A disgraceful cover up.

John Tredgett knows that he invited Malcolm and Audrey to the key church members meeting without telling me that this was what he was doing. He knew that (had I known that this was what he was doing) I would have insisted on being there and I would have heard the mental health narrative frame being proposed and would have seen straight away what was happening. This whole sorry chain of two faced allegation of serious mental  ill health could have been properly exposed at that point.

Malcolm and Audrey Noble know that they were invited by John Tredgett. They know that they agreed to attend. They know that they actually attended the member meeting although they were not members.

Audrey Noble knows that she admitted to Ruth Collins that a conversation did in fact take place.

John Tredgett claims to have no memory at all about the conversation.

He does know that Malcolm and Audrey were at the members meeting.

He does know that he invited them.

He and Malcolm and Audrey do know that this required a conversation at some point.

He does know that he initiated church discipline against Linda for eavesdropping on a conversation that he says he has no memory of and which he in consultation with Audrey Noble said "Either we are both going mad or no such conversation took place."

These are the facts that need to be faced and dealt with openly and honestly. There is serious sin involved but it is not unforgiveable at present.

If it is impenitently embraced until decisions about eternal destinies are announced I fear that it will then become unforgiveable.

It is a disgrace that no one is willing to press for truth with regards to these events in such a way as the key individuals involved could be brought to proper acknowledgement of the truth.

Reflections

1. If my view on the importance of "magic" and "enchantment" (in the careful way that I employed these terms using C.S. Lewis and Psalm 19) are heretical then there is a proper way of dealing with this. It needs to be done properly, openly with trained competent people involved. For the elders of a church to do a 180 degree flip on this in the space of 10 days or less and then issue a statement that I am "failing to feed the flock" when 10 day prior they were adamant that all was well indicates a failure of conviction, leadership and oversight no matter which of the two positions is deemed correct. This at least should be admitted by all. 

2. For the sake of commitment to the Holy Spirit of truth we do need to know what exactly was intended by this statement by John Tredgett:

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.

(a) We assume that this conversation really did take place and that both Audrey and John reassure one another that Linda imagined this conversation. Their certainty is reported here in the strongest possible terms...the only possible alternative that John can conceive of is that they are both going mad (presumably he means that they are both simultaneously having serious memory problems.

(b) The context of the conversation is important. This is the day prior to an important church members meeting to which Malcolm and Audrey have been given an unusual (and wrong given that I as the main subject of the meeting was not told) invitation to be present. This was the evening on which they confirmed to John that they would be attending. John knows this. Audrey and Malcolm know this.

(c) Malcolm subsequently writes "no such conversation took place" but acknowledges that the allegation that it did take place is "a very serious allegation".

(d) Audrey has subsequently admitted to Ruth Collins that a conversation did in fact take place.

(e) John Tredgett (as a remaining elder) initiated disciplinary proceedings against Linda for eavesdropping on a conversation that he also maintains did not take place. He admits later that this was "heavy handed" but he has not dealt with the main contradiction here.

Either a conversation did or did not take place.

Either John can remember it or he cannot.

Either way he does need to explain the narrative here. This includes the process by which Malcolm and Audrey ended up at the members meeting and why I was not informed of this nor informed of the details of the case that was being built up by the remaining elders for persuading the members that my resignation should be accepted.

3. The way in which "mental health concerns" were an important part of the acceptance of the resignation in that meeting and the way these "concerns" were handled throughout does need to be re-examined. These were important in that meeting and in the case that John Tredgett made but these concerns were not handled appropriately. 

I still maintain that the requirements of truth and faithfulness require that a mutually respected mediator should be appointed to look into how this was handled and whether any lessons need to be learned from this situation. This was what we asked for originally and my convictions regarding this have not changed. We have a broken narrative that is a sore place in the churches and families involved and I fear that lessons have not been learned and that such a situation can recur where an unbiblical doctrine of local church isolationism is adhered to (contrary to the 1689 Confession.)

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.