Ground control to Father Tom: You're Fired

The tribunal that sat in the case of the Rev Tom Ambrose, Vicar of Trumpington, has issued its decision. We've not seen the full 37-page judgement, that will not be released until the appeals process is complete. But the tribunal, which sat under the Incumbents (Vacations of Benefices) Measure of 1977, says that there has been a breakdown of pastoral relationships and that the benefice must be vacated. In other words, Tom's about to be sacked. You can see my news story on this along with other links posted by Jo on our faith page. (See there also for links to stories on Scientology and David Cameron on faith schools - rather amusing that after the CofE has spent years trying to persuade us that its schools are not selectively middle class, Cameron, who is trying to get his own daughter into one of the best, inadvertently stops this bit of spin in its tracks!)

But back to Tom. You can still read our original report on the tribunal on TimesOnline. You can also read what upset the parishioners so much. Tom moved the Harvest Festival back a day and took out four pews to make room for coffee after services. The last straw was when he suggested some new loos.

Much of the case is set out in these two witness statements, that were presented to the court. You can read them below. A couple of hours after posting this blog, I can now update it because an extremely distressed Tom has just called me from Trumpington.

The bishop's press release outlining the tribunal's findings was emailed out at 11.32am this morning, Wednesday. Tom had an appointment with his solicitor at midday,  do the press release went out before he even knew what the tribunal's decision was. At the meeting with his solicitor, the importance of the three-week period of utter secrecy was stressed over and again. He took this so seriously, Tom asked his lawyer if he could even tell his wife. He certainly did not return the calls that other journalists and I left on his mobile.

At 7pm this evening, he returned home, switched on his computer and discovered that the whole world knew what his tribunal had decided, and large parts of it had known before he did. His distress can be imagined. Needless to say, he plans to contest it.

'The Church must get its act together on the employment rights and the treatment of clergy,' he said. 'This case will concentrate the mind of General Synod when it debates Clergy Conditions of Service next month.'

What distresses him most is the totally inadequate pastoral care he says he has received. 'I have had no help from the bishop of the diocese. When I wrote and asked for help, he ignored me. I was on sick leave for seven months and neither he nor the Archdeacon nor anyone else visited me. I was even refused the proper help I should have received from a member of the bishop's team. The Church needs to learn how to treat people properly and pastorally and with real respect for employment law. This law has to apply to clergy of the Church of England, and bishops can't just think they are above the law.'

IN THE MATTER OF THE INCUMBENTS (VACATION OF BENEFICES MEASURES 1977
AND IN THE INCUMBENTS (VACATION OF BENEFICES)(AMENDMENT) MEASURES 1993
AND IN THE INCUMBENTS (VACATION OF BENEFICES) RULES 1944

IN THE MATTER OF ST. MARY AND ST. MICHAEL TRUMPINGTON AND THE REVEREND DR. THOMAS AMBROSE.

WITNESS STATEMENT OF
NICHOLAS WISE

I live at .... Sawston.  I became a worshiper at Trumpington Church in about 1994, when Nicholas Thistlethwaite was the Incumbent and I have been a regular communicant member ever since.
I regular come to the 10.a.m. Eucharist on Sunday morning which is always very well attended.  This congregation is perfectly happy with Tom Ambrose and the services which are conducted here.
I have been a member of the PCC since April 2005.   The difficulties which are going on at present are not at all relevant to the life of this parish. Parishioners and people using the church for weddings, funerals and baptisms on a day to day basis are either not aware at all of any difficulties or know that there is something going on connected with the PCC.  My point is that none of this affects the worshipping and pastoral life of the church.
There has been a history of animosity throughout the PCC towards the Incumbent for some considerable time.  Nicholas Thistlethwaite had difficulties with certain members of the PCC.  So the problems certainly do not begin with the arrival of Tom Ambrose.  As a member of the PCC I see a small group of people on it who have great hostility towards Tom and Gill and they are the same people who previously caused difficulties for Nicholas Thistlethwaite.
It seems to me incredible that people who are profession to be Christians are acting so maliciously towards their priest.  I have been a member of the PCC since April 2005, and I have seen the squabbling and the arguing amongst elderly people who are proclaiming that there is a pastoral breakdown.  There is no pastoral breakdown. The problem belongs to this group of people whom I would describe as a self perpetuating oligarchy.  I have been shocked and saddened at PCC meetings and am surprised at the levels of animosity directed towards Tom Ambrose and Gill.  This group uses any possible reason to take a contrary view from the priest.  They will argue about anything.  Even Tom’s proposal to introduce energy saving light bulbs in the church (which would give an equivalent power in wattage) was disputed and argued about and indeed ended in a shouting match with the PCC refusing to endorse it.
It seems to me that these people simply do not want change.  But nothing is static and I have observed all of Tom Ambrose’s proposals to be sensible.  He is simply opposed for no reason and the language they use is incredible.  As a result I have stopped going to the PCC meetings since I was always in a minority surrounded by the majority of harridans. 
This hostile group controlling the PCC does not reflect in any sense the congregation of Trumpington Church.  Many people tell me as a member of the PCC, when they learn of the difficulties being caused for Tom and Gill that the PCC no longer represents them.  In my view the problem does not relate to the changes which have been made and which are proposed by Tom Ambrose, all of which are for the benefit of the church.  They opposed the installation of a toilet or a ramp to assist the elderly or energy saving light bulbs as a matter of principle.  This is a dispute about power and they ensure that they are continuously elected and appointed to the PCC.  It is incredible and sad that Tom Ambrose cannot do anything without the approval of this group who are distinctly unsavoury, totally blinkered and antagonistic.  The PCC needs to be more representative of the congregation as a whole and they must see to it in future that they are elected so as to replace at least the essential trouble makers, Mrs. Orson, Mrs Brookes, Edmund Brookes, and Mr. & Mrs Hendy.
Fortunately the congregation is growing younger.  There is a flourishing Sunday School with a lot of children and a lot of young problems who come on Sundays.  Since I serve at the altar on Sunday mornings I have a chance to observe what a joyful experience the Sunday worship is.  There is no pastoral breakdown in Trumpington and in my opinion the mission of the church is in good heart here, in spite of the problems on the PCC.

Statement of Truth:

I believe that the fact and matters referred to in this statement are true:

Signed:    …………………………………………
  NICHOLAS WISE

Dated:    …………………………………………

IN THE MATTER OF THE INCUMBENTS (VACATION OF BENEFICES MEASURES 1977
AND IN THE INCUMBENTS (VACATION OF BENEFICES)(AMENDMENT) MEASURES 1993
AND IN THE INCUMBENTS (VACATION OF BENEFICES) RULES 1944

IN THE MATTER OF ST. MARY AND ST. MICHAEL TRUMPINGTON AND THE REVEREND DR. THOMAS AMBROSE.

WITNESS STATEMENT OF
JOHN ADRIAN  DE BRUYNE

I live at ....Trumpington, Cambridge, where I have lived for some years and have been the neighbour of three Vicars of Trumpington Church.  I am a writer and speaker on company matters and I am a weekly columnist on business topics for the Cambridge News.  I am a member of the P.C.C.
The first Vicar I knew the Reverend Maddox was a traditional country parson who was replaced by the Reverend Nicholas Thistlethwaite who came from the University.  He was marked for preferment and was evidently eased into the living to establish his parish credentials before being rapidly promoted.  He was a scholarly man, a learned authority on church organs but lacked street wisdom.  It was his first parish appointment and he had had no previous experience of dealing with a PCC.  Consequently, a small group on the PCC began to build their power base during his period of office.
When Nicholas Thistlethwaite was promoted to the Cathedral in Guildford there followed the usual inter regnum and during that period a small group lead by the local Conservative politician Jane Brookes considerably extended their influence on the PCC.  The successor to Nicholas Thistlethwaite was therefore faced from the outset with a difficult management task after the inter regnum.
Tom Ambrose had a reputation as an innovator, having worked on public relations for the diocese with the Reverend Owen Jones.  They both had considerable experience in dealing with the press and Church controversies that arose from time to time.  Tom was the classic “new broom” and so the atmosphere in relation to the PCC was potentially explosive.  Tom made an immediate impact.  Everything in the Church brightened up.  The improvements in the services were obvious.  His enthusiasm was catching and he soon had members of the Church, including members of the PCC, finding and installing period lighting outside the church.  Before long the new church graveyard was extended and consecrated.  Good management is often seen in the detail.  He cleared overhanging branches in the churchyard personally and an entirely new atmosphere permeated the church.  Unfortunately, there now commenced a battle for control of the PCC (there was nothing contentious in the general life of the church and in particular its services). 
The first disagreement concerned lavatories.  Tom felt that it was essential most especially for older members of the congregation to have accessible lavatories.  The PCC indicated that they did not welcome any discussion on the subject of toilets and that if they had to have them they should be in a separate toilet block out of sight.  Conservation experts advised Tom that a scheme using existing access doors could be acceptable.  And so began a clash between the old guard who found that they were no longer in control of what they thought of as their church.  The business of the PCC became a ping pong game with Jane Brookes proposing something and her son Edmund seconding it.  The Brookes clique proposed and voted through their agenda whilst the isolated incumbent proposed items which were voted down.  I am bound to say that the PCC meetings were conducted in a manner which was designed to make life impossible for Tom.  The tone of voice ran through from sarcasm, hectoring, patronising to outright screaming.  Never in my entire business career when peoples jobs and fortunes were on the line have I witnessed such disgraceful behaviour in what after all was a semi public meeting.  It is a sad reflection that participants such as Jane Brookes, Edmund Brookes, John and Jean Hendy, Clare Bartlett, Marilyn Orson and Joan Holloway should have allowed themselves to behave in this unchristian way. 
Edmund Brookes was the Treasurer and the sole signatory on the cheques, an arrangement which was to say the least unusual.  The accounts were always up to date but it was impossible for Tom to ascertain the details.  Requests for explanations were resisted.  Edmund Brookes, Mike Hendy and Graham Minto hinted at dark goings on.  I asked Graham Minto to come to see me.  It was impossible to get him to be specific about any single complaint.  There was a hint of embezzlement of parish church funds.  Minto told me specifically that he was going to force the issue of Toms financial dealings by causing the finances to dry up.  He assured me that when the diocese saw that the income had drained away to nothing they would send in an auditor to investigate.  He said to me “we will run down the finances to zero”.  When I pressed him to be specific he simply hedged around, introducing new topics with a “knowing air”, such as Tom having a newer car than he had.  He hinted that there had been misappropriation of the Trinity College fund and that Tom’s daughter has access to Church funds in the safe and the balances did not tally.  After an hour or so of trying to nail one specific alleged crime I expressed my exasperation at all this innuendo.  I told him I wanted to hear Tom’s side of this disagreement.  At this point Minto warned me that if I supported Tom then various doors in Trumpington would be closed to me and that this might even impinge on my need to gain support for pending planning applications I had.  All this came as a complete surprise to me as I had known Graham Minto for many years and indeed I had sold him my house.
At the APCM of 2005, the issue of reclaiming Gift Aid was raised by a member of the congregation and nothing seemed to have been done because by the following year there was no evidence of a refund from the Inland Revenue in the accounts.  I recalled Minto’s threat to run down the finances of the parish and made a specific complaint about it and in the event the matter has now been put right, but had I and others not intervened, no attempt would have been made to recover the money from the Inland Revenue.
The Ambrose family who are my neighbours are an excellent example of Christian living.  The atmosphere in the Vicarage is of a lively educated family at ease with itself.  Gill has had a career in dealing with children and has now moved on to editing a Christian publication.  Their son travels far and wide to sing in church and cathedral choirs and their daughter is a fine organist.  It is from this context of a happy family that the complaints about Tom need to be judged.  Tom is not at all dictatorial or authoritative.  Indeed in some respects he is his own worst enemy.  He is not confrontational enough in my view in dealing with some of these people.  When members of the congregation who are trying to help go wrong, Tom tells them clearly and straightforwardly what needs to be done.  But his position is continuously undermined.  In business terms Tom is the Managing Director and the PCC is supposed to be helping him to run the parish.  The PCC was not set up to be in competition with the incumbent.  It is specifically required that the minister of the parish is the chairman, and the primary duty of the Council is to co-operate with the incumbent in initiating conduct and development of church work both within the parish and outside. 
In spite of the problems it is absolutely clear to me that the mission of the church is being fully maintained in this parish.  Tom has modernised the parish and its life operates in every facet (weddings, funerals, baptisms an excellent parish magazine, a flourishing Mothers Union, Sunday School and the introduction of Godley Play has been an outstanding success)  You need to speak to brides for example whom he has married, as I do when they have their reception at my house, glowing with appreciation, or to see him shepherding his flock on outings including pilgrimages to Santiago in Spain, or to see him perched on top of a tree pruning.  In short this church is professionally run in every detail and is an outstanding example of what a parish church should be.  The parish seems to be growing and the fact is that the parishioners in general cannot see any pastoral breakdown.  The dispute between Tom and the clique from the PCC does not impinge on the running of the parish and its daily life.  One only had to go to Tom’s birthday party at the Vicarage, where people were pouring out of the doors and there was standing room only, to see the support and affection of the congregation. 
This dispute is about control of power in the PCC.  I fear that if the clique prevail and Tom is removed all those who are loyal to him they may find it difficult if not impossible, to support his successor.  The church would revert to its previous exclusive lower middle class attitude.  The new incumbent would have to be told that power resided in a small section of the PCC (the votes at the annual meeting to continue with this complaint were in my view slim, taking into account that there were at least ten people who are supporters of Tom who did not attend the meeting, while the opposition were on their usual “three line whip”).  The parish of Trumpington is changing radically, because of the massive housing developments in the Cambridge Southern Fringe.  The Trumpington Meadows site behind the church will have over a thousand houses and flats and in the areas around the hospital there will be another three to four thousand homes.  These are the new parishioners for which Trumptington church needs to cater and whom Tom is well placed to welcome and nurture.

Statement of Truth:

I believe that the fact and matters referred to in this statement are true:

Signed:    …………………………………………
  John Adrian De Bruyne

Dated:    …………………………………………

Comments

[David Cohen]

I pity the poor sod who has to follow Dr Ambrose!

[Fr. S]

This parish does not deserve an incumbent, until those spoken of are removed the benefice should be suspended (because in such a 'pastoral emergency' it cannot be said to be a viable parish) and an indefinate interregnum until those few troublemakers realise that the Church of England is not an exclusive club.

My prayers for the Vicar and his family, but the Deanery Pastoral Committee needs to make a bold and clear statement following this unbelievable decision by the Tribunal.

Close it, I say.

[Tony B]

A fascinating and timely, for me, insight into the potential problems of being a vicar. But these two statments seem supportive of the vicar, so why is he being sacked?

[John]

I'm somewhat perplexed by the difference in tone between this post and your news piece, Ruth. The statements you post here are positive (and accord in the main with my own impressions as a regular worshipper in Trumpington), whereas the main news article is much more negative.

Yes, Tom has lost. Personally, I have little idea why. He's not always a sensible man, but he is not the monster he's being painted as. And it is certainly the case that there is no breakdown between "the parish" and the priest. There is a breakdown between certain members of the PCC and the priest, and quite a bit of collateral damage scattered around. At the Tribunal itself, I had the distinct impression that the prosecuting lawyer was simply trying to score points and to unsettle witnesses, rather than the proceedings being a tribunal seeking facts.

It's going to be fun on Sunday. :-/

pax et bonum

[Margaret]

I know very little about this row, but it seems improbable to me that things could have got to this stage without there being faults on both sides. A gracious new start for both might be the best pastoral response.

[Gladiatrix]

I am baffled by this decision, it appears to fly in the face of the witness statements. What I really cannot understand is why the Bishop has 1. done nothing about the behaviour of the local PCC 2. why the accounts have not been subject to independent audit.

It seems to me that the Bishop should answer charges of failing to supervise a parish either properly or at all, and he should certainly be charged with contempt if the Tribunal has a contempt jurisdiction. Not only should Tom Ambrose appeal he should make a formal complaint to Rowan Williams concerning the Bishop's behaviour before during and after the Tribunal, ask for immediate reinstatement, an unreserved public apology and the dissolution of the PCC in his parish with its current membership being banned from standing for re-election for 5 years.

[David Palmer]

Breaking the pastoral ties between pastor and people is always difficult because a) rarely are the issues straightforward and b) it is always about relationships.

Being a Presbyterian, I have been involved at Presbytery level in one such incident involving a fellow Minister's adultery where Presbytery took the initiative to dissolve the pastoral tie on what might be considered a very straight forward kind of issue and yet many in the Church involved found the decision very difficult, presenting a petition to Presbytery, etc.

What concerns me in this thread is that only one side (the side supporting the Vicar) is being presented, but perhaps I'm missing something.

[John]

David Palmer:
As I mentioned above, to me as a regular worshipper at Trumpington, this thread is little but a balance to the overwhelmingly negative main News piece in the Times (see Ruth's link in the post above).

The view of most of the "ordinary" parishioners at Trumpington (i.e. those outside the circles of politics that bedevil the parish) seems to be that this has been a power play from the moment Tom arrived in the parish. Neither side is guilt-free, but I am perfectly clear in my own mind where the causes lie, and they're not with Tom. To dismiss him would be a manifest injustice. At the very least, we would need something similar to Gladiatrix's above - that the current PCC also be disbanded and disbarred from holding any post in the church for at least 5 years.

pax et bonum

[Mark Bennet]

In the High Court there are (or were) protocols for giving parties sight of a judgement before it is formally given so that they can prepare an appropriate response. This is on the strict understanding that it is confidential to the parties only. Does the same apply to tribunals?

Because it appears that someone may have acted in a way they shouldn't - and given Tom's surprise at the news made public, it wasn't him. Which may rather give credence to his version of events in other respects.

[David Cohen]

The issue of a press release without the Vicar's knowledge does rather suggest that the diocese itself has things to hide about this sad affair. To what extent is the bishop himself responsible for this mess? Should he not also be facing an inquiry into his handling of it?

[George Parr]

"The tone of voice ran through from
sarcasm, hectoring, patronising to downright screaming"

"Unchristian" "malicious" "disgraceful behaviour".

Well judging by these two reports I wouldn't want to live next door to any of these people. Since a list of names exists it would be more even-handed to hear their side of things. It would also be interesting to see if there is a common link between the major players e.g. Freemasonry - with the caveat that there is possibly none whatsoever and this is simply a power struggle between those who think that longevity confers the privilege to dispense with innovation and change in favour of rigidity and convention.

On the face of it and without prejudicing any other evidence effecting a balance, the two reports appear to describe the vicar as having been a victim.

[Local resident]

What kind of a newspaper is this that attempts it's own trial? People are naive if they believe that these two witness statements sum up all the evidence in court. It clearly doesn't come to this grave state of a court case without all other avenues being exhausted. Tom Ambrose is clearly in the wrong and needs to go.

[Peter Kirk]

Why are the PCC members, the elected representatives of the parishioners, so unrepresentative of the congregation as a whole? Are these people unaware of their democratic right to nominate and vote for alternative PCC members of their own choice? I'm afraid the blame for this situation has to be with those who elected and continued to re-elect these PCC members.

[Robin Bather]

Tom is just another man who got sacked.
It's not always fair, but it happens to many people every day.
What is so special about this case?

[John]

@Peter Kirk:
You don't get to vote for the PCC wholesale. Nor do you get to vote for individual members often. And when the nominations are presented as a slate (as ours have been), there's really not a lot to be done about it. (The "slate" thing is largely because there were fewer nominations than posts. As you can see from all the reportage, the PCC is not a place that many people want to be.) Welcome to the world of Trumpington parish politics.

@Local resident:
There is still the question of who exhausted these avenues. Your recollection may differ from mine, but I would hardly say that Tom was wholly (or even largely) responsible for the situation. It started before he arrived and only got worse when he refused to knuckle under and professed the strange opinion that the vicar ran the parish church.
Oh, and notice that this isn't a "trial". This is Ruth's blog, where she posts her own thoughts. If you read the news article she links to, you'll find it quite to your taste, by the sound of it. As I said in my first post above - this blog post provides little more than balance to the main news article.

@David Cohen:
Good question. The bishop has not been useful. At all. His oversight of and care for the parish have been almost nonexistent. His handling of the situation appears to have been inept and profoundly unhelpful.

pax et bonum

[Dr Alan Marsh]

I wonder whether Ruth heard the evidence for herself at the tribunal? The statement above, and some of the reports, indicate that some of the PCC members had established a powerful clique which had decided that the Vicar must go. Perhaps she might be able to comment further if she was present?

Also, is it not the case that this procedure allows for the dismissal of parish officers if their behaviour has contributed to a pastoral breakdown? There certainly seems to be evidence for this in what appears above.

(I was present for some but not all of the tribunal, ruth)

[Steven]

As another member of the congregation, and a witness at the tribunal, I can concur with all of the comments made by John.

At the tribunal, I commented on the fact that the Diocese had been conspicuous in it's absence at the tribunal - there was not one person representing the Bishop there either as an observer or in a "pastoral" capacity for the members of the Parish - from whichever side.

It was commented by the applicants barrister that this was very surprising, at which point the whole panel nodded.

How can the bishop come to any decision when he is so personally implicated in the lack of pastoral care to the parish.

In the induction service the bishop says to the incumbent "I give you the cure of souls - which is both yours and mine". I have seen no evidence of his fullfilling his obligations in this matter. It's been more of a Pontius Pilate stance of washing his hands.

The comment about Freemasonry by a George is pertinent. It has been very difficult to get people to stand for the PCC against the "powerful" front presented by those who have controlled it for years.

Because of the secrecy surrounding the report, we don't know if it has also recommended that the PCC also be dissolved. The Press Release sent out from the Bishop has once again chosen to present a "dish the dirt on Tom" face. It is obvious in this Diocese, that as far as the clergy are concerned - if there is trouble ahead - you're on your own!

[Claire Debenham]

" Even Tom’s proposal to introduce energy saving light bulbs in the church (which would give an equivalent power in wattage) was disputed and argued about and indeed ended in a shouting match with the PCC refusing to endorse it."

Q: How many vicars does it take to change a lightbulb?
A: Change? CHANGE? Over my dead body....

[David]

Utterly baffling. The main report in The Times led us to believe that Father Ambrose was out of step with his parish, whereas the blog presents a small clique on the PCC as being the problem. Which is it ? And if it is the latter, why do people keep electing them ?

[Robin Kempster]

So it's got nothing to do with religion,and everything to do with power,personal relationships,and the location of the bogs.How typical of the Church of England!
There are at least two sides to every story, and it is a pity that only one of them was presented in the lurid news report yesterday.Journalists know perfectly well that most people will read the headlines but that few will immerse themselves in the detail.The lack of balance in the report was deplorable.
That said,we have in the blog a delightful picture of an organisation which many folk regard as a corrupt and hypocritical Establishment clique---not the specific parish of Trumpington,about which most people will know nothing,but that all-embracing pillar of society and propriety,the Church of England.Trollope,where art thou? Nothing has changed!
Here we have examples of the stereotypical PCC member : middle/upper middle class;politically and doctrinally ultra-conservative;arrogant;socially pretentious;self-centred and self-serving;power-crazy;resistant to all forms of change;having nothing better to do with their time than cause trouble;and more concerned with preserving the social hierarchy than spreading the word of God.Heaven help (because the spineless bishops of the Church won't!) any incumbent who takes the view that he is not merely the servant or the plaything of the PCC,there to shut up and do as he's told,upon pain of dismissal for upsetting some delicate sensibilities.
At a time when we have priests (from the Archbishop of Canterbury downwards)who continue to draw their salaries whilst at the same time saying that they don't believe in some fairly basic tenets of Christianity such as the Resurrection and the Nativity,it is mind-boggling to read about the way in which petty disputes can come to dominate the daily life of a parish.
Equally,it is astonishing to see so much evidence of unchristian behaviour amongst the 'dramatis personae' in this case.
Resolved to be irresolute,the Church of England has become an irrelevance in terminal decline.

[Malcolm+]

My wife was once on the board of a non-profit organization where two of the unionized staff were eventually severed because they had contributed to making the place utterly dysfunctional. I observed to her that they would likely need to sever certain individuals from management as well in order to move forward. Events proved me prescient.

I don't know the remit of the tribunal involved, but I suspect a happier outcome would have involved suspending all members of the current Parish Council Committee for a period of some years. Likely this would have needed to be in addition to rather than instead of the dismissal of the rector.

[Steve]

It is one of the awful things about this process and the new clergy discipline process that the priest is deprived of the pastoral support of his bishop (and archdeacon) lest that support be seen as prejudicing the case.

But there is no excuse for the priest not to be notified of the result of the enquiry before it is notified to the media - unless of course the phrase in the legislation "as soon as practicable" for notifying the priest was intended to mean "once the press have been told".

[Tim Palmer]

As a parish priest friend frequently says 'My, how these Christians love one another!'

It is a sad but inescapable fact that situations such as the one in Trumpington happen all over the country and in all denominations. Religions provide frameworks and refuges for people with needs that are not otherwise met. In the majority of cases, the need/weakness is benign in its effects on other people; the individuals concerned need to find a purpose or a structure to their lives. A minority of cases, however, are malign in that the need is to dominate and control, to have and to wield power. These people are able to dominate PCCs and the like because the majority are not assertive enough to challenge them, a reflection of why they are there in the first place. The people with a desire to develop and allow the organisation to evolve are fewer than the controllers, and because they are not suspicious by nature and do not feel threatened, they do not develop the links - via Freemasonry, dinner party circles, the pub or whatever (it doesn't matter how) -that allow the behind-the-scenes plotting necessary to control and dominate an organisation.

So what is the solution? There isn't one, really, because you are up against human nature. But it is very distressing to see good people broken for only trying to help others. Enough to make you doubt the existence of God ...

[karen]

I used to be a member of this parish church 20 years ago and am very saddened at this. I do know some of the characters involved and feel desperately sorry for Tom Ambrose, and in fact the rest of the church.

[Peter Kirk]

Well, John, if good people refuse to stand for the PCC, it is hardly surprising that bad people get elected to it. Why didn't you stand for election yourself? Since there were less nominations than seats, you would have been sure to be elected. And it would have taken only a few of you to outvote the apparently small clique opposed to the vicar.

But this is a very British disease, in the world as well as the church: to complain about our elected representatives but refuse to do anything about voting them out of office.

[Monika Kolbe, Cambridge]

Having had the honour of being married by Reverend Ambrose, I could not believe my eyes seeing him accused of causing a “serious pastoral breakdown” between him and his parishioners. His alleged crimes – creating space in his church for get-togethers after the sermon, moving the date of the harvest festival to a date more suitable for working families, and wanting to install toilets for the elderly – are testament to the well-meaning, inclusive attitude of this vicar towards his flock. His letters to the congregation in the monthly “Trumpet” church magazine were always a joy to read – an invitation to dig deeper than the headlines and put humanity first.

On a personal note – Dr. Ambrose did not bat an eyelid when it came to marrying me, a lapsed Catholic single mother who had not been inside a church for 26 years, to the Lutheran love of her life in the presence of her Muslim and Russian Orthodox maids of honour and his Sufi best man. Reverend Ambrose was a gentle, compassionate servant of God uniting two souls who longed to be together. He blessed our wedding in the true sense of the word, and restored my faith in God. Surely, in the grand scheme of things, this should count for more than the petty accusations of the self-appointed guardians of his church who seem to want nothing so much as to ruin this good man’s reputation while trying to take away his livelihood. Tom Ambrose is a credit to the Anglican Church. His detractors are anything but.

[Mark Bennet]

In our Deanery we are seriously considering a formal motion to review the disciplinary procedures of the church to ensure that clergy subject to discipline are supported pastorally in appropriate ways, rather than having pastoral relationships broken at the time when they need them most.

I want to encourage others to do the same. Regardless of the merits of any particular case, there are so many stories of injustice and failure in this respect that they cannot all be false.

See Theology vol CX, no 858 Nov/Dec 07- the article 'Shepherd and Judge' by Nicholas Papadopoulos gives a penetrating analysis of the role of the Bishop in this respect.

[Noël Staples]

I've known Tom and his family for over 20 years since he lived opposite me as the incumbent of St John's Church in March. He chaired the newly formed branch of the Victim Support Scheme and I was a volunteer and hon. sec. It has dismayed me to see what has become of my gentle and good friend. The published descriptions of his behaviour baffle me. Like many priests in the established churches today Tom came into the church after a secular career as a teacher into his 30s. It is a serious commitment and Tom is very serious about helping people on their spiritual journeys. My own spiritual journey happens to be with Quakers and I do not get on very well with anything other than silent worship, but with Tom there is a deep sense of being with someone who knows what it is like to sense the overwhelming and ineffable presence of god. Far from getting rid of such people, Bishop Russell should be doing his best to nurture and support him and his parish. He certainly has not done that. If anyone should go it is probably Bishop Russell, to be replaced by a Bishop who is able to sustain deeply spiritual priests like Tom.

[Stephen Clark]

How long did you say the good fellow had been a priest...decades? And he is surprised by the "lack of pastoral care" shown to clergy?
Expecting a bit much isn't he!!!

[Noël Staples]

I've known Tom and his family for over 20 years since he lived opposite me as the incumbent of St John's Church in March. He chaired the newly formed branch of the Fenland Victim Support Scheme and I was a volunteer and hon. sec. It has dismayed me to see what has become of my gentle and good friend. The published descriptions of his behaviour baffle me. Like many priests in the established churches today Tom came into the church after a secular career, in his case as a teacher into his 30s. It is a serious commitment and Tom is very serious about helping people on their spiritual journeys. My own spiritual journey happens to be with Quakers and I do not get on very well with anything other than silent worship, but with Tom there is a deep sense of being with someone who knows what it is like to sense the overwhelming and ineffable presence of god. Far from getting rid of such people, Bishop Russell should be doing his best to nurture and support him and his parish. He certainly has not done that. If anyone should go it is probably Bishop Russell, to be replaced by a Bishop who is able to sustain deeply spiritual priests like Tom.

[John 2]

I have every sympathy for Tom Ambrose. I don't know him but was in a similar situation myself, and hear so many echoes of my experience in these reports.

For those who cannot believe it is possible for a small cadre to destroy a man's ministry in this way may I suggest Lloyd Rediger's excellent book which examines this phenomenon? It is called "Clergy Killers" and is published by Westminster John Knox Press.