One of the Church of England’s best-known theologians is suing the Bishop of Liverpool following a row at an Oxford theological college.
Dr Elaine Storkey, a regular contributor to Radio 4’s Thought for the Day slot, told an employment tribunal in Reading yesterday she had been bullied while a senior research fellow at Wycliffe Hall.
She accepted around £20,000 from the trustees of the college after they acknowledged that she had been unfairly dismissed from the post. But the 64-year-old is still seeking a ruling of religious discrimination against the president of the 130-year-old college, Bishop James Jones, over the row.
The dispute, which has split evangelicals, erupted following clashes between the Rev Richard Turnbull, the principal, and staff who criticised his allegedly abrasive management style and conservative brand of Christianity.
This is terrible! Wycliffe Hall is not a large place so when one member of staff is upset, it has the potential to cause a real problem in the college. In this case, Elaine Storkey (et al) have done just that.
I was a student at Wycliffe during the McGrath/Turnbull transition and I can only say that Richard was a breath of fresh air. He was able to bring a focus to the teaching that was absent before his arrival.
My lectures with Elaine Storkey were a great disappointment as I felt that she went out of her way to belittle anyone who disagreed with her. Her tact for changning minds was ‘persistance wears down resisitance.’ She admitted as much when she said that was how she and others were able to change John Stott’s mind over the ordination of women.
Elaine was great when it came to bringing up contemporary issues and ministry, but it was obvious that she was in disagreement with the direction the college was taking.
Please pray for Wycliffe Hall.
She accepted around £20,000 from the trustees of the college after they acknowledged that she had been unfairly dismissed from the post. But the 64-year-old is still seeking a ruling of religious discrimination against the president of the 130-year-old college, Bishop James Jones, over the row.
This makes me embarrassed to be an Evangelical – aside from the Biblical injunctions against Christians taking one another to court I fail to see how you can simultaneously accept money from the college trustees and then sue the president?
#1 ‘apearson’
The Principal and Council of Wycliffe Hall, Oxford admitted in a court of law in Reading yesterday that they had acted unlawfully in dismissing Elaine Storkey from Wycliffe Hall.
Further attempts to slur her character do not seem appropriate at this time. What may be more appropriate is an official apology to her from the Principal and the Council for the unlawful dismissal. Yes, Wycliffe Hall does indeed need our prayers.
It was not only Elaine Storkey who was ‘required to leave’ Wycliffe Hall, but also Andrew Goddard and Elisabeth Goddard. See the Fulcrum statement [url=http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/page.cfm?ID=235]here.[/url] Prayers are also needed for their situation.
Many other senior academics have resigned. See an Church of England Newspaper article on 21 September 2007 [url=http://www.religiousintelligence.com/news/?NewsID=1008]here.[/url]
The Church Times [url=http://www.churchtimes.co.uk/content.asp?id=40741]reported [/url] on 15 June 2007 that three former Principals of Wycliffe Hall, including Prof Alister McGrath, wrote to the Chair of the Council, Bishop James Jones, calling the resignation of Richard Turnbull, the current Principal. The text of the letter may be read [url=http://www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/archives/002443.html] here[/url].
An article in The Independent on 25 May 2007 may be read[url=http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/this_britain/article2581243.ece] here.[/url]
I hope this background information is helpful in providing for readers of TitusOneNine the context for the admission yesterday by the Principal and Council of Wycliffe Hall of the unlawful act of dismissal of Elaine Storkey.
Both sides in this dispute might consider that the airing of dirty linen in public is doing no one any favours. One side looks heavy handed in its treatment of an individual – the other looks bitter and difficult in their response. Oh how we Christians love one another
Elves, I think you might check your data and reconsider your headline. If I am correct in reading the notices, it is quite misleading. I imagine it came from the journalist’s headline, but we ought to hold ourselves to higher standards, I think, whenever we have more accurate information.
I believe Dr. Storkey is engaged in an employment dispute with her employers, Wycliffe Hall Council and Trustees, of which the good Bp of Liverpool happens to be the chair. If an employee sues Microsoft for unscrupulous employment practices involving the employee and his supervisor, and his attorney names the chair of the board in the suit, is it not misleading to imply that the employee is accusing Bill Gates of the behavior?
Seems to me this is not at all an issue of the good bishop bullying one of Britain’s finest theologians, as I am sure both he and she would attest. I am sure both the bishop and Dr. Storkey would appreciate a more accurate lead for your article.
Craig and all, Kendall posted this piece, we had nothing to do with it.
Anything listed as posted by Kendall has indeed been posted by him. We elves are not posting much at all these days. I think I’ve only posted two things in the past month. At this point we elves are mostly dealing with routine blog maintenance, admin and e-mail queries (i.e. helping commenters with login problems, or with research requests), and some comment moderation. But about 99.9% of the content is coming straight from Kendall, as always. Only on rare occasions (as during Kendall’s travels or during a major event like GenCon or an HoB meeting, etc.) do we have more than VERY minor involvement in the blog content.
–elfgirl
It is worth making the point that in English law the procedure for an employment tribunal requires individuals within the institution being accused to be named. Thus whilst the institution in this instance is Wycliffe Hall the individuals named are its Chair, the Bishop of Liverpool, and Andrew Dalton, Treasurer to the Trustees. Elaine Storkey is not ‘suing James Jones’ in any personal sense.
With regard to 2. above a case at a tribunal may have several issues involved. In this case there has been an admission by the college over one part of it, namely that it dismissed Elaine without grounds for doing so, and the damages that result from that must be settled immediately. They are still contesting that the dismissal came as a result of religious discrimination, which is a separate issue in English law, and this remains sub judice. I hope this helps with understanding.
Thank you Simon. Matters like this are not always clear to non-academics. Plus, faculty at theological colleges in England are paid salaries that most readers here would not believe (just as clergy in the C of E). Older systems which required lots of administrative work from faculty–similar US institutions have paid employees doing much of what academics do or did in the UK–are giving way to new models of adminstration but all this takes patience and hard work. In a way, the remarkable part of this is actually how subdued/quiet the public dimension has been, in the light of all the turmoil and faculty leavings. It is astonishing in a time when communications via the internet are tsunami-like, other things can actually motor along without much public comment. Prayers for all involved at the Hall are clearly in order. Lord have mercy.
Chairwoman of Fulcrum Elaine Storkey:
[blockquote] [url=http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/news/story/0,,2237201,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=8] “I was offered a settlement many months ago, but my point was I wanted it to be acknowledged that they had done this wrong to me.” [/url]
[/blockquote]
I’m sorry, I’m done here. I used to think there was a way the conservatives could unite and bring some discipline. I naively thought the word ‘evangelical’ meant conservative evangelical. It seems they are really liberal, and hell bent on humiliating any conservatives remaining.
I used to believe if the conservatives stuck together they could restore order. I was wrong. The only way forward is to leave the communion. This will be my final post. Goodbye Anglicans, I’m going somewhere that actually believes what they preach.
I think I expressed myself clumsily in the brief above. My embarrassment comes not just from Dr Storkey going to the courts, but also from the fact that she has been mistreated (as acknowledged in the payment of 20,000), by an Evangelical institution of national significance. I am embarrased by the way I see some of the posters over at Fulcrum ‘circle the wagons’ and ‘go for’ Turnbull and Conservatives. I am embarrased by the way I’ve seen some Conservatives ‘go for Storkey’.
Fact is no one comes out of this looking good.
I’m not entirely certain that commenting on this situation is helpful…ever. So I do this with some hesitation. Simon (hope you’re doing well), I do appreciate and understand your point in post # 7 when you state…
“that in English law the procedure for an employment tribunal requires individuals within the institution being accused to be named. Thus whilst the institution in this instance is Wycliffe Hall the individuals named are its Chair, the Bishop of Liverpool, and Andrew Dalton, Treasurer to the Trustees. Elaine Storkey is not ‘suing James Jones’ in any personal sense.”
While it is true that Elaine Storkey is not suing the Bishop of Liverpool, but the institution of Wycliffe (of which the Bishop is Chair), I’m afraid that her action (at least in her own words) is still to be understood as personal in nature. Linked from the Fulcrum website, an article titled “Don’t shoot the heretics” quotes Elaine saying “I feel that the chairman of the trustees has colluded with the bullying of the principal.”
Unless I am misinterpreting her, it appears to me that she holds both the principal and the Bishop responsible. The headline “Leading C of E theologian sues Bishop” is indeed misleading in terms of the actual legal proceedings that will take place. However, speaking in terms of the damage done to relationships, I’m afraid it is spot on.
To read of principals and trustees acting unlawfully is quite disheartening. But to see whole organizations of evangelicals staunchly defending continued legal action to the great delight of the secular media is downright depressing. All the more reason for our constant prayers.
Have mercy Lord.
Some clue me in. What did this woman actually do that caused such a stir? And what did the principals do that caused a just payment of 20,000 pounds? What is this fight actually about? LM
Elaine Storkey is a prominent British evangelical theologian (perhaps the most conspicuous woman among them). When she was hired by Wycliffe Hall (which operates much like an American theological seminary), it was broadly representative of all three threads in English Evangelicalism—Conservative, Open (which does not mean liberal in England), and Charismatic. A couple of years ago, a new Principal was hired by the Board in succession to Alister McGrath, who was hardly liberal. The new head has focused on turning the Hall into a primarily Conservative institution. As an Open Evangelical, Dr. Storkey did not fit and was asked to leave.
As I understand it, these are not lawsuits as much as they are claims for unemployment compensation handled (as they would be in America) by an administrative hearing, not a court trial. Dr. Storkey had a job which she intended to hold until her retirement. Since Wycliffe Hall is associated with the University of Oxford, her terms of employment were dictated in part by the statutes of the University, which basically said that she could only be dismissed for cause.
Nevertheless, the Hall asked her to leave without giving a reason, and has now admitted in the hearing that it did not have legal cause for her dismissal. She is therefore entitled to compensation like anybody in America who has paid into the unemployment insurance pool and has been laid off for some reason other than misconduct connected with their work. She is entitled to further compensation in lieu of additional lost wages if she was fired for her religious beliefs. That claim is still pending.
It is pretty clear that the real cause of her dismissal was being an Open Evangelical (which, in the British context, describes somebody who would be just about typical of evangelical clergy in places like the Diocese of South Carolina). The Hall is now dominated by Conservative Evangelicals (who really have no sizable American Anglican equivalent; think Sydney or the Orthodox Presbyterian Church with bishops). They have purged 8 out of 13 faculty members who would not toe the party line. This has been protested widely by those connected to the Hall, including the last three former Principals.
In short, this is not a fight between liberals and conservatives, but yet another case of Anglican reasserters eating their own young.
Well that’s one perspective Dale! Wycliffe have just released the following statement:
PRESS STATEMENT
ELAINE STORKEY
1 At a Pre-Hearing Review in relation to Dr Elaine Storkey’s claims of unfair dismissal and religious discrimination, the College accepted that she had been unfairly dismissed as the College had not, prior to dismissal, gone through the statutory procedures. We are hopeful that a full and amicable settlement can be reached.
2 Nevertheless, we strongly refute any allegation that Elaine’s dismissal from Wycliffe was in any way connected with her religious beliefs. At Wycliffe Hall, our key priority is to equip men and women for modern ministry and this happens in an environment that encourages wide discussion and debate, reflective of the broad range of thinking within the Church as a whole.
3 We look forward to resolving the whole matter as swiftly as possible so that we can concentrate purely on our priorities of maintaining high standards of training, theological teaching and academic excellence at Wycliffe Hall, in equipping men and women fully for modern Christian ministry.
Helen Mitchell
College Administrator
Wycliffe Hall, 54 Banbury Road, Oxford OX2 6PW
#14–well, I suppose one might well read the statement as an effort to ward off serious charges on the one hand, and also what could be a serious threat to WH’s status within the Oxford system — where charges of religious cramping and failure to engage in debate would be code words. This would only confirm Dale’s analysis. (I wrote an essay for Anglican Theological Review not long back that showed how very different evangelicalism in the UK institutions is compared with the US…the term ‘open’ is almost unworkable now within the conservative anglican circles of the US). Prayers for WH and all involved. The loss of people like David Wenham was very sad and unfortunate.
#15 or on the other hand one could be charitable and just read it as a statement of fact.
Thanks, Christopher and Dale. Craig Uffman has also [url=http://covenant-communion.com/?p=385] clarified [/url] the difference in meaning between ‘open’ in the USA and ‘open Evangelicalism’ in England.
Yes, the resignation of David Wenham, the fine New Testament scholar and Vice-Principal was a great loss to Wycliffe Hall. As in clear in his [url=http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/page.cfm?ID=240] joint letter [/url] to the Church of England Newspaper, 28 September 2007, Andrew Goddard and Elisabeth Goddard were also ‘removed from their posts’. Both of them have been on the leadership team of Fulcrum since its beginning in 2003.
Ruth Gledhill has written an [url=http://timescolumns.typepad.com/gledhill/2008/01/elaine-storkey.html#more] article [/url] on this, and its wider relation to GAFCON.
#16–you can pose those as choices if you wish. I did not say this was unfactual; I said it likely seeks to address the larger threat beyond Elaine Storkey, that is, the place of a theological college (one among many, some non-Anglican) within Oxford University. This would be a serious loss and must be fended off with seriousness as well. Having taught at such places, I am aware of the challenges and also the potential of Christian witness inside a major university — often the people most concerned to protect this are Christian scholars who inhabit other corners of university life.
Bill Bowder, who was present at the Tribunal, has written an [url-http://www.churchtimes.co.uk/content.asp?id=49739&cachefixer;=] article [/url] for the Church Times, ‘Wycliffe Hall admits breach of law over sacked lecturer’.
The solicitor for Elaine Storkey has published a [url=http://www.mortimers-solicitors.co.uk/press.php] press release. [/url]
Apologies, the link I posted does not connect. The correct link to the Church Times article is [url=http://www.churchtimes.co.uk/content.asp?id=49739&cachefixer;=] here. [/url]
It may be well worth re-reading the reports of the resignation of Clare MacInnes from the Council of Wycliffe Hall.
‘College council member quits over bullying’, by Stephen Bates, The Guardian, 4 October 2007:
[blockquote]In her letter of resignation this week, council member Clare MacInnes told the Rt Rev James Jones, Bishop of Liverpool, who is chairman of governors: “I am disturbed by the council’s failure to respond to allegations of bullying, intimidation of council members and a lack of transparency in its decision-making … I regret I have no confidence in the chair, the principal or the council as a whole to address these serious matters of governance, employment practice and simple human relationships.” [/blockquote]
http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/news/story/0,,2182888,00.html
‘New crisis for Anglican college as council member resigns’, by Ed Beavan, Religious Intelligence site, 3 October 2007:
[blockquote]In the letter Mrs MacInnes wrote she was ‘deeply unhappy’ with the manner the Council had ‘handled the staff restructuring, various dismissals, terminations of employment and resignations’.
Mrs MacInnes added that it was ‘damaging and misleading’ to describe the decision to terminate the three academics’ employment as unanimous, as in a letter to the Council she asked for it to be recorded she did not support the proposal, as she could not attend a meeting on the issue.
In the letter she writes: “The minutes of the Council do not contain points that I have made dissenting from the recommendations of the Principal and Chair, nor do they record votes against recommendations because no vote was taken, so there were claims that a decision was unanimous when no opportunity had been given to formally register dissent.â€
Mrs MacInnes also said she felt intimidated by other Council members, particularly on one occasion when she was asked not to take notes during a meeting.
In conclusion, she writes: “I regret that I have no confidence in the Chair, the Principal, or the Council as a whole to address these serious matters of governance, employment practice, and simple human relationships.
“In a Christian foundation, we are bound not merely by the demands of natural justice, but also by the way in which we are called to live as fellow members of the Body of Christ, to ensure that we treat our employees and our colleagues with respect, courtesy and humanity.
“I am left with no option other than to resign from membership of the Hall Council.â€[/blockquote]
http://www.religiousintelligence.co.uk/news/?NewsID=1021