Thread by @vhobbs5

1/ I am fascinated (and disturbed) by @ChurchSociety's recent 45-page public response to a complex case involving Michael & Kate Andreyev & various leaders embedded in #FletcherCulture

churchsociety.org/blog/entry/chu…

@ChurchSociety 2/ I'm immediately struck by the emphasis on "full" in the introductory blog post (linked above).
"full report"
"full account"
"full account"
"full report"

To what extent is it "full"?
What does being "full" actually mean?

3/ In the report, I learn that "full" means 1 man's "understanding, based on testimony of those concerned, emails, documents, & online material"
So "full" is already signif narrowed, not least by the author's bias but also by focus on a subset of people, "those concerned"

4/ I also note immediately the order of information, which tells its own story of the report author's (Lee Gatiss) perspective and priorities. Note how the readers are guided to think about Andreyevs from page 1, very early on framed negatively (sections 3,4).

5/ As I read on, I note:
Which witnesses/parties are given space, how their reports are framed, whether it's clear how/why they were selected.
Varying, strategic levels of detail ("elderly" on p4, "rare evening meal" on p5/32, implied blame on KA for Humphrey conf withdrawal)

6/ Then there is the wider context.
Gattis expresses confidence that the Andreyevs case is unrelated to #FletcherCulture (p44).
Is he equipped to make such a judgement?
I note CS's recent resignations & previously stated commitments in this area. (churchsociety.org/blog/entry/chu…)

7/ Much more to say, but speaking as an outside observer and in light of #FletcherCulture, it's clear CS needs independent scrutiny.
This report truly misses the mark & raises many more problematic qs than it answers.

8/ For more reading on the wider context which Lee Gatiss seems to leave ignored and unexamined ...

largebluefootballs.wordpress.com/2021/08/20/chu…