This is available as a PDF here.
The 3 problems
1. The overheard conversation
2. The problem with my preaching and teaching
3. The dramatic switch in the view of John Tredgett and John Crosby
with regards to my preaching and teaching.
1. The overheard conversation
The people involved with the original situation:
John Tredgett
Audrey Noble
Malcolm Noble
Linda Rowell
Bryony Rowell
The people involved in the background and subsequently:
Jonathon Heaton
Ruth Collins
Janet and Matthew Vogan
The background to the conversation
The difficulties that lie behind the conversation are the
interactions between John Tredgett and Malcolm and Audrey Noble.
Malcolm and Audrey Noble were not church members at GEC.
They were attending at the Lords table and Malcolm was occasionally helping
with the preaching. Malcolm was preaching elsewhere where it was known that he
was regularly attending GEC, attending the Lords table at GEC and was
occasionally preaching for us. In other words they were being treated as godly
Christians in good standing.
I was putting pressure on Malcolm and Audrey to make a clear
decision about church membership and their involvement at GEC. They were giving
reasons why they could not become members with us and were resisting my
encouragement to commit.
Malcolm and Audrey along with their daughter Elizabeth and
Philip and Jean Slater expressed deep hostility to my “Peace Child” Christmas
address. Elizabeth and Philip and Jean Slater left the church mainly/partly
because of this address. Other people were very interested, one visitor
sufficiently so that they purchased the book themselves read it and passed it
on to someone else.
Malcolm and Audrey were attacking the changes that had
occurred in my preaching since the Summer of 2021.
Malcolm and Audrey had spoken to me about their concerns and
we disagreed quite seriously and forthrightly about these changes (though at
this point nothing had been said about future preaching engagements at GEC).
Malcolm and Audrey had spoken with Steve and Val Glass (who
were church members) about their concerns about my preaching and found that
there was considerable agreement between them in their opposition to the
changes in my preaching. It is my view that Steve and Val Glass were confirmed
and strengthened in their opposition to my preaching by this interaction.
During the days prior to the meeting at which my resignation
was due to be announced John Tredgett and John Crosby were undergoing an
extraordinary switch in their expressed views of my preaching and teaching.
As a result of this switch of allegiance I believe John
Tredgett decided to take the unusual step of inviting Malcolm and Audrey to the
special church members meeting at which my resignation was to be announced to
church members.
I had given what I thought was the agreed wording for a
resignation statement to the church members to be announced to them at a church
members meeting.
I had offered to be present or to be absent according to the
views of the two Johns. At this point I trusted them completely to act in an
honourable manner.
The reason why Malcolm and Audrey were invited was because
they were key participants in the expression of hostility to my teaching and
preaching. It is clear that they were being given a friendly and supportive
invitation. It is my view that they understood that the reason for their invitation
was because of their position with regards to my preaching and teaching and
this viewpoint was now favoured by the two remaining elders.
The two remaining elders did not consult with me about this
special invitation and they must have known that if I had been aware of this
invitation to Malcolm and Audrey I would have insisted on being present at the
“church members” meeting. The two remaining elders did not inform me that this
invitation had been given either before the “members meeting” or after it. John
Tredgett simply described the meeting as “a church members meeting” he told me
afterwards that “all the members were present apart from Joan Crosby” failing
to mention the two non-members who were also present.
John Tredgett knows that he was told on the evening of the
19th November 2023 that Malcolm and Audrey would be attending the
meeting on the following day. He knows he was not surprised when they turned up
to the meeting. He knew they were coming and he knew and knows that he became
aware of this somehow during the evening of 19th November 2023.
On 24th October John Tredgett invited Jonathan Heaton (Crown
Heritage Christian Trust – Edward Street) for lunch - on 13th November John
Tredgett changed the date of the meeting with Jonathan Heaton from 14th
November to 24th November.
Jonathon Heaton responded to my query about a possible plan
to join up with the Crown Heritage Christian Trust with:
No sir, there are not any agreements or
promises other than possible pulpit supply (and there are no dates for that
either at all).
The only mention about Crown Hall Trainees
was John Tredgett asking about the possibility of preachers, but I expressed to him that I wouldn’t
even know what students we will get at Edward Street (whether guys or girls and
if guys, whether preachers
or not) until the new term next month.
(Subsequent to my resignation Edward Street Baptist Church
did help with pulpit supply -Malcolm Collins and Philip Slater- this has now
been withdrawn)
The conversation itself
This is what Linda overheard after the evening service on 19th
November 2023:
Audrey: He is very good with
children
John: Oh...Is he American too?
Audrey: Yes. He is from the
Crown Heritage Trust.
[Gap – during which Linda was preparing
to leave the building so as to not hear any more]
John: We will have to wait and
see what happens at the meeting tomorrow.
The aftermath
A possibly mistaken mental interpretation
This was my initial
(and possibly incorrect) description of the conversation:
Audrey was also overheard speaking with John Tredgett about a
very suitable man who would be able to help following my resignation. (This was
not my family being nosy and deliberately eavesdropping, it was an accidental
overhearing.) This conversation took place before my resignation had even been
announced to the church members!
I imagined that there would be an acknowledgement that this
was insensitive and inappropriate and that there would be some kind of apology
and this would be water under the bridge. Instead, however, there was an
indignant denial that the conversation (if it existed) was anything to do with
GEC. It is possible that their indignation was, in part, resulting from the
suggestion that they knew about my resignation prior to the church members. They
have adamantly denied having any such awareness.
On 16th December Malcolm and Audrey wrote these
words to me:
We now come to
a very serious allegation of a conversation with John Tredgett and Audrey. NO
SUCH CONVERSATION TOOK PLACE IN RELATION GEC[capitals theirs]. We also state
the fact that we had no knowledge of what was taking place within GEC between
our meeting with Val and Steve and the members meeting on 20/11/23. Your resignation came as a complete surprise and a great
sadness. We do NOT consider that we have been two faced, neither have we
displayed any hostility towards you.
What they now say they meant was something like this:
The meaning of the
conversation that was in Linda’s mind (that there was a connection between the
conversation and my resignation) was not what was in Audrey’s mind.
Audrey only had the idea
that Eli might be a good person to speak at the GEC Key Club. Audrey was not
thinking about preaching at GEC. Audrey had made no connection between the
conversation about Eli and the members meeting at GEC. Audrey was simply surmising
that for some altogether unknown reason Andrew would not be able to preach for
some time because of some difficulty and that she and Malcolm would hear about this
at the members meeting.
Who knew what and when?
Malcolm and Audrey did in fact know more about the “members”
meeting than I did. There had been contact with the two remaining elders in at
least one other conversation in addition to this conversation where they were
invited to the members meeting and the reason for their invitation was given.
Audrey had been in contact with Matthew and Janet Vogan conveying some of what she knew to them later that evening. Audrey had been in contact at
least once with Joan Crosby to express her conviction that my preaching was too
sexually explicit. Malcolm and Audrey knew that they (as non-members) had, for
the very first time, been invited to a church members meeting. They knew that
they had been invited because they were connected to the reason for my
“difficulties”. They also knew that as far as the elders were concerned they now
had no problem with the opposition to my preaching and there was in fact every
encouragement to be given to this opposition. Had I been aware that this
invitation had been given I would have insisted on being present at this
“church members meeting.” Instead of being a simple announcement of my
resignation statement it was a meeting to agree the new position that there
were significant problems with my preaching and teaching. I was told by
John Tredgett both before and after the meeting that it was a church
members meeting. In his email to me to report the outcome John simply
stated “all the members were present apart from Joan Crosby.”
There had been a message from Audrey Noble to her daughter
Janet that Sunday evening after the overheard conversation. As a result of this
message from Audrey to her daughter (Janet Vogan) Janet sent us the following
encouraging message:
Isaiah
43:2
Just
want you to know that we're praying for you both. All we know is that it must
be a dreadfully difficult time for you. Hope you're better soon Andrew and that
the way forward becomes clear and you will hear the Lord saying "this is the
way, walk you in it". Please Please don't tell mum and dad I've messaged.
They'll think I'm interfering but I'm doing it because I do care and have had
blessings at GEC and because I hope there's a bright future for you all in the
Lord's providence. With Christian love and with our prayers Janet xx
There is something rather odd about this Facebook messenger
message from Janet Vogan if it was based purely on speculations about
possibilities. Surely Janet had to know something was happening to me to
send a message like this. In order to reassure ourselves that this was not the
case we have asked to see the message that was sent to her from Audrey but this
has not been forthcoming.
At the so called “angry meeting” with Audrey and Malcolm Audrey
said “We were told….well….We assumed that Andrew would be having a break from
preaching.”
Janet and Matthew Vogan’s explanation of their message was:
Janet and I wondered
if it was a financial difficulty or about the Christian school proposal or
something else. I think you had said something in a previous sermon or service
about the congregation being at a crossroads. We had also all wondered whether
there was some stress or ill health that might mean a temporary break in
your ministry. Whatever it might be, it seemed obvious to us that it would most
likely cause you some difficulty and perplexity. Janet and I simply
concluded that whatever was being discussed, the situation inevitably would be
difficult for you personally.
No such conversation in relation GEC
Malcolm’s and Audrey’s words:
“NO SUCH
CONVERSATION TOOK PLACE IN RELATION GEC”
could be taken to mean:
Option 1: The conversation did not happen
Or
Option 2: The conversation did not happen in the way that Linda and I came to understand its meaning and significance.
This statement is a rather odd thing to say and it really means that Malcolm and Audrey have clear memories of what did happen and know that it did not mean what I was suggesting.
For Option 1 to be the meaning either Linda has to have had some kind of mental aberration that resulted in confabulation or she was deliberately constructing an elaborate pack of lies. Our daughter Bryony was also aware of the conversation taking place between Audrey and John.
Option 2 means that Malcolm
and Audrey do have a clear memory of the conversation and that they are agreeing that the conversation or
something very like it did in fact occur but that our interpretation was
incorrect especially with regards to its connection to the announcement of my
resignation as pastor due to be explained to the church members the next day.
In our
“angry meeting” at Malcolm and Audrey’s home neither Malcolm or Audrey would clearly commit to either of these
positions.
Their confusion and amnesia seemed incompatible with the
very forceful and even indignant denial of the “very serious allegation.”
It was this studied refusal to clear up the matter for us or
help us in any way to clarify what was going on that resulted in my anger and
resulted in me asking that they solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole
truth and nothing but the truth in response to my urgent need to clarify what
had happened.
John Tredgett’s memory lapse
This is an extract from the summary document:
99 Given that Malcolm and Audrey were describing this as “a very serious allegation” I then took this matter up further with John Tredgett by email on Wednesday 20th December [John Tredgett’s responses are in red in his reply that same day]:
Dear John,
Following my last sermon at GEC I wrote to those with whom I
felt aggrieved to explain why.
One of the issues was a conversation that Linda overheard on
the evening prior to the members meeting.
These were the pieces of the conversation she overheard:
Audrey: He is very good with children
John: Oh...Is he American?
Audrey: Yes. He is from the Crown Heritage Trust.
[May have been a gap here]
John: We will have to wait and see what happens at the
meeting tomorrow.
Could you confirm that this conversation took place? No (I assume you are referring to John Crosby).
Could you confirm what was the meeting that was being
referred to? In
light of the above, no.
Could you confirm what Malcolm and Audrey knew about the
situation at GEC prior to the members meeting? I'm
not in a position to do that - best to ask them.
Could you confirm when exactly Malcolm and Audrey
became aware of my resignation? I can't,
but I can tell you that I did not explicitly disclose it to anyone before 20 November.
101 I sent a further email also on 20th December:
John,
Did you have a conversation with Audrey that evening after
the service?
If you did have such a conversation with her, can you think
of any part of it that might have sounded similar to the outline below?
Audrey: He is very good with children
John: Oh...Is he American?
Audrey: Yes. He is from the Crown Heritage Trust.
[May have been a gap here]
John: We will have to wait and see what happens at the
meeting tomorrow.
Andrew
102 John responded on the 21st December:
I may
have had a conversation with Audrey, but to be honest I can't remember if I did
or what the contents were.
103 Subsequently also on 21st December John responded after a
“checking conversation”:
Hi Andrew,
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.
No meetings took place involving myself on
20 November, besides the members' meeting.
Hope that helps,
JT
So according to his testimony John has a complete memory lapse about a lengthy and important conversation. He makes no attempt to help me towards the truth with any useful background information that he was aware of. He does know that he is in discussion with John Heaton about possible preaching cover given that I have resigned. He does know at this point that Malcolm and Audrey did come to the members meeting. He does know that they were invited and given reasons as to why they should attend. Possibly he is the person that they informed that evening (19th November) that they would be coming to the members meeting “out of courtesy to John” (Malcolms words) [Is this John Tredgett or John Crosby?] He does know that he was not at all surprised to see them turn up at the church members meeting.
A checking conversation
Obviously only John and Audrey can illuminate what was said
in that “checking conversation” on 21st December. All I have is
John’s testimony that following this “checking conversation” he came to the
conclusion that he should give me two alternatives:
OR
2. We (John himself and Audrey) are both going mad.
Now John would know that neither of these alternatives were attractive to me. Neither he nor Audrey seemed to be going mad to me but I knew for certain that the conversation did actually take place.
Again there was no attempt to specify that what he meant by this was
(a) that he himself had a total memory black hole about the conversation
and
(b) he himself had actually concluded from his “checking conversation” with Audrey that neither of them were actually mad and therefore “the conversation did not take place.”
Audrey Noble’s thinking
Now with the benefit of hindsight and with the eyes of
charity (given Audreys recent revelation that the conversation did in fact take
place) let’s attempt to piece together what was in Audrey’s thinking at this
point. Her words with her husband in the letter were:
“NO SUCH CONVERSATION TOOK PLACE IN RELATION GEC”
She then spoke words in the
conversation with John Tredgett such that he could conclude and testify that
“the conversation did not take place.”
What was in her mind however was perhaps
something like this:
Audrey’s possible thoughts:
The conversation that did
take place was not about
GEC in the way Andrew and Linda think it was about GEC.
The interpretation that Andrew and Linda made with regards to the
conversation that took place was not correct. The man being referred to is
called Eli. He is from the Crown Heritage Trust. I am keen that Eli should be
invited to speak at the Key Club at GEC because he is so good with children and young people…he
has a real gift!
The “conversation” that
did NOT happen was the interpreted one that Linda and Andrew had in their
heads…. ie That this was about possible preaching
cover for GEC in the future
following Andrew’s resignation.
In other words by “conversation” Audrey actually meant
“mental and verbal interpretation of the words Linda heard” …though Audrey was
speaking about a “conversation” she meant in her mind and heart “wrong
interpretation of the conversation” and by saying “no such conversation took
place” she meant “the conversation did in fact take place (and she
knew that it did in fact take place) but she knew she did not mean what Linda
and Andrew came to think she meant”.
Though John now knew the words of the original conversation
he did not mention them to Audrey.
The possible nature of the checking conversation
Perhaps the ‘checking conversation’ went something like
this:
|
John: Ah hello Audrey.
Andrew is asking me about a conversation that he is worried about. He is
saying that Linda overheard some of this conversation after the Sunday
evening service on the day before the church members meeting you know the one you
told me you would be attending… you in fact told me that same evening that
you would be coming. The problem is that I have no recollection of any
conversation that I had with you and Malcom at all that day…. even though I
know you must have told me at some point that evening that you would be
attending the church members meeting the following day…. Audrey: Ah yes. He has asked Malcolm about that…. We have written and told him “NO SUCH
CONVERSATION TOOK PLACE IN RELATION GEC” What Malcolm and I meant
by that sentence was “A conversation did take place but it was not about what
Linda thought it was about….It was a conversation about Eli coming to help
with the Key Club at GEC…. Don’t you recall that conversation John? John: Err…No…. there
was so many difficult things going on… my memory is in a blur. I know you
told me that evening that you would be attending the GEC church members
meeting but I have no recall at all of any conversation I had with you that
day. Andrew has told me that Linda heard these words:
Audrey: I remember that we talked
about the possibility of Eli coming help at the GEC Keyclub and you remember
that that we told you that we would be attending the GEC members meeting… but
I don’t recall any conversation that took place in relation to GEC do you? John: No… I don’t remember
anything about that evening... How about this solution….I will tell Andrew
that either the conversation did not take place or we are both going mad. Audrey: Yes… hopefully that should
resolve everything completely. |
John did not think to ask about the rather strange caveat
“in relation GEC.” John just took Audrey’s words to confirm that no
conversation at all took place. He combined this information from Audrey with
his own mental black hole where the memory should have been had the
conversation taken place. What exactly did he conclude from this? His words in
the email to me at the time sound like the strongest possible denial that a
conversation took place.
“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.”
John’s view of what happened following the checking conversation
John is now saying that what he
meant was simply “as far as I recall, it didn’t
happen”
However this lack of recollection of
the conversation taking place was confirmed by Audrey in such a strong fashion
that John was able to say:
“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.”
This is more than a personal lack of
recollection this is a combined agreement that they are both absolutely sure
that this conversation did not happen.
John has concluded that there was
nothing actually missing either from his memory or from his recollections of
the evening. He understood that Audrey had the same absence of recollection and
the record that Linda had in her memory was “not
lying” but must be the result of some other kind of mental
implantation or aberration.
Combined insanity?
I am not sure where the alternative
idea of the shared madness of Audrey and John came from. It could have been
either Audrey or John but it sounds as if it was an agreed position. Something
like “We both agree that either we are both going mad or the conversation did
not take place.”
The lack of a willingness to clarify what had happened
Neither Malcolm nor Audrey (despite being well aware of my intense struggle to comprehend what was happening) thought it worth-while to tell me that they did know that a conversation had actually taken place that evening and they were aware that they did have a clear memory of the conversation that did take place.
Audrey and Matthew and Janet Vogan are now agreeing (I think) that this conversation did take place and that Linda was in fact telling the truth about the words she heard all along. They agree that the ‘He’ in the overheard conversation was an American by the name of Eli who was the Crown Heritage Trust intern at Edward Street Baptist Church. They now testify that at the time of the overheard conversation ‘they had no knowledge of what was taking place within GEC between their meeting with Steve and Val on 6th June and the members meeting on 20th November.’ [This must surely be a lie] They claim that the conversation had nothing whatsoever to do with GEC. [This seems a bizarre claim]
Shortly after the “checking conversation”
with John Tredgett, Audrey had a letter from me in which the precise words of
this conversation were conveyed and which contained a full apology from myself
and Linda if we had inadvertently come to the wrong interpretation and a
request that we be forgiven if this was the case. Audrey could at any point
have confirmed that the words of Linda’s testimony were a truthful record of
what in fact took place. Audrey did not confirm this. I only got to hear of her
current version of event via a conversation with Ruth Collins who for a time
was seeking to mediate between us. Audrey took no action whatsoever to correct John’s
mistaken interpretation. Audrey took no action to clarify to me what had taken
place. Both she and Malcolm explicitly refused to do this (in writing) in their
letter of 8th March 2023…. And again in response to my letter of the
13th March.
So in summary what Audrey actually meant was:
(a) No such conversation as interpretated by Linda and Andrew took place. What Andrew and Linda suggested was in our hearts or minds during the conversation which did in fact take place was not what they suggested. It was in fact in relation to the Key Club at GEC (though it was not in relation to preaching at GEC.)
(b) The meaning in my heart as I spoke to John in the checking conversation with him (after which he felt confident to affirm “the conversation did not take place”) was actually “the conversation did take place just as Linda recalled but the interpretation Andrew and Linda made was incorrect.”
I think that the conclusion that Linda and I
reached was entirely understandable. As soon as Malcolm and Audrey denied their
knowledge of my resignation at that point I explicitly withdrew the incorrect
interpretation and simply stated the words that Linda overheard without any
interpretation and asked for clarification with regards to the precise words
that Linda overheard.
In a letter sent 20/12/2023 (this would have arrived after
the conversation with John and after the “angry meeting” that evening):
|
Dear Malcolm and
Audrey, I thought I had
better deal with the very serious allegation as a matter of urgency. If I have drawn
mistaken conclusions then I do most sincerely apologise and ask for your
forgiveness. I said in my letter: “Audrey was
overheard speaking with John Tredgett about a very suitable man who would be
able to help following my resignation.” And “This conversation
took place before my resignation had been announced to church members.” You said: “No such
conversation took place in relation GEC. We also state the fact that we had
no knowledge of what was taking place within GEC between our meeting with Val
and Steve and the members meeting on 20/11/23.” The elements of the
conversation that Linda says she heard on the evening of 19/11/23 after the
evening service are as follows: Audrey: “He is very good with children” John T: “Oh… Is he American? Audrey: “He is from the Crown Heritage Trust.” [a possible gap] John T: “We will have to wait and see what happens at the meeting tomorrow.” Could you confirm the following for me? 1. A conversation did take place that evening (19/11/23) after the service between Audrey and John Tredgett. 2. You recognise that the 4 elements of the conversation were present…not necessarily reproduced here with perfect accuracy but the gist of what was said is correct. 3. The first time you heard about my difficulties was on 20/11/23. 4. None of the 4 elements of the conversation had anything to do with what was happening or might happen at GEC. |
No such explanation has been forthcoming though both Malcolm and Audrey knew that I was desperately troubled about all this.
It has taken over 6 months to get to at least some of the truth about this conversation despite a massive amount of time and effort.
After I had specified the words that Linda overheard to John
and asked him if he recognised anything similar in them that might match
something that he may have been talking to Audrey about that evening John
testifies in an email to me on 21st December that:
“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.”
The accusation of Eavesdropping
On 23rd December John Tredgett sent an email to
Linda containing a rebuke to her from John as an elder of the church with
regards to her ‘eavesdropping’.
It is with reluctance and pain, but I also have to challenge you about
something. As you are still technically a member of GEC, I remain one of your
elders with responsibility for your spiritual wellbeing. Part of an elder's
work is to 'rebuke', as you'll know from Paul's letters to Timothy and Titus.
(2)What I feel I need to challenge you about is eavesdropping.
There were 3 pieces of evidence to substantiate this rebuke.
·
My [John Tredgett’s]
conversation with Audrey Noble about Jonathan Heaton (which Audrey and I
believe you are mistaken about - we both have no recollection of it whatsoever)
·
remarks concerning Phil
Arthur (including 'That was a breath of fresh air') which you
apparently overheard and passed on
·
about a year ago, I
remember you openly saying after a church service (with reference to someone
else's conversation), 'Excuse me for overhearing - I've got big flappy
ears!' It was a strange turn of phrase, so it stuck with me!
The second point was John getting his facts muddled and mistaking where the information had come from. This was in fact nothing to do with Linda. It was from Val Glasses testimony about the conversation she and Steve had with Malcolm and Audrey. It was not with regards to Phil Arthur's preaching but with regards to our son-in-laws preaching.
The third point was simply Linda
being interested in people. It had occurred a long time previously and seemed
entirely and playfully innocent to me at the time. It was Linda being friendly
and concerned about people and their lives. In a relatively small room you
overhear things and (if they are important and interesting) you express your
interest! That was all Linda was doing and anyone who knows her (as John does)
would know that – It is only a sick and poisoned mind that would interpret that
situation as John has done here.
The first and therefore only
substantive point in the rebuke was Linda overhearing things that John and
Audrey say are in a conversation that they have “have
no recollection of whatsoever” and the only alternative to this
conversation not existing is that both John and Audrey are mad. John is happy
however to rebuke Linda for listening to a conversation the existence of which
he has previously denied… knowing that if the conversation took place then he
is in fact insane!
In a phonecall about this rebuke in
response to Linda’s denial of eavesdropping John says
“can
you see how we sort of felt that way…given how much was quoted as it were”
John is saying that he and Audrey feel some kind of resentment about the eavesdropping on a conversation about which they have said the only way could actually exist is if they were both insane! This is a rather extraordinary state of affairs to say the least!
The “misunderstanding”
John Tredgett is now (15th June 2024) saying:
“I’m happy to accept that this
conversation happened, if Linda is sure of what she overheard. I’ve never
thought she’s a liar.”
And:
“I think confusion occurred around the phrase ‘it didn’t happen’. If I ever used those words in isolation, what I meant was that as far as I recall, it didn’t happen.”
Now it is just not possible to substitute the meaning that John says he meant in place of what he actually said:
“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.”
This statement as I understood it at the time was intended
to be the strongest possible assertion that the conversation did not
take place.
According to John’s most recent
explanation this means:
“I've just checked with Audrey
to see if she recalled the conversation. Either
we are both going mad or no memory
whatsoever of the conversation exists in my soul.
This red attempted substitution is an impossible thought.
What can the non-existence of something in John’s memory have to do with Audrey
being mad?
John is not informing me of an agreed position about the non-existence of a memory in John’s head! How can Audrey help in any way to reassure anyone about the existence or non-existence of John’s memories. Audrey (as far as I know) cannot know independently anything about what John can remember or not remember. John’s memory is his own and we have to rely on his testimony alone as to whether there is something in it or not. God knows also… but God has not (as far as I am aware) been involved in transferring this knowledge to Audrey.
There does seem to me to be a clear contradiction here.
John knew of the exact words that Linda overheard....he knew
that these were the words I was asking him to clarify...not any particular interpretation
of those words.
He had a real duty to be careful at that point knowing for certain that he was in a field of interpersonal “land mines.”
What he is now asking me to believe is that there was
a conversation between him and Audrey (providing Linda is sure what she heard….
[She is]) He has no memory of it at all and cannot help me at all with any
background information about it.
Prior to this conversation John knew the precise words that
had been overheard.
John knew that this was of the utmost importance to me and
that precision was imperative.
He is now asking me to believe that after his discussion
with Audrey (who is now saying that the original conversation did in fact take
place as Linda reported it) that his wording to me was entirely appropriate…
that I had a simple choice between combined madness on their part or some kind
of very weird mental aberration on the part of my wife and daughter.
What exactly was he thinking concerning Linda and Bryony at
that point?
He must surely have been thinking this:
“Linda is testifying to hearing a conversation (the words of
which have been reported to me)
I have a complete memory black hole concerning this
conversation (incidentally...does that not bother him at all?)
I have just had a conversation with Audrey.
As a result of things that Audrey has said I feel confident
to affirm that the conversation (the words of which Andrew has told to me) did
not happen or both Audrey and I are mad.
Therefore either I am mad (along with Audrey) or Linda is
testifying falsely (or she has some kind of weird mental aberation)
But he testifies now that he never did think that Linda was
a liar (in an email on 15th June 2024)…
So it seems to me that he was sure that he and Audrey were
not mad and therefore the conversation really did not happen he must have been
concluding therefore that Linda was experiencing some weird mental aberration [note he has already stated that he never
thought Linda was lying]. (If she is mad then it is a very lovely sort of
madness from my perspective and I sincerely hope it is infectious!)
Please know that it was not me that started talking about
people being or going mad!
Apparently I was the first one to start exhibiting these
"madness symptoms" when I warned of the reality of our enemy being
closely involved in what was happening at an early stage in this mess well
before I resigned and all of the fallout of these events took place.
So which is it?
The conversation (as described by Linda) took place or it
did not.
Malcolm and Audrey told me by letter:
NO SUCH CONVERSATION TOOK PLACE IN RELATION GEC
John Tredgett told me later by email
that:
“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.”
In the “angry meeting” Audrey asked me what John thought about the overheard conversation. The tone of voice that she used implied that she herself did not know what John thought about it and she was asking me whether I knew anything about what John thought about it. She had already had the “checking conversation” with John earlier that day and as a result of that “checking conversation” John had already told me that he could affirm “the conversation didn’t take place” I had already got John’s email earlier telling me that he (John) had discussed this with Audrey.
John has now told me that what he
meant when he said “the conversation didn’t take place” was “as far as I recall, it didn’t happen”
The problem with this is that the
choice that I was given was based on John’s conversation with Audrey:
(a) The conversation (At this point John knew the exact words that
had been overheard but Audrey did not) didn’t take place.
(b) John and Audrey are going mad.
John says that he has a mental black
hole with regards to this conversation.
John “checked with Audrey” and as a
result of this checking he gave me the two alternatives above.
Conclusions
I want express my astonishment that it has been so incredibly difficult to get this far and I want to give a sense of my scepticism and frustration that there was no pity or mercy in the hearts of these people to relieve the anguish that was occurring in our hearts as a result of these obviously disputed and controversial accounts of what happened.
Forgetfulness
I can understand and have sympathy with.
Confused memories I can understand and have sympathy with.
It
is the deliberate refusal to clear up this horrible tangle that really angers
me!
Forgetfulness
and confusion are incompatible with these words of Malcolm and Audrey:
We now come to
a very serious allegation of a conversation with John Tredgett and Audrey. NO
SUCH CONVERSATION TOOK PLACE IN RELATION GEC[capitals theirs].
Forgetfulness
and confusion are incompatible with these words of 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.”
This was in to be the strongest assertion that John now knew that the conversation did not take place. Christian compassion and concern for truth is incompatible with leaving someone with the choice that I was left with when the precise words of the conversation were sent to John Tredgett and then later to Malcolm and Audrey.
Getting to the point where the reality of the conversation has now been admitted by Audrey to Ruth Collins has felt to me like trying to get blood out of a stone.
When John Tredgett initiated disciplinary proceeding against
Linda for eavesdropping he said this on 23rd December:
Besides my conversation with
Audrey Noble about Jonathan Heaton (which Audrey and I believe you are mistaken
about - we both have no
recollection of it whatsoever)
This does not seem to be consistent with either Malcolm and
Audrey’s position in their initial letter nor with Audrey’s position which she
has now shared with Ruth Collins or with Janet and Matthew Vogan’s
understanding of what happened.
1. When John spoke with Linda on the 10th January about the disciplinary rebuke he had commenced against Linda the conversation was rather odd. There was no attempt at a denial that the conversation she was accused of overhearing was invented. There was no attempt to claim that the conversation did not take place.
Yer Ok so you are saying you
accidentally overheard Audrey saying…
I could’nt fail to hear it John… I
could not fail to hear it… it was a quiet room there was… I don’t know…I don’t
know who else was behind me there weren’t many because there weren’t many
people at the meeting that night.
Yer and
yunno I have been thinking about this and if you get the bus often… but if you
are sitting on a bus you almost cannot help eavesdropping you just tune in…
so I wasn’t eavesdropping I was
trying to avoid that conversation because it was painful…
can you see how we sort of felt that way…given how much was quoted as it were
From the 23rd December John is rebuking Linda for eavesdropping on a conversation the existence of which he has previously denied without asking himself whether there is a problem with this position. He does not try to seek to clear up whether in fact the conversation did or did not take place and what the significance of his denial of its existence means. John is testifying that he is relying on Audrey’s testimony for the conviction that this conversation did not exist. He and she are both looking at the blank space in their memories where the memory should be if in fact the reality that the memory was referring to was part of reality. Audrey had previously given testimony with Malcom that this conversation did not exist in relation to GEC.
If they both felt that they had been eavesdropped upon and yet they were convinced that the conversation had not taken place how can you possibly feel bad about those two things…. Either you feel bad about a conversation that someone eavesdropped into OR you feel bad about a conversation that someone is saying that you took part in which did not in fact happen.
Either the conversation took place
or it did not. (we believe it did…Linda heard and saw it, Bryony was aware of
it and there was information in it that Linda could not have got from anywhere
else)
Either Malcolm, Audrey and John have
some memory of it or they do not.
Either they know that this
conversation makes some connections with the other realities that they do
recall or not.
Either they want all this cleared up
properly or they do not.
Either they recall the invitation to
the members meeting or they do not.
Either they recall the context of
that invitation and the deliberations about whether they should go or they do
not.
Either Malcolm recalls what he said
at the members meeting and why or he does not.
Either they believe Linda’s
testimony to be the truth or they do not.
These should not be complicated realities for any sane adult… let alone a professing Christian who is determined to follow Jesus Christ who says that he is “the truth”.
The issue is that they were willing
to think about a situation of eavesdropping without any apology about the
previous denial that the conversation that was eavesdropped upon existed. As
Andrew Wheeler pointed out… it is as if John T wants it both ways. He wants to
think that the conversation did not happen and he wants to rebuke Linda
for listening to it as well. He is now willing to believe her testimony
about it but is unwilling to try to explain any of the tangle of denial and
refusal to clarify.
Am I wrong in thinking that the
responses we received are incompatible with Christians keenly seeking to
correct to the truth?
John also refuses to clarify what took place with regards to what was said in the invitation extended to Malcolm and Audrey to attend the church members meeting and their response indicating that they would be attending John knew and knows that he became aware of Malclom and Audreys intention to attend the meeting. He knows that neither he or John Crosby were surprised to discover them present in the meeting the next day.
Even with the kindest possible interpretation I cannot make
out a scenario which does not put a cloud over the integrity of each of these
three individuals with regards to this matter. If there is a way that all this
can be resolved which removes the cloud and which maintains our confidence in
the nature of truth I would be very glad to hear it.
2.-What is wrong with my preaching?
People Involved:
Malcolm and Audrey Noble
Steve and Val Glass
John Crosby
John Tredgett
Members at GEC
The 16 people unnamed
The 18 people unnamed
The meeting with Steve and Val 3rd July 2023
1. Lacking in exposition.
2. Introductions too long. Overall length too long. Lacking in
pre-meditated well organised language and a measured and orderly approach.
3. Too much time spent on apologetics too great a focus on this
area.
Over emphasis on the importance of language and word
meanings
Over emphasis on the significance of the someone/something
distinction
Focusing too much on the definition of what faith is.
4. Too complicated, too difficult. We need the simple gospel.
5. Too negative
6. Overly emotional.
Notes on meeting with Malcolm and Audrey
Further criticisms
1. The first two thirds of the sermon on 22nd October AM
“should not have been present”. (Val Glass)
2. My attempts to preach evangelistically are missing the main
point… missing God given opportunities. (Val Glass)
“In general terms I am
supporting Steve, Val, Malcolm and Audrey on this issue.”
Dec 5th John Crosby wrote:
The 2 couples may have expressed themselves maladroitly but nonetheless sincerely. They are 4 of 16 people who have expressed problems 6 of whom have left us. You have said yourself that members have a right to express their problems to elders. Would you have preferred they would have left as the other 6 did?
Sunday 14th December 2023 John Crosby provided this assessment (to which John Tredgett said he “largely agreed”):
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.
When I challenged John Crosby about why if the two elders agreed with the criticisms of the two disaffected couples had they not done something about it sooner John responded:
161 I felt time was needed for you to make some adjustments to the
content and expression of your preaching in order to answer some of the
problems which were arising. This did not happen.
20th December
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.
I dare not share with Andrew
the full extent of those who have expressed concerns.
Andrew has already had a nervous breakdown earlier in his life, and I fear that
this would cause another one - if not suicide.
Then combined from 2 emails January 11th 17th2024 from someone outside the church:
The question appears to revolve mainly around your preaching.
The problem developed over a period of time and became more noticeable recently such that he and John C. felt they had to take some action. It wasn't a clear timeline but did suggest at least some months. The question of apologetics was raised. I think this is the nub of the difference between you and them. Perhaps they felt that there was too much emphasis on apologetics for their perception of gospel preaching, and they became out of step with you.
There are 18 people who think that there is something
seriously wrong with my preaching and teaching as a minister of the gospel of
Jesus Christ.
Despite the
fact that this combined testimony was used to influence the flock over which I
was previously the shepherd I am not to be given the names of these 18 people.
Despite the
fact that this combined testimony was used to influence the flock over which I
was previously the shepherd and despite the fact that I am still preaching
similar sermons elsewhere, I nor anyone else is to be told what the problem is
with my preaching and teaching except that it is "to do with
apologetics."
They are
Christians.
They
include "church members".
They
include "ministers of the gospel".
They are
people who between them have "100's of years combined experience of
listening to sermons".
I assume there is an overlap with this description:
The 2 couples may have expressed themselves maladroitly but nonetheless sincerely. They are 4 of 16 people who have expressed problems 6 of whom have left us.
1. What precisely
is the problem that they have identified?
2. Did the
18 people who were interviewed about their views or had their views expressed of
my preaching know that their views were being used to influence the church
against me?
3. Is it a
biblical rule that if you get 18 people to testify against a man's preaching
then it must be deeply suspect? How would that have worked with any prophet you
might name from the bible?
4. Has the biblical injunction of 1Timothy 5:19-20
been faithfully adhered to?
"Do
not receive an accusation against an elder except from two or three witnesses.
Those who are sinning rebuke in the presence of all, that the rest also may
fear."
An
"accusation" (κατηγορία) is at the very least required to be a
specific, verbal, well thought through, and coherent proposition.
It is the
other side to the defence (ἀπολογία).
It is of
the form:
"Andrew's
teaching and preaching is in error because he says X(,Y and Z) and the bible
says A(,B and C.)"
or
"Andrew's
teaching and preaching is in error because he says X(,Y and Z) and the
confession of faith (1689 Baptist Confession) to which he committed says A(,B
and C.)"
[where X(,
Y and Z) is/are erronious teaching(s) as compared with scripture or the
confession]
To say
"seriously affecting the feeding of the flock" without specifying
what it is and without specifying who it is who is bringing the accusation and
without giving the accused elder an opportunity to hear the accusation or make
a defence is both wrong biblically, against all natural justice and totally
cowardly.
John
Tredgett and John Crosby are the church leaders who are presumably the leading
2 witnesses in this case need to put up their case or revise their commitment
to scriptural authority. Evangelical Times Ltd who are also to some degree validating
John Tredgett's position as his employer also need to make clear what their
position is with regards to their views of John Tredgett’s conduct.
To be a teacher
and an elder (or a well regarded evangelical newspaper editor) and fail in this
basic duty of obedience to the apostolic command is an untenable position. The
16 others also need to have their testimony assessed and if they are guilty of
bringing a charge improperly against a minister of the gospel then surely they
do at least need “rebuking before all that the rest also may fear”.
3. The switch in views of John Tredgett and John Crosby.
People involved:
John Tredgett
John Crosby
It was this switch that meant that resulted in 50% of the
church members accepting my resignation and the consequent rejection of the new
approach that I was persuaded was from the Lord.
In a recorded WhatsApp message on 3rd July after
Steve and Val Glass had raised their concerns about my preaching John Tredgett:
[They are saying…] ..your preaching sort of lacking in exposition, and
I just struggle to see this. I kind of sympathise. I mean, I remember the
times, you know, where you were like going through the book of Proverbs or the
book of Luke and Hebrews and, you know, one, one, you know, one passage after
another. And I see how you're preaching has changed a little bit. And maybe
you're, you know, zooming, zeroing in on a particular verse or so. But I don't
think that's necessarily bad practice. Um, you know, like Martyn Lloyd-Jones,
he would do a whole series, wouldn't he, on just one particular verse. So I do
think your sermons, they are scriptural, even if they're not expository in the
way, say others, others do it. Or Steve and Val are used to, you know, exposition
I don't think is sort of on or off. It's more of, um, you know, like a
spectrum. I mean, it's not it's not simply going through a passage, verse by
verse, phrase by phrase. You know, I know like Malcolm's approach is like that,
but you can still have an expository sermon if it doesn't have that approach
We talked about, you know, your apologetics, your apologetic studies
are coming into things more. Okay. Yeah, I see that. I see that obviously your
studies like about language, the nature of language and the whole significance
of the somebody, someone sort of dichotomy. Um, the real definition of what
faith is, I mean, I've been stretched by these things, and I do enjoy preaching
on these things. You know, they appeal to me because I'm into ideas and books
and theories and so on. But I could see how some people would, would miss, you
know, just the nuts and bolts maybe of simpler preaching. Um.
So, I mean, I do think that the church, Christians would benefit greatly from what you're researching, you know. I know in that email I talked about, like, you're mining, you're mining very deeply, and maybe some people are used to sort of shallower depths, as it were, but maybe just the format, the medium to share your findings might be better suited to to writing to a website I think you've mentioned, or articles for ET or a book, you know, rather than the pulpit. I don't know, I'm thinking out loud, really. I'm trying to sympathize with Steve and Val, obviously, but I'm, you know, I'm in your corner. I'm really in your corner. Andrew. I've. And I know Elenor too.
27th October 2023 John Tredgett
I don’t think anyone believes you have taught heresy.
No-one doubts that you have tremendous gifts when it comes to preaching, praying, pastoral care, hospitality, generosity, counselling, and many others. Please keep going!
November 10th 2023
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.
We look forward to the
future in hope, both for you, your family, and for the church you have pastored
faithfully since 2004.
Please note carefully that this implies that the
faithfulness continues to the present moment.
The 2 couples may have expressed themselves maladroitly but nonetheless sincerely. They are 4 of 16 people who have expressed problems 6 of whom have left us. You have said yourself that members have a right to express their problems to elders. Would you have preferred they would have left as the other 6 did?
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.
161 I felt time was needed for you to make some adjustments to the content and expression of your preaching in order to answer some of the problems which were arising. This did not happen.
162 The remaining elders knew that I strongly disagreed with the criticisms and was refusing to change to fit in with their requirements. John Crosby was not waiting to see if I changed – he knew I was determined NOT to change the content of my sermons unless they brought proper biblical reasons why I should change my convictions.
163 If the other elders had real concerns between themselves that had not been mentioned to me why were these not expressed in the letter on 10th November 2023.
164 So, in summary, over a very short period the 2 remaining elders radically changed their expressed views of my preaching and sermons. The new views of the remaining elders of my preaching only reached me after my resignation. [and after the members meeting that included Malcom and Audrey.]
----------------
I believe deeply in the reality of people changing their minds. This is was repentance is. This issue is that we need to be clear what is going on and why.
I believe that we do get things wrong and when we get things wrong it is really good if we realise it and work out why we went wrong and try to put things as right as we can.
The issue that I have is the close association between my resignation and the change of view about my preaching.
It seems to me that if I had not resigned my preaching would have been fine and dandy. I did resign and at that point my preaching became a serious problem and therefore it was good for the church that I had resigned! The church needed to agree with the view of my preaching which was being pushed by Steve and Val and Malcolm and Audrey.
It seems to me that this was a matter of authority and about who was in charge of deciding whether my preaching was suitable or not and how that decision is to be made.
There was no attempt to argue a position biblically. There is still no attempt to argue a position biblically. We say in our statements of faith that the Bible is our supreme rule in all matters of faith and doctrine but in practice we deny this.
GEC with its current leadership are failing to follow the scriptures here.
If their current views are correct then they need to be
scripturally substantiated.
If their earlier views were correct then they need to repent
of this dishonourable switch.
It is deeply and painfully unbiblical to raise serious
issues about a teacher’s views and his preaching in one local church and
suggest that all is well so long as he preached and teaches elsewhere. If his
preaching and teaching is suspect in one local church and he is preaching and
teaching the same stuff elsewhere it has got to be wrong there too… and they
need to have the courage of their convictions and say so and do the work of
proving it.
What are the key questions that need to be addressed?
The overheard conversation
1.- Who
decided that Malcolm and Audrey should be invited to the church members
meeting?
2.- What
reason were Malcolm and Audrey given as to why they were the only non-members
to be invited?
3.- What was
said between them and whoever invited them about their role in the meeting?
4.- What did
Audrey say to John (who knew the precise wording of what Linda overheard) in
the checking conversation such that he felt confident (while never believing
that Linda was lying) to say that the conversation that Linda was insisting
took place “either did not happen or both he and Audrey were going mad.”?
5.- Is this
kind of memory loss normal? (ie that resists any attempt to be revived and
lacks interest in any related memories so as to build a proper functional
picture of what really took place.) If it is real it seems a very hazardous type
of memory loss for someone involved in church leadership.
The problem with my preaching
1.- What
exactly is wrong with my preaching and teaching?
2. Who are
the people who are bringing this charge other than the 6 people at GEC (John
Tredgett, John Crosby, Steve and Val Glass and Malcolm and Audrey Noble? A
total of 18 people are referred to. They each need to specify what the problem
is that they have identified.
3.- What
exactly is being done to correct this problem and warn others about it?
The switch in views about my preaching
What new information caused the
dramatic change in their views about my preaching after the prayer and soul
searching which led to an affirmation of my preaching and teaching? People do
not change their minds like this without a reason. If there was a gradual
change culminating in a moment of conviction what do the words that were used
on 10th November mean?
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.
What do I want to happen?
The biblical situation is reconciliation or escalation.
I want them to have to face the truth and own up to the truth and embrace the truth and put this right.
God’s method of grace is to highlight inconsistency and force us to choose between the two stories - the true or the false, light or darkness. Sometimes the truth is deeply painful and traumatic for us but the truth will never do us harm.
The people involved in this attack on my preaching need to face up to what they have said and either do the thing that they started properly or take it on the chin and admit that they made a mess of it.
It is cowardly to pretend that this is a properly settled situation….it isn’t and I can only see more uncomfortable escalation and forced revelation. It seems to me that God himself is entangled with this situation.
As I see it I have a clear duty to defend the integrity of
my wife and the integrity of my preaching and teaching. As I see it those who
have attacked my preaching and teaching have a clear duty to do all they can to
clarify and expose precisely what is wrong with it.
No comments:
Post a Comment