|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Wycliffe Hall in trouble
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
... "ever been made public."
--------------------
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
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
So maybe the only things we will ever be able to say for sure are
a) the Hall Council were incompetent in their handling of the issue
b) the dismissal was unfair.
Those two statements cannot be connected with certainty in any clear way.
Thanks. That's helpful.
(And I can't spell 'misunderstand' either ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif) )
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by et unam sanctam:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
I cannot see any reason why it should be necessary to establish that there is a material difference between the "religion" of ES and that of the new management of WH. All that would need to be established is that there was a disagreement which was religious in nature, and that it was that disagreement which led to her being unfairly dismissed.
I agree entirely - this is the one thing that I haven't understood either.
This begs the following question: Has it now become impossible to dismiss someone fairly on the basis of religious difference? Is it possible for an organisation to dismiss someone because of difference at all?
[ 11. January 2008, 08:25: Message edited by: Call me Numpty ]
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
J Whitgift
Pro ecclesia dei!
# 1981
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
Oh dear not again
Hmm. An interesting complaint, and one which may yet complicate matters even further. Then again, I don't share the LGCM's belief that the situations are analogous. In fact, I'll go further and say that this looks like a desperate and clumsy attempt to get publicity for an easily dismissed complaint by making a tenuous link to a genuine story.
I agree TGG.
Normally I would have some agreement with LGCM, and whilst their complaint does hold water IMHO, it seems like they're using this as an opportunity to make their point, which I feel is misguided. As you say, the situations aren't analogous - the Wycliffe situation involves an actual case of someone who believes they may have been discriminated against, the LGCM/Tearfund complaint involves a principle/potential action.
Reminds me of the Jo Moore incident (Jo Moore was special adviser to Secretary of State for Transport, Stephen Byers) in which she suggested that 11 September 2001 would be a good day to 'bury bad news'. Not edifying at all. ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
--------------------
On the issue of homosexuality the Liberals have spent their time thinking, considering and listening (in the spirit of the Windsor process), whereas Conservative Anglicans have used the time to further dig their feet in and become more intransigent.
Posts: 2838 | From: Gone shoreside | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
seasick
...over the edge
# 48
|
Posted
quote:
Call me Numpty said:
This begs the following question: Has it now become impossible to dismiss someone fairly on the basis of religious difference? Is it possible for an organisation to dismiss someone because of difference at all?
IANAL, but assuming the provision is similar to other anti-discrimination laws in the UK, then AIUI the answer is no, but you need to be able to demonstrate that said religious difference means that the employee cannot carry out the duties of his/her employment.
--------------------
We believe there is, and always was, in every Christian Church, ... an outward priesthood, ordained by Jesus Christ, and an outward sacrifice offered therein. - John Wesley
Posts: 5769 | From: A world of my own | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
This begs the following question: Has it now become impossible to dismiss someone fairly on the basis of religious difference? Is it possible for an organisation to dismiss someone because of difference at all?
Its a good question, Numpty. I think the intentions of the law and the direction of precedents say that you can't dismiss someone on the basis of a religious difference, or on the basis of any difference. But that is not a bad thing, nor does it say these things may not matter in recruitment, assessment, or disciplinary cases.
I think the argument goes like this. A religious or philosophical difference does not necessarily prevent anyone doing their job well, but it may impact on the ability of that person to contribute to either policy making (teamwork responsibility) or the effective support of policy (individual or team duties) or the carrying out of required duties. The difference may turn out to be an underlying or contributory factor in performance failure, but it is the demonstrable fact of the performance failure that matters.
This can get pretty complicated when a manager and a staff member are discussing remedies. The manager has no authority to challenge belief differences but it is perfectly legitimate to point that problems of co-operation or obedience may require attitudinal change if the person is to improve. Nobody has the right to expect an organisation to change values and policies in order to suit them. (If the organisation's values and policies are against the law, that is another matter.)
So it seems right to me that the law says you can only sack someone for severe or persistent performance failure. (Making folks redundant for structural reasons is another matter). But you have to be able to point to evidence of that failure in relation to the requirements of the job, have evidence of that failure and evidence that serious attempts to rectify have failed. Jobs require people to do things. The mutuality of contracts says that both parties must be given a fair crack of the whip in their efforts to correct failure and comply with requirements.
What the law does, in effect, is to compel management and employees to ensure that assessment of performance is the prime consideration. If clashes of beliefs are a practical problem, that will be demonstrated by perfomance failings. Otherwise, they are not a problem. Similar arguments apply to issues of character or competence. Are they relevant to performance? If not, why should they, in themselves, constitute a basis for dismissal. Do you think they should?
--------------------
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
(PS I tend to count dismissable misconduct as severe performance failure, since most contracts of employment specify what constitutes dismissable misconduct.)
--------------------
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
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
What the law does, in effect, is to compel management and employees to ensure that assessment of performance is the prime consideration. If clashes of beliefs are a practical problem, that will be demonstrated by perfomance failings. Otherwise, they are not a problem. Similar arguments apply to issues of character or competence. Are they relevant to performance? If not, why should they, in themselves, constitute a basis for dismissal. Do you think they should?
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif) That is what I was trying to say to Richard but you have put it much more graciously.
That was a performance failure on my part and hence a possible sacking.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
Surely it's possible to reach such a severe point of difference, particularly theological difference, that the difference itself renders the relationship unworkable, is it not? Isn't this is what heresy and orthodoxy are all about? Not that Storkey is a heretic in any way, shape, or form, I hasten to add. I'm just wondering is this fear of discrimination of any kind - particularly in the realm of ideas - is counterproductive in some contexts.
[ 11. January 2008, 09:44: Message edited by: Call me Numpty ]
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
That should have read:
"I'm just wondering if this fear of discrimination - particularly in the realm of ideas - is counterproductive in some contexts."
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
The Church Times has the fullest report I have yet seen. This makes it clear that at a 'pre-hearing' the Hall Trustees admitted unfair dismissal and agreed to submit to the maximum award for unfair dismissal, abandoning any suggestion of contributory fault by Elaine Storkey. The chairman of the Tribunal assessed the award for unfair dismissal as being likely to be in the region of £20,000. No admission has been made by the Trustees in relation to the religious discrimination part of the claim and it has not been withdrawn, so (currently) it remains to be adjudicated by the Tribunal on 11/12 June.
ISTM the main practical legal problem about the religious discrimination claim is that it is a relatively new area of law (2003 and 2006) but the prinicples are fairly clear. There is a useful summary (PDF) here.
quote:
The regulations prohibit less favourable treatment in employment and training based on:
• a person’s religion or belief
• the perception of a person’s religion or belief
• a person’s association with someone of a particular religion or belief
• a refusal by a person to comply with a discriminatory instruction.
This does not cover discrimination based on something other than a religion or a similar philosophical belief, but it is unlawful to discriminate against someone of the same religion, or against someone for not belonging to a certain religion.
So Elaine Storkey does NOT need to show that she is of a different religion from Richard Turnbull et al. Though it might be difficult for a theological college to turn down for employment or dismiss from employment someone who is the 'wrong kind of Christian' i.e. not catholic/evangelical/ etc. unless they can show that that is a 'genuine occupational requirement'.
Discrimination includes quote:
Direct discrimination - Where someone is treated less favourably than another person on the grounds of their religion or belief.
Indirect discrimination - Applying a ‘provision, criterion or practice’ which disadvantages people of a particular religion or belief without a good reason.
Bullying and harassment - Unwanted conduct that violates people’s dignity or creates an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment. It may be that this is
intentional, but it may much more subtle and insidious.
Victimisation - Treating people less favourably for taking action under the regulations or assisting someone else who has taken action. For example making a formal complaint or giving evidence of discrimination.
There are limited exceptions...
quote:
for ‘genuine occupational requirements’ in very limited circumstances where it is necessary to be from a particular religion to do a certain job. or for “employers with an ethos based on a religion or belief “, which means
that they can specify a religion as a job requirement even if it isn’t a ‘determining’ (decisive) occupational requirement.
[ 11. January 2008, 10:06: Message edited by: BroJames ]
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Thanks, BroJames, illuminating.
Personally, I can't see much in that to suggest that the original disciplinary action against Elaine Storkey is going to feature very much in further legal hearings. Maybe "mitigating circumstances" prayed in aid by WH? But this looks pretty much like a WH cave-in to me, with only the discrimination issue left to determine the extent of compensation.
What a right (un)royal screw-up!
Numpty
Fair point. Do differences in vision and outlook make working relationships unworkable in practice? I'm inclined to think they do. But the law basically says "work hard at them, seek satisfaction in the context of performance, before deciding (particularly unilaterally) that in themselves they warrant dismissal. That denying one party or the other a fair crack of the whip". We're in favour of making effort to live at peace with neighbours, preserve the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace.
--------------------
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
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
ISTM, that legislative pragmatism should not take precedence over Christian principle in ecclesiastical matters. The law may well insist that it does, and Storkey may well come out with a favourable legal outcome by virtue of this emphasis on functional, rather than ideological, criteria. But that does not necessarily mean that her principles are more valid or right than those of the Hall or conservative evangelicalism in general.
What it could do, however, is create a much more marginalised and reactionary conservative evangelicalism that finds itself on the receiving end of legal proceedings whenever it puts principle of pragmatism.
[ 11. January 2008, 10:56: Message edited by: Call me Numpty ]
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
Broadly speaking the approach the law takes is that if you can show there is a genuine reason why a person needs to hold (or not hold) a particular religious belief in order to do their job then you are allowed to set up that as a requirement for the post. You are not allowed to discriminate against a person on the ground of their religious belief if it does not affect their work and if it is not a genuine occupational requirement.
To take extreme cases Wycliffe Hall could not refuse to employ a cleaner because they were Muslim, it would be harder for them to make a case for not employing an Anglo-Catholic OT lecturer whose views on the Scriptures were in line with WH ethos.
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
moonlitdoor
Shipmate
# 11707
|
Posted
I assume it would be unfair dismissal if the principal got rid of her just because he doesn't like her. So can I ask what are the practical differences if it was for reasons of religious difference ?
Does a person get more money if dismissed due to religious discrimination rather than just general arbitrariness ?
--------------------
We've evolved to being strange monkeys, but in the next life he'll help us be something more worthwhile - Gwai
Posts: 2210 | From: london | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Numpty
I don't get you - that looks like a false antithesis to me. I think that employment law as it stands embodies some very good Christian principle. Romans 12 v 18 for a start. The whole of Amos 5 about the nature of justice and fairness. In this particular case the law seems in particular to be well on the side of Ephesians 4 v 2. WH precipitant action was a failure of principle by this standard - they did not make "every effort".
To my eyes, in this case, it is the law which looks principled and WH which looks to be found out in its pragmatism. And I think that has everything to do with ethical conduct and very little to do with conservative or liberal evangelical theology.
--------------------
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 moonlitdoor:
I assume it would be unfair dismissal if the principal got rid of her just because he doesn't like her. So can I ask what are the practical differences if it was for reasons of religious difference ?
Does a person get more money if dismissed due to religious discrimination rather than just general arbitrariness ?
Yes you are right about this. As a matter of public policy religious discrimination (like racial or sexual discrimination and (?) disability discrimination) are regarded as more important than simply two people who don't like each other. Probably because they all are capable of becoming systematic and systemic within organisations in a way that personal dislike does not.
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Great Gumby
Ship's Brain Surgeon
# 10989
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
ISTM, that legislative pragmatism should not take precedence over Christian principle in ecclesiastical matters.
So you would expect anyone working for a Christian organisation to be denied the rights and protection that everyone else gets? And who gets to define "Christian principle"? Just in the last couple of pages of this thread, we've seen a serious disagreement over the Biblical way of resolving this dispute. I see no reason to suppose that there would be any more consensus over other matters.
quote:
What it could do, however, is create a much more marginalised and reactionary conservative evangelicalism that finds itself on the receiving end of legal proceedings whenever it puts principle of pragmatism.
Or, alternatively, whenever it refuses to submit to the governing authorities. I think Paul had something to say on that subject.
[ETA: And what B62 said. Looooong cross-post!]
[ 11. January 2008, 11:59: Message edited by: The Great Gumby ]
--------------------
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool. - Richard Feynman
A letter to my son about death
Posts: 5382 | From: Home for shot clergy spouses | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
moonlitdoor
Shipmate
# 11707
|
Posted
I think Numpty's contention is not that people working for Christian organisations should be denied legal rights and protections, but that they should not always choose to use those rights.
--------------------
We've evolved to being strange monkeys, but in the next life he'll help us be something more worthwhile - Gwai
Posts: 2210 | From: london | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
R.A.M.
Shipmate
# 7390
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
ISTM, that legislative pragmatism should not take precedence over Christian principle in ecclesiastical matters. The law may well insist that it does, and Storkey may well come out with a favourable legal outcome by virtue of this emphasis on functional, rather than ideological, criteria. But that does not necessarily mean that her principles are more valid or right than those of the Hall or conservative evangelicalism in general.
What it could do, however, is create a much more marginalised and reactionary conservative evangelicalism that finds itself on the receiving end of legal proceedings whenever it puts principle of pragmatism.
I don't think this is about pragmatism though, it is about Justice, and Justice is a very Christian principle.
Dismissing someone from there job on the ground of their religious belief is unjust. Therefore Dismissing someone of the grounds of their religious belief is unchristian. End of.
Injustice should not be allowed to cloak itself in Christianity.
--------------------
Formerly Real Ale Methodist
Back after prolonged absence...
Posts: 1584 | From: (Sunshine on) Leith | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
Numpty, I'm finding it hard to think of a situation where it could be considered moral, from a Christian POV, to dismiss someone for genuine "ideological" reasons. That is not to say that, necessarily, recruitment proceedures are a no-go area for such ideological criteria, but that is a separate (and in its own way interesting) debate. All the possible scenarios that I can think of, where such action would be justified would involve some kind of misconduct. What would, in your view, be sufficient cause for "ideological" dismissal?
We all have to work alongside those people who we find difficult/irritating/disagreeable. Certainly, when ordinands move into their churches, such challenges will face them. It seems to me that learning to deal with such people is an important part of of our character formation, so it seems especially appropriate for a theological training college that there should be people around who fulfil the role of the grit in the oyster.
--------------------
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
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
I think so too, moonlit door, but it was the curious use of the word pragmatism which puzzled me. As TGG says, we've spent a lot of time looking together at Christians going to law and many of us, though preferring to "keep it in the family", see that recourse to law may be, exceptionally, justified.
This always looked to me to be one of these exceptional situations. What has now been revealed is, frankly, better out than in, as much for the sake of WH as staff and students. They've dropped some king-size clangers.
--------------------
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
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
I am using the word 'pragmatism' with specific reference to the idea that a person's suitability for the job may only be measured according to their ability to 'do' it. I feel that this is philosophically and ideologically reductionistic. A person's suitability within an organisation is based on much more than the deeds that they do with respect to their position. Anyone who has known someone 'work to rule' knows perfectly well that this is the case. My point is that employment law, as it currently stands, is so pragmatic that it that discrimination itself - rather than unfair discrimination - has become unacceptable.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
FreeJack
Shipmate
# 10612
|
Posted
It is quite a good lesson to all the ordinands in the Church of England that even Bishops and Principals can mess up badly in applying employment law to the Church's paid staff.
If it persuades the Vicar in x years time that the PCC better get some very good legal advice before sacking the organist/administrator/... then it might be a useful example.
Posts: 3588 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by moonlitdoor:
I think Numpty's contention is not that people working for Christian organisations should be denied legal rights and protections, but that they should not always choose to use those rights.
Yes, I do think that, particularly when the line between pursuit of justice and base retaliation is not easily discernible.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Emma Louise
Storm in a teapot
# 3571
|
Posted
Losing a job is quite a major thing. Especially when its a job in a place you have loved over the years etc. I really dont see how wanting justice after being unfairly sacked can be "base retaliation" or anything other than seeking justice..... ![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
It seems to me that some people are going to defent Turnball and co. regardless of what anyone else ever finds. Is it a belief that ConsEvos "cant be wrong" or some sort of extreme loyalty? I can't see *why* some people are going to extremes to stick up for someone despite all the evidence to the contrary.
Posts: 12719 | From: Enid Blyton territory. | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
Ah, I see! You think I've fallen into the fallacy that the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Storkey is no more my enemy than Turnbull is my friend. IMO I have been less partial in this than many of Storkey's 'supporters'. In some respects I have found myself playing devil's advocate, but I think it's worth considering that Storkey's motives may not be a pure as some are prepared to believe. By the same token, it may also be worth considering that Turnbull's might not be as malevolent as they suggesting. This isn't a black and white issue and anyone who has been to court will know that court cases never are.
[ 11. January 2008, 13:26: Message edited by: Call me Numpty ]
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Emma Louise
Storm in a teapot
# 3571
|
Posted
Regardless of either sides motives, being unfairly dismissed is a huge injustice. Losing a job turns your world upside down, and the accompanying emotional trauma of it being unfair is huge.
I don't see how anyone can *not* call that an injustice.
Wycliffe was wrong in this situation regardless of Storkey's "motives". I don't see why there is a need to question them.
Posts: 12719 | From: Enid Blyton territory. | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
I happen to know that it's possible to keep a job when you should have lost it. I have the representation of the Union to thank for that. And if I'm capable of it then other people are too.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
1. Most clergy don't have Unions. Its only recently they have been allowed to
2. You have to be up bloody minded if you don't have a Union.
Some similar scandals have been avoided in the past simply because the "victim" was bloody minded enough to threaten to go public (maybe only to the church but still) with the whole sorry mess. Not just the then current limited case, but the persistent failings over the years to often have any good human resource policy.
Actually I think this shows why I think all churches should have proper Human Resource policies in place and clergy should have access to external legal advisors and we should have trained arbitrators/negotiators/mediators who are not clergy.
If these were in place I think Numpty's position might be tenable but my experience suggests that in the vast majority of cases they are not in place and where they are, they are often out-moded quasi-judicial in approach and therefore confrontational from the start, so that seeking external secular legal remedy might be less damaging to all than to use of such internal procedures.
Yes damning but it annoys me that we are willing to try and run the "cure of souls" on standards of internal conduct that would cause ructions if they happened in the health services who look after the "cure of bodies".
What would with think of a medical school that sacked a gynaecologist lecturer, not for what they taught in the class room but because they followed a less interventionist line in their practice of medicine than what was standard practice in the school?
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Magistra
Apprentice
# 13066
|
Posted
"I happen to know that it's possible to keep a job when you should have lost it. I have the representation of the Union to thank for that. And if I'm capable of it then other people are too."
What are you saying here in relation to the Storkey case, Numpty? It seems perverse to argue that other people should be just as capable of keeping their jobs as you, when by your own admission it was the mediation of the Union which protected you in that case. As far as I understand it, Elaine used the limited agencies available to her without success.
I'm with Emma on the point about Storkey's motives. The tribunal has forced Wycliffe to admit, which it quite evidently would never have done otherwise, that (as the CT report has it) 'there were no contributing factors from Dr Storkey that could justify their action' in dismissing her. The onus is on Wycliffe, not Storkey, to give an account for their motives.
Let's recall Jonathan Aitken's article, which contained slanderous comments about Elaine's behaviour: the tactic all along has been to make her appear the engineer of division when clearly she is one of many people (who Numpty knows very well are not subversive influences: Wenham, John, Johnston, Maughan etc.) who have been in conflict with the Principal. If we want to interpret motives, perhaps we might consider the possibility that she is using this as a way of bringing to light the full extent of the bullying at Wycliffe under Turnbull.
Posts: 37 | From: Oxford | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Thanks, Numpty. In practice, employment law and practice may not be as reductionist as you think on this. I've written loads of job and person specifications to help my previous organisation in selection, recruitment and promotion. What one seeks to reduce is vagueness. The various importances of particular gifts, character, aptitude, skills etc are all embraced in these processes.
The real difficulties are caused by a penchant for vagueness (a controlling management instinct) which often conceals a desire to describe a role in these terms.
"This person will do whatever we want them to do and like it".
Historically, there has been much ignorance, prejudice and unfairness in these areas. Trade Unions did not arise for no reason.
And in the ecclesiastical set-up, we have in this thread some interesting comments from respected Shipmates, which suggest that one cannot guarantee enlightened servant-hearted leadership in the treatment of paid servants of the church.
--------------------
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
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Magistra:
"I happen to know that it's possible to keep a job when you should have lost it. I have the representation of the Union to thank for that. And if I'm capable of it then other people are too."
What are you saying here in relation to the Storkey case, Numpty?
Certainly not! But it's worth remembering that impartiality works both ways and that it doesn't have to uncritical of the parties involved.
quote:
It seems perverse to argue that other people should be just as capable of keeping their jobs as you, when by your own admission it was the mediation of the Union which protected you in that case. As far as I understand it, Elaine used the limited agencies available to her without success.
The point is simply that the findings of a tribunal do not necessarily reflect the full facts of any case.
quote:
I'm with Emma on the point about Storkey's motives. The tribunal has forced Wycliffe to admit, which it quite evidently would never have done otherwise, that (as the CT report has it) 'there were no contributing factors from Dr Storkey that could justify their action' in dismissing her. The onus is on Wycliffe, not Storkey, to give an account for their motives.
That's as may be but, IMO, it doesn't justify taking further legal action which, let's be honest, is based on a very creative reading of religious discrimination legislation. That strikes me as inventive and vengeful not altruistic and justice seeking.
quote:
Let's recall Jonathan Aitken's article, which contained slanderous comments about Elaine's behaviour: the tactic all along has been to make her appear the engineer of division when clearly she is one of many people (who Numpty knows very well are not subversive influences: Wenham, John, Johnston, Maughan etc.) who have been in conflict with the Principal. If we want to interpret motives, perhaps we might consider the possibility that she is using this as a way of bringing to light the full extent of the bullying at Wycliffe under Turnbull.
She should say that's the case then because the media simply has her stating a desire for personal vindication.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Numpty, my respected Shipmate, you've been very consistent on this and I think I understand why. But what I don't understand is the contrast here.
On the one hand, we have your freely expressed ethical criticism of Elaine Storkey for a) going outside the family to the law and b) pursuing her case as you see it beyond legal justice into "inventive and vengeful".
On the other, I can't see any such freely expressed opinion of the ethical or spiritual failings of Wycliffe Hall. The preliminary finding confirms that Elaine Storkey is the injured party, WH the causer of the injury. Do you not feel their actions, as revealed by the preliminary findings, call for any ethical comment? Do you have an opinion on that matter?
It just seems weird to me to have such an intense focus on the supposed wrongdoings of the injured party when there is a much more obvious and justifiable target for such critical comment. Maybe that is not at all what you intended - but it is the somewhat unfortunate impression you have created, at least in my mind.
A final thought - your "black and white comment". Actually, as reported in the Church Times, the legal finding of wrong does look pretty "black and white" simply on the basis of the WH admissions and comments.
[ 11. January 2008, 15:53: 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
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
Elaine Storkey's statement here via her solicitors. (With acknowledgement to the Fulcrum website for the heads up)
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
Barnabas, there are plenty of voices on this thread doing that already. In some respects my perspective adds balance to what is essentially an open evangelical support thread!
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
OK, mate! A penchant for minority viewpoints does have a certain sort of nobility, I suppose. I'll take your silence on my "opinion" question to be in dedicated pursuance of some overall balance! I'm feeling kindly disposed ...
--------------------
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
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
From Storkey's statement linked above:It is Dr Storkey's hope that the resolution of these issues will leave Wycliffe Hall in a stronger position to pursue its calling of training people for Christian ministry in a context of truth and good governance.
Is the this the first time this has been cited as a reason for her course of action? Or did I miss it earlier?
[ 11. January 2008, 18:28: Message edited by: Call me Numpty ]
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
jrrt01
Shipmate
# 11264
|
Posted
The press statement clarifies the following point. Everyone seems agreed that Elaine Storkey had the right to claim unfair dismissal (and that judgment has been upheld). Similarly, she also has the right to argue that it was based on religious discrimination (whether or not she may win the case).
Call Me Numpty has questioned her approach. Just because we have rights doesn't mean that we should always exercise them. However, when an institution may have systematic faults, then it may not only be a right to bring external legal cases against such an institution (Christian or otherwise) - it may also be our duty for the sake of others who are currently affected or could be affected in the future.
Posts: 62 | From: Manchester | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
I think you get a hint of it in the Ruth Gledhill blog. Here's the quote
quote:
It is very, very sad to see a wonderful institution suffer in the way it has suffered. [The effect on the church] remains to be seen. That's the scary thing. I'm a unifier, everything in me wants to get everything together under the church's gospel. This hurts me enormously. It is no joy. It is not fun. On the other hand, justice is important. I was not expecting for one moment for this to happen. I had three very happy years. It was one of the happiest institutions that I have ever worked in
From here. Seems pretty clear that she has a love for WH as an institution and wishes to see the suffering brought to an end.
I suppose from your point of view she's added to the suffering by this act of exposure, but it is undeniable that others have suffered under the present regime and some have said so. I think its a wider interest than just personal vindication.
--------------------
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
|
|
Emma Louise
Storm in a teapot
# 3571
|
Posted
I'm not sure its fair to say that those saying that she should seek justice are all "open -evangelical supporters". Isn't that turning what is essentially a debate about bad management and unfair dismissal back into drawing dividing lines as to people's theology?
For myself I was a big lover of Wycliffe. I half studies there myself for 3 years in Oxford (my partner at the time was there, I was in another college but ate at Wycliffe). I loved it and had thought if I wanted to train for ministry it would be where I went. David Wenham was my favourite tutor of all time, and I loved lots of the staff. I kept getting the newsletter when I left etc etc. I only hope goodthings for them as an institution.
It is perhaps with that in mind that hearing of people leaving, bullying and discrimination, change in direction and the Elaine Storkey case that I think its right to seek justice and that the college should be steered back to better management. Not from some "I support this team" perspective.
Is that really what its about for some consevos? Being anti Elaine Storkey cos they disagree with her theologically??
Posts: 12719 | From: Enid Blyton territory. | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Emma.:
Is that really what its about for some consevos? Being anti Elaine Storkey cos they disagree with her theologically??
Well that is, pretty clearly, the basis for ES's discrimination claim, Emma. That some of the more conservative folks at WH treated her more on the basis of what she believed than what she did.
Of course it is not a general truth. But it reminds me of things I've read and experienced. Personally, I think that an overweening concern about "soundness" produces an anxiety about people perceived not to be "sound". The concern is that such folks may lead the faithful up the garden path. The underlying distrust can produce an attitude of mind which may struggle to assess someone's opinions or behaviour strictly on merit.
One of the most valuable lessons I've learned as a Christian is that folks from other parts of the Christian rainbow, who set great store by things which I believe are not true or necessary, have shown me great love and spoken valuable truth into my life - despite my concerns about their theological "soundness". It's behaviour I try to copy. I think of it as a "Samaritan" thing.
--------------------
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
|
|
Yerevan
Shipmate
# 10383
|
Posted
quote:
For myself I was a big lover of Wycliffe. I half studies there myself for 3 years in Oxford (my partner at the time was there, I was in another college but ate at Wycliffe). I loved it and had thought if I wanted to train for ministry it would be where I went. David Wenham was my favourite tutor of all time, and I loved lots of the staff. I kept getting the newsletter when I left etc etc. I only hope goodthings for them as an institution.
I've certaintly heard from within Wycliffe that the atmosphere there has changed noticeably even in the past year, which is the real issue...
Posts: 3758 | From: In the middle | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
This may be of interest in those who wish people like ES would just shut up and go away. What an institution needs after such an event is healing. The evidence, you can check this out with sexual abuse reports, is that the only way that healing can come is for things to be aired and made public and for healing to be sort. This sort of healing nearly always involves repentance and in that a thorough review of how things happened. Yes it is painful, very painful. I have at least on one occasion chosen not to do that, so I am not casting stones.
If things are not aired and made public then I think something like institutional depression occurs. The pain is known but hidden, so it creeps into all sorts of other areas of the institutions life and quite often serious decay sets in.
So the questions comes down to how best to get the things aired and sorted. How do we get to a stage where closure is possible by all and changes are made that means that we have better ways of tackling these things in the future.
For those who want to know, I am still very ambivalent about not causing a stink over what happened. I am almost certain it damaged the congregation where it occurred, in fact within a couple of years nearly everyone left, I know it later damaged a friend, yet I also know that the cleric wanted to attempt to do something that proved pastorally undo-able. I think with hindsight it already was, but I also think I had to give him the chance to try.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fool on Hill
Shipmate
# 12183
|
Posted
Reading many of these posts it strikes me that a number of those making comments are very free in asserting what other people 'should do' without an adequate understanding of their circumstances. Both Wycliffe Hall and Elaine Storkey have inevitably been constrained in their comments by their involvement in a legal process. I recent days Wycliffe have admitted they are wrong and Elaine has given an account of her motives and hopes in this process (both through legal teams).
What Wycliffe have not done, so far as I can see, is to give any adequate public account of why they acted as they did. In terms of repentance, they haven't given any account of what they are doing to make sure that the same thing doesn't happen again. And the public statement I have seen does not give any hint of an apology.
Now the process of putting right what has been done wrong within the Christian community seems to me to require admission, redress, apology and resolution to act differently in future. Admission to God, and prayer for forgiveness, strength and grace forms an important part of this process.
Goodness knows why the Wycliffe Council cannot now simply do this and move on.
Perhaps it would benefit them to go down the road to St Stephen's House to deepen their understanding of confession and repentance!
--------------------
God appointed a worm that attacked the bush so that it withered.
Posts: 171 | From: Berkshire | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
Barnabas, there are plenty of voices on this thread doing that already. In some respects my perspective adds balance to what is essentially an open evangelical support thread!
Isn't the whole point that that should not be needed, it shouldn't matter what brand of evangelical any of the parties involved is - provided they live up to their occupational obligations - and as far as possible their moral ones ?
If ES demonstrates - via her tribunals - that she has been treated badly because she has theological differences with RT, surely that is important ? Even if it were reloved in house, if that was what happened then the wider university and anglican community would need need to know wouldn't they ?
--------------------
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
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
Barnabas, there are plenty of voices on this thread doing that already. In some respects my perspective adds balance to what is essentially an open evangelical support thread!
Isn't the whole point that that should not be needed, it shouldn't matter what brand of evangelical any of the parties involved is - provided they live up to their occupational obligations - and as far as possible their moral ones ?
I don't think that's enough for the body of Christ. This is my entire point regarding the influence of pragmatism in the life of the church and the institutions associated with it. Pragmatism, in a nutshell, is the philosophy that what we do takes precedence over what we believe. In other word praxis trumps principle. Deed precedes dictum. To quote Radiohead: "pragmatism not idealism".
The problem is that conservative evangelicals don't think that way because pragmatism is not essential to the gospel for them. For them principle informs praxis. Ideal informs action. And dictum dictates deed. In this respect it is very hard to con-evos to work with people (even it is toward the same end) whose essential convictions differ from theirs.
[ 12. January 2008, 19:35: Message edited by: Call me Numpty ]
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
The problem here, Numpty, is that while quote:
... conservative evangelicals don't think that way because pragmatism is not essential to the gospel for them...
it's simply, in my experience (and I attend a Reform-led church), that the gospel is divorced from praxis.
So, WH can be as weasely as they want, wriggle out of all the employment law that they want, undermine all they want, bully all they want - as long as they believe the Right Things™, they're saved. And they don't see the disconnect between the two.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
et unam sanctam
Apprentice
# 10800
|
Posted
It is important that we don't hold up a shield (or smokescreen, not sure which is the better term...) of legalism in order to defend Elaine Storkey's actions, as Numpty shows it is easy for the con-evos to dismantle it. This situation is first and foremost a matter of principle, and pragmatism must, as Numpty says, follow at principle's beck and call.
The thing is that the principle here is one of exposing injustice in the form of unfair dismissal and alleged bullying and discrimination, which is far more worthy (and Biblical, for that matter) than the principle of protecting the institutional status quo, and not necessarily contradictory to the principle of forgiveness either.
But we ought to remember that we take this position not simply because of the intricacies of employment law. Sometimes the law is an ass and we need to be able to say so. Just not in this case.
Posts: 12 | From: UK | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
