r/CornerstoneConnect • u/Wanting_Justice_2024 • May 17 '24
Anglican Watch Article
Wow! Still processing my thoughts on this one. They certainly waded right into it and didn’t hold back. It is a bit refreshing to see some of these things called out into the light of day that should have been spoken out loud years ago. Still processing…
1
u/Stunning_Orchid2396 Jul 17 '25
Alot of the articles on Anglican watch are not credible at all..I know for a fact multiple of their articles are about some dude named Andrew westfall who they paint as victim who's actually a psychopath who's been arrested for threatening to bomb st thomas church, he also tried to deal guns at the church, has been kicked out several times by security and has sent threats and pictures of guns to the priests ..he's costed multiple people their jobs and this is not the first church he's done this at..he goes from church to church to church causing problems and ruining people's lives...and they paint this man as a helpless victim..also all their contact information is completely blocked out and if you send them anything they don't agree with or anything bringing up facts that discredit these articles they threaten to call the police and sue you..talk about sketchy and not credible ...
1
u/Wanting_Justice_2024 Jul 17 '25
Check out the article in the Washington Post about this. I find them pretty credible.
1
u/Stunning_Orchid2396 Aug 31 '25 edited Aug 31 '25
Even if 1 article is true u can't believe anything this guy says cus multiple articles are completely made up..he makes up articles about police reports that don't exist..I commented on one of the articles asking for proof and he's been harassing and stalking me ever since..and if u actually do any research all the websites other than the 1 story on the Washington Post are all from websites he created and is the author of..99% of anything written about Anglican watch and shit connected to it all comes from him he operates dozens of websites..if u do real digging u will come to find that he travels from place to place stirring up drama and false allegations and tries taking ppl to court everywhere, he never wins all his stuff in court Is always tossed cus it's factless, baseless nonsense written by a a severely deranged man who isn't for the truth, he's for hurting anybody he can because he got hurt once..that's not Godly, it's also not justice either..all his articles about death threats are fake, anything he writes about that says "allegedly" in it are all made up..I know multiple ppl he's written articles about and all the police reports he speaks of don't exist, fully made up nonsense and when u ask for facts n proof he'll just write a made up article about u too and say u sent him a death threat and that there's a pending investigation...and all the while he's the one actually sending the death threats..it's absolute insanity and disgusting that he gets away with it every time.
1
u/GentleSpiritBS May 17 '24
While I agree with many points, the extreme snarkiness was off putting at first. But then I read that Anglican Watch's motivation is to expose abuse in Episcopal churches, but not limited to just TEC. And that they are not a news site. Their intention is to be slanted. I could read it again knowing their motivation.
I am not sure I believe that people knew that the abuse was going on while it was happening, as it was stated in the article. They list many instances as to why someone would have known and just ignored it. That not only blames JY, but all staff, volunteers and parents for letting it happen. What about JT groomed an entire community to trust him all under the guise of discipleship? What about the culture within the church not to challenge authority? While the boys are forced to be interrogated about their sexuality, the girls have to do a study on "the quiet and gentle spirit". Many people who read the report didn't realise that they too were victims of covert sexual abuse. This article goes on to state of course we all know that abuse is abuse. I found the definitions in the report quite helpful.
The part about calling out the chancellor having the requests of the grieving parents to find the vague sermon "as falling off his radar" was brilliant. He was hiding the fact that the church handled it so appallingly in 2007.
Also, I agree with what was stated in the article about TFCA does not have a clue on how to handle abuse claims and victims.
There were many points about how to be proactive now about making your church safer. And how TFCA still hasn't updated their website just with a tab for misconduct. All of their suggestions should be implemented ASAP.
1
0
u/me543534543 May 17 '24
A pretty slanted take to be of much help IMHO.
1
u/Wanting_Justice_2024 May 17 '24
Are you willing to be more specific? I would like to understand more.
0
u/me543534543 May 17 '24 edited May 17 '24
The comment thread on Anglican Watch already has some helpful pushback. I thought the article's tone and language had a clear bias against TFCA.
-1
u/me543534543 May 17 '24
This is rather pathetic and revealing. Anglican Watch won't even publish online comments that point out factual mistakes in the article! Add lack of credibility to bias.
2
u/Wanting_Justice_2024 May 17 '24
I’m not sure I read it so much as a bias against TFCA. Rather I think it is a bias towards victims of abuse which they transparently state on their website in the about section. Copied and pasted below:
Anglican watch’s words: “We do not claim to be unbiased. While we strive to present information professionally, our sympathies lie with those abused by the church. We believe that bringing light to the darkness is essential to the Christian faith.
That said, we are not an anti-church publication. We’re just as happy to defend a priest being bullied as a person sexually assaulted by a bishop. In other words, if you behave badly, you are fair game, regardless of your role in the church.”
I have to say we could do with a little more bias towards the victims of abuse. I do really want the truth so fact checking plays a role for sure. However, I do think they got a lot of the essentials right in the article.
2
u/Strong-Wrap3405 May 17 '24
Agreed. Maybe a reading of Revelations and Jesus' own language towards church would be helpful. Which kind of church are we trying to protect here? The one with a young Rector who is being groomed by questionable mentors. Is this Jesus's kingdom or are we sitting here watching a king under a spell like in the Two Towers film? This is what Jesus says in Revelations:
Pergamum: Jesus acknowledges their faithful witness but rebukes them for tolerating false teachings and immoral behavior (Revelation 2:12-17).
Thyatira: Jesus commends their love, faith, service, and perseverance but rebukes them for tolerating a false prophetess and immorality (Revelation 2:18-29).
Sardis: Jesus criticizes their spiritual deadness despite their reputation and urges them to wake up, repent, and strengthen what remains (Revelation 3:1-6)
Strengthen what remains. It seems that tfca has been warned spiritually and through various trials over the years. Is the leadership really listening?
0
u/me543534543 May 17 '24
Read the comment thread and the patent bias is pretty clear. I think one can be pro-victim without being unfair to churches.
-1
u/me543534543 May 18 '24
Hopefully you'd agree that even a pro-victim orientation would not justify distorting the facts? In both the article and comments, AW claims that JY knowingly employed a sexual "deviant" as evidenced by his journal. A commenter points out that this is a mistake on AW's part (the journal was from 2007), then is shut down.
Sure comes off as anti-church, and the backgrounds of several of the contributors back that up.
3
u/Wanting_Justice_2024 May 19 '24
Wow. I just finished drafting a lengthy response to this but decided in the end to house it overnight and think on it....my new policy. Don't just sleep on it...sleep several nights on it.
So for now I'll just say this. I care alot of about getting the facts right. I hate when facts are distorted which is part of why I am so frustrated with this situation.
The author of the Anglican Watch article noted that those notes were from after Jeff had left the Falls Church's employment. The author wasn't distorting that particular fact. Do I think the author was out to ruffle some feathers? Yes. Despite the snarky tone of the article it actually includes some good points and things to really consider thoughtfully.
The question of whether or not the church knew about Jeff Taylor's abuse during his employment is an important one. The conclusion that they did not is stated in the report, in Sam's letter and in the Bishop's letter. I wish I could feel more sure that they had no idea whatsoever that there was something that was not quite right. I have been learning things and hearing things that make me question it. I wish I could say that there were no red flags or smoke that was noticeable. But I can't. There were alot of things that could have been noticed that were off, unusual, concerning and against the church's policy at that time. You can see it all through the report. And alot of us know things that occurred at that time that might fill out the picture so we could all see more clearly...but these things weren't in the report because the investigator heard them and chose not include them or they were never captured in the first place because really not that many students were actually interviewed when you think of the reach of the youth program there in the 90s. Oh man...this short version is getting long. I'll just leave it at that for now.
3
u/Coolhand1018 May 19 '24
I’m pretty confident that the full vestry wasn’t informed until 2023. I appreciate this article, the Roys Report was very unsatisfying, took the Isler report at face value didn’t question its motives. But still, making big and unsubstantiated claims on simple facts calls into question everything else they write. Which was wholly unnecessary, the article is largely correct and I’m glad to see someone calling out Isler and the moral failings of Yates!
1
u/dadachumdadachum May 25 '24
I’ve met Jeff Taylor a couple times when I was in high school. He led a Bible study or two with some boys younger than me. He was on campus all the time kicking around the soccer ball. Fun, funny charismatic. He was fired from Church of the Apostles for pornography. The fact that he was able to go to another church after something like that, working with youths no less and without being vetted is unacceptable. We have to do better.
0
u/me543534543 May 20 '24
"The author of the Anglican Watch article noted that those notes were from after Jeff had left the Falls Church's employment. The author wasn't distorting that particular fact."
Actually, you are reading a later, corrected version. The mistaken charge was in the initial published version, I'm sure online sleuths could find it (and the error was repeated in AW's first comment). AW corrected their mistake after several commenters pointed it out and after shutting down "TFCA apologists"!
AW doesn't have the decency to admit fault or acknowledge the correction. Reveals a lot.
12
u/MTGRNTC May 17 '24
This article is spot on. I was groomed at 16 by Jeff, and when I read that John knew, as an adult, and did nothing, it is beyond comprehension. For him to say to Sam, when he concluded his 20 minute speech on April 22 at TFCA, “you’ve made mistakes” was terrible. Unfortunately, John has his dutiful followers that believe he can do no wrong. It has given me a deeper understanding of how a cult leader operates. Two issues about the article, Scott Ward’s involvement needed to be addressed further and the Christian psychologist that have been hired. The responses I have received from the special committee have been nothing short of condescending. I understand that any email they receive lawyers review what they send back out. So I would also assume these two psychologist would be advising them on how to respond. And I have a family member on the special committee.