Tom Ambrose finally gets the sack: How it all happened, who said what

Joanna writes: Rev Tom Ambrose, dubbed the 'spitting vicar', has today been fired from his post as vicar of St Mary and Michael Church in Trumpinton Cambridge after a Tribunal found a 'breakdown of pastoral relationships' in the parish.

So how did it go from a row over whether coffee should be served at the back of church to a full blown Church Tribunal and the vicar getting his marching orders?

Here's your Tom Ambrose reader.

It all began when Dr Ambrose took up his post at the 700 year old church and wanted to bring it up to date. He moved a few pews to make space to serve coffee after the service. When he applied to have new loos put in for older members, traditionalists in the parish snapped and lodged a case of "pastoral breakdown" at the first ecclesiastical tribunal for a generation.

What Dr Ambrose said: “This is not going to do the Church of England any good – to see that Christians behave like this...“I do not plot and I am a good vicar, but there is a portion of the congregation who have taken against me."

What parishioners said: Philippa Slatter, ward city councillor, refused to comment; Shirley Brown, of the Trumpington Residents’ Association, insisted the matter was sub-judice and would not comment, and Graham Minto, PCC treasurer, has also declined to speak.

The Tribunal met in September last year when Dr Ambrose was accused of lying to parishioners and being a bully. The slideshow presentation he gave in place of a Christmas sermon was also brought as evidence against him.

What Dr Ambrose said: Dr Ambrose, who moved to Trumpington in 1999, told the tribunal that the congregation turned against him when he attempted to introduce innovations such as lavatories. 

What the parishioners said: When parishioners, including a warden, Marilyn Orson, complained in a letter to the bishop, Dr Ambrose went to her home. Mrs Orson told the hearing: “He called me a liar. I am not a liar and I was very distressed by this. We spent a very long time putting the letter together in a reasonable way because we thought it would spare everyone’s blushes.”

 

The Tribunal found unanimously that the vicar should be sacked but the findings were not published until January this year, before Dr Ambrose was told of the results.

What Dr Ambrose said: Unavailable for comment

What the parish parocial council said: “This is a very sad case — it is in fact an old-fashioned divorce caused by irretrievable breakdown between a priest and his parish. Dr Ambrose is a square peg in a round hole. He has talent, he is intelligent and learned, but he is also a bully and a liar. He would lose his temper if he did not get his own way, and he was incapable of believing the beliefs of others if they did not fit his own. He brought a thriving parish to its knees.

“Churchwarden after churchwarden resigned, volunteers left, and his answer was always to attack. He told bold lies and ordered people to leave the parish if they did not agree with him. They lost all trust in him, and if there is no trust between the parish and the priest then the mission of the Church of England has failed.”

Today the Bishop of Ely, Dr Anthony Russell, ordered Dr Ambrose to vacate his post by July this year.

What Dr Ambrose said: Unavailable for comment

What the bishop said:  "I am astonished and dismayed that there are recorded two occasions on which it is said that Dr Ambrose spat at parishioner, allegations which were not challenged in cross-examination.

"These incidents may be seen as among the lowest points of what plainly became an increasingly unhappy relationship between Dr Ambrose and his parishioners as charted in the report."

Comments

[Warren]

...if the relationship between a priest and his flock has broken down, then the priest should be moved on...the priest is meant to listen to this flock and work to meet their needs...not force his own agenda on parishioners who are, after all, helping to pay the bills...the longer the unwanted priest is kept in place, the more toxic the environment becomes...situations like this damage the entire assembly...considering the fact that many people can't imagine a priest ever being responsible for a relationship breakdown, the Bishop's decision to move this priest on seems very brave indeed...

[Warren]

...if the relationship between a priest and his flock has broken down, then the priest should be moved on...the priest is meant to listen to this flock and work to meet their needs...not force his own agenda on parishioners who are, after all, helping to pay the bills...the longer the unwanted priest is kept in place, the more toxic the environment becomes...situations like this damage the entire assembly...considering the fact that many people can't imagine a priest ever being responsible for a relationship breakdown, the Bishop's decision to move this priest on seems very brave indeed...

[ROBIN KEMPSTER]

Those who believe that the Church of England is a hypocritical Establishment clique in terminal decline will have had their views strengthened by these proceedings.The 'judgement reasons',instead of running to page after page of turgid prose and impenetrable legalese,might be summarised thus:

'Stuff this for a lark.
P.Pilate.
Bishop of Ely.'

[Rebecca]

I am shocked and perplexed by the judgement of serious pastoral breakdown in Trumpington. I think this is unjust and untrue.

Amongst other things, this Church has provided a very happy first home for 'Godly Play', a method of spiritual direction for children and others. Thanks to the vision and hard work of Rev and Mrs Ambrose along with their team of parishoners, the first Godly Play room in Europe was establised there in 2001. It has become the model for dozens more since.

This provided a much loved place for the children of the parish, and also provided an adult training centre for Godly Play. More than 1000 adults have attended introductory courses hosted at this Church. Not only has Ely diocese been well served by this ministry, but this church has served participants from every diocese (and almost every denomination) in the UK, and at least 100 from Europe, Australia, America and Africa. Courses and visits have also welcomed Jewish, Muslim and Hindu participants.

Without the warm and enthusiastic spirit evident at this Church throughout this period, Godly Play would simply not have spread throughout the Churches here and abroad in the ways it has. In the minds of most, Trumpington is therefore associated with successful, hospitable and profoundly transforming ministry.

It is surely not feasible that such clearly outstanding 'good work' can have co-existed with the alleged pastoral breakdown. It the ministry of a vicar and his supportive congregation at such a flagship church is deemed to be not worth saving, heaven help churches with real problems, less talented clergy or greater needs.

As others have correctly asserted, the shameful pastoral breakdown here is between the diocese and the authentic Church in Trumpington, since no account has been taken by the diocese of the many signs of healthy church life, of which its Godly Play ministry is one.

The Godly Play movement owes a huge debt of gratitude to the Ambroses, and I represent many who feel angry and deeply upset about this fiasco.

[Barbara]

The short article under the headline in The Australian, "Sacked vicar 'spat at flock'", suggests Dr Ambrose has mental health problems. Looking further, I find quite a different picture emerges - however incomplete - and I recall my old granny saying "give a dog a bad name, and hang him". My sympathies tend to Dr Ambrose, maligned around the world, and I wonder where was the higher authority that might have prevented this.

[John]

I take back what I said earlier. Who in their right mind would want to serve in the Diocese of Ely, let alone Dr Ambrose's parish?

[Patrick]

The Bishop of Ely is a spectacularly dull man... But as far as Ambrose goes, it shows a certain stubbornness to remain in a parish when there are clearly such poor relations with too many people. The problems have existed for some years: he should have accepted that he was in the wrong place, regardless of who's to blame, and moved before things came to such an ugly head. Priests are there to minister: if they can't, for whatever reason, do that, they need to go. The bishops and archdeacon has been very lax in their dealings with both Ambrose and the parishioners, doing too little too late. Typical p*ss-poor pastoral care.

[Jane]

Having read the tribunal's report, what most comes to mind is how terrible it is when people use the sacrament as a weapon against one another, either refusing to give it to enforce a belief, or refusing to take it out of protest. Matters of conscience of course inform such things, but our communion with God should be above petty parochial politics.

[Yet another John]

The diocese has probably lost its credibility. It may, however, have got back a large vicarage which (according to a comment I heard when I lived in the area) it apparently hoped to sell off.

[Mark]

The first time I met the Bishop of Ely just after his appointment, I was totally underwhelmed and could not see any particular or positive qualities. I am afraid that I think it is his conduct that needs to be examined over this affair.

As for the church itself, I suppose it is likely to implode as the trouble makers go back to survey their destruction. If I was a priest, I would steer well clear of this parish when it becomes vacant. The details of the case are well-discussed in the wider Church community and the bar comes down with full certainty in support of Tom Ambrose.

I cannot decide whether this whole situation is a tragedy or a farce. Quite how the manupulations of a few parishoners who can't get their way has got this far, I shall never know.

[Malcolm+]

One news story quotes Fr. Ambrose as saying that the tribunal never asked him to respond to these allegations about spitting.

If true, the tribunal was a joke - and likewise the bishop.

[John]

The tribunal report reads as though it was written before the hearing.

[Val]

Tom Ambrose is not a bully but a victim of bullying. There are many of us in the parish who do support him, but our written statements to the Tribunal were ignored. We have now lost a vicar we respected and liked, and it seems the bullies have won - for the time being anyway. We wish him every success in his fight for justice. BRING BACK TOM AMBROSE!

[David Keen]

The full tribunal report is on the Ely diocesan website at
http://www.ely.anglican.org/information/trumpington/tribunal.pdf

Very very sad. Having initially been sympathetic to Tom Ambrose it's hard now to know what to think. Maybe better to pray.

[Amelie]

This is the second time that the Bishop has made remarks or released information about this hearing, when he should not have done so. 'John', as you seem to have some personal knowledge, may I suggest that you take this up with the Archbishop of Canterbury by way of a formal complaint?

Personally, I am hoping that Tom Ambrose appeals as something seems to have gone badly wrong here.

[Chris Gillibrand]

PS
I chew the carpet every time that I hear those ominous words "my church", either referring to a group of people or the building and whether they are uttered by the clergy or the laity.

Having returned this evening from a Romanian Orthodox service venerating Our Lady, whose glories were a loud echo of heaven, I could not be more convinced that churches if they are anything are the dwelling place of God on earth to which we are but invited guests, temporary tenants at best. Sadly, the Anglican Church started life as an acquisition of property the rights to which in so many congregrations there are now many claimants.

The terminology was also used in the epidemic of Catholic church closures in the US.

Congregrations would demand to keep "our church" open and the Bishop would shout back, no, "Its my church". Both sides were wrong.

[Malcolm+]

I'm still astonished that anyone would be opposed to installing washrooms. That's too bizarre for words.

[John]

Heh - I'd like to point out that the first of the three "John" comments isn't the same as the second and third. Spot the sign-off!

:-)

pax et bonum

[A Renegade Priest]

What this, and all cases live it boil down to, is a failure of love. As the prohet Fergie Black-eyed-Pea, reminds us "Where is the Love."

If Fr Ambrose has behaved in this manner, then some sort of loving and firm correction is required. But making a man jobless and homeless?? He undoubtedly has gifts which are prized in our management-oriented church; why not let him join the myriad of diocesan adviser/consultants?

Without commenting on this particular individual, it is my belief that bullying and power-play is rife among parochial clergy, and is sometimes to be seen most obviously in dysfunctional vicar-curate relationships. Many Lay people can also become helllishly proprietorial about the most trifling issues. But why should one man carry the can for what, after all, is a collective failure to embody the love of Christ?

[David]

It is sad that the Bishop, who also has the 'cure od souls' on the Parish has done nothing to help Tom and his wife during all this long sad saga. Why did the Bishop send out a Press release initially before even Tom knew of the tribunal's findings. Why did he have to report the dismissal using such derogatory terms. Why did he not also report the heavy criticism of himself and the diocese in the Tribunal's report nor of the criticism of the appellants. Should the Bishop not also sack himself.
Would Ruth like to obtain a copy of the report and tell every one what it actually says?

[Justice]

Now that the Bishop has ruled, will Miss Gledhill publish the tribunal's ruling in full so that everybody can make a full assesment of what actually happened?

[John]

Oh, and as for the bishop's comment:
"I am astonished and dismayed that there are recorded two occasions on which it is said that Dr Ambrose spat at parishioner, allegations which were not challenged in cross-examination."

Tom did actually explicitly deny ever deliberately spitting at anyone. We've all frothed at the mouth occasionally when angry, and I suspect (although I've never asked Tom about this) that this is what happened in this situation.

pax et bonum

[John]

As has been noted in the comments already, it seems most odd to me that, once again, the bishop has chosen to stress Tom's role in the problems and to omit any mention at all of the actions of others. No relationship failure is entirely one party's fault - and this one certainly isn't all Tom's.

And here's another question: why has the bishop chosen to make this announcement 3 days before our annual parochial church meeting - at which we will be making appointments for new PCC members? Doing so a few weeks earlier would have let us hold the APCM without the distress and anger that is now inevitable. Or, if he really hadn't made up his mind in time, could he not have waited a week so that we could make these appointments with a clear mind? As things stand now, the bishop has (yet again) made the situation in this parish worse rather than better.

The big question in this situation is, as before, why the bishop has failed so spectacularly in his own responsibilities towards Tom and this parish.

pax et bonum

John

[John]

Who in their right mind would wish to replace Dr Ambrose in this nest of vipers?

Good luck to him - he is far better off without them!

[Stephen Clark]

sad, sad stuff.
A young priest I knew, incapable largely of keeping his mouth discreetly shut, once observed to me that the people with whom he had trouble are those who thought the church belonged to them
I have oft reflected on the truth of that insight, and see it all too evident in this case.
Sad for all concerned.

[BabyBlue]

Oh for the days when we fought about loos and the color of the carpets.

bb

[Stephen of Manchester]

As the Trumpington parish farce concludes, it seems unfair that we are reminded of Dr Ambrose's indiscretions but not of the maleficience of the PCC clique, led by Edmund and Jane Brookes.

[Chris Gillibrand]

Trouble in Trumpington is recorded in the Reeve's Tale in the Canterbury Tales. It begins.

"At Trumpington, a hamlet not far from Cambridge, there runs a brook; over it is a bridge.
On this brook there stands a mill, and there a miller had his dwelling many a year. He
was proud as a peacock, handy with the pipes, a good man at fishing and at wrestling
or in an archery match. He always went armed; at his side a claymore—and sharp he
kept the blade--a poignard in his pouch and a dirk in his stocking. It would be a brave
man that dare touch him."

The Miller, however, is recorded as having rather graver moral problems than the spitting of Mr Ambrose and his agression on behalf of toilets and coffee cups.