Certainly one can do better than fail to take seriously the repeated grievances of esteemed staff, as Chair of the Hall Council! One of the main themes in the letter is the woeful inadequacy of the Council's response. And Richard's 'mistakes' were not isolated: they form part of his coherent and ongoing managerial strategy since arriving as Principal.

I agree that the proof of the pudding will be in the eating, but a good test of the 'fruits' of the new regime may not be the longevity of staff Richard himself has appointed, presumably on the basis that they are in broad agreement with his aims and methods. A better test may be the quality of ordinand coming out of Wycliffe in the next 5 years, and we will probably disagree then as now about what it is that makes a 'good' ordinand. 

I suggested that if the dismissals of Elaine, Lis and Andrew proved to be illegal then resignations were in order. But then again people have resigned for less than this, industrial tribunal or no. 

Thank you, thank you, thank you to the three ex-staff members for speaking out: it was absolutely in the best interests of the college and its wider community to do so. As a former Wycliffe student who knew Geoff and David, I'm just appalled and heartsick at the way in which their repeated concerns were squashed and dismissed: to treat any staff member's grievance in this way, let alone that of a staff member of 24 years' service, is really disgusting. How can any current staff member be assured that the governing body sees them as anything more than disposable collateral?

It sounds like a real possibility that the recent dismissals were illegal. In which case, there can only be one outcome: the resignations of the Principal and the Chair of the Hall Council.

PS: Custard, if the best part of thirteen staff left because of the issues highlighted by Geoff, David and Eeva, how can this be treated as trifling 'disaffection'? How many more resignations will it take for you to see that there is a major problem - perhaps the two I have mentioned?

For all your claims to insider knowledge, Matthew, you do seem to know an awful lot less than Jody. I too had heard about the overwhelming staff resistance to the appointment of Dr Vibert.

Thanks, Brett and Jody, and yes of course things like professional ethics are at root tied to one's theology. But I think you also understand what I was suggesting, that the contest at Wycliffe isn't over the ground of religious authority, or over the theology of sexuality, or over charismatic expressions, or over the theology of grace. There may perhaps be something about women's ministry.

But I could be wrong about this, and I think Tony's right to request that the affected Fulcrum members to clear up the matter for us. We appreciate their circumspection and discretion, but surely the veil of silence is no longer prudent? (Unless, of course, there is a tribunal in the offing.)

(I love the way thatﾠeverybody else'sﾠcomments are 'vitriolic', while Matthew's are 'robust'.)

Theﾠenormous surge of passionﾠfollowing this latest news is really interesting, and clearlyﾠwhat's happening at Wycliffeﾠis becoming a focus of general anxiety about theﾠstrategic manoeuvring/power playﾠof conservative evangelicalism. While I agree with Matthew that the divisions are not chiefly theological, I also think the anxieties are justified, and here's why.

The conservative evangelical movement in the CofE is increasingly defined by its politics,ﾠas much asﾠby its theology. Its main players, tacticsﾠand objectives were basically set out in the Covenant for the CofE,ﾠwhose principles are mirrored by conservatives in the wider Communion. Whatﾠisﾠstrikingﾠabout the movement is that it isﾠsteeredﾠbyﾠdominant male leaders meeting in secret, and acting largely without the explicit consent of or consultationﾠwith the mega-churches and institutions they represent.ﾠSome of these men sit on the Hall Council. This is megalomania, in short: not exclusively a con-evangelical disease but increasingly their favoured model of leadership.

So while most of those who have left would agree broadly with many ofﾠTurnbull's theological views, they hate hisﾠpolitics and leadership style. And rightly so. Appointments have been made arbitrarily, inhouse debate has been squashedﾠheavy-handedly, facts have been spun outﾠof all recognition (RT has, indeed,ﾠdone a much better job than theﾠjournalists at mangling the truth, if Jonathan Aitken's article is anything to go by).ﾠ

Matthew is right,ﾠthis isn'tﾠabout theological positions. But he is alsoﾠwrong, this isn't about resistance to reform and change:ﾠtheﾠresistance is to something much more sinister and ugly.

I've got to hand it to you Matthew, at least you're consistent. You've been saying the same thing on Fulcrum and TA ever since this story hit the press: stop talking about it, you don't know what's happening, but I do, and what's happening is nothing - Wycliffe is a shiny happy place where staff only leave to greener pastures as part of their natural career development. You promised us blithely that this would all blow over, and we'd eat our words. Can you really sustain that line now that 8 out of 13 academic staff have left within a year? This sort of exodus isn't normal, Matthew. I'd like to hear your precise take on these resignations (particularly in light of Eeva John's comments, who surely can't be accused of not having inside knowledge), if you would have us know the truth and facilitate 'proper debate'.

PS: 'Affirming Laudianism'? I'm afraid you're not helping us revise your current image as standing somewhere to the right of John Knox. This is pretty unworthy.

User 1049, I'm quite sure you have an impressive IQ rating, but it really isn't good enough to say to Tony 'you don't get it' and refuse to explain yourself, or engage with any of the perfectly reasonable points he made in reply to your original post. He has been entirely serious and intelligent in all his comments here (which is why I hope he won't completely retire from these discussions): it is you who have evaded and blocked the dialogue. And what IS the censorship and suppression that you speak of? It seems to me that there are plenty of platforms for open debate on this issue, and that both sides are trying to make their voice the loudest.

Actually, I believe it IS the same story - it's just that the PPH review has only been published in the University gazette this week. What is more interesting is the transcription on Gledhill's blog of an editorial by Gerald Bray in 'The Churchman', who openly hopes that "the new broom at Wycliffe may soon extend to other colleges as well, with effects not unlike those which have already transformed Oak Hill to the praise and glory of the Sovereign Lord of us all." 
There has been a lot of discussion elsewhere on this site about directive prayer, but I can't help but hope that that Sovereign Lord will preserve us.

Certainly - 1694 was the date of the redoubtable High Church writer Mary Astell's "Serious Proposal to the Ladies", in which she set out her vision of an Anglican convent. Her idea was discussed by senior clergymen including Gilbert Burnet (+Sarum) who advised Queen Anne against implementing it. Astell was also interested in the early church office of deaconess, and has a VERY interesting discussion about the biblical passages prohibiting women from speaking/leading in "Some Reflections Upon Marriage" (3rd ed., 1706): you can read this at http://www.pinn.net/~sunshine/book-sum/astell2.html (see section headed "Appendix"). Especially striking are the paragraphs which begin "That the custom of the World ..." and "As for his not suffering women ...".