of the past, we hope that this ruling will give them some comfort and enable them to move forward.

It doesn't take much effort to notice which parts of this sentiment the leadership of Emmanuel Wimbledon have chosen to remove.

• A tribute to the survivor's courage and strength

• An acknowledgement of the costliness of the process

• A recognition that the ruling cannot undo the pain of the past

It is horrific that the leadership of Emmanuel Church, Wimbledon decided that these were words from which they wanted to disassociate themselves. Perhaps, if they had been present at the hearing they would have found an inkling of compassion for the victim and his family and have wanted to express that in their statement.

8) Don't distance yourself from the harm caused

It was of course appropriate for the Diocese of Southwark to speak of the support they were offering the survivor - but the leadership of Emmanuel needed to do more than refer glibly to the Diocesan Safeguarding Team continuing "to offer support to those affected by this matter."

As one trustee of Anglican Futures wrote, "'Those affected by this matter' feels very different from, 'All those abused by our former vicar whom we clearly wrongly esteemed and supported without sufficient accountability for decades.'"

While survivors who have been impacted by the hearing may not wish to seek support from Emmanuel Wimbledon they would have done well to signpost people to other sources of help in the statement itself.

9) Don't ignore the voices of other survivors.

The Bishop of Southwark's comment continued, "“We will continue to make safeguarding our highest priority, seeking to learn the lessons of the past and ensure that survivors’ voices and concerns inform our safeguarding practice.”

Again, the leadership of Emmanuel Wimbledon have specifically chosen to remove any mention of survivors voices or that their concerns should inform their safeguarding practice. This is arrogant and suggests an unwillingness to listen to the very people who just may be able to help them become the "safe and healthy church" they claim they want to be.

10) Don't make false distinctions between the gospel and safeguarding.

The Bishop of Southwark wrote, "We will continue to make safeguarding our highest priority...". The leadership of Emmanuel, Wimbledon have chosen to say, "We continue to make safeguarding a high priority." Those schooled in conservative evangelical speak will know that this change was made because it would be impossible for the leadership of Emmanuel Church, Wimbledon to suggest that anything could take a higher priority than 'the gospel'. But that is a false distinction and one that leads to appalling statements like the one.

In "When it comes to abuse - it takes a village," Glen Scrivener speaks powerfully about the need for the church not just to preach the gospel but to be "a sanctuary worthy of his name." Safeguarding is just one part of that picture, as is caring for those who have been hurt by the church.

In conclusion

Former leadership of Emmanuel Wimbledon failed to take seriously early reports of survivors and therefore failed to hold Jonathan Fletcher accountable at an early stage. The current leadership are failing to care for those he hurt.

In 2021, the Thirtyone:eight Review, which is also not on the Emmanuel Church, Wimbledon website, noted:

"It is recognised that ECW have made significant steps to addressing cultural issues since the disclosures occurred however concerns remain about some persistent aspects of culture. ECW need to continue to reflect on the cultural elements described in sections 1-4 that allowed behaviour to occur and not be disclosed. Changing culture is a lengthy process."

This statement suggests that that process has stalled at best and is merely performative at worst and should be seen as an enormous red flag to anyone looking for a safe and healthy church.

[1] The accounts of Emmanuel Church, Wimbledon can be viewed here

---

Anglican Futures is committed to a safer Anglican future.

Contac

Contact us

for more information.