Rev Peter Timms, a minister for some forty years,  has regularly “not been listened to.”  He has been denied any discussion about the false confession that was sent to him by  a complaints panel leader, Chris Kitchin. Office holders in the Church will not listen to their aged minister. They place his letters in a file – unanswered, perhaps even unread.

Administrative decisions about difficult procedures in the complaints process are supposed to be taken within the Connexional Team, and by the Conference Office in particular. However, in the Timms case, the consultation and decision-making appears to be influenced by senior members of the Church who have influence over  the Connexional team.

Considering the strange actions taken by some officials in Methodist  Church  House, it seems that that Rev Timms may be facing a “core group” of senior members within the Methodist Church which defends its members and is deaf to the objections of aged ministers such as Peter Timms.   

After four years of argument, the “core group” in Methodist Church House still refuses to justify the false confession that was sent to Peter Timms. Instead  it simply ignores it.  

There is a total lack of transparency about this  in Church House.  The people responsible for the irresponsible policy of intimidation against Rev Peter Timms simply refuse to say why they take this stand.  When asked, they deflect.  

Throughout the last five years Peter Timms has been shown that, although he is accountable to the Church, the Church, in reality,  is not accountable to him.  

The consistency of the approach from Methodist Church House hints at the influence of such a  “core group”. Officials change, but the policy remains the same.

Clearly Mr. Chris Kitchin is someone favoured by this core group. In spite of his outrageous acts, he is immune to criticism and stoutly protected.   It is likely that a member of the Law and Polity Committee,  Mr. Graham Danbury, has, at least, some sympathy with Mr. Kitchin, for they have served together on the Church Council in St Albans. A friend of Mr. Danbury, Mrs Louise Wilkins, was,  until recently,  another member of  the Law and Polity Committee who did what she could to protect Mr. Kitchin. When she was senior legal adviser in Methodist Church House she played a major part in the attempt to silence Peter Timms.

The former  Secretary of Conference, Rev Gareth Powell seems to be another favoured person – as is his successor Rev Jonathan Hustler. Rev John Hellyer, who is closely involved with all aspects of the Timms case, would appear to have special protected status in the eyes of the “core group”. People such as these act without any real scrutiny.

Their text for guidance seems to be John 20:17 -  “Noli me tangere”. 

For it seems that no one can touch them. They are inviolate.  

Should anyone doubt this, they should look at the central facts of the Timms case. The leader of the complaints panel which dealt with Peter Timms,  the man who sent the false confession and used   evidence from covert surveillance against him, Chris Kitchin, has been consistently defended by the officials in Church House.

He in turn, when approached, sees no need to justify his actions – he simply refers the matter to Methodist Church House. They then say that the matter is closed.

As Mr. Kitchin has said with the confidence of someone who cannot be gainsaid,  “It is  water under the bridge.” His stock response is “I am not in a position to discuss what we did, or why we did it.” Approaches with suggestions  of “peace talks” are categorised by him as “harassment”.

A brick wall might move more than Mr. Kitchin. Such is the modern Methodist Church.

As a consequence of this, it is clear that the “core group” inside the Methodist Church condones the use of false confessions accompanied by coercion. According to past – president, Rev Loraine Mellor, such behaviour is “within the parameters set by the Conference”. Can she really believe this – or is she too at the mercy of the special interests of the  “core group”? 

The core group seems to care nothing for the connexional team members in Methodist Church House. The Timms case revealed an example of the Church being lied to by one of its own connexional complaints panels to cover up breaches of the standing orders. Rev Val Reid and Rev Chris Jones were behind the document that tricked the Church. These are eminent senior ministers - but no action was taken.    

In the Timms case, in order to hide its despicable actions, a protected member, Rev John Hellyer,  suspended Rev Timms and determined that the suspension would remain until he ceased his objections and accepted the complaints panel's report. 

Peter Timms has been subject to a gagging order for two years now. Such is the power of the “core group”.

In dealing with Peter Timms, the officials at a lower level (even inside Church House) seemed afraid to take decisive action. Peter Timms’  complaints might have been settled at local level - if there had been firmer insistence on reconciliation talks. However, the ministers he complained about, simply refused to enter such talks. Strangely, considering SO 1100, no one in London found fault in that. 

One minister actually told him to take the matter to Church House. No doubt, that person knew  what would happen. For the  “core group” seems to want all complaints to go to Methodist Church. It produces a centralisation of decisions and punishments inside the Church  - and, of course, this increases their power.  

This pattern of not settling matters at local level is not unusual. In the 2015 report, “Courage Cost and Hope”  Jane Stacey noted:

The centralisation of power that this system produces leads to a failure of responsibility to the Church. The officials in Church House  are supposed to manage the reputation of the Church in accordance with the central doctrines of the Church.

Instead, because of the existence of the “core group”, they manage the reputations of certain individuals whom they will defend no matter what they do.  

Partiality and privilege protect this inner circle from all the standards and due processes that have been framed to guide the Church and control any excesses. The reality is that they are not accountable to the Church and its doctrines.

With their control over the committees of the Council, their control over the Methodist Recorder, and particularly their control over the interpretation of the Standing Orders and the system of handling complaints,  the protected inner circle  has formed a new, modern, centralised and authoritarian Methodist Church. It is one that John Wesley would not recognise.

What can stop this relentless self-centred chauvinism?

The complaint is not about the guilt or otherwise of suspected persons involved in sex abuse within the Anglican Church. It concerns the procedures used by the Anglican Church to investigate such cases.

That may ring bells in the ears of many Methodists.

A letter signed by a number of Anglican church-goers listed serious concerns. They claim  that there is little or no transparency or accountability  in the Church of England when it comes to investigating alleged misdemeanours.  The Church, they claim, has no system of redress at all for alleged victims of abuse. Secret cliques which act like a Star Chamber  are mentioned. The letter claims that the Church of England  acted in a prejudicial manner with no consideration for any due process. 

Readers of this website will recognize most of this in the Timms case.

It seems from this petition to the Charity Commission, that the Church of England may have its own “core group” in which all power without accountability resides.

There is a striking similarity between the case of Peter Timms and the complaints by the members of the Church of England when it comes to dealing with complaints.

“its findings and subsequent actions will contribute to making the church a safer place for all in the future.”  

“the advancement of the Christian faith in accordance with the doctrinal standards and the discipline of the Methodist Church.”  

 “the advancement of the Christian faith in accordance with the doctrinal standards and the discipline of the Methodist Church.”