|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Wycliffe Hall in trouble
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
I agree, badman. Repentance and amendment of life is appropriate, I think.
As Barnabas62 points out, it is amazing to even contemplate that this all appears to have taken place without serious HR input. (Or if it did, it must have been very poor advice). Rather more to the point, it does point up the need for managerial changes. If the fault is a gap in capability, that gap must be plugged. If it is due to consistently poor direction, then top management needs to be changed.
Employment tribunals are not necessarily about money, as has been pointed out. In fact, years ago, I took my then-current employers to an employment tribunal (and won). Neither money (at least directly) nor dismissal were involved. I simply wanted them to abide by the terms of my contract of employment.
But as anyone contemplating that will be advised, the tribunal will examine all sorts of other ways of seeing things other than yours. Most specifically of course the other party's. I don't think it's in order to complain about those who advanced alternative POV's and asked "have you considered this, or that?" That's what intelligent discussion is about - that's why many of us value such interactions. And that's what makes an eventual convergence on where the truth lies to be more robust.
But if you want partisan ego-stroking, there are any number of other sites out there that can better cater to your tastes. Don't expect robustness to ensue, though.
Ian
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by innocent(ish):
I was under the impression that Elaine Storkey and the Goddards had been asked to leave.
Unless you mean "asked to leave" as a euphemism, "sacked" is a more accurate term, certainly in Dr Storkey's case and probably in the Goddards, from what is in the public domain.
This isn't pedantry by the way, just that accuracy is important in considering the fairness of behaviour. What did they do, what did they write, what did it mean? That sort of stuff.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
innocent(ish)
Shipmate
# 12691
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Unless you mean "asked to leave" as a euphemism, "sacked" is a more accurate term, certainly in Dr Storkey's case and probably in the Goddards, from what is in the public domain.
The Fulcrum press release had it as 'Required to leave.'
See here for details.
--------------------
"Christianity has become part of the furniture ... like a grand piano nobody plays any longer.I want the dust to be taken off and people to play music." Archbishop John Sentamu
Posts: 109 | From: Rochester | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
pete173
Shipmate
# 4622
|
Posted
Vindication and justice for Elaine Storkey, at last. And exactly what many of us were saying all the way through this thread.
Andrew Goddard is involved in a separate matter, which is being dealt with, as I understand it, through a grievance procedure.
--------------------
Pete
Posts: 1653 | From: Kilburn, London NW6 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Yes I know. I read it at the time. "Required to leave" is not the same as "asked to leave".
British politeness sometimes gets in the way here. Weasel language is sometimes used in attempts to weasel out of legal responsibilities for actions. "Oh we didn't really mean quite that. We're just quite sure you'll see its in everyone's interests" etc.
This kind of stuff is a big issue in HR dismissal cases. The exact words matter, otherwise the person leaving may be deemed to have resigned, admitted fault etc, and damaged any legitimate claim they might have.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Sorry - meant for innocent(ish) but xposted with pete173, (with whom I agree, and thank for his clarification re Andrew Goddard.)
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
innocent(ish)
Shipmate
# 12691
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
Vindication and justice for Elaine Storkey, at last. And exactly what many of us were saying all the way through this thread.
Andrew Goddard is involved in a separate matter, which is being dealt with, as I understand it, through a grievance procedure.
How about Elisabeth then Pete, is she a separate issue as well. I was under the impression that she had been required to leave at the same time?
--------------------
"Christianity has become part of the furniture ... like a grand piano nobody plays any longer.I want the dust to be taken off and people to play music." Archbishop John Sentamu
Posts: 109 | From: Rochester | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Weeder
Shipmate
# 11321
|
Posted
Just popping out to get the Guardian, to see their take on the current situation. What happens now? I am concerned for those who have posted, covinced all was well and that Wycliffe would be vindicated.
--------------------
Still missing the gator
Posts: 2542 | From: LaLa Land | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amiyah
Shipmate
# 11989
|
Posted
This is the link to the story in today's Guardian covering this development.
--------------------
Previously called MirrorMouse
Posts: 120 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Tumphouse:
Just popping out to get the Guardian, to see their take on the current situation. What happens now? I am concerned for those who have posted, covinced all was well and that Wycliffe would be vindicated.
Without going back over 30-odd pages, the Wycliffe party were more insistent that everyone just shut up rather than they would eventually be proved right.
I have pie to be distributed, and tis of 'umble nature...
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Petaflop
Shipmate
# 9804
|
Posted
I can see the benefit in taking the tribunal through to the end, but this religious discrimination case seems to me both tenuous and likely to be counterproductive whether she wins or loses.
Does anyone else see what she is trying to achieve with this?
Posts: 650 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
Storkey is wrong to have done this on two counts. Firstly, as she admits herself, the college was prepared to settle out of court, as scripture encourages Christians to do. Secondly, because she openly admits to using the media, and the secular judicial system, as a means of personal vindication against a fellow Christian, which scripture clearly discourages. She should have accepted the college's offer. And she shouldn't be taking a bishop to court in front of unbelievers. Perhaps this is why she is being described as the wrong sort of evangelical (i.e. one who pays lip-service to scripture).
quote:
1If any of you has a dispute with another, dare he take it before the ungodly for judgment instead of before the saints? 2Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if you are to judge the world, are you not competent to judge trivial cases? 3Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more the things of this life! 4Therefore, if you have disputes about such matters, appoint as judges even men of little account in the church![a] 5I say this to shame you. Is it possible that there is nobody among you wise enough to judge a dispute between believers? 6But instead, one brother goes to law against another—and this in front of unbelievers!
7The very fact that you have lawsuits among you means you have been completely defeated already. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be cheated? 8Instead, you yourselves cheat and do wrong, and you do this to your brothers.
[ 08. January 2008, 14:08: Message edited by: Call me Numpty ]
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
innocent(ish)
Shipmate
# 12691
|
Posted
I'm not sure what this achieves either. The college offering to accept out of court was all very well, but I imagine if they had admitted they were wrong at the same time of making the offer much of what has followed may well have been avoided.
I hope the other issue is put to bed quickly. What's the chance of either side getting a reolution that's acceptable when trying to argue fairly obscure theological points in front of a secular tribunal.
Mind you, Bruce Carr, who acted for the Trustees of Wycliffe, summed up her further grievance by saying "To Paraphrase, she is the wrong type of evangelical", which whilst an unfortunate quote to have been recorded, seems to sum things up fairly well.
[ 08. January 2008, 14:16: Message edited by: innocent(ish) ]
--------------------
"Christianity has become part of the furniture ... like a grand piano nobody plays any longer.I want the dust to be taken off and people to play music." Archbishop John Sentamu
Posts: 109 | From: Rochester | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pokrov
Shipmate
# 11515
|
Posted
Numpty,
Just as well you weren't required to be a Bishop at the early church councils - sometimes doing the 'right thing' gets a bit messy (such is the nature of our fallen world).
--------------------
Most Holy Theotokos pray for us!
Posts: 1469 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Richard Collins:
Numpty,
Just as well you weren't required to be a Bishop at the early church councils - sometimes doing the 'right thing' gets a bit messy (such is the nature of our fallen world).
Doing the right thing never ultimately requires outright disobedience to the revealed will of God as taught by Christ in Holy Scripture. Storkey is being disobedient to Christ in taking such action. The college may well have disobeyed Christ in the way it treated her in the first place but, as the old adage goes, two wrongs don't make aright.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pokrov
Shipmate
# 11515
|
Posted
Numpty,
I would agree with you if it was merely a one-to-one, person-to-person interaction. But the offending party is an insitution charged with the development of Christian leaders. I think there is more of an 'institutional wrong' element to this, the likes of which MUST be responded to. If they were attempting to bury that wrong then all the better to Elaine for forcing it into the light.
I suppose you don't think that the UK criminal justice system should be based on just 'turning the other cheek'? ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
Most Holy Theotokos pray for us!
Posts: 1469 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
Numpty,
I presume you believe it to be wrong to take a bribe?
Which, without a public admission of guilt from Wycliffe, would have been what Elaine Storkey would have been doing. "Here's some money on the understanding that no one ever talks about what went on," is highly unethical.
And Wycliffe, being the stronger party in all this, had the responsibility to act according to the very principles you quote. They didn't. They are the ones paying lip-service to scripture which requires them admitting their guilt, paying restitution, seeking forgiveness. Instead, they have their admission dragged from them by a secular court, forced to pay compensation by the same, and still no words of contrition.
How is it that the victim in all this is made to look like the villain? If I had to choose a type of evangelical, I'd choose StorkeyBrand™.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
quote:
Perhaps this is why she is being described as the wrong sort of evangelical (i.e. one who pays lip-service to scripture).
Numpty, I generally have a lot of time for you, but this post does not seem, to me, to be your finest hour. In the words of the prophet, "thank God you're not the jury, thank God I'm not the judge!"
Oh, and what Doc Tor said!
[ 08. January 2008, 15:04: Message edited by: Jolly Jape ]
--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arrietty
Ship's borrower
# 45
|
Posted
Interesting how 'no case to answer' becomes 'there is a case to answer but it is morally wrong to bring it'.
Apparently the only way Elaine Storkey could even get Wycliffe to talk to her was through the mechanism of a tribunal, so I fail to see how she could have settled this away from court.
Unless you are an advocate of the Christian equivalent of sharia law, I would say 'Render unto Caesar's what is Caesar's' may in any case cover the settlement of a case about a secular contract of employment.
Now Wycliffe have finally agreed that she was unfairly dismissed, maybe they'll surprise us all and take responsibility for ending this in the way the Bible recommends by reaching a settlement with the person they have wronged.
--------------------
i-church
Online Mission and Ministry
Posts: 6634 | From: Coventry, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
uncletoby
hobbyhorsical
# 13067
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arrietty:
Interesting how 'no case to answer' becomes 'there is a case to answer but it is morally wrong to bring it'.
Apparently the only way Elaine Storkey could even get Wycliffe to talk to her was through the mechanism of a tribunal, so I fail to see how she could have settled this away from court.
Unless you are an advocate of the Christian equivalent of sharia law, I would say 'Render unto Caesar's what is Caesar's' may in any case cover the settlement of a case about a secular contract of employment.
Now Wycliffe have finally agreed that she was unfairly dismissed, maybe they'll surprise us all and take responsibility for ending this in the way the Bible recommends by reaching a settlement with the person they have wronged.
Quite. It might also be constructive for those who have defended Wycliffe's position on the Ship to accept that they were wrong, rather than trying to find innovative ways to criticise Storkey.
--------------------
`` L--d! I cannot look at it ----
Posts: 1150 | From: Cambridge | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
Storkey is wrong to have done this on two counts. Firstly, as she admits herself, the college was prepared to settle out of court, as scripture encourages Christians to do. Secondly, because she openly admits to using the media, and the secular judicial system, as a means of personal vindication against a fellow Christian, which scripture clearly discourages. She should have accepted the college's offer. And she shouldn't be taking a bishop to court in front of unbelievers. Perhaps this is why she is being described as the wrong sort of evangelical (i.e. one who pays lip-service to scripture).
Actually it looks quite clear that Elaine Storkey attempted to deal with this first on a more or less individual basis, and then within the College's grievance procedures before seeking intervention from the wider church. Unfortunately the wider church's official powers are very circumscribed in relation the College, which seems simply to have stonewalled unofficial approaches.
I don't think she would have been right to simply accept the money and allow the college to pretend it had done nothing wrong - particularly since she is not the only person affected. It looks reasonably clear from the news reports that the College was not willing to admit unfair dismissal until that had positively been found by the tribunal. Not to admit unfair dismissal tends to besmirch the character of the person dismissed - as much as admitting it damages the reputation of the institution admitting it.
I think the same applies to the religious discrimination claim. If in fact she found herself in the position she was in because the powers that be in the college had come to the point where her theological viewpoint was no longer congenial to them then they need to admit it - in fairness to her. At the moment they appear to have been quite happy not to contradict an article which appears to have some authority from them which implies that the issues are about her bitterness about personal grievances. If it really is about theological differences then the college needs to say so, if it really is about personal grievances then Elaine Storkey needs to say so.
Hopefully there will be some proper paths of mediation which will prevent this coming before a tribunal, but one or both sides are going to have to admit in public that what they have said/implied is false or misleading to some degree.
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
R.A.M.
Shipmate
# 7390
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
quote:
Originally posted by Richard Collins:
Numpty,
Just as well you weren't required to be a Bishop at the early church councils - sometimes doing the 'right thing' gets a bit messy (such is the nature of our fallen world).
Doing the right thing never ultimately requires outright disobedience to the revealed will of God as taught by Christ in Holy Scripture. Storkey is being disobedient to Christ in taking such action. The college may well have disobeyed Christ in the way it treated her in the first place but, as the old adage goes, two wrongs don't make aright.
So the obedient thing would have been for Storkey to just suck it up. Thats sound to me like the worst kind of turning the other cheek.
What about her responsibility to everyone else? Should a Christian really allow unethical employment practices to go unchallenged? Would it really have been an ethical choice to accept a bung to become complicit in an ethical wrong?
--------------------
Formerly Real Ale Methodist
Back after prolonged absence...
Posts: 1584 | From: (Sunshine on) Leith | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arrietty:
Interesting how 'no case to answer' becomes 'there is a case to answer but it is morally wrong to bring it'.
I haven't contributed much to this thread and I haven't suggested that Turnbull or the Hall Council are six feet above contradiction. I do however, regardless of the specifics of the case, think that Storkey is wrong to use secular law as means of gaining public 'satisfaction' from + Jones.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Well, Numpty, let's have a look at Elaine Storkey's quoted remark - Guardian article.
quote:
She said after the hearing: "I'm really glad we have agreed on something.
"I was offered a settlement many months ago, but my point was I wanted it to be acknowledged that they had done this wrong to me."
I think you're saying that represents an unbiblical attitude, not justified by the admission that the Hall Council, chaired by a Bishop, now acknowledges that it denied her justice over the appeal and therefore acted in an unChristian way towards her.
Neither you nor I know for sure whether Elaine Storkey's desire for an admission of wrong (when there had been wrong) came purely from a need for personal satisfaction, or, as others have suggested, was also motivated by a duty of care towards other staff, students and even the college itself. You have to remember that three previous Principals have expressed public concern about the way it is being run.
In this particular case, the institutional action of the Hall Council denied a wrong and compounded the situation by producing its own wrong to boot. That has much wider implications than any individual case. I have had a lot of respect for + James Jones, but in this case I'd need a heck of a lot to convince me now that he didn't goof big-time over this, in a way which was very wounding to the Storkey's and has now boomeranged back to wound the college as well.
I'd say that the record of Elaine Storkey's services in many ways to the Christian community over the last 30 years would justify you cutting her a bit of slack over her taking of this exceptional course of action. Her open evangelical position is consistent with a high view of the authority of scripture. I'm quite sure she knows very well and has pondered over the scripture you quote. We're talking about someone whose life and integrity have been tested in many ways in public life. That doesn't make her free from error, but should give all of us pause before accusing her of disobedient unbiblical behaviour. None of us know the true inwardness of this.
At the very least, given the ongoing situation with the Goddards, I think Elaine has guaranteed by her actions that they will now receive scrupulous treatment in the final settlement of their situation. You would have to be very trusting of the Hall Council, in circumstances where they have done much to forfeit trust, to be sure that would happen in any case.
I'm with Jolly Jape on this one. A minor point. As a matter of style and tact, beginning your post with the curt "Storkey" may not have been a very smart move. Looks like you don't like her, rather than just being cheesed off by her actions.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
koheleth
Shipmate
# 3327
|
Posted
To quote from the Guardian report: quote:
Following the resolution of the unfair dismissal claim, Charles Crow, representing Storkey, turned to the remaining matter.
"Within Christian evangelism there are two determinate strands; conservative evangelism and an open and more liberal evangelism," he said.
"Those are open and definable strands and as an open and clear proponent of one of those strands, she [Storkey] has been discriminated against."
Or, as W.S. Gilbert might have put it:
Every Evangelical
Who in the Spirit longs to thrive
Must Open be and Liberal
Or thoroughly Conservative.
I’m not sure where that leaves me, but this is not the place to go into that.
But where is this leading? Will an evangelical who is passed over for an appointment at St Stephen’s House be able to claim religious discrimination?
I just pray that if the tribunal case is ever heard the Holy Spirit will intervene so that the whole idea is knocked on the head.
--------------------
See Ecclesiastes 12.11-14.
Posts: 96 | From: Psalm 40 v3 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gwai
Shipmate
# 11076
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
quote:
Originally posted by Arrietty:
Interesting how 'no case to answer' becomes 'there is a case to answer but it is morally wrong to bring it'.
I haven't contributed much to this thread and I haven't suggested that Turnbull or the Hall Council are six feet above contradiction. I do however, regardless of the specifics of the case, think that Storkey is wrong to use secular law as means of gaining public 'satisfaction' from + Jones.
What if she isn't out for money? Surely that's all she'd get if she settled out of court. Perhaps she's out to see Wycliffe behave as the Christian institution she knows it can.
--------------------
A master of men was the Goodly Fere,
A mate of the wind and sea.
If they think they ha’ slain our Goodly Fere
They are fools eternally.
Posts: 11914 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Gwai's right to ask the question, Numpty. And, again, referring to Elaine Storkey's public life, what grounds do you have for believing her to be the sort of person who would exploit the errors of others for compensation or gain?
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
quote:
Originally posted by Arrietty:
Interesting how 'no case to answer' becomes 'there is a case to answer but it is morally wrong to bring it'.
I haven't contributed much to this thread and I haven't suggested that Turnbull or the Hall Council are six feet above contradiction. I do however, regardless of the specifics of the case, think that Storkey is wrong to use secular law as means of gaining public 'satisfaction' from + Jones.
Unfortunately Wycliffe Hall appears to have refused to allow her any other form of remedy when it dismissed her while her appeal under the grievance procedure was still pending.
I strongly suspect her response to Wycliffe Hall's financial offer will have been along the lines of 'OK I'll accept this if you will admit that I was unfairly dismissed because of theological differences with the Principal and others, and not because of bitterness over personal grievances.' Wycliffe Hall were unwilling to admit this which left her only one route for dealing with the injustice namely the tribunal process.
Amongst those involved on the rough end of Wycliffe Hall's treatment Elaine Storkey may be the one who is most able to stand up to the injustice meted out by the institution not just to her but to others also who may not have been in a strong enough position to resist the tactics used.
Paul's context in 1 Corinthians 6 is in the context of effective and established patterns of dispute resolution in the Jewish community from which the church could borrow - and of a church community which consisted of a relatively small number of households.
In the context of Wycliffe Hall one thing is very clear: there is no effective and established pattern of dispute resolution within the church which could be used in this case.
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
In the context of Wycliffe Hall one thing is very clear: there is no effective and established pattern of dispute resolution within the church which could be used in this case.
I'm going to disagree with this.
I think there was an established pattern of dispute resolution - the one quoted by Numpty. I also happen to think that Wycliffe deliberately chose to ignore it, leaving ES no choice but to go through the tribunal.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
quote:
Originally posted by Arrietty:
Interesting how 'no case to answer' becomes 'there is a case to answer but it is morally wrong to bring it'.
I haven't contributed much to this thread and I haven't suggested that Turnbull or the Hall Council are six feet above contradiction. I do however, regardless of the specifics of the case, think that Storkey is wrong to use secular law as means of gaining public 'satisfaction' from + Jones.
What if she isn't out for money? Surely that's all she'd get if she settled out of court. Perhaps she's out to see Wycliffe behave as the Christian institution she knows it can.
I'm not equating money and satisfaction. I'm suggesting that a truly Christian form of satisfaction comes via forgiveness and the refusal to engage in reprisal or recrimination. Is it really not possible for + Jones and Storkey to reconcile this within the ecclesia? Does it have to be presided over by a secular third party? I think the answer is yes, it can be resolved within the body of Christ. The issue in these situations is always the same; the sinful nature will always convince the offended party that their circumstances extenuates their obligation to obey Christ before seeking their own satisfaction.
[ 08. January 2008, 17:51: Message edited by: Call me Numpty ]
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Gwai's right to ask the question, Numpty. And, again, referring to Elaine Storkey's public life, what grounds do you have for believing her to be the sort of person who would exploit the errors of others for compensation or gain?
I reiterate: i am not suggesting that Storkey is doing anything out of the love of money. I'm sure that money, in this case, is actually incidental and subordinate to Storkey's desire for moral vindication. I'm questioning that desire, not the means by which that desire has been, or will be, satisfied. Surely, it is basic to Christian ethics that it is Jesus, and not we, that should seek to vindicate our cause: no matter how right that cause may be.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
innocent(ish)
Shipmate
# 12691
|
Posted
Can I be very Anglican and agree with everyone??
In the case of the unfair dismissal, this is , as has been proved, a matter for an employment tribunal, but only because Wycliffe refused to admit she had been unfairly dismissed.
The matter of religious discrimination on the other hand seems very much to me like an in house matter. Let's pray it ends up being so.
--------------------
"Christianity has become part of the furniture ... like a grand piano nobody plays any longer.I want the dust to be taken off and people to play music." Archbishop John Sentamu
Posts: 109 | From: Rochester | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Gwai's right to ask the question, Numpty. And, again, referring to Elaine Storkey's public life, what grounds do you have for believing her to be the sort of person who would exploit the errors of others for compensation or gain?
I reiterate: i am not suggesting that Storkey is doing anything out of the love of money. I'm sure that money, in this case, is actually incidental and subordinate to Storkey's desire for moral vindication. I'm questioning that desire, not the means by which that desire has been, or will be, satisfied. Surely, it is basic to Christian ethics that it is Jesus, and not we, that should seek to vindicate our cause: no matter how right that cause may be.
I think that's the nub of the issue, Numpty. The problem is that you are not questioning that desire, you are judging that her exceptional actions are based entirely on personal moral vindication. And so ignoring that there are legitimate wider matters of concern over the running of the college, put in the public domain before she was, unjustly, sacked. Others as well as the Goddards may still be at risk unless governance and management are corrected to prevent a repetition of this sorry state of affairs. That matters.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Seeker963
Shipmate
# 2066
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MirrorMouse:
This is the link to the story in today's Guardian covering this development.
Elaine Storkey is a liberal feminist? ![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
That must make me a card-carrying member of the communist party.
--------------------
"People waste so much of their lives on hate and fear." My friend JW-N: Chaplain and three-time cancer survivor. (Went to be with her Lord March 21, 2010. May she rest in peace and rise in glory.)
Posts: 4152 | From: Northeast Ohio | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Gwai's right to ask the question, Numpty. And, again, referring to Elaine Storkey's public life, what grounds do you have for believing her to be the sort of person who would exploit the errors of others for compensation or gain?
I reiterate: i am not suggesting that Storkey is doing anything out of the love of money. I'm sure that money, in this case, is actually incidental and subordinate to Storkey's desire for moral vindication. I'm questioning that desire, not the means by which that desire has been, or will be, satisfied. Surely, it is basic to Christian ethics that it is Jesus, and not we, that should seek to vindicate our cause: no matter how right that cause may be.
I think that's the nub of the issue, Numpty. The problem is that you are not questioning that desire, you are judging that her exceptional actions are based entirely on personal moral vindication. And so ignoring that there are legitimate wider matters of concern over the running of the college, put in the public domain before she was, unjustly, sacked. Others as well as the Goddards may still be at risk unless governance and management are corrected to prevent a repetition of this sorry state of affairs. That matters.
I'm not judging it but I am questioning it.
[ 08. January 2008, 18:23: Message edited by: Call me Numpty ]
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
Storkey is wrong to have done this on two counts. Firstly, as she admits herself, the college was prepared to settle out of court, as scripture encourages Christians to do. Secondly, because she openly admits to using the media, and the secular judicial system, as a means of personal vindication against a fellow Christian, which scripture clearly discourages.
That emphatically is not questioning, Numpty, it is judging. Not even an "I think" or "I consider that she may". Do you want to retract that? There is no indication in that comment that you are questioning anything. None at all. You've stated a position. Perhaps you stated that position more strongly than you meant? I hope that is the case.
[ 08. January 2008, 18:25: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
FreeJack
Shipmate
# 10612
|
Posted
So is +Liverpool going to do the decent thing and resign now?
Posts: 3588 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
Storkey is wrong to have done this on two counts. Firstly, as she admits herself, the college was prepared to settle out of court, as scripture encourages Christians to do. Secondly, because she openly admits to using the media, and the secular judicial system, as a means of personal vindication against a fellow Christian, which scripture clearly discourages. She should have accepted the college's offer. And she shouldn't be taking a bishop to court in front of unbelievers. Perhaps this is why she is being described as the wrong sort of evangelical (i.e. one who pays lip-service to scripture).
quote:
1If any of you has a dispute with another, dare he take it before the ungodly for judgment instead of before the saints? 2Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if you are to judge the world, are you not competent to judge trivial cases? 3Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more the things of this life! 4Therefore, if you have disputes about such matters, appoint as judges even men of little account in the church![a] 5I say this to shame you. Is it possible that there is nobody among you wise enough to judge a dispute between believers? 6But instead, one brother goes to law against another—and this in front of unbelievers!
7The very fact that you have lawsuits among you means you have been completely defeated already. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be cheated? 8Instead, you yourselves cheat and do wrong, and you do this to your brothers.
It strikes me that the 1st letter to Corinth is written to the Church at Corinth, not to a specific individual. So if Storkey was obliged to take the matter to court the blame falls with the church as a whole for not providing a mechanism for arbitration in matters of this sort. I don't think that St. Paul really intended that the Church should be the sort of place where people abuse their power over their employees without their employees having recourse to natural justice. Bleating about out of court settlements is all very well but Storkey has some obligation to the truth, and had there not been a tribunal Numpty, or some such, would be telling us in a few years time that the only reason they settled out of court was to save the hassle and out of charitable sentiment rather than because Storkey had a case. Finally, even if it were the case that Storkey was wrong to act as she did I think that when people sin some blame must fall upon those who provoke others to sin. Storkey lost her job as a result of the underhand machinations of the Wycliffe mafia. Anyone here who has never behaved badly under provocation is allowed to complain about her behaviour but the rest of you can just shut the fuck up.
Finally, Storkey certainly is the wrong kind of evangelical. The right kind, I imagine, has a Y chromosome.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
Storkey is wrong to have done this on two counts. Firstly, as she admits herself, the college was prepared to settle out of court, as scripture encourages Christians to do. Secondly, because she openly admits to using the media, and the secular judicial system, as a means of personal vindication against a fellow Christian, which scripture clearly discourages.
That emphatically is not questioning, Numpty, it is judging. Not even an "I think" or "I consider that she may". Do you want to retract that? There is no indication in that comment that you are questioning anything. None at all. You've stated a position. Perhaps you stated that position more strongly than you meant? I hope that is the case.
It is not judging; technically it is accusing. To judge I must pass sentence; to accuse I must bring a charge. The accuser is not the judge; only the judge can pass sentence and impose a penalty. I have done neither. I can legitimately be called an accuser; but not a judge.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
OK Numpty! Then on reflection, what do you now think of the grounds for your accusation? Does not the distinction between sole personal vindication and a proper concern for the wider issues make you wonder whether your accusation is fairly based?
BTW, you've moved from questioning (free speech) to accusing (assumption of role) ...
(I respect you a lot - I think you know that. Would you prefer this to continue by PM's? I'm not picking on you but I think there is a really important issue in these exchanges.)
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arrietty
Ship's borrower
# 45
|
Posted
Last time I read the Bible, God was pretty hot on justice.
I don't actually believe we have any right to overlook injustice just because we are the victims. If people get away with one act of injustice it tends to make them more likely to perform another, on someone else. She's making a stand not just for herself but for any potential future targets of such actions.
If you're dismissed from your job it affects your reputation, your possibility of another job, your financial security, your personal sense of worth.
I personally doubt that anyone posting that Elaine Storkey's Christian duty was just to take being dismissed unfairly for the sake of the wider Church would do any such thing themselves.
I personally think any responsibility for damage to the church lies with those who did the unfair dismissing, not the victim of it.
--------------------
i-church
Online Mission and Ministry
Posts: 6634 | From: Coventry, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
No, I'm happy to discuss this in public. I'm accusing Storkey of behaving in an unbiblical manner in taking + James Jones to court for religious discrimination. She is taking a Christian brother - not the Hall Council - with what can only be described as desperately litigious.
I believe that this is in direct contravention of both Jesus' and Saint Paul's teaching on Christian behaviour regarding personal law-suits between Christians. I do not know if James Jones has asked Storkey to settle this 'on the way', I hope he has. If he has and Storkey has refused, then that puts her even further out of line with biblical principles.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
I would assume - if ES is motivated by the desire to see the insitution behave correctly - that she is persuing the religious discrimination claim because she wishes to demonstrate that the college administration is biased against her views to the extent that others holding similar views at at risk of being discriminated against - perhaps including the students. If this is the case, it is as much a problem as crap disciplinary procedures.
Again, it is difficult to see how else this could be demonstrated without taking it to the tribunal. I am deeply suspicious of keep-it-in-the-church-at-all-costs thinking, because that can have the effect of concealing damage for a very long time.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
innocent(ish)
Shipmate
# 12691
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
She is taking a Christian brother - not the Hall Council - with what can only be described as desperately litigious.
It may well be that has to be the case as he is chair of the Hall Council.
--------------------
"Christianity has become part of the furniture ... like a grand piano nobody plays any longer.I want the dust to be taken off and people to play music." Archbishop John Sentamu
Posts: 109 | From: Rochester | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gracie
Shipmate
# 3870
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
I'm accusing Storkey of behaving in an unbiblical manner in taking + James Jones to court for religious discrimination. She is taking a Christian brother - not the Hall Council - with what can only be described as desperately litigious.
I believe that this is in direct contravention of both Jesus' and Saint Paul's teaching on Christian behaviour regarding personal law-suits between Christians.
Do you not think there's the possibility that the passage you quoted in 1 Corinthians 6 is actually criticising the so-called Christians doing the wrong, which leads to them being taken to court, because the church has not organised itself to deal with such matters?
Take another look at verse 8:
quote:
Instead, you yourselves cheat and do wrong, and you do this to your brothers
Here the problem is that it's the people in the position of authority who according to all accounts have done the wrong, so they are particularly ill-equipped to judge the matter.
As others have said here, maybe in this case going to court is less disobedient than not going to court. In any case I don't see a direct instruction in these verses.
[ 08. January 2008, 21:23: Message edited by: Gracie ]
--------------------
When someone is convinced he’s an Old Testament prophet there’s not a lot you can do with him rationally. - Sine
Posts: 1090 | From: En lieu sûr | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cantiones Sacrae
Shipmate
# 12774
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
I believe that this is in direct contravention of both Jesus' and Saint Paul's teaching on Christian behaviour regarding personal law-suits between Christians. I do not know if James Jones has asked Storkey to settle this 'on the way', I hope he has. If he has and Storkey has refused, then that puts her even further out of line with biblical principles.
Where would your analysis place those Christians who took other Christians to civil court over ceremonial during the rise of the Oxford Movement, Numpty?
Posts: 271 | From: London | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cantiones Sacrae:
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
I believe that this is in direct contravention of both Jesus' and Saint Paul's teaching on Christian behaviour regarding personal law-suits between Christians. I do not know if James Jones has asked Storkey to settle this 'on the way', I hope he has. If he has and Storkey has refused, then that puts her even further out of line with biblical principles.
Where would your analysis place those Christians who took other Christians to civil court over ceremonial during the rise of the Oxford Movement, Numpty?
It was part of the reason that the church degenerated on both sides of the argument. Both sides lost, as Paul points out.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
No, I'm happy to discuss this in public. I'm accusing Storkey of behaving in an unbiblical manner in taking + James Jones to court for religious discrimination. She is taking a Christian brother - not the Hall Council - with what can only be described as desperately litigious.
I believe that this is in direct contravention of both Jesus' and Saint Paul's teaching on Christian behaviour regarding personal law-suits between Christians. I do not know if James Jones has asked Storkey to settle this 'on the way', I hope he has. If he has and Storkey has refused, then that puts her even further out of line with biblical principles.
Numpty, while I understand how you could get this impression from the way the press report has been worded, I think it is not accurate and so your understanding of it may be a bit awry.
Following the preliminary hearing,the proposed full meeting in July is of an Employment Tribunal which is set up to determine whether Wycliffe Hall as an employer has acted in a discriminatory way (as the law defines unfair discrimination at work) towards Dr Storkey. This is not a personal action against another Christian, it is a matter of proper application of employment law towards an employee.
I'm 12 years out of date on this stuff, but I think that discrimination in general is certainly covered by employment tribunal guidelines (equal opportunities and all that). Whether the claim by Dr Storkey amounts to a proveable discrimination in this relatively narrow sense is not clear to me. It seems very likely that she's had professional advice before deciding on this very serious course. I hope for her sake she is better informed (or more savvy) than the Hall Council were when they decided, unfairly, to sack her.
The Employment Tribunal can really only investigate actions and documentary evidence and see how that stacks up against discrimination law and precedents. It will not be competent to handle complex theological issues i.e competing views of the rights and wrongs of various strands of evangelical belief. Hence the reluctance of Robin Lewis, the Employment Tribunal chair, to hear the matter.
But in any case, the evidence is strong that the July meeting is not a personal suing or calling to account of + Jones at all, regardless of how the press has put it. It is simply a continuation of the investigation of a matter of employment and how a particular contract was terminated. Reputations and relationships may be on the line as a result - but that is another matter.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Seeker963
Shipmate
# 2066
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
It was part of the reason that the church degenerated on both sides of the argument. Both sides lost, as Paul points out.
I think that reconciliation is an important Christian principle, but the question here is what does a Christian individual do when the other side refuses to reconcile? I don't think paying someone to suppress the truth counts as reconciliation.
It seems to me that you're suggesting that when Christian A treats Christian B unfairly and uses power-over to suppress the truth rather than to reveal it, that what God really wants is for Christian B to roll over and be a doormat? God doesn't really want to the truth to be revealed? If the truth can be revealed within the church, then fine. But if it can't, then we should subject ourselves to all manner of the illegitimate use of power at the hands of our Christian brothers and sisters?
--------------------
"People waste so much of their lives on hate and fear." My friend JW-N: Chaplain and three-time cancer survivor. (Went to be with her Lord March 21, 2010. May she rest in peace and rise in glory.)
Posts: 4152 | From: Northeast Ohio | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
It was part of the reason that the church degenerated on both sides of the argument. Both sides lost, as Paul points out.
I think that reconciliation is an important Christian principle, but the question here is what does a Christian individual do when the other side refuses to reconcile? I don't think paying someone to suppress the truth counts as reconciliation.
It seems to me that you're suggesting that when Christian A treats Christian B unfairly and uses power-over to suppress the truth rather than to reveal it, that what God really wants is for Christian B to roll over and be a doormat? God doesn't really want to the truth to be revealed? If the truth can be revealed within the church, then fine. But if it can't, then we should subject ourselves to all manner of the illegitimate use of power at the hands of our Christian brothers and sisters?
Why not let yourself be defrauded? Why not let yourself be wronged? There's no easy way around Paul's rhetoric is there?
[ 08. January 2008, 22:32: Message edited by: Call me Numpty ]
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
