It is always tempting, when a long-standing dispute is resolved, to want to move on with a large sigh of relief. The Christ Church Oxford saga may seem to have come to an end, with a mediated settlement agreed with the Dean, the Christ Church Governing Body and the complainant Ms X. The reality is that in any dispute that has been going for four years, that there are likely to be many stones that have been turned over to reveal a dark grimy underside. The glimpses of shameful behaviour among some of the participants in the drama, leave the onlooker feeling decidedly uncomfortable. Questions about motives remain, and are, in many cases, unanswered. A settlement may have been found, but the history of all that preceded it cannot be so quickly dispensed with or pushed to one side.
Among the many written documents and articles that can illuminate our understanding of the drama, there is one that appeared a week ago in the Tablet by Canon Angela Tilby. It is one of the most vivid accounts I have seen, particularly because it gives us an inside/outside perspective that few people in fact possess. Tilby writes as a partial insider from her time as a cathedral canon at Christ Church from 2011-2016. Then, she was involved with the appointment of Percy in 2014 as Dean, representing the Cathedral Chapter on the interviewing panel. On that occasion, she listened to Percy expound his ideas on college governance and administration and what he would do to make the College more open-ended, with a greater emphasis on inclusiveness. After her retirement, Tilby continued to visit the College in various capacities, maintaining contact with several former colleagues in the Cathedral and College. The first complaints against Percy she heard were shared with her by one of the members of the Governing Body, Canon Sarah Foot, in the summer of 2018. It was impossible to find out precisely what Percy was supposed to have done but the consensus was that the misdemeanour was ‘very serious’.
The serious crime allegedly committed by Percy seems, from the available evidence, to be one of having disturbed the status-quo of the College. Power in the Governing Body is held by a small group of ‘censors’ who convene the entire Governing Body of some sixty strong. The real power behind the scenes is to be found in the group of ex-censors. Following their term of office, former censors continue to retain much of their old influence within the College. Tilby describes these ex-censors as ’tribal elders’. Nothing is done in the College without their approval. Sir Andrew Smith had also noted how these elders were wielding a great deal of social and political power. A conflict was perhaps almost an inevitability if a new Dean, interested in governance reform, were to challenge the vested interests of this group of present and former censors. The majority of the other members of the Governing Body were loath to get involved in matters of decision making and governance, so the power to manage the College was wielded by quite a small group. Previous Deans seem to have done little to challenge this power wielded by the elders.
The first area of conflict between the Dean and those who opposed him, arose after a widely publicised episode involving a medical student, Lavinia Woodward. She injured her boyfriend by stabbing him in the leg with a bread knife in December 2016. The case threw up a range of issues about who in the College was responsible for managing the safeguarding and protection of students. It seems that Percy was unhappy with the existing protocols for safeguarding, and several meetings were held on the topic in the first part of 2017. This enquiry led into other issues, especially around the area of financial management. One topic that was raised was whether the formula for calculating academic and other salaries was still fit for purpose, as Christ Church was out of line with other Colleges, and this was a recent development. But the Salaries Board refused to disclose its workings and methods, and requests for clarity were met with absurdist opacity. Superficially this gave the impression that Percy was interfering with the governance of the College to obtain a pay-rise for himself, but that does not seem to have been a fair reading of the situation. When the conflict escalated to become a formal complaint by his detractors under some archaic statutes of the College, Percy was accused of ‘conduct of an immoral, scandalous or disgraceful nature incompatible with the duties of the office…’
An extremely costly Tribunal under Sir Andrew Smith, a former High Court Judge was held in the summer of 2019. In August the conclusions were published, and Smith dismissed all the charges against Percy. Although Percy was allowed to return to work, the atmosphere in the College remained hostile and the accusers refused to reimburse the huge sums expended by him in having legal support at the Tribunal. In addition, more rumours about Percy were being fed to the Press in apparent attempts to smear his name.
In March 2020, a church-led enquiry was opened to investigate the accusation that Percy had mishandled four alleged “historic safeguarding concerns” within the College. Although this case was not within the purview of the Church of England, a Core-Group was convened by the Diocese and NST. Percy refused to be suspended – there were no actual individuals complaining, just the College manufacturing “concerns”. Two further “concerns” were then added by the College. The Diocesan and College lawyers emerged as primary originators in each of these six cases. It was only in September 2020 that Percy was found to have acted appropriately by the NST and allowed to return to work. However, the College refused to accept the NST judgment.
A few weeks later, the final episode – a seventh safeguarding allegation – was made. This new but clearly related conflict between Dean and both the College and Church began in October 2020. It is in connection with that stage of the drama that the recently announced settlement is purportedly concerned. An alleged incident of unwanted ‘hair-touching’ was reported to have taken place on October 4th. The incident sparked yet another suspension by Church and College.
Again, as with the previous six “safeguarding concerns” the same lawyers acting for the Diocese and the College were involved in curating and escalating the allegation, making sure through Luther Pendragon (PR) that the media were prejudicially briefed. Percy has all the emails from the journalists, NST and others, which are from the lawyers and Luther Pendragon, planting detrimental stories against him. The Diocesan lawyers also made sure the Dean’s evidence in the internal investigation was redacted, or in some cases, simply ignored. The lawyers denied involvement in the internal investigation, despite setting its terms of reference, and also helping finalise the notorious bogus “Risk Assessments”.
Although some may feel that I am merely dredging up old history in the dispute, the level of vitriol that was spreading round the college at that time and since, needs some exploration. Technically with the agreement that has now been signed, all the past events should be able to be consigned to history. It, nevertheless, remains a stumbling block that the wording of the agreement signed a few days ago seems to be suggesting that the College dispute with the Dean has always been about a single case of hair-touching. When we look at the whole timeline of the dispute, we have to note that there have been almost four years of persecution where allegations of sexual misconduct were implied or explicitly made. The first charge the Dean faced in October 2018 was of “immoral, scandalous and disgraceful conduct”. Most people would assume this was sexual in nature, and not a dispute with a committee about its governance. The College, for almost four months, refused to confirm or deny that the charge might relate to sexual misconduct or paedophilia. They were more than happy to let the press speculate, and fed the silence with gas-lighting and innuendo.
In May 2021 the most senior legal voice in the Church of England (and fourth most senior Appeal Court Judge) declared that the alleged incident in the sacristy in itself ‘is not serious enough to merit a tribunal under the Clergy Discipline Measure’, and that both the complainant and respondent (i.e., the Dean) were ‘credible’. Yet for this single allegation there have been no fewer than five separate investigations of that incident, so it is unreasonable to suggest that anything new would have been revealed by a further College Tribunal. At the heart of the Percy dispute is, to repeat, not a College desperate to protect the innocent and vulnerable, but one apparently fighting an all-out struggle to do everything to leave political and ideological power in the hands of the ‘tribal elders’.
To return to Tilby’s revealing article in the Tablet, she mentions that, in the first years of Percy’s tenure of office as Dean, he was very supportive of Sarah Foot, sponsoring her ordination. Graham Ward was an unsuccessful applicant for the post of Dean in 2015. Percy was also instrumental in the appointment of Canon Richard Peers to the post of Sub-Dean. Both these individuals have subsequently played major roles in opposing and undermining Percy. In the case of Peers, a CDM was eventually taken out against him because of his many alleged malign statements against Percy. In the case of Foot and Ward, their attacks on the Dean began much earlier, and stem from 2018.
The change in these three, from being supporters to attackers, is one part of the story that does not lend itself to ready explanation. It certainly leaves behind an unsavoury blight on reputations. The settlement does not, as far as I can tell, affect Percy’s reputation, or in any way damage it. The same cannot be said for those who have spent so much effort, corporately and individually besmirching the reputation of a thoroughly good man. To be attacked consistently over such a long period is a grievous experience but fortunately Percy has been able to count on the support of friends and supporters all over the world.
One further untidy loose end in the whole story of Christ Church and its Dean is the place of Bishop of Oxford. His role throughout the process has been marked by indifference at best and hostility at worst. Apparently, he was present at Christ Church this morning (6.2), but there was no joyous announcement of the conclusion of the affair with the Dean able immediately to resume his church duties. The source reported that everything said by the Bishop and the Sub-Dean sounded as if it had been written by a lawyer. The earlier statement made by the Bishop on Friday about the whole affair also had a strange reticence to engage with or show any understanding of the causes of the wider dispute between Dean and College. The Bishop seems to have colluded with the idea in his Statement that the main problem in the dispute has always been about an alleged sexual misdemeanour. The Dean’s CDM judgment states plainly that there was no sexual content to the conversation with the complainant (it was about donating hair to a charity making wigs for children being treated for cancer).
Having lived only seven miles from the Dean, the Bishop must have known from the time the dispute became public (and before) that any actual sexual misbehaviour on the part of the Dean was never a credible allegation by the Censors and those who organised the original Tribunal in 2018. Those of us who have followed the dispute over the four years were very surprised to hear about any sexual allegations. Yet when investigated, they have always amounted to nothing, and no credible person or evidence produced. The only common denominators that lie behind the allegations are the intentional malicious gas-lighting and innuendo, which is originated by some clergy, and a law firm and PR company acting for the Diocese. Whatever the precise nature of the ‘offence’ committed by Percy, there has never been any indication that he is a ‘sex-pest’ or a danger to every single individual in the College, making it necessary to change the locks throughout the College.
The final part of the agreement which may prove more long-lasting than any other is the promise by the College to review systems of governance. Angela Tilby’s piece helps to remind us that that back in 2018, when the dispute came into public view, the disputes were about control and power in the College. Percy fought hard to establish to establish secure governance structures in his first years in the College. Although he was unsuccessful in putting such changes in place, it would seem that these reforms may, under the watchful eye of the Charity Commission, be achieved following his departure. Wherever Dean Percy and his family go after April this year, it can be hoped that he will be allowed to work in an environment conducive to his considerable teaching and writing skills. In this way, we trust, he will continue to make a continuing valuable contribution to the Church that he desires so passionately to serve.
It’s been a very grubby few years.
The way of going about getting what you want, looks exactly like this if you have access to almost limitless resources that aren’t your own.
I hope Dr Percy will continue to flourish now that this awful business is settled (although it will inevitably cast a long shadow). However, I suspect that any flourishing might need to be outside the Church of England, since he had made himself de facto leader of the opposition to the bench even before 2016/17. Many on the bench will not have forgotten his involvement in the North business in Sheffield. He offended against establishment ‘process’ and against its ‘codes’; this is not something which is easily forgiven, and may help to account for the equivocal role paid by the former bishop of Sheffield, Dr Croft, during this affair.
I am going to make an impertinent observation. He does have links to Athens GA and Hartford CT. I wonder whether the best outcome would be for him to pursue the rest of his ministry in the Episcopal Church, and/or in an American university. I suspect it would be more congenial and perhaps rather better compensated than anything the Church of England might have to offer.
If the college ‘s processes are finally reformed then he will have ‘won’, albeit that the victory will seem pyrrhic. I have written elsewhere about the need to create constitutional distance between college and cathedral.
You refer to the ‘dark grimy under-side’. With that phase in mind this comment from today seems apt: https://braveneweurope.com/jonathan-cook-didnt-those-enraged-at-boris-johnsons-smears-of-starmer-defame-corbyn-at-every-turn. The dons’ behaviour over the last 5 years is evidently part of a national trait.
Thank you so much for that link – I didn’t know Jonathan Cook existed but am glad I do now.
I clicked on this link and it messed up my iPad; it’s taken me a while to get it sorted out. However, I did see enough to tell me that the writer is backing the accused rapist Assange, who refused to face those charges in Sweden, and betrayed those who’d funded his bail. That seriously damages the article’s credibility in my eyes, though admittedly I wasn’t able to finish reading before it messed up my tablet.
I am very sorry about that. This is a link to the same piece on a different blog: https://www.jonathan-cook.net/blog/2022-02-07/boris-johnson-smears-starmer-corbyn/
I agree with you about Assange, of whom I am no fan. Nor am I a particular fan of Corbyn.
The essential point this article seems to be making is that there is a double standard at work, and the antics of the civil establishment are not unlike those of the ecclesiastical establishment. Specifically, the worst offence that any member of the establishment can commit is to raise questions in public about the probity or standing of a fellow member of the establishment. Therefore, despite his numerous and profound character flaws and his apparent compulsive dishonesty, Johnson broke the establishment code of conduct by questioning Starmer’s role with Savile, just as Dr Percy broke the establishment code of conduct by questioning not only Philip North’s nomination to Sheffield but also the dons’ ‘right’ to mark their own homework. Hell hath no fury like the establishment scorned.
Again, many apologies for the link.
Gosh I didn’t see that about Assange 🥺
The link works in mobile.
Emma Percy is still Chaplain of Trinity College, Oxford and an Honorary Canon of Christchurch, Oxford. This link may cause her husband to stay in Oxford. Otherwise I would imagine he would be sorely tempted to leave the home of lost causes, never to return.
A very helpful and succinct summary of the history and issues which makes sad reading, even after having followed it all in detail over the last four years. Thank you. There remain questions for the C of E as well as Christ Church, and matters of possible reforms needed in both; also the position to be taken by the Charity Commission and whether they will treat this as ‘case closed’.
Processes are all very well but this whole shameful episode reveals Christ Church to be a playground presided over by classroom bullies and I would hope that that will affect public perception of the sort of education you can get there.
It is also very clear that there is so much wrong: that the incident of one student stabbing another threw up questions of who should deal with it in 2016 is not good. You would reasonably expect that to have been dealt with routinely and smoothly.
The blatant hypocrisy of those who tried to smear Dean Percy’s reputation by encouraging the public to believe he was some kind of sex pest is breathtaking . The establishment which has protected and covered up for clergy who really can be called sex pests tried to besmirch a good person with the label it strenuously strives to deny can be used about those who really are guilty of the description. Many complainants have unsuccessfully tried to get nst to act on complaints which can be substantiated only to be told their complaints will be referred back to the very Diocese which ignores the complaint. Yet when a person not deemed to be vulnerable under church guidelines complained the nst swung into action to the detriment of someone deemed not to have committed a safeguarding offence. Why can they act for a complainant not deemed to be vulnerable yet tell vulnerable complainants like myself that they can do nothing? This is only one of very many grubby stones which need to be more closely examined. The actions of Diocesan lawyers should also be examined. There should be a review of why they used the spurious excuse of safeguarding concerns which did not in reality exist. These and other matters should be reviewed as a matter of justice, first and foremost for the Dean. However they also throw up questions complainants need answered. There needs to be an enquiry in regard to all the money and time expended for spurious manufactured complaints. Hopefully this would highlight the issues Stephen writes above and show that the Dean suffered terribly because a few dog collars were determined to hold on to power at all costs. This would go some way to dispel the gaslighting and innuendos and help restore the public image of Dean Percy for those who heard about the scandal but did not follow it. The enquiry however should also establish why the nst acted as it did in regard to complaints which did not come under its remit yet does nothing about complaints which do. I hope the Dean will find a post where he will flourish and he and his family can come to terms with the injustice and persecution by the institutions he diligently served.
Amen to that, Mary.
There is a fuzzy area between touching someone’s hair and tracing the air around it. Supposing that anything in that range had been done to a lot of people they might well have forgotten it 2 seconds later. It could be to do with what sort of family one grew up with and also with how censorious the age is (maybe censoriousness increases in times of recession or hardship).
I have very thick hair which has tempted some to stroke it. I also used to be a verger to a very busy vicar. In the context of that relationship had I said I was cutting it off for charity it is probable it would have elicited a remark and may have been quickly touched. Had that happened I could well imagine my vicar forgetting the whole episode. I am not at all saying that is what happened in this case. But given that both sides were deemed credible it would offer one explanation of the episode and I offer it as such. I am not saying people should stroke other people’s hair either . I personally would like the disgraceful behaviour of those trying to oust Dean Percy reviewed. Dean Percy may of course want matters to end now and I would respect that. If that is the case I still want to know why nst say they cannot take action about abuse to vulnerable people but swung into action for a complainant who was not vulnerable. Personally I believe everyone has the right to be protected from abuse whether or not they are deemed vulnerable under church guidelines. However there seemed to be one rule for able bodied complainants and another rule for severely disabled complainants to our detriment. I assume any independent review would find fault with all those who swung into action on behalf of spurious concerns. But complainants who do come under church guidelines should not be treated worse than complainants who do not. This is, of course, very much a side issue as regards Dean Percy and I would not want deflect any of the support he richly deserves. But it is yet another question for those nationally responsible for safeguarding to answer. As a disabled complainant, I was recently forcefully told by a member of national safeguarding I could not file cdm against my Bishop because my complaint was not about safeguarding. He knew my Bishop failed to follow safeguarding guidelines and knew I was complaining about systemic safeguarding about which I wrote to my Bishop who ignored me. I believe from this episode and others that there inappropriate members of nst. and I am not surprised they targeted the Dean because they have given me the impression that they follow political decisions taken by others.Others have pointed to the inappropriate use of publicity agents in Dean Percy ‘s case. I am glad Stephen has also highlighted the reprehensible behaviour of solicitors as well. In my case I was threatened by Diocesan solicitors if I complained about my abusers. One abuser had a written agreement which took up two sides of A4. But I was threatened by solicitors if I made any further complaints whilst the person with the agreement happily and confidently kept breaching it. These are the sorts of people acting, on behalf of Dioceses and colleges even when their behaviour became public knowledge. Most certainly Dean Percy should have been protected from all this egregious misbehaviour. He was not. Neither are the rest of us.
It could be instinctive and especially in someone who has been put under mental stress. But the way that ‘sexual’ is used for this makes one emphasise yet again how people ought not to be able to get away with catch-all vague words like ‘abuse’ or ‘sexual’ or (metaphorical) ‘violence’ without further precision. At this vague level, mild and deadly serious are grouped together under one head, which could potentially allow the unscrupulous to exaggerate to a remarkable degree with impunity.
Anyone wishing to act on this could usefully write to the Charity Commission: Helen Earner and or the Senior Censor (Dirk Aarts)
Christ Church Senior Censor to express their concerns , and press for a Statutory Enquiry (Ch Comm) and an independent Governance Review (ChCh). How can the charity be properly overseen if the trustees are also the governing body who are authorising the spend?
sadly this site does not seem to permit email adresses, but a for charity Commission >> usual name format -at-charitycommission.gov.uk) and google “christ church oxford” / college officers should reveal all.
I was under the impression that both steps are already in hand. The Bishop of Oxford mentioned that the C of E would contribute to the independent Christ Church Governance Review (incidentally that was called for by the Charity Commission some time ago, but seemed to fade from view) and the Charity Commission were actively on the scene recently requiring explanations and full disclosure of documents. Of course there is nothing to stop members of the public writing to both bodies in the way you suggest.
You are correct. But as this is the same charity commission who have not taken action because Diocesan solicitors have threatened me if I communicate directly with any Diocesan clergyman or officer, I don’t think I will bother. Although I have the right under charity law to contact the Trustees of the Diocese to complain that one of their employees had harmed me, a vulnerable beneficiary, I have been threatened if I communicate directly with them. If the charity commission are unable or unwilling to act in such a simple case I would not trust them in more complex matters. Incidentally, I am preparing to file cdm about my incumbent. Officially I should send it to my Bishop but his solicitors have threatened me if I communicate directly with him. One way of stopping cd m complaints I suppose. It is of course to the benefit of the wrongdoers that all power lies with them and that there is no independent governance. I gather the censors have battled hard to keep it so and make it very difficult and highly improbable any genuinely independent review will take place. Just like the structure of the Church. Those with power are unwilling to have genuinely independent oversight. That is why everything is turned into a battle in the hope complainants will become discouraged and exhausted and quite possibly experience mental breakdown.
This lack of willingness by the leaders of safeguarding was breathtakingly demonstrated at yesterday’s synod when the motion by Gavin Drake to review and reform practice was squashed by the lead Bishop for safeguarding and Simon Butler (Southwark) for 5 years. It was deeply shocking to hear the procedural nonsense that now means the matter cannot be reviewed for 5 years. Disgraceful behaviour but at least people could see behind the public facade to how these people really behave. If there really was a focus on survivors this brilliant speech by Gavin, which would have won a landslide victory had victims been allowed to vote was discarded with as little concern by the lead Bishop for safeguarding as yesterday’s chips wrapper
Do listen to it if you can, completely gobsmackingly disgraceful.
Many thanks. It’s here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8yY5-SGcpto, in all its awful glory, starting at 2.16 (but the debate starts earlier).
Nice exercises in deflection by Jonathan Gibbs and Simon Butler, with a soupçon of whataboutery from Clive Billenness (whose library background is notably impressive). To accuse Mr Drake’s motion of being ‘blowsy’ is telling, and not in a good way.
To their credit Martin Sewell and Jayne Ozanne asked the necessary questions, but the chair came out with some standing order nonsense. So, yes, greater accountability will not be achieved for the remainder of this Synod, and the ISB will continue to have only ‘moral authority’ (i.e., it can continue to be ignored by bishops and their ‘independent’ safeguarding officials). I suspect that the opponents of the Drake motion knew precisely what they were doing.
What a pointless and wasteful excuse of a sham toytown legislature Synod is!
If you want anything done in the Church of England who do you call? Who has executive power?
It’s hard to see Synod as being anything much more than a theatrical archaic anomaly. This was a prime example of codifying procrastination par excellence.
I’ve little doubt that most in authority there find the growing cries of victims and survivors unbearable. Burying your head in the sand seems like a good idea I suppose, but their problems will just get worse as the cries become louder and the exposés continue.
Although a few brave souls speak up for change, the majority can’t and won’t cope, choosing the lazy path of least resistance.
In other walks of life, such as in education or business, specialists are brought in when an organisation is failing. It’s an unpopular job, tending a school in special measures, or being an administrator for an insolvent company, but it really has to be done.
In the interests of greater accuracy, I ought to have quoted this, from the Bishop of Oxford’s statement on 4th February:
“The college will seek to appoint an independent chair for a governance review proposed by the Charity Commission. The Diocese of Oxford and the Church of England will contribute to that review in due course.
“Both the Dean and the complainant have requested an independent lessons learned review of the processes followed by the Diocese and the Church of England nationally. The Bishop’s Council have agreed to this and we are seeking the support of the Archbishops’ Council for this to be jointly commissioned.”
The Charity Commission’s actions are, of course, a separate matter.
I have only been aware of the Dean Percy case for the past eighteen months or so and this article explains it very clearly indeed. Thanks to Stephen I now fully understand the substance of it and am appalled that such an injustice can so viciously have been perperated for four years. Its outcome shows the power of persistent prayer and gives hope to those others falsely accused of a sexual allegation (and there are others), for whom the Diocesan Safeguarding Core Groups try, against all odds to prove guilty.
Thank you for such a clear and well-focussed overview of the repeated persecution of the Dean. A sad and disgraceful episode, and a huge waste of charitable money. At the heart of the problems is not the dean, but those who have driven the vendetta against him, and the governance structures that allowed a handful of emotionally stupid and mean-spirited bullies to carry out this extended witch-hunt. As this core problem has not yet been resolved, the affair is far from over.
Just to add: my expressed statements here are my own opinions. Readers should decide for themselves, but in my view Stephen has provided a reliable and helpful overview of a shocking case of bullying and defamation.
Luther Pendragon was the PR agency at the heart of the barriers put up by Tim Dakin as Bishop of Winchester in his spat with the Dean of Jersey. You always know trouble is there when someone retreats to their citadel and lets Luther Pendragon (which sounds rather Pagan!) to take charge.
That destroyed the Channel Islands link with Winchester, a link over 500 years old, and now ironically Tim Dakin and Bob Key have both moved on (with early retirements in both cases), leaving a fracture in their wake.
The good news is that the Channel Islands will formally move to the Diocese of Salisbury this March when the Canons of the Church of England in Jersey get passed by the States of Jersey (pretty much a foregone conclusion), finally mending the broken state of affairs (under which Jersey saw “oversight” from the Bishop of Dover and came under Canterbury).
The new arrangements in Canon Law are designed (also with a memorandum of understanding) to prevent two individuals (Bishop and Dean) wreaking havoc the way they did. If Christ Church are also forced by the settlement, and under the eagle eye of the Charity Commission to also improve their governance, at least something will have been achieved.
‘The Oxford college that agreed to pay its dean nearly £1.2 million to quit had been told that continuing its four-year dispute with him could have cost a further £6.8 million.’
Link in today’s “Times”:
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/martyn-percy-oxford-settled-christ-church-row-to-save-millions-8phnpsql2
Once again money trumps other considerations. And these are eye-watering sums. However fear of sanctions from Charities Commission appears to have swayed them to settle too.
According to the Times article, Christ Church have been spending about £100,000 a month on ‘data protection, privacy, defamation, general governance, legal advice and PR’.
And it seems the malcontents would have been willing to keep it up, until pressure from the Charity Commission and the Chancellor forced the rest of the Governing Body to look at the situation.
> The change in these three, from being supporters to attackers, is one part of the story that does not lend itself to ready explanation.
Looking at the Christ Church spat from outside, only knowing what I’ve read in a handful of posts here, this is a key to understanding the situation. Why would 3 people, two of whom according to this article were supported into their roles by the Dean, turn against him without good reason? There’s more support for the dean on this site than other parties, but I am thinking there is more to this situation than anyone knows, and it’s not good to become too partial.
Having your friends turn against you, or betray you, is not without biblical precedent. But I agree it pays to keep an open mind.
Doesn’t it depend what you consider ‘good reason’? Ambition, seeing a personal advantage, wanting to fit in, misunderstandings, resistance to change, vested interests, being deceived by false rumours, taken in by slander, being too weak to stand up for a victim against powerful forces: all those are reasons why one person turns against another without blame attaching to the person turned against.
As Steve says, there are multiple examples in the Bible of innocent people being betrayed by friends and family. The ‘no smoke without fire’ assumption has led to a lot of misery and injustice.