Boris clergy scandal uncovered

(Update Friday morning: Why is Tom Ambrose's recent dispute relevant to this case? See below for details.)

When Church of England clergyman Ray Lewis was made deputy mayor for young people by Boris Johnson, a couple of people contacted me urging me to write about the powrful example being set for the church by this charismatic leader. I am rather glad I never found time to do it. Because today it has emerged that he was placed on the Lambeth List and barred from office for serious financial misconduct. More details appear in our story, now online. Boris has this afternoon launched an investigation. Lewis has condemned the claims as 'absolute rubbish' and denied he was ever suspended. True, technically he did resign. But Chelmsford diocese has promised full cooperation with Boris' office. And their statement, produced below, is pretty unequivocal.

'Ray Lewis, London’s Deputy Mayor for Young People, was ordained in the Church of England in 1990, and served in the Parish of St Matthew, West Ham in the Diocese of Chelmsford between 1993 and 1997. After this date he moved to Grenada in the Diocese of the Windward Islands, where he ministered until 1999, after which he resigned from ministry altogether.

Between 1999 and 2005 Ray was placed under the formal disciplinary structures of the Church of England, and his ministry was restricted. This was because a misdemeanour of such seriousness had been committed that in the opinion of the Archbishop, the person concerned should not exercise his ministry for the time being. 

The Diocese of Chelmsford is happy to co-operate with the enquiry which is being set up by the Mayor of London.'

This afternoon I spoke to one of his former parishioners, who still worships at St Matthew's West Ham where he was vicar and who lent him £29,000. At one point, in a bid to get the money back, she called in the police. But she wished to emphasise that he had since paid it all back in full, with substantial interest.

She bears him no grudge and is fulsome about his qualities.

Boris is also investigating sexual allegations, about which I know nothing.

One of Ray's friends is Rev John Richardson, the Ugley Vicar, and the architect of the Chelmsford Anglican Mainstream site.

Another friend of Ray's has also sent me this:

'I really think you have the wrong end of the stick on Ray Lewis.  If the CofE had real concerns about him the Archbishop of York would hardly have agreed to be patron of the organisation he ran.

You say, and I suppose it must be true, that he was on the “Lambeth List” from 1999-2005.  But:

a.     It seems that he was not in the country from 1997 so he must have been placed on this in absentia.

b.    The  Lambeth and Bishopthorpe Register has 2 parts:

Part I includes the names of those deposed, or deprived and disqualified, under the EJM 1963; it also includes those who have relinquished their orders under the Clerical Disabilities Act 1873
Part II comprises those who have not been the subject of formal proceedings, but whom bishops are advised to approach with caution in relation to any appointment.
If he was on Part II of the list then it is would appear that he was not subject to formal proceedings, and it is entirely credible that he was placed on it in absentia without knowing anything about it.

I am sure you are committed to good journalism and not part of a politically motivated smear campaign.  Others, who are less committed to the truth, may need sensible guidance from those in possession of the facts.'

No doubt the facts will emerge in any investigation, but it seems fair to suggest there are valid questions to be asked about church procedures. Certainly the parishioner I spoke to yesterday, who lent Ray £29,000 and subsequently recieved all the money back with substantial interest after going to the police and using a private investigator, was totally unaware that there had ever been a Church enquiry or disciplinary action taken.

For the latest query about church procedures, this time in Ely diocese, see Tom Ambrose's posting yesterday on his former parish's website. Hurry and look now if you're interested, because how long it will be allowed to remain up there is anyone's guess.... More fool them for neglecting to change the password, I say, although you never know, maybe Tom has helpfully changed it for them!

Comments

[Clifford Williams]

Nicholas Beale ir correct. I have been wondering when this blog would bring up the issue of the 'Clergy Discipline Mearsure 2003'.

The so called 'Lambeth List' is an unofficial blacklist of clergy accessible only to Bisops within the Anglican Communion. In law it should be included within the provisions laid out in 'Subject Access' section 7 Data Protection Act 1998 (1) and (4). It is a private list not a public one. The Bishop concerned along with Lambeth Palace should be investigated whether this act has been breached.

Further more, should it be that Ray Lewis has not been the subject of the Church's disciplinary measure his name should not have been placed on it in the first place.

It is of course a matter of 'scandal' that clergy were placed on such lists without ever being told in the first place. I should know since my name was listed for 10 years without my knowledge until enquiries were made in 2007. Suffice to say it was removed - but alas, the blacklisting continues.

Who dare say that we live in an age of 'Human Rights'. What farce - welcome to planet Canterbury.

[Clifford Williams]

Nicholas Beale ir correct. I have been wondering when this blog would bring up the issue of the 'Clergy Discipline Mearsure 2003'.

The so called 'Lambeth List' is an unofficial blacklist of clergy accessible only to Bisops within the Anglican Communion. In law it should be included within the provisions laid out in 'Subject Access' section 7 Data Protection Act 1998 (1) and (4). It is a private list not a public one. The Bishop concerned along with Lambeth Palace should be investigated whether this act has been breached.

Further more, should it be that Ray Lewis has not been the subject of the Church's disciplinary measure his name should not have been placed on it in the first place.

It is of course a matter of 'scandal' that clergy were placed on such lists without ever being told in the first place. I should know since my name was listed for 10 years without my knowledge until enquiries were made in 2007. Suffice to say it was removed - but alas, the blacklisting continues.

Who dare say that we live in an age of 'Human Rights'. What farce - welcome to planet Canterbury.

[Tom Allen]

Some more facts are emerging:
Ray Lewis was put on Part 2 of the list so was not "banned" as such but if he had tried to obtain an appointment in the Church of England then he would have been asked about the allegations - it is a warning note rather than an outright ban. He would not have been the first priest NOT to have known about being on the list and Bishops have considerable discretion in the scope of "concerns" that they may have. The Archdeacon involved in the case has confirmed and made available the correspondence he sent to Ray Lewis - so he was aware of the allegations. He is NOT (and has now admitted that he is not) a Magistrate - he has passed the interviews and received a letter saying that he would be recommended as a magistrate.One assumes that John Sentamu is Patron of hundreds of good causes - and that he might be reviewing this particular one if the outcome of the enquiry is negative. Since he became Patron in 2006 (after the Part 2 Lambeth listing was removed)there was no reason that he should have known. It was David Hawkins Bishop of Barking that warned Boris about the listing - so conspiracy theories about the noted left winger John Gladwin (pretty fanciful anyway)are hardly relevant. Though there are concerns about why he notified Boris if Ray Lewis is no longer on the list - is there no cut-off point? What also should now happen is detailed enquiry about how the Lambeth List works ( or doesn't. The choice of Martin Neary ( Head of Banardoes)to head the enquiry is a good one (IMHO) -someone with knowledge of good practice and the Prison Service as well as the Church.

[Nicholas Beale]

The Diocese of Chelmsford might want to clarify:

1. Were the allegations on the basis of which "Lewis was placed under the formal disciplinary structures of the Church of England" ever put to Lewis?
2. Was he given an opportunity to respond to them?
3. Was there any kind of hearing at which the basic principles of natural justice were preserved?
4. If the answers to any or all of 1-3 are no, on what basis can it be said "a misdemeanour of such seriousness had been committed"?
5. When (if ever) was he informed that he had been placed on the list?
6. When he was removed from the list, was it on the basis that the allegations were unsubstantiated or that they were no longer considered serious enough to warrant continued suspension?

[George Parr]

The Guardian profile of this man (9th May 2008) identifies his 'tough love' approach to vulnerable young people.

Advocating 'army-style drills, uniforms and strict discipline' is, in my view possibly the worst method for dealing with societal problems. It legitimises and internalises thinly-disguised barbarism and is the very antithesis of civilised behaviour.

The English obsession with militarism, epitomised by the Royal Family's feeble dalliance with the armed forces - clearly used to invent some form of absent identity - re-inforces the message that right is always on our side. Unfortunately the colourful spectacle is far removed from the reality. Whilst our forces in the Middle East are certainly brave and competent, a vast number of people do not believe they should be there.

There is far too little emphasis on securing peace, and too many thoroughly unscrupulous people capitalising on war. 'Short sharp [military style] lessons' for young people did not work in the late 1970s and 'tough love' equally fills me with horror. If the Christian Deputy Mayor 'for young people' is impressed by militaristic brainwashing and robotic behaviour I personally do not think much of it.

Perhaps the 4 billion to be spent on launching 'The Prince of Wales' and its sister aircraft carrier might be best channelled into education and the inner cities, to be spent by rational pacifists on those who desperately need it.

[Nicholas Beale]

Gladwin is apparently out to get Lewis. I wonder why? Gladwin is one of the leading Liberals in the row over gay clergy/bishops so perhaps embarrassing the Abp of York might suit him just before the Lambeth Conference – especially since Gladwin thought he’d be made Archbishop not Sentamu.

In his C4 interview Gladwin never says that Lewis was told of these allegations. I think the “Lambeth List” is/was a secret blacklist and he might simply have got mysterious rejections. However the facts appear to be:
a. Around the time Lewis was in the Windward Isles allegations were made about financial misconduct which caused the Diocese of Chelmsford to get Lewis placed on the Lambeth List.
b. There is no evidence that these allegations were ever put to him, and he denies that they were.
c. There is no evidence that he ever knew that he was placed on the Lambeth List
d. He was removed from the Lambeth List in 2005 (it has to be reviewed every 5 years). So the CofE had concluded that there was no objection to his working as a priest in the CofE should he have wished to do so. This was either because they concluded that the original allegations were false or that they were not sufficiently serious to be any bar to his working as a priest.
e. He becomes a highly respected citizen, a Prison Governor, a JP. He founds a charity which receives great acclaim, does outstanding work with young black youths, and is supported by leading figures including Abp John Sentamu who is his Patron.
f. He joins Boris Johnson’s team
g. Someone feeds this story to the press, and it is presented by the press to imply that, because he was once considered unsuitable to work as a priest, he is not suitable to work as a Deputy Mayor (AFAIK Deputy Mayors are not expected to be priests!!)

Are you really sure that this is not a politically motivated smear campaign?

[Dr. Mike Homfray]

I am more concerned about some of his bizarre semi-militaristic ideas about young people rather than what he may have done some years ago. Saw him defending himself on newsnight - bullish and aggressive. and certainly not a good role model.

[joe]

Whilst Tom Ambrose has obviously something serious to complain about, I'd say it is pretty rude to make it on that parish website.

[Malcolm+]

I am moved to wonder if those who kept falsely claiming that David Johntson was guilty of adultery despite the utter lack of evidence and despite the findings of the tribunals will be so quick to claim that this priest, more congenial to their conservative views, is likewise guilty.

[Jamie MacNab]

What will Boris investigate? the original allegations of misdemeanour, or the procedure by which the gentleman was appointed as Deputy Mayor for young people?