A suggested Church Court case against John Tredgett

 A suggested Church Court case against John Tredgett and GEC

 If I were able to confront John before a church court as if in the presence of Christ the final judge of all, I would want to say something like this. 

1.      In receiving and giving credence to a charge against a preaching elder and pastor you have a duty to be very clear what the charge actually refers to. You have accepted vague suggestions that something is seriously wrong with my preaching without specifying precisely what it is. You with Dr John Crosby have raised an accusation against my preaching on 14^th December that I have failed to fulfil the apostolic imperative in Acts 20:28 and you maintain that “the feeding of the body of Christ has been seriously affected.” You maintain that this charge is brought by a band of people including yourselves but which numbers (at the highest count) 18 people. You have refused to name them or give any details with regards to their complaint. You have maintained on 20^th December that “something is not quite right with my preaching” without identifying what this “something” is. 

2.      You changed your stated views of my preaching rather abruptly in the days leading up to the meeting at which my resignation was announced and accepted by the church. The impression was given at that meeting that you had concerns which are incompatible with the letter of support which you signed with Dr Crosby on November 10^th 2023. At that time you wrote that:

We have undergone much soul-searching, prayer and consultation over the last few months, and our joint conclusion is that the changes in Andrew’s preaching over the last eighteen months have been of the Lord. We acknowledge that new ground is being broken, but that the course Andrew is pursuing remains biblical and worthy of our support. (10^th November statement)

There was only 1 sermon preached (and this in rather exceptional circumstances) between the statement above on November 10^th and the incompatible statements on 14^th and 20^th December:

159 Regarding your current situation, and writing from a position of deep respect, I would urge you to prayerfully consider the Apostle Paul’s exhortation to the Ephesian Elders (Acts 20:28). In my opinion, until recent times, you fulfilled that request with some distinction. However, since then this (sadly) has not been the case.

 When fed the spiritual food which is ‘convenient’ for the believer, they will grow in grace, or to use another metaphor, they will be edified and ‘built up in their most holy faith’ (Jude, v.20). This was, I believe, the outcome of your ministry until recent times.

When you informed us of your studies, I was greatly encouraged and hoped they would lead you to a deeper understanding of the scripture and enhance your ministry. With great sadness, I do not think this has been the case. As a consequence, the feeding of the body of Christ has been seriously affected. Whatever the future in the Lord’s will holds for you, I respectfully urge you to consider these matters. (14^th December statement)

 

Eighteen people. Christians, brothers, sisters, church members, ministers of the gospel with literally hundreds of years' combined experience between them in listening to sermons. Many have never even met each other. Yet they all share concerns about Andrew.

 I've asked myself, have they all simultaneously gone mad? Or been deceived? Or become possessed? If not, the only alternative seems to be that something is indeed not quite right with Andrew's preaching, and which has elicited this widespread response. (20^th December)

3.      Your sworn statement of denial of the reality of the conversation that Linda overheard seems to me to be incompatible with

(a) the testimony of Linda and Bryony Rowell who were eye witnesses.

(b) the statement of Malcolm and Audrey Noble in their initial letter.

(c) the more recent acceptance by Audrey Noble that the conversation did take place together with the acceptance by Audrey’s daughter and son-in-law that the conversation did take place.

(d) the “serious matter” that you raised about Linda eavesdropping on this conversation which you maintained did not happen.

(e) You maintain that you never thought that Linda was lying but you gave me a clear choice between either believing that the conversation did not take place or believing that both you and Audrey were/are mad:

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.

 Given that you did not think that Linda was lying and that you did not believe that you and Audrey were mad what exactly was your belief about Linda and what exactly were you saying that I should believe about her and my daughter’s testimony? Given that you maintain that you have no recollection of the conversation whatsoever, it seems to me that you are saying that you gained your certainty about the conversation’s non-existence from Audrey who is now saying that the conversation did take place. You have failed to take action to clear up what you knew was causing serious issues for the individuals concerned and for the church.

(f) There were facts in the overheard conversation which I maintain that Linda could not have gained access to if it was not through the reality of that conversation. I heard these on the evening of the conversation and bear witness that Linda did not know of them prior to that evening.

4.      You maintain:

Across the two documents there are various allegations (concerning myself or others) of hostility, rebellion, injustice, lying, perjury, evasiveness, ‘attacking’ Linda, accusing Linda of lying, undermining your authority, gaslighting, hypocrisy, and of me ‘assuming leadership’.

You have also verbally slandered me as ‘haughty’ and ‘vengeful’.

You say:

I hold all of these accusations / claims to be untrue and smears on the good name of those concerned.

You state that:

 

The burden of proof is upon you, as the accuser, to substantiate these accusations rather than for me to refute them, yet you have not done so in any of your documents. Are you therefore prepared to retract and repent of them?

Thus you hold that my attempts to bring careful charges with specific evidence are actually multiple instances of false witness yet you raised no objection with the elders of Carlisle Baptist Church when I informed you of my application to become a member there though you knew that I maintained that my allegations were true and based on sound evidence.

You deny that I have brought proof (despite that fact that the substance of the evidence comes from your own emails) yet you refuse to allow for any third party assessment of the soundness of the charges that I have brought.

 

5.      You gave strong support to the idea that there were serious concerns about my mental health and suggested that there were grounds for concern that I may commit suicide.

6.      You took action to remove Jess Stephens, Linda, Maree and Bryony Rowell from church membership with inappropriate haste and in such a way as to cause deep and unnecessary pain.

7.      You maintain all this and yet you are adamant that no third party be allowed to examine the whole situation and provide suggestions for a suitable resolution. You insist that I must withdraw charges (that I believe to be true and based on sound evidence) prior to any future steps for possible reconciliation. This seems to me to be in flagrant disobedience to the command of Christ to seek reconciliation as an even higher priority than public worship.

8.      You are refusing any third party mediation on the basis that this is a local church matter when it clearly involves the church where we are now members and any other churches that invite me to preach. You have made agreement with your false view of reality a precondition to any reconciliatory process:

 

On the subject of reconciliation, it is unquestionably a good and godly aim. It would be wonderful if better relations between you and those at GEC could be achieved. I (and John C) are willing to meet up and talk face to face to help further that end - but it must be preceded by a retraction of the false accusations concerning ourselves, particularly the claims that we have acted 'at odds with truth and justice', and that John T is guilty of lying or gaslighting.

Without these retractions, there is no basis for just or meaningful interaction, whether in writing or in person.

In addition, we will not be getting into any further discussions about the nature of your preaching. Much discussion already occurred about this last year, and we consider the matter closed.