A PDF of this is available here. This document was composed shortly after the final response on 16th January 2024.
1 This is an endeavour to achieve a faithful account of the events that occurred before and following my resignation from Grace Evangelical Church, Carlisle. If there is anything here which is not strictly accurate, I would appreciate being informed. I will correct any such errors. I will endeavour to communicate such changes to all those to whom I send this document.
2 This is not an attempt to claim that we are entirely faultless in all that we did or that we have full or complete understanding of the events as they unfolded. It is written out of concern that the truth be told and believed in relation to the events as they unfolded. The acceptance or rejection of this account will obviously have a large impact on the future attitudes of all those who read it to us and to the individuals named in this account. We trust that all who read it whatever their decision about the truth or otherwise of its testimony will be left wanting to embrace truth more closely and more definitely reject falsehood.
3 We are all of us sinners. We are all of us prone to err. Every one of us can have no hope in the coming judgement of God except through the life and death of Jesus Christ whom we embrace as the true and faithful witness regarding all that is, all that has happened and all that will yet come to pass. His word will stand fast to all eternity and all words that are in distinction from and opposition to his Words will collapse. It is to his support and vindication that we most solemnly appeal.
4 A timeline of events as we saw them unfold is available in a spreadsheet available if required.
Events leading up to my resignation.
5 This record is made available because:
· 6 to a degree, the relationship of a pastor and the church he pastored for nearly 20 years is a part of the wider church of Christ and the dispute about whether a preacher’s sermons and teaching are faithful to scripture is a matter that does concern the wider Church of Christ.
· 7 to a degree, and regarding certain events and situations our trust in the honesty and trustworthiness of the two remaining elders (John Tredgett and John Crosby) and in one of the leading couples in this surprising conversion process (Malcolm and Audrey Noble) have been completely destroyed. We believe that there have been actual examples of serious dishonesty, perjury, and gas lighting as well as an evasiveness and a lack of precision and clarity which is required for all Christians in leadership situations. This is a situation of real danger for anyone involved. Gas lighting is vicious and heinous.
· 8 we have exhausted all alternative attempts to find a safe solution to this situation which is consistent with truth and natural justice. We have worked very hard to reason and persuade the remaining elders and church members that apart from the mighty intervention of the almighty grace of God the path they have chosen is leading to disaster.
· 9 many people will find it difficult to believe that we are telling the truth because the accusations we are making are so shocking and so out of line with the public images of the people concerned. We are making this a written document so that it is fully open to challenge with regards to our evidence for all that took place. We are only interested in the truth of what happened. If we have recorded anything that is inaccurate or if we are mistaken in any of our conclusions, we are keen to correct these and to ask forgiveness for anything that is not according to the truth, bearing in mind the coming day of God when all secrets will be revealed.
10 Obviously, each reader will have to decide regarding the faithfulness or otherwise of this narrative and the teaching and preaching that was being ministered by the pastor during 2022 and 2023 (and to some degree before that as well) but our respect for truth and justice requires that both sides of the story are told and heard before decision is made.
11 Andrew felt from the beginning that…
· this was an extraordinarily difficult situation.
· our enemy was deeply involved in the events as they unfolded.
· the issues that were at the centre of this situation were deeply significant, deeply important, and deeply relevant to our current cultural crisis in the UK and the rest of the world.
· in many respects the events that unfolded in the church were a clear example of the importance of the subjects that he was studying and seeking to elucidate in his apologetics project.
· God was working in his studies as he studied these subjects theoretically and then causing him to live through these events as a practical demonstration of the importance and relevance of what he had studied.
A period of personal revival and new understanding
12 Our spiritual lives and experience are not always that of gradual and smooth progress.
There are periods and moments of self-revelation and of the revelation of God that transform a person so that it is almost like being born again all over again!
13 Sometimes we are given a new vision of Jesus that we have not seen before, and we can no more doubt that it was Jesus than we can doubt the reality of our own eyes.
For the apostle Peter the sight of a fishing net full of fish would probably reduce him to tears every time he saw it. For the apostle Paul just seeing the sunlight may have done the same.
14 I was certain that:
· a spiritual revival and renewal were taking place in my own life because of my apologetics studies.
· if I knew anything of the work of the Holy Spirit of God, then this stirring up of spiritual intensity and liveliness was his work. I was certain that it was giving me deeper and richer insight into the word of God and a greater appetite for it.
· I was being led along the path of truth – to love truth more intensely and to seek the God of truth more fervently…. yet the very things that were the clearest results of this were the very things to be most strenuously opposed. I had a high regard for those who were opposing me. They appeared to be solid Christians with many years more Christian experience than me and this made the situation more difficult for me to understand and believe… but so it was.
The Peace Child
15 At the outreach Christmas carol service in 2021 I gave an address entitled “The Peace Child”. It was an unusual Christmas address. It focused on the mission work in Western New Guinea, Indonesia through Don Richardson, and the strange practice of these tribes to end an intertribal conflict by the gift of a “peace child”. It was this custom that Don Richardson used to explain the work of Christ as God’s own Peace child. It was this explanation that was one of the breakthroughs in bringing the gospel to these tribes.
16 This address resulted in opposite responses. Some were deeply offended that a traditional account of the birth of Christ was not the focus of the carol service.
17 Another visitor was fascinated by the story, bought the book about the Peace Child, read it and found it thrilling, later giving the book to a friend.
18 I was told sometime later by Malcolm and Audrey Noble that this address was at least part of the reason that their daughter and Philip and Jean Slater left the church (they had declined to give any specific reason for leaving at the time.)
19 No one spoke to me at the time, and it was not until over 2 years later that I discovered these things.
The revelation of the hostility of Malcolm and Audrey Noble
20 After Philip and Jean Slater left the church, I wondered whether Malcolm and Audrey Noble would also leave and expected them to also depart. They did not. Malcolm Noble had been helping occasionally with preaching supply both at GEC and other Churches in Cumbria. Malcolm and Audrey Noble are serious Christians of many years standing and highly regarded by Christians over a wider area.
21 After this I visited them to encourage them to fully commit to GEC and become church members.
As I remember it, the first time I visited I was told that there were problems with the way we conducted the Lord’s table at GEC. Malcom argued that the whole service needed to be focused exclusively on the cross and on the atonement.
We endeavoured to move towards something that seemed like a compromise with which Malcolm and Audrey would be happy and later I met up with them again to discuss the situation.
22 When I visited this time, I received an unexpected and vigorous attack on the preaching that had been done since the summer of 2021.
The complaints were that my apologetics studies were getting in the way of the simple gospel of the cross of Christ.
That my preaching was including non-biblical material for illustrative purposes and for making arguments.
That my preaching was straying a long way from biblical exposition and indicated reliance upon unbiblical content and arguments.
23 The very things that I sensed that God was leading towards were the things they were most hostile towards.
Alexia and Will’s Wedding Celebration weekend
24 On April 15th, 2023, we hosted the wedding celebration of Will and Alexia.
25 I had felt unusual pressure and difficulty in preparing the morning service material for the Sunday following. I knew that there would be more people present (some of them unbelievers). During the week, as a family, we had watched the video of ATP Synthase and been enthralled with it. I decided that I would use this video in the service as it illustrated the sort of reality that makes it impossible to believe that life is something that “happens”. I did not expect everyone to understand it but I was convinced that the right response to it was to marvel at this demonstration of God’s creative power.
26 There was quite a strongly hostile response from some present to the whole service (Val Glass thought that I had wasted a golden gospel opportunity) and to the ATP Synthase video in particular (something perhaps suitable for a “Creation Matters North West” talk…but even then probably way out of the comprehension of ordinary people). It was felt that my evangelistic approach was inappropriate – a departure from presenting the simple gospel…the old, old story of the cross.
27 (This sermon on Deut 30:11-20 was the trigger for our daughter’s song “I choose life, life with my Saviour for ever and ever.”)
28 After the service there were a large number staying for a fellowship meal. In the rather noisy room, a conversation took place between Malcolm and James Chittenden. This seems to have been a much more significant conversation for Malcolm than it was for James. James wonders whether there may be an element of misunderstanding and even mis-hearing in the noisy environment, especially given that Malcolm can have a quiet voice sometimes. Malcolm seems to feel that because of this conversation he was made aware of something very significant that could cause serious family discord if he was to make manifest what he now knew. This may be the basis of his serious concerns over my mental health perhaps.
The revelation of the hostility of Steve and Val Glass
29 A few weeks later I was approached by my senior fellow elder Dr John Crosby. Steve and Val Glass had approached him with serious criticisms about my preaching. This was another couple who are serious Christians and church members in good standing and widely respected). Hardworking Christians, Val had for many years led the work with Mum’s and Toddlers and helped in the Key Club. Steve had recently become the church treasurer. In all other respects apparently loyal to the church and keen to serve the Lord in the work of the church. This has made the experience of their hostility extraordinarily difficult.
30 As John Crosby related their criticisms I became certain that there was an unmistakeable similarity between the criticisms that I had heard from Malcolm and Audrey Noble and those I was hearing being relayed from John Crosby as coming from Steve and Val. Steve and Val were asking for a meeting with all three of the church elders to relate their concerns, insisting that all the elders needed to be present so there could be witnesses of what was said. The suddenness and level of escalation of these concerns was very shocking to me.
31 As Steve had always spoken of himself as being a straightforward ‘face to face’ man I spoke to him on the following Sunday morning saying that I was disappointed to receive these criticisms indirectly. I also challenged him about whether there was a connection between his and Val’s criticisms of my preaching and those of Malcolm and Audrey. I was aware that a visit had taken place by them to the home of Malcolm and Audrey regarding some old cars and felt that this may have been where the criticisms of Malcolm and Audrey could have influenced the language of the criticisms that I had heard from Steve and Val. Steve assured me that there was no connection. I remember coming away from that discussion mystified and rebuked because I thought that I had jumped to a wrong conclusion about the connection between the criticisms of the two couples.
32 Shortly before the evening service that same day, Val asked to speak to me. She explained that there had in fact been a conversation between the two couples on that day at the meal table that was relevant to their criticisms. I felt all kinds of mixed feelings because of this.
33 I was frustrated because I thought that I had made this mistake…but now I realised that I had not made a mistake! I was therefore relieved as well as frustrated. I was also angry because (from the discussion with Va) l I gained the impression that it was Malcolm and Audrey who had led the conversation about the criticism of my preaching. Malcolm had been given invitations to preach regularly in the church and elsewhere as a person accepted at the Lord’s table at GEC and a reliable, godly preacher. Despite him not being a member, this privilege was maintained because he was apparently a deeply spiritual man, widely respected and had come from much difficulty in his previous denomination. I trusted him with the responsibility to preach yet here I was with a sense that he and his wife were involved in undermining my authority with church members.
34 I visited Malcolm and Audrey again expressing my anger and frustration. The impression was given that they had merely agreed with the criticism raised by Steve and Val, and all this was covered over with a veneer of love and kindness and respect.
35 By this time, I really did not know who to believe! I was finding it impossibly difficult to get at the truth of what was going on!
36 In a subsequent meeting Val explained that the lunchtime conversation had diverted into a discussion about my preaching because of a question from Val to Audrey about how she had “got on with Will Frizelle’s preaching”. Audrey had responded with “It was a breath of fresh air.”
37 The way you say something can give words a whole new meaning. Audrey has maintained verbally and in writing that all she meant was “it was a breath of fresh air, the air of heaven which refreshed the soul” she maintains that she “does not see the connection with any other preaching.”
I suspect however that if I said such a thing after listening to a visiting preacher in a situation where I was hearing Malcolm’s preaching regularly then she might hear a different meaning in my words!
Increasing hostility
38 By this point it was becoming clear that both couples were insisting that changes were required in my preaching, or they would be leaving the church. The changes that they were requiring were quite significant and involved the kind of content that was included as well as how long the sermons were in their entirety and how long the different parts of the sermon lasted and how the sermon needed to remain clearly tied to the biblical text at all points.
39 Both couples were clear that the changes that had resulted from what I considered personal revival and revelation from the scriptures were unacceptable and needed to be abandoned. I was determined that God helping me I would continue to follow his leading and preach what I was convinced I was being led to preach.
40 I was not prepared to recognise any kind of veto over what I felt God was giving me to preach from his Word.
41 At this point I began to realise that the support of my fellow elders was becoming rather half hearted. They seemed to have a completely different view of the opposition of these two couples from that which I was persuaded was real and true. It seemed to me that the other two elders were determined that I should make sufficient changes to satisfy the objectors. We were already in a financially precarious position and the loss of two further key couples could leave the current situation non-viable.
42 I was seeing this opposition from the two couples as a matter of disputed authority. For me this was a rebellion against what I was persuaded was the leading and help of the Holy Spirit. The other two elders were seeing it as a collection of relatively small “presentation” issues. Just a matter of “balance” and “emphasis”. A minor disagreement that could simply be smoothed over. Their view was that this was not something worth becoming agitated over – there was nothing that needed to be investigated.
43 I was becoming more aware of a hostile spirit from both couples. This was being shown in words as well as in demeanour.
44 Audrey had complained to Joan Crosby (not to me directly) that my preaching was too sexually explicit. (I had been preaching through Hosea and was trying to get to grips with the relevance of Paul’s teaching about human sexuality in his gospel presentation in Romans 1.)
45 Audrey had spoken after Phil Arthur preached (not in a quiet voice) “I wish we could have this preaching every week” Audrey maintains that there is no problem whatsoever with this sort of comment! Both Audrey and Malcolm feel concerned that I should be worried by comments like this! I suspect that if Malcolm had been preaching consecutively for a number of weeks and then Phil Arthur preached, and I said “I wish we could have this preaching every week” both Audrey and Malcolm might think and feel differently!
46 The Lord’s table is a place of glorious fellowship and sharing in the very life of the Redeemer together…yet what was increasingly staring me in the face was this fracture of fellowship and the reality of hostility.
Bringing the situation to a decision.
47 Eventually after struggling with this for several months, I decided that this needed to be brought to a point of decision. I decided that I would ask to see Steve and Val to discuss this further and then bring this to a head.
48 Here is the Whatsapp interchange from 6th October:
Steve could I come and visit you and Val I feel it would be good to review where we are and how you are both feeling about the situation. Every blessing, Andrew
Hi Andrew. Thanks for the message however for now I think its best left the way it is. Maybe in the near future we will review but not just yet, thanks. Every blessing Steve and Val
49 This refusal of church members to have an important meeting with their pastor indicates the reality and depth of the fracture of the relationship that had occurred, and which resulted in my conviction that sitting down together at a table of intimacy and fellowship would be a sham. This brought clarity and decision to my mind and in the subsequent elders meeting I made it clear that I was not prepared to continue with the administration of the Lord’s table until this was sorted out.
The meeting in the home of Steve and Val Glass
50 John Tredgett offered to mediate between me and Steve and Val and arranged a meeting of the three elders in their home on 27th October.
51 In the discussions leading up to this meeting a word had been used to describe what was in my mind and heart. No one asked me what was in my mind and heart…yet in the eyes of those who were gradually drifting further from me and closer to each other this image was increasingly important. Val was persuaded that I thought that she and Steve had colluded with Malcolm and Audrey.
52 This word certainly did not originate with me! All I was concerned about was the truth of what had happened and the truth of what was going on. All I was concerned about was whether I was being faithful to the message of my master and yielding to his leading by his Spirit.
53 If I had been asked what the word meant I would I think have said that it was something to do with hatching a plot. It turned out that none of us knew exactly what the word meant! Val was convinced that I thought that she and Steve were being dishonest. This came across clearly in the meeting that followed in Steve and Val’s home, and it turns out that this suspicion about me became implanted into the minds and hearts of my fellow elders too. I had spoken of my desire to get to the bottom of the reasons for their hostility to my preaching.
54 The idea in mind that there were significant issues involved in their hostility was supported by the fact that one sermon was mentioned (AM 22nd October) in which the “first 2/3 should not have been present.” This was clearly a case where more thorough investigation was imperative as to why Val was so hostile to this material.
55 In fact, all I was convinced of was that I had not heard the full story of the discussion between the two couples and that I did not understand the basis of their hostility to my preaching.
56 I was aware that there was what I would describe as ‘a spirit of confusion’ in the meeting. There seemed to be no clear purpose to the meeting other than for Val to express anger and frustration against me and my attitudes. I also began in this meeting to become even more aware of the lack of real support from my fellow elders. Both seemed to agree with Val’s point of view. Both were expressing different concerns that they had about me in front of Steve and Val.
57 I arranged another elders meeting on 3rd November 2023. I had written letters of resignation to the two elders prior to the elders meeting, ready to give them both. I had not finally decided to resign but I was on the edge of doing it. It depended on what would be said by the two elders in response to the meeting with Steve and Val.
58 This was after an extraordinarily difficult period where I was feeling increasingly lonely and exposed with gradually increasing overt hostility. Any sermon which expressed something of what I felt the Lord had been giving me for the church in the current situation was met with increasing hostility. This was extremely difficult for me as I was persuaded that what the Lord was giving me was extremely valuable for the church and for the very people and their families who were rejecting it!
59 John Tredgett had prepared some notes from his reflections on the meeting, and he read out these notes in the elders meeting.
60 There were two paragraphs that stood out for me:
1. 'Perhaps you didn’t intend to, but it seemed to me that you held to the idea that Steve and Val colluded with Malcolm and Audrey, despite Steve and Val saying that they did not. I think we should just believe them, and only imply collusion took place if clear evidence is brought up.'
2. ‘This came across as though Steve and Val were not being totally honest with you about their concerns. Again, I think there should be evidence brought up first before things like that are said.’
61 Whatever these words meant (they are difficult words) it was clearly intended as a rebuke for me and there was no interest at all in any further investigations into the desire of Steve and Val to change the content of my preaching. There was no appetite at all to discover exactly what it was that was causing the difficulties. The talk of getting to the roots of the reasons for their opposition was simply seen as implying collusion and implying that I thought they were being dishonest. There was no biblical basis for their objections.
62 I informed my immediate family of my resignation that day, but I did not inform anyone else.
Events following my resignation.
The resignation
63 I had realised that it was going to be difficult to explain why I was resigning in a way that both sides of the divide would be willing to agree. We would need to be careful about what was said as to the reasons for my resignation if it was not to cause serious difficulties. I realised that there would need to be a compromise over this. I had prepared some wording which I revised before the members meeting and John and John said they were happy with this.
These were the words that I suggested should be used in the members meeting:
64 We have striven for 6 months to be of one mind about how to deal with the responses to the change in my preaching and life that has occurred over the last 2 years.
65 Sadly, we have not been able to find that sense of being of one mind over this.
66 Some feel that this change is good. Some feel quite strongly that it is not good. Some are not sure what to think about it.
67 Andrew feels convinced that (in the language of Vernon Higham's hymn) he has had a "new vision of Jesus a view he has not seen here before".
68 Andrew is convinced that this new approach is entirely in accordance with the bible and in accordance with the doctrinal tradition of the church.
69 Andrew is convinced that that this new approach has been given to him from the Lord and that the Lord wants him to use it for God's glory and the good of the kingdom of God.
70 Andrew is convinced that that this new approach is of particular relevance and importance to the people of God at this time of social and cultural crisis.
71 Neither side is able to find a compromise position with which they are comfortable before the Lord.
72 Andrew understands that this has not been, and will not be easy for you all to cope with and that he has made mistakes as he has tried to come to terms with this himself. He is deeply sorry for any unnecessary hurt and anxiety that this has caused.
73 Andrew feels that in view of all this that for the unity of the fellowship he should resign as pastor, elder and church member and seek the Lord's leading about what to do next.
74 We hope and pray that (despite the fact that all this has been extraordinarily difficult and painful) the Lord himself will lead us all forward in the right way. How much we need Him as our Shepherd both individually and collectively!
75 We trust that he will make the way plain and ultimately lead us closer to himself.
76 We believe that ultimately he will bring us to the place where all disagreement between brethren will be over.
Notice Period
77 Andrew would strongly prefer that the 3 months notice period be waived and that the responsibility for preaching at GEC cease as from today. Andrew is in agreement that if the responsibility to preach further at GEC was waived then there would be no need for further wages.
78 If the decision is that this 3 months notice should be served then Andrew is of the view that this should be merely as a visiting preacher and that any further payments would be in line with this altered position.
79 I was naively thinking that this was all that would be said.
80 I suppose that I hoped that my resignation would cause serious reflection about what had happened and that I might ultimately be vindicated.
81 What transformed this very difficult and painful parting into a toxic mess was the events surrounding the members meeting where my resignation was to be shared with the church members.
Is what happened an instance of “gas lighting”?
82 The elements of gas lighting that were present from our perspective:
- Lying – the Gaslighter tells you obvious lies. You know they are lying, and they do it with ease. By lying to you, this leads you to question everything and therefore become uncertain of the simplest of matters therefore creating self-doubt. (Both John Tredgett and Audrey and Malcolm Noble bore false witness about the overheard conversation)
- Denial – the Gaslighter denies they ever said something even though you know they said it. This leads you to question your memory and your reality. (Both John Tredgett and Audrey and Malcolm Noble denied that the conversation happened and pretended that there was no real problem here)
- Ammunition –the Gaslighter uses what you love against you. Whether it is your job or your children, the Gaslighter wants you to question the foundation of yourself. (The emails to my family for non-attendance seemed heavy handed. John Tredgett’s attack on Linda about eavesdropping was extraordinary.)
- Love and flattery – the Gaslighter throws in positive reinforcement to confuse you because they know confusion weakens people. They will tear you down and then build you up just to tear you down again. (All the emails had “we love you” and “we think so highly of you” and the whole episode was couched in language of the most perfect love, respect, and godliness)
- Mental health questions – the Gaslighter not only tells you that your mental health is suspect, but they tell everyone else too so that if you approach them for help, you will not be taken seriously. (Andrew was said to be having severe mental health issues)
- Universality - the Gaslighter says ‘No-one else thinks like this’ – ‘Everyone agrees with us.’ (The elders kept bringing in “this person agrees with us”. The 6,16,18,21 people agree with us)
- The situation has “moved on” or the “cruelty of continuing the process further”– Your petty argument is irrelevant and so much in the past that it is not relevant. Your insistence on continuing this process is having negative and harmful effects on the health of an elderly church leader and on the health and well-being of a pregnant woman. And the church saying we want no more contact. Instead of the couples who were attacking my preaching as the cause of the problems it was Andrew who was the source of all the problems.
The conversation leading to horrible dishonesty - after the evening service on Sunday 19th November.
83 On the Sunday evening service on the day before the church members meeting, John Tredgett led the service. I was absent, still being Covid positive and not feeling well after this infection. Linda attended the evening service with Bryony. After John closed the service Val spoke to Malcolm saying, “That was a fine exposition of Psalm 31 wasn’t it, Malcolm.” Normally this would be a perfectly acceptable thing to say…. but in the whole situation the word “exposition” had become rather a buzzword. It was not spoken with a quiet voice, and it seemed to Linda that this was an intentional dig in a very raw place.
84 Later that evening Linda inadvertently, but distinctly overheard this conversation between John Tredgett and Audrey (with Malcolm being involved in at least the second part of the conversation). It was not a trivial or brief conversation. Malcolm was included in at least part of it.
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.
85 Unknown to me or Linda, Malcolm and Audrey (non church members and the couple with whom this situation originated and who were resisting church membership as the situation arose) had earlier been given an unprecedented special invitation to the members meeting at which my resignation was to be shared.
86 I do not know what was said in the original invitation to attend. The generally shared information was that there was an “especially important church members meeting concerning the future of the fellowship”. It seems clear to me that Malcolm and Audrey were certain that there was a connection between the church members meeting and the criticisms that they had been making of my preaching. Malcolm and Audrey Noble attended the meeting and Malcolm spoke at the meeting. One of the things he said was that on one occasion he counted 21 people at Edward Street who had left GEC. The implication was that their leaving was related to something that was wrong with my preaching. It seems clear that even at this point the two remaining elders were aligning their position with the position of those who had been causing me such intense pain and trouble.
87 Both Linda and I knew that, given I was resigning, and John was planning a sabbatical to coincide with the birth of his second child, there would be considerable need for pulpit supply in 2024 and also more help with the ordinary work of the church.
88 When Linda reported the conversation to me that evening, we both came to the conclusion that Malcolm and Audrey had a much better understanding of the situation at GEC than should have been the case given that the church membership only knew that there was an important meeting about the future of the fellowship.
89 Malcolm and Audrey had been deliberating that week about whether or not they should attend a members meeting.
90 There were other witnesses to the reality and length of this conversation.
The importance of this conversation – The False Witness and the Denial.
91 In itself the conversation seems unimportant and if the participants had confessed that they were working together on possible pulpit supply and help given they suspected that I would be absent from GEC for some time then I would have been deeply hurt that this was happening at this stage and it would have affected my attitude both to John Tredgett and to Malcolm and Audrey Noble but I think I would have been able to walk away from the situation without the conflict that has subsequently taken place.
92 What occurred instead of an admission was total denial of the reality of what Linda had seen and heard. It is this denial by people presenting themselves as fine Christian people and close friends (and what appears to me to be blatant and wilful dishonesty even to the point of perjury) that has been so overwhelmingly shocking and has resulted in abiding anger and disgust.
93 I had made it clear from the point of my resignation that I thought it was not a good idea for me to preach following that resignation even though there is a 3 month notice period as part of my contract. I had made it clear that I was willing to forgo the 3 months wages so that I did not need to preach during that period.
94 Both the elders agreed that I should preach if I felt able to do so.
My final sermon at GEC on the evening of the 3rd December was on the text “Where there is no vision the people perish.” (Prov 29:18) The subject was the rejection of the vision of the truth. It was impossible for me to preach to those who had caused such enormous grief and trouble without anger. No doubt this anger was interpreted as symptoms of mental ill health too.
95 One of the things I said that evening was that I would write to those with whom I had grievances in line with the exhortation of our Lord in Matt 5:23-24
96 On 7th December I wrote to Malcolm and Audrey of the grievances that I had with them (and in fact these grievances are still deep and painful) regarding the matters narrated here.
97 I mentioned the conversation that Linda had overheard to Malcolm and Audrey in my letter to them.
98 Part of their reply on 16th December was:
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.
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.
100 This I confess was an absolutely astonishing response.
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:
Hi Andrew,
No meetings took place involving myself on 20 November, besides the members' meeting.
Hope that helps,
JT
104 Following this email interchange, I felt it absolutely vital to speak to both parties face to face.
105 I was being confronted with conflicting accounts of what my wife had witnessed…. what other witnesses had witnessed and about a conversation that was clearly important to both parties and about which both parties seem to have an altogether inexplicable amnesia.
106 At no point was there any attempt to explain what the conversation was actually about, despite the very obvious fact that it was a matter of the utmost concern to me that my own wife was at the very least being accused of seeing and hearing things in a very different universe from the one which we generally agree that we are all living in! In the bible my understanding is that this is called bearing false witness and it is serious enough to warrant one of the 10 commandments all to itself.
107 This is the background to my angry meeting with Malcom and Audrey and my ‘unbelievable’ meeting with John Tredgett. If you do not understand why I was angry then you clearly have not been through a situation where people who you thought were good friends (and made a clear and public profession of Christianity and two of whom were preachers of the gospel) were accusing (not in explicit words but tacitly) your wife of lying.
108 I was, and still am, indescribably troubled by this apparently clear fracture in the fabric of reality!
I visited Malcolm and Audrey and questioned them with regards to the testimony of my wife.
Their answers were confused and evasive they seemed to be claiming amnesia with regards to events that they had given clear written testimony about…to me it appeared that their memories were altogether less reliable now from what had been recorded in their letter and what had been reported to John.
109 I sought to impress on them both the awesome significance of being involved in dishonesty by asking them to swear on the bible that they were telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. While they felt unable to swear (their understanding of the Lords prohibition on swearing) they made it clear that their witness was solemn and in the sight of God.
110 John Tredgett was also willing to actually swear before God on the evening of the 22nd of December that he was speaking the truth about this non-existent conversation in these words:
The conversation referred to by Andrew and Linda – neither in part or in whole – did not take happen.
I have no recollection of this conversation either in part or the whole.
111 We subsequently discovered from Jonathon Heaton himself that John Tredgett had invited Jonathan Heaton (Edward Street Church and Crown Heritage Trust) and his wife for a meal on 24th November and was asking about possible help with preaching and with other aspects of the church’s life.
112 We subsequently discovered that Audrey did know of a student named Eli who had been working as a trainee at Edward St who was good with children.
113 We subsequently discovered that Malcolm and Audrey did confirm to the elders that Sunday evening that they would be attending the members meeting the following day.
114 Subsequent contact seems to indicate that all three individuals now agree that this conversation (that they initially said did not take place)…did in fact take place….and that they do in fact know what it was not about!
115 Following quickly on from my endeavours to find out exactly what had or had not been said and done my wife Linda received these words as part of an email on 23rd December:
(1)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.
It is one thing to accidentally overhear a word or two while walking past people, but from the extent of what has been repeated to me, it's clear you have gone beyond this.
Sadly, it seems to be more than a one-off on your part, as well. 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), there were also remarks concerning Phil Arthur (including 'That was a breath of fresh air') which you apparently overheard and passed on. Thirdly, 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!
(3)Eavesdropping is wrong for two reasons: it's an invasion of the privacy of someone else's conversation, and it's also foolish because, as the eavesdropper is only hearing snippets from a distance, there is a great danger that they will miss the 'big picture' context of the conversation and end up with a skewed understanding of what took place.
(4)One of the relevant Bible texts here is Ecclesiastes 7:21. In the NLT it's simply, 'Don’t eavesdrop on others...'. The Hebrew is literally, 'Don't take to heart the words others say.' If what is overheard gets passed on to others (as has happened at GEC), then Proverbs 11:14 rears its head: 'A talebearer reveals secrets, but he who is of a faithful spirit conceals a matter.'
Linda, as your friend as much as anything else, I would advise that as soon as you find yourself 'tuning in' to someone else's private conversation, then you just walk away so that you're out of earshot. If you accidentally hear something that's slanderous, then challenge it on the spot with the person involved. If it is not slander but someone airing their opinion, then it is simply none of your business.
116 What am I supposed to do with this situation? I can scarcely believe what I am reporting in these notes, but I do not know where else to turn!
117 “Gas lighting” is worse than dishonesty. It is the vilest form of hypocrisy. I would go as far as saying that it is the attempted murder of the reason of a person’s soul. It is where individuals double down on their dishonesty and seek to portray a universe which is entirely at odds with clear memory and perception of those who are persuaded that they have witnessed the very things that are being denied. If you have never experienced this in your own life, then pray that you never will! It is an attempt to portray their opponents as paranoid or mentally unreliable. It is an illicit tampering with a person’s belief system, and this is what completely destroys trust and all possibility of happy relationships. I do not believe that it is very far away from sinning against the Holy Spirit.
118 Sadly, and most reluctantly, and with the greatest difficulty in our souls (I confess I simply do not comprehend how this has happened) we nevertheless must conclude that this is what was happening with regards to John Tredgett and Macolm and Audrey.
Counting people on the seats
119 Is truth decided by a majority vote? Our psychology is basically wired so that we think that there is safety in numbers. ‘So many people agree with me it is just not possible that we could all be wrong!’ This view can sometimes be true but on other occasions it can be a fatal error. Jesus tells us that there is a wide road with many walking on it…. but it does not lead to a land flowing with milk and honey. Sadly, evangelicals can be sucked into the idea that numbers and resources, crowds and impressive displays indicate the blessing of God. The idea that truth is determined by popularity is a lie that far too many evangelicals believe in their hearts while denying it with their lips.
120 The whole testimony of our consciousness and the bible is that truth is a unity. It is completely consistent with itself. There is no fragmentation in the truth. It is a seamless robe of beautiful consistency and agreement. We believe that the most basic law of reason and thought is the law of non-contradiction. We rarely appreciate the enormity of this commitment or its sheer glory and power. It is based firmly and solidly on the faithfulness of God. Clear contradictions mean that one side is right, and the other side is wrong. God is truth almost by definition. Jesus is claiming full deity when he tells us that he is the truth.
121 One of the things that Malcolm Noble said in his speech at the members meeting was that when he had attended the Crown Heritage Trust Church on Edward Street, he noticed that there were 21 people attending there who had previously attended GEC. The point he was making was that I was the man who had caused them to leave GEC and transfer to Edward Street. The point of this is that the preacher is to be judged by his popularity. You can tell whether someone is speaking for God and his Messiah when everyone listens and follows him. This is why the prophets had such a lovely time in this world and this is why Jesus had such an easy life!
122 This seems to be the position of the remaining elders. The only thing that Andrew seems to be good at is driving good people away! This is not the sort of pastor we need if we want the church to thrive!
Issue of “the 16, 6” of whom have left because of my preaching.
123 On 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?
124 I acknowledge that these words only imply that the problems of the 16 are similar they do not expressly state this. I do not know who the 6 people are who are being referred to and again I acknowledge that it is only implied and not stated that they have similar problems to the 2 disaffected couples.
125 If these 6 are being used to make an argument about the unsuitability of my preaching, then the problems are going back much further that the last 2 years!
126 What is the relevance of bring forward these numbers? Who are these people? What have they said about me that is relevant to this situation?
127 On the 20th of December John Tredgett wrote:
"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.
128 The Jewish leaders at the time of Christ could all be described similarly in their response to Christ himself. It is not the majority vote that decides the truth. It is not the level of respect of esteemed individual Christians that determines the truth. If this was the case the reformation could not have happened. How have we strayed so far from the principle of Sola Scriptura! No attempt, as far as I am aware, has been made to ask whether my preaching is scriptural or not! Certainly, no clear arguments as to false or erroneous teaching has been presented to me and in fact the exact opposite was being expressed until after my resignation!
129 Alan Pallister has been working tirelessly for reconciliation even from before he was aware that I had resigned. He was specially invited to an emergency elders meeting at the suggestion of Joan Crosby and with the agreement of the two remaining elders to provide help in what was already a difficult situation.
130 When Alan Pallister began to ask about the numbers of church members who might be willing to consider an invitation for myself to be restored as pastor things got even worse!
131 He was told in no uncertain terms to cease and desist.
He was unsettling the unity of the church and acting without submission to the elders (the very behaviour that the two remaining elders were condoning with respect to Steve and Val and Malcolm and Audrey Noble.)
132 An email was sent to Linda, Bryony, and Maree to ascertain whether any of the Rowells would remain in church membership with the issue of “non-attendance” being the grounds of this termination of membership process. This was even though Maree struggles with her attendance anyway because of numerous health issues. She had asked for the documents that had been circulated at the members meetings and been refused. She had been promised further information about the members meetings she had missed so that she could make and informed decision about her future membership but instead received an email saying she was going to be removed from membership because of non-attendance. Is this fair or appropriate?
133 John Crosby informed Alan that he knew that certain current church members would leave the church if Andrew returned as pastor when they had clearly said to Alan that they did not know what they planned to do – they had not made their minds up yet! It does seem clear that subsequently minds have clarified, and we are grateful for the clarity that the signed statement now provides regarding the position of the 8 members who are now acting together with and in support of the remaining elders.
Over-reacting, oversensitivity, mental health problems and mistaken identification of the activity of the enemy.
134 I do not know how much use has been made of this method of undermining my credibility. Clearly it has been an element of the approach.
135 The accusation of insanity and the building up of a persuasive image of paranoia and mental instability has often been an approach to psychological warfare which underlies all real warfare and all real conflict between persons. It is comforting to “know” that your enemy is insane. We need to know that we are on the right side – the ultimately winning side. If your enemy is insane then he will do crazy things, and these will eventually result in even his friends abandoning him.
136 John Tredgett has said that I have the “great weakness” of being “oversensitive” and that I “overreacted” in refusing to continue to administer the Lord’s table when the fellowship that this ordinance declares was a sham.
137 He suggested that I might prefer that church members did not contact me after the members meeting.
138 (14th November)
If you would rather not be contacted about recent events, then please let us know before the 21st and we will advise members to give you some ‘space’.
139 (16th November)
How do you feel about people contacting you after Monday's meeting to talk to you about the events? Or would you like us to request that members give you some space?
140 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.
141 A normal loving concern for a person’s mental health is shown in what they do because of this concern. Given what I know has been said I am convinced this was used to undermine my credibility.
142 I had what I describe as a nervous collapse or breakdown while at School studying for A-levels after a family move to a new part of the country and a crisis of faith because of reading Richard Dawkins’ book “The Selfish Gene”. This was about 40 years ago! There was no medication needed and it was of relatively short duration.
143 While I freely confess to my fair share of mood swings and times of discouragement and darkness, I think that these are in the normal range for Christians and especially well within the normal range for Christian pastors in the 21st Century!
144 My immediate and wider family and closest friends can vouch for my mental health throughout this period which has been an extraordinarily difficult part of my life.
145 Anger at attempted gas lighting is very different from mental instability!
The issue of the “switch” or “surprising conversion” of the remaining elders views of my preaching over the last two years.
146 Perhaps the clearest and most astonishing and shocking aspect of this whole sad (but revealing) episode is the “conversion” or “switch” of views on the part of the two remaining elders.
147 In resigning I made clear that I believed that there were significant issues that needed to be faced up to and dealt with properly. I made it clear that I was convinced that the changes that had taken place in my life and preaching were from God. It was this whole change that was being opposed. The opposition was to some of the teaching and approach that I was following in my sermons. The disaffected couples were insisting that this new approach was wrong and that it needed to be reversed. There was however a lack of clarity about their opposition. It was vague and dealt in words like “balance” and “emphasis.”
148 In an audio message following our meeting with Steve and Val Glass John Tredgett expressed views of my preaching similar to my own and this support continued until he has assumed the mantle of leadership in the church.
149 There was however clear concern about my whole approach to gospel preaching on the part of the two disaffected couples and in one case Val Glass made it clear that 2/3 of the sermon on 22nd October AM should not have been included.
150 The two remaining elders were aware of these views but still thought that I should accommodate my preaching to make sure that the disaffected couples did not leave.
151 At this point (27th October 2023) they expressed their views of my ministry in these terms:
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!
152 On November 10th 2023 their view (as stated in email to me and a letter directed to the disaffected couples) was:
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.
153 In an email on November 14th the remaining elders made it clear that they wanted me to continue preaching during my notice period – a further 3 months.
154 They used these words:
We look forward to the future in hope, both for you, your family, and for the church you have pastored faithfully since 2004.
155 There is no hint of any concern about any of my pastoral work at this point.
156 However on Thursday 30th November 2023 John Tredgett said in an email:
“In general terms I am supporting Steve, Val, Malcolm and Audrey on this issue.”
157 On Wednesday December 6th 2023 John Tredgett after explaining that I would not be asked to preach further at GEC expressed no concerns about me preaching elsewhere.
158 However on 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.
160 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.
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.
165 This revised view of my preaching and teaching is obviously still under formation amongst the remaining elders, members, and adherents at GEC but it has been communicated to at least one person outside the immediate situation in the following way (combined from 2 emails January 11th 17th2024):
166 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.
Underlining mine APR.
The refusal of all possible avenues of mediation
167 We have been anxious to try to resolve things internally if possible. Sadly, this has proved to be impossible. Failing this we have been keen not to share details of an unseemly spat further than is necessary. We have latterly made a clear request for external mediation by a mutually agreed senior moderator figure who could hear both sides of the situation and recommend a settlement that would be just and true.
168 We have been willing to be flexible about who this would be, and we have been willing to pay the expense regarding such an investigation if the costs were a problem.
169 Sadly, this earnest request has been rejected entirely.
170 All contact with the Church was lost with these words:
171 We do not accept mediation as an appropriate option at this stage.
172 We do not wish to be subject to any further contact about any matters relating to Andrew’s resignation.
173 We had offered to give the elders and members sight of this document prior to showing it to anyone else and the response was:
174 The position of the church stated on 16th January stands - no further contact about anything whatsoever to do with the resignation , please.
No comments:
Post a Comment