An Open Letter to the FIEC
On Tuesday 6 December, the Church of England issued its verdict in the Stephen Sizer antisemitism case (see the excerpt below).
James Mendelsohn and I have campaigned for more than ten years for action to be taken against Dr Sizer by evangelicals, and when the verdict came out, we released a statement. We said we were pleased that Dr Sizer had finally been found guilty of antisemitic activity. But we also criticised a number of evangelical leaders and organisations for failing to take action against Dr Sizer when they had the opportunity. We called on them to apologise to the Jewish community for that failure.
There are some indications that evangelicals are now willing to admit past shortcomings in this long-running scandal. This week, for example, the board of the periodical Evangelicals Now said that EN “accepts that coverage of this issue in the preceding decade should have been better.” Similarly, Jeremy Marshall, formerly the Chair of Trustees of Christianity Explored Ministries, said:
An Inflammatory Response
However, there has already been one inflammatory response to the verdict, which is the reason for this open letter to the FIEC.
When my and James’s statement was published, I notified John Stevens, the National Director of the FIEC, and several other senior evangelical leaders, including the Editor of EN, Nick McQuaker from the Gospel Partnerships network, and William Taylor of St Helen’s Bishopsgate. On 15 December, John sent a reply not only to me but also to all the leaders who had received my original email.
John asked me and James to publicly apologise for criticising him in relation to the Sizer case. He also asked us to “to consider withdrawing some of the public allegations you have made about Rev Sizer.” And he claimed the tribunal’s findings “definitively state that Stephen is not anti-semitic or racist” and “the Tribunal judgement … clearly concludes that Stephen Sizer was not an antisemitic racist in the way that you have often characterised him over the past decade or so.” On that basis, John reached this conclusion: “The Tribunal judgment does not support the claim that there has been a scandal on the part of the conservative evangelical constituency failing to deal with a racist antisemite.”
Paragraph 115 in the Tribunal’s Verdict
What had the tribunal said to justify John’s comments? John cited paragraph 115 of the verdict, which states:
In the light of its findings, the Tribunal does not conclude that the Respondent is antisemitic by nature.
There’s much that could be said about those words in paragraph 115. The first thing that jumps out to an evangelical observer is the oddness of commenting on a person’s “nature”. Only God sees the heart (1 Samuel 16:7). Without God’s x-ray eyes, humans can only make assumptions about what may or may not be in someone’s heart, and the proper Christian assumption is that outward sin does come from within (Mark 7:21–23).
The tribunal’s comment on Dr Sizer’s nature may mean that he wasn’t found to be a habitual antisemite — a repeat offender. That finding is not as significant as it might appear. Any police detective would know that a negative finding [we didn’t find x here] doesn’t carry the same weight as a positive finding [we found x], and shouldn’t be treated as if it does carry the same weight. The tribunal only examined eleven of Sizer’s alleged acts of antisemitism — a small proportion of the total — and the “nature” conclusion may well have been different if more acts had been examined.
But it’s not necessary to be a detective to know that John is badly wrong when he claims the tribunal’s findings “definitively state that Stephen is not anti-semitic or racist.” Sometimes a firm word is called for, and this is one of those occasions: John’s “definitively” claim is ludicrous, for the following reasons.
- The tribunal was a Church of England tribunal, and its authority does not extend beyond the Church of England. Christians outside the CofE, the Board of Deputies of British Jews, the Community Security Trust, the Jewish Leadership Council, the Scottish Council of Jewish Communities, and the editorial board of the Jewish Chronicle would no doubt be surprised to discover that they’re expected to regard a CofE tribunal’s findings as “definitive”! It is disorienting, to say the least, to see the National Director of the FIEC arguing for the supremacy of the Church of the England.
- The not-antisemitic-by-nature conclusion isn’t even definitive from the Church of England’s perspective. Dr Sizer’s penalty hasn’t yet been announced by the CofE. If he isn’t prohibited from all further ministry within the CofE [the modern equivalent of “defrocking”], he may well face new charges under the Clergy Discipline Measure at a later date (judging by his track record, that’s a near-certainty). And a future tribunal may determine that Dr Sizer is antisemitic “by nature”.
- Whether someone is or isn’t racist cannot be definitively determined by any individual or group or court of law. Only God can judge a moral dispute definitively, and that verdict is reserved for the Last Day, when he will settle all disputes (Isaiah 2:4). Anyone who has read To Kill a Mockingbird will know that a human legal process can produce an outcome that does not reflect reality. Christians, in particular, should recognise that reality is not perfectly reflected by human legal decisions—if that were true, Jesus would not be the Messiah.
Even if the word “definitively” is removed from John’s conclusion, he would still be wrong to say that the tribunal’s findings “state that Stephen is not anti-semitic or racist.” Dr Sizer was found guilty of antisemitic activity. When he behaved in that way, he became an antisemite. David Shepherd, commenting on the Sizer case as a Black evangelical, uses the analogy of adultery to explain the point: “For a tribunal to conclude that a minister had committed adultery, but was not adulterous by nature, doesn’t lessen the gravity of the offence. The evidence demonstrates that the minister is an adulterer, even if it isn’t sufficient to demonstrate them to be habitually so.” That’s why the Jewish Chronicle was entirely within its rights to describe Stephen Sizer as an antisemite on its front cover on 8 November 2019. As someone found guilty of antisemitic activity, for the rest of his life he will be a convicted antisemite.
Attempting to Get British Evangelicalism off the Hook
One of John’s conclusions is that “The Tribunal judgment does not support the claim that there has been a scandal on the part of the conservative evangelical constituency failing to deal with a racist antisemite.”
John is not speaking as a neutral observer when he addresses this claim.
In 2015, John could have used his considerable influence to help bring about the exclusion of Dr Sizer’s church from the South East Gospel Partnership. It was in 2015 that Sizer became known as “the 9/11 vicar” after he spread antisemitic propaganda titled “9/11 Israel Did It.” John was asked to take action at that time, but he didn’t. Dr Sizer was disciplined in 2015 by the CofE hierarchy, but not by the Gospel Partnerships network. For the Gospel Partnerships it was a case of business as usual in their relationship with Dr Sizer and his church.
That was a profoundly serious failure, because Anglican evangelicals such as the leaders and members of Christ Church Virginia Water (the church Dr Sizer was pastoring) routinely brush off any criticism from the largely liberal CofE hierarchy. As I explained in a letter to the SEGP steering committee in 2016, “It’s surely impossible for a church to understand the seriousness of its leader’s moral failings if … they don’t receive the appropriate signals regarding their leader.” The exclusion of Sizer’s church from the SEGP would have sent those necessary signals. I also pointed out that “the SEGP Committee seems to have overlooked its duty to demonstrate to the Jewish community what it thinks of Stephen Sizer’s actions.” However, those respectful and restrained words fell on unhearing ears. The steering committee received my letter via Rev’d Angus MacLeay, who acted as an intermediary, but they never gave any reply beyond acknowledging receipt.
John himself wasn’t a member of the SEGP steering committee, and wouldn’t have received that particular letter. But as a senior evangelical leader conscious of the media firestorm around Dr Sizer, John shouldn’t have needed anyone to explain such things to him. Dr Sizer, fully supported by his church, had brought shame upon the gospel through his racism. It should have been plain to John and other leaders with “soft power” influence that Christ Church Virginia Water, with its antisemitic pastor, ought to be removed from the Gospel Partnerships network.
Indeed, on the day when the “9/11 vicar” story broke on media outlets nationwide (30 January 2015), John did seem to recognise that evangelical action would be necessary in addition to any CofE action. He said, “I’m glad that the CofE is taking swift action to investigate and I would hope that when they have reached their conclusions others will act appropriately.” [Emphasis added.] Who would those “others” have been if not evangelicals?
And yet now John trenchantly defends evangelical inaction, such as the inaction of the Gospel Partnerships. In his 15 December 2022 email to me, he said, “it seems to me that it is hard to see that the SEGP or other organisations would have had any justifiable basis for taking action prior to 2015, and after 2015 action had been taken by the Church of England authorities and Rev Sizer then retired from his church post.” Why has John completely changed his tune about the appropriate evangelical response to the Sizer scandal between 2015 and today? In 2015 he was hoping for appropriate action from “others” in addition to any CofE discipline; in 2022 he seems perfectly content that CofE discipline was the only past action taken.
There is far more that could be said about the scandalous toleration of Dr Sizer by the leaders of conservative evangelicalism. But it has already been said, by James and me, in our 2021 article “A Lesser Bigotry? The UK Conservative Evangelical Response to Stephen Sizer’s Antisemitism”. This was published in the Journal of Contemporary Antisemitism, which is the leading academic journal on the subject.
The actions of John Stevens and other leaders are discussed in that article. Neither John, nor any other leader mentioned, nor any evangelical organisation mentioned has responded publicly to that academic journal article. If someone had told me fifteen years ago that British evangelicalism would deservedly feature in a 2021 article in the Journal of Contemporary Antisemitism, I would have been horrified. But if I’d been told that none of the evangelical leaders or organisations mentioned in the article would publicly engage with it, I would have refused to believe that could possibly be true. I would have assumed that the desire of evangelicals to pursue friendly relations with the British Jewish community, on the basis of the second great commandment, “Love your neighbour as yourself” (Mark 12:31), would have stirred them to respond publicly to the article—whether acknowledging fault and apologising, or graciously disputing the account. But nothing of the sort has happened.
Hasn’t the time come for British evangelical leaders, including the National Director of the FIEC, to acknowledge that they have tolerated antisemitism, and repent?
Church Discipline in the FIEC
In a recent FIEC podcast, John revealed that Stephen Sizer “has been in membership of an FIEC church.” John went on to say:
“Inevitably as a result of this tribunal and its decision, the church wanted our help to think about how it should properly deal with Stephen Sizer in membership pastorally and appropriately. So we found ourselves in the situation of having to provide support and advice to the elders of a local church. It’s their responsibility, they’re an independent church, but we as FIEC exist to provide help and support. And so it was crucially important for that church to understand what the tribunal had decided, what it had concluded about Stephen Sizer and his behaviour. So from an FIEC perspective we’ve had perhaps more need to understand this judgment and its implications because of that particular situation.”
The involvement of the FIEC in the disciplinary process means that John’s assessment of the tribunal verdict is critically important to the progress of this scandal. His assessment that the tribunal’s findings “definitively state that Stephen is not anti-semitic or racist” will no doubt guide Dr Sizer’s church as it considers what kind of church discipline is necessary. John has already indicated in his email to me that removing Dr Sizer from church membership is barely worth consideration:
In the light of the Tribunal findings, which definitively state that Stephen is not anti-semitic or racist (para 115), but which rightly judge some of his conduct to have been offensive to the Jewish community and his FB link of 2015 to have constituted anti-semitic activity, and in light of his apology and disciplining by the Bishop of Guildford in 2015 for this incident, and his unequivocal acceptance of this Tribunal judgement and further apology for any offence he has given, I think it very unlikely that there are any grounds for his excommunication (which in an independent church contexts means declaring that you no longer accept a person is a believer in the Lord Jesus and hence disqualified from church membership) at this point. [Emphasis added.]
Church discipline in the FIEC, as John said in the podcast discussion, is a matter for the local church. It’s an extremely sensitive process that should be carried out in the fear of the Lord and with his leading. I do not claim to know how Dr Sizer’s church should discipline him. Nonetheless, the following three points can be made. (If John, who has been personally criticised for his role in the Sizer Scandal, is involved in the process, as he indicated in the recent podcast episode, then it seems more than appropriate for me, a British Jewish evangelical, to offer some advice of my own.)
1. In the quote above, John speaks twice about Dr Sizer apologising for his antisemitic activity. But unless I’m mistaken, Dr Sizer has never apologised directly to the Jewish community. Christians believe that forgiveness and reconciliation are person-to-person matters. An apology uttered into vacant space is effectively meaningless from the Christian perspective. Dr Sizer should apologise directly to the Jewish people.
2. Dr Sizer’s apology following the tribunal verdict uses the formula “for the hurt and offence caused”. Any seasoned apology-watcher will instantly identify this as a very limited expression of remorse. It leaves open the possibility that Dr Sizer personally thinks the “hurt and offence” experienced by the Jewish community was falsely manufactured for political purposes. Dr Sizer takes the view that what he calls “the Israel Lobby” has “weaponised” antisemitism to shield Israel from attack. Such an outlook suggests he gives little credence to supposed Jewish “hurt” and “offence”. To give just one example, after an academic was recently ousted from Sheffield Hallam University, Dr Sizer posted this comment on his Facebook page:
Dr Salama had (among other things) praised the 1978 Coastal Road Massacre, a bus hijacking in which 38 Israeli civilians were killed, including 13 children. If Dr Sizer characterises the hurt and offence experienced by Jewish people in response to Dr Salama’s conduct as a “campaign” designed to “hound out” a political opponent, does he truly care about the “hurt and offence” he has himself caused? To apologise for it arguably costs him nothing when he can privately and not-so-privately ridicule it as a disingenuous “weapon”.
A meaningful apology, the kind that accompanies true repentance, is one that is openly willing to acknowledge personal responsibility for wrongdoing. We would expect an adulterer going through a church discipline process to acknowledge that he or she was guilty of adultery. Similarly, Dr Sizer must publicly acknowledge that he was guilty of antisemitic behaviour and that what he did was wrong. It’s true that he has accepted the court’s conclusions, but it’s possible to accept them in the sense of agreeing to live with them. True acceptance would be demonstrated by a willingness on Dr Sizer’s part to publicly say that he did what the tribunal said he did: namely, he engaged in indefensible antisemitic activity. This is what Dr Sizer must now do.
3. We’re warned in James 2:14–17 that faith without deeds is dead. James uses the illustration of a believer expressing good wishes to a poorly-clothed, hungry brother without doing anything to help him. In relation to church discipline, this should make us slow to accept fine-sounding words without commensurate behaviour. Dr Sizer has always vehemently maintained that he’s not antisemitic, but he’s just been found guilty of antisemitic conduct. What he says about antisemitism hasn’t always matched his activity. For that reason, a sound church discipline process should include a stipulation that Dr Sizer will undergo antisemitism awareness training, conducted by a mainstream Jewish community group, so that he finally learns what it would actually mean to bring his deeds into line with his words.
If Dr Sizer, or someone in a comparable situation, were a member of the church that I pastor, I would have no hesitation in stipulating the three steps discussed above (an apology to the Jewish people; an apology taking personal responsibility for engaging in sinful antisemitic activity; and enrollment in antisemitism awareness training) as conditions for ongoing membership. Surely any true believer found guilty of antisemitic activity would eagerly comply with the three mild conditions outlined above, rather than face excommunication—which, as John Stevens rightly says, indicates that the church in question no longer regards the disciplined individual as a believer in the Lord Jesus.
A further reason for making such stipulations is that the tribunal verdict itself casts doubt on the reality of Dr Sizer’s repentance. The verdict says that the tribunal “formed the view that despite repeatedly saying that he was contrite, he showed scant evidence of being so.”
FIEC churches are independent. But John told me in his email that “The FIEC Trust Board already has the power to disaffiliate churches for any reason, and would take action against a church that was shown to have failed to deal with proven racism, including antisemitism.” I don’t speak on behalf of any Jewish community group. But I have no hesitation in saying that British Jews (including Jewish believers in Jesus as Messiah) would regard Dr Sizer’s church as utterly naive if its disciplinary process lacked the three conditions spelt out above. It would be regarded as yet another example of the toleration of antisemitism—which, as James Mendelsohn and I keep saying, is itself a form of antisemitism. And if the FIEC were to give its blessing to a process lacking those conditions (by refusing to disaffiliate the church), it would be considered even more naive and even more antisemitic than the church it was advising.
Rev’d Nick Howard
Good Shepherd Anglican Church, New York City
Postscript
The email from John Stevens discussed in this post was marked “private and confidential”. I replied immediately to tell John that I had never agreed to enter into any private and confidential correspondence with him, and I therefore did not consider myself obliged to keep his email secret. While I may face criticism for writing a public post instead of pursuing behind-the-scenes engagement, the quotations from John’s email in this post show that he was telling me his decisions rather than opening a dialogue. He made it abundantly clear that he wasn’t seeking my input or the input of the Jewish community. During the past few years, whenever I’ve reached out to John in connection with this antisemitism scandal I’ve found his attitude unyielding. My considered opinion was that nothing would have been gained from further personal correspondence.
