Why is it that I still cannot reconcile with Grace Evangelical Church?

Why is it that I cannot, even now after all this time, forgive John Tredgett, John Crosby and Malcolm Noble?

Every communion service that goes by it is a pain to me that this sore place still exists. I am anxious to avoid offending the Holy Spirit by any illegitimate unwillingness to forgive. 

I do not believe however in the therapeutic and unilateral idea of Christian forgiveness. Nor does God. Forgiveness requires two parties and it requires that one of the two parties has committed real sin and wants to repent of it and be forgiven for it. It does require confession of the reality of the sin.

I have in good faith tried all the means that I can think of to endeavour to find a way forward towards forgiveness and reconciliation. I have endeavoured to closely follow Jesus' instructions in Matthew 18:15-20 and Matthew 5:21-26. These 3 men certainly have not followed the instructions of these passages despite my calls on them to do so and genuine opportunities to do so.

My main gripe is that when these men knew that their position with regards to the conversation overheard by my wife was going to cause massive problems for me they took no effort to clear up the problem. They are still making no effort whatsoever to clear up the difficulties that I have gone to such lengths to try to explain. The right and Christian approach to a disagreement with regards to the facts of a situation is to try to clarify the two sides and try to sort out the difficulties that exist between the two different narratives.

A Christian does not seek ambiguity and vagueness in this type of situation. All the relevant facts need to be brought out to try to shed light on the causes of the narrative fracture.

There was no serious attempt made to help me and my family to get a good understanding of what the situation was. 

There was a mysterious amnesia that affected all the participants in that overheard conversation. There were (at the very least) some deeply mysterious things said about it. 

There are now some clearly acknowledged facts that have an important bearing on the situation.

1. It is clear that there was a wider attempt to discredit my position by using a "concern" about my mental health.  This issue was never discussed openly with me as a serious problem with regards to my preaching and teaching though it did become a serious matter in the church meeting(s) where my resignation was accepted.

2. The overheard conversation was real and not imaginary. Mr and Mrs Noble acknowledge that it did exist and John Tredgett acknowledges that it may have existed though he claims he has no recollection of it whatsoever. No one is now maintaining that Linda made up the situation to which she bore witness.

3. It is clear that John Tredgett does know that he invited Mr and Mrs Noble to the church meeting that evening - the same evening on which the overheard conversation took place.

4. It is clear that Malcolm Noble's claim to know nothing whatsoever about what was going on amongst the church members up until the first members meeting is not true. The Nobles needed to know that they would have a welcome at the members meeting and not a public rebuke.

5. It is clear that Malcolm Noble had a role in remarkable transformation of the views of the two elders and the church members with regards to my preaching and teaching.

6. There is a real issue with regards to John Tredgett's statement which he made after claiming to have spoken to Audrey Noble - "I've just checked with Audrey to see if she recalled the conversation. Either we are both going mad or the conversation didn't take place."

7. You do not rebuke a woman for overhearing a conversation that you claim did not happen.

The only way back that the two remaining elders are willing to contemplate requires that I withdraw all my allegations about untruthfulness before any further discussion can take place. In other words I must agree to their narrative prior to any attempt to try to work out what really did happen.

Christians have a duty to cling to the truth above everything else. I do not believe it is appropriate to sweep these things under the carpet and pretend they did not happen. They are serious problems and they do need to be dealt with properly.

My Approach

 

Please use the links above to view the relevant pages 

My Approach

 I feel a strong imperative in these words of Jesus in Matthew 5:23-24:

23 Therefore if you bring your gift to the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, 24 leave your gift there before the altar, and go your way. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift.

The New King James Version (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1982), Mt 5:23–24.

I feel that I have not taken these words seriously enough and I feel that they are wonderful words!

This strong imperative was initially especially in relation to the events that have occurred in the last year.

This was perhaps the most significant year of my life thus far...well it felt like that anyway!

In relation to these events I have used some pretty strong language about people who for many years I had regarded as close friends:

hostility, rebellion, injustice, lying, perjury, evasiveness, ‘attacking’ Linda, accusing Linda of lying, undermining my authority, gaslighting, hypocrisy, haughty and vengeful.

When I look at the list I confess it is a pretty shocking set of words to use! Were they appropriate? Have I been unjust and untruthful? Was my behaviour appropriate? Perhaps most importantly what would I do if I could relive a year with the benefit of hindsight?

With regards to me using this strong language John has said:

• that all these allegations are untrue (and therefore that I am in breach of the 9th Commandment regarding all of them)
• that I have been guilty of smearing the good names of people with unsubstantiated and untrue allegations which I have the duty to substantiate

I said to John that I thought that there was a number of things that we agreed about.

John is keen that I should publicly repent and retract all of them and make this clear to everyone who has become involved.

Many people are of the view that "least said soonest mended" and that a true Christian should take it all "on the chin" and for the "good of the gospel" simply walk away in silence and leave it all to God to sort out.

I have thought long and hard about this and I am convinced that all of that thinking is totally unbiblical and mistaken...and in the end to do that would be 

• a failure of true love which does include an element of public rebuke 

and 

• disobedience to the clear commands of Christ which specify the process of reconciliation or escalation in Matt 18:15-20

I know that I am going against the grain here but I am convinced that this is right.

Our duty is to seek to correct to the realities we will face at the day of judgement before we get there when it is too late to correct anything.

I want to do this however with a good heart. I want to learn to argue well. I want to learn to deal with difficult situations rightly in a way that pleases God and seeks the true good of my neighbours.

I know many will say that it is all sour grapes... it is a "hurt person hurting people". It is giving a voice to bitterness. It is displacing God's role in vindication with an attempt of your own.

My problem is that I believe that doing nothing when professing Christians refuse to deal with dishonesty is not an option. My understanding of the Mat 18 passage implies that the telling to the church is not limited to a single local church that refuses to deal with the sin. There is a clear duty to expose sin where an individual or local church refuses to deal properly with it.

So ...my heart is for peace and reconciliation but it must be on the foundation of truth and justice.

I hope we agree to these principles:

1. that we have a clear duty to seek some kind of reconciliation based on these verses (Matt 5:23-24)

2. that we are agreed that this must be on the basis of truth and justice.

3. that all that is not in accordance with truth and justice needs to be repented of and forsaken and that this would involve making the situation clear to all 3rd parties who have become involved as far as this can be reasonably performed.

4. that if there is no repentance for clear examples of the bearing of false witness or slander etc then church discipline is required.

5. that sooner or later truth and justice will prevail and it would be greatly to the honour of Christ and the good of his church that it be sooner rather than later.

I have tried to adhere to these principles.

Obviously the comments are open to clarify any points that need to be clarified.

I want to get a right heart about all this. I want to please the Lord in seeking a right heart and attitude and repent of and retract anything that is sinful, unjust and unfair.

The available pages are listed below as well as linked above:

• The attempt to avoid having to make this information publicly available
• The 3 outstanding problems that need to be resolved satisfactorily.
• The logical structure with regards to the overheard conversation
• A timeline
•  John Tredgett’s views of my preaching 3rd July 2023
• The Original Summary Document
• A covering letter - From Alan Pallister a retired missionary.
• Possible reconciliation?