Church Society director Lee Gatiss has recently written what might kindly be described as a character assassination of the ministry couple, Mike and Kate Andreyev. You can read the full version here and the executive summary here. The bit that particularly interests me, and which should make any fair-minded observer question its credibility, is as follows.
On pp 39-40 of the full report, Church Society explains why it decided not to commission an independent review into the Andreyevs’ grievance against the organisation, but instead to respond to it publicly point by point:
Church Society says it made this decision in response to a letter in the April 2021 edition of Evangelicals Now (EN) from Kate Andreyev and “two others”. That letter is reproduced below. The “two others” mentioned are myself and Nick Howard, who have a separate, longstanding grievance against Church Society.
The grievance which Nick and I have against Church Society centres on this: that Lee Gatiss spoke dishonestly about his knowledge of the Stephen Sizer antisemitism scandal, to shield himself from censure for failing to do anything about it. We set out our case here in November 2020.
Now look at the April 2021 letter to EN again. It was not only Kate Andreyev, but also Nick Howard and I, who called for Church Society to address our respective grievances publicly on a point-by-point basis.
Since then, Lee Gatiss has evidently spent many weeks compiling a point-by-point response to the Andreyevs. However, he has yet to respond point-by-point to me and Nick Howard. Given that our own case against him is considerably shorter than that of the Andreyevs, it would take him much less time to do so.
This leaves a rather large elephant in the room.
Nick and I have set out evidence that Lee Gatiss spoke dishonestly about his knowledge of the Sizer scandal. This clearly weakens his credibility to comment on other matters – including, of course, on the situation of the Andreyevs. One might therefore think it imperative for Lee to respond point-by-point to me and Nick, before responding point-by-point to the Andreyevs. The fact that he has still not done so, over nine months after we published our case against him, suggests that he cannot do so, because our case against him is unanswerable. And this in turn means that what he says about the Andreyevs (Lee acting as self-appointed investigator, prosecutor, witness, judge, jury, court reporter & executioner) should be taken with an extremely large pinch of salt.
Unless and until Lee Gatiss is able to refute what Nick Howard and I wrote about him – publicly and point-by-point – the elephant in the room will remain.