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:
(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.)
A Christian has a basic duty to try to heal broken narratives by providing the facts that would clear up the confusion and begin to restore the damaged trust that such a broken narrative inevitably causes. This could and should have been done in this situation. The refusal of external mediation should act as a warning to impartial observers that something rather odd went on here. It did.
ReplyDelete