Libels Rejected


On the Wednesday, the Assembly heard three ministers argue that Professor Donald Macleod should be tried. They had prepared libels with a list of witnesses and documents attached, to prove their charges that Professor Macleod had been guilty of bearing false witness in the Sheriff Court, had slandered fellow ministers, elders and Christians, and had broken his ordination vows. The Assembly decided not to hear the libels and not to allow the matter to be raised again. The accusations stand. Professor Macleod is not prepared to defend himself and neither will the Church clear his name. Below we include two of the speeches given in support of the libels as we believe they will be of interest to our readership.

THE REV DAVID MURRAY’S SPEECH
I owe a great personal debt to Professor Donald Macleod. When I was a young boy, he was the means God used to bring my father and our family into the Free Church. Shortly after I was converted, he gave me excellent advice which guided me to apply for the ministry in the Free Church of Scotland. For these matters I will always be grateful to him. However, that gratitude must not lead to blind loyalty. It is with a heavy heart I bring this libel against Professor Macleod. I hope and pray, more than any of you will know, for the day when Professor Macleod will come to realise that the wounds of a friend are better than the kisses of an enemy.
I have been accused by Edinburgh Presbytery of leaking details of the libels to the Press. This is not true. The day after delivering my libel to the Edinburgh Presbytery, I was phoned at my home by a journalist who already had most of the details in the libels. The details did not come from me or anyone known to me. Despite a widespread investigation, I still do not know how the journalist obtained the information.
The Edinburgh Presbytery decided (30/3/99) that they were not going to consider the charges in my libel because I had not included documentary evidence to prove that I had informed Professor Macleod, the Presbytery and the Training of the Ministry Committee (TOM) of my complaint before coming with my libel.
The Presbytery’s case can be reduced to five points:
  1. I should previously have approached Professor Macleod.
  2. I should previously have approached the TOM.
  3. I should previously have approached the Edinburgh Presbytery.
  4. I should have waited until I was required by the Presbytery to make out a libel.
  5. I should have had evidence in the documentation that this course was followed.
I could easily have withdrawn my libel, sent letters to Professor Macleod, the TOM and the Presbytery and then produced documentary evidence to that effect in a re-submitted libel. Why didn’t I? Because I believe there are vital constitutional issues at stake here. Let me take each of the Presbytery’s five points in turn.
  1. The duty of privately informing a person before taking public disciplinary action is only required if the offences are personal, private and have not come to public notice. The charges in my libel concern public accusations made repeatedly against a number of Free Church ministers and office-bearers. The Free Church rule book, The Practice of the Free Church, says private counselling should take place “where the breach of Christian conduct has not been flagrant and has not become common knowledge to the prejudice of the Christian fellowship” (V, 1.6). In this case the breach of Christian conduct has been flagrant and has become common knowledge to the prejudice of the Christian fellowship. Furthermore, The Practice also makes clear that the duty of prior private conference is qualified by the condition of access. In the past, many people, including myself, have written to and tried to speak to Professor Macleod over alleged breaches of the ninth commandment. Letters are not replied to and personal approaches are rebuffed. If asked, I can give examples of this.
  2. The TOM are not ignorant of the charges contained in my libel. They have been informed of these charges a number of times by different people. They have had every opportunity to act upon them. However they have refused to investigate or prosecute these charges. Moreover, even if the TOM had not been informed, the existence of the TOM does not take away the right of an individual to bring a private libel to a Presbytery, as the Rev David Robertson made clear in a Scotland on Sunday article (14/3/99). A private libel does not have to be sent to the TOM first. The TOM was set up to prevent a situation where a Presbytery might be put in a position of being asked to be both prosecutors and judges of a case concerning a Presbytery. In this case I am prepared to prosecute this case and I am only asking the Presbytery to act as judges. The Act appointing the TOM reserves rights competent to all parties according to the laws of the Church, which, therefore, includes the right to prosecute any minister of the Church by private libel before his Presbytery (V, ptIV, 2.11).
  3. The Edinburgh Presbytery are not ignorant of these charges. The substance of the charges have been before the Presbytery in the booklet by Iain Murray, Professor Macleod and his ‘Opponents’, and they refused to investigate or prosecute. The charges are not new. The Rev David Robertson stated in the Press and Journal (6/4/99): “There are no new charges or accusations about the private life of Professor Donald Macleod. The libels that were brought to our Presbytery concerned the same old accusations that had been dealt with already”. The Practice makes clear what is the procedure for a private libel: “When a libel against a minister is prepared and prosecuted by any other party than the Presbytery it must be presented to the Presbytery and can only be served by its authority” (V, pt.IV, 2.20).
  4. The idea that a person must wait for the Presbytery to require him to make out a libel is ridiculous. As everyone knows, Edinburgh Presbytery will never ask a person to do this and so it effectually allows the Presbytery to veto any private libels.
  5. At the meeting of Edinburgh Presbytery I asked the Moderator of the Presbytery where the rule was that there must be evidence in the documentation accompanying a libel that I had previously approached Professor Macleod, the TOM and the Presbytery. I said “Can you give me chapter and verse?” The reply was “No”. In other words, there is no rule. It was made up to suit their own purposes. I believe that the Edinburgh Presbytery are straining at gnats and swallowing a camel.


Conclusion
  1. Reference has been made to the Assembly’s finding of 1995. It has been argued that this forbids further action. It does not. It simply said that anyone taking further action does so at the risk of themselves being censured as slanderers. Anyway, the charges in my libel concern alleged behaviour in 1996, 1997 and 1998, and concern allegations that were not before the 1995 General Assembly in any form.
  2. Reference has been made to the criminal case of 1996. However, as The Practice makes clear, the civil and criminal courts are no substitute for the Church’s own investigation. The Church must act independently.
  3. The Rev I D Campbell wrote in the May Monthly Record: “The Church is approaching this General Assembly more divided than at any stage in its history”. The Church has tried to “draw a line” under our problems in 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998. It has not solved the problems. It has made them worse. What we need is an investigation and an examination of evidence. No evidence has ever been examined or tested in the Courts of the Church. This is the last resort.
  4. I have made a serious allegation against Professor Macleod and I am prepared to be thrown out of the Church if I am proven wrong. I stand before you today in a very vulnerable position. I am a young man with a young family. I have no home of my own and I have no assets. I have nothing in the bank at the end of every month. I am told repeatedly that I represent a tiny minority in the Church and that Professor Macleod enjoys majority support. Yet I am prepared to plead my case in these same courts which are heavily weighted against me. If I am proven wrong, I ask you to throw me out of the Church. Throw me out with censure written in big letters over my head. Throw me out in such disgrace that I will never be able to preach the gospel anywhere else again. Why am I prepared to take the risk? Let me tell you why. This libel is not about traditionalists and modernists. It is not about conservatives and liberals. It is not about right wing and left wing, right and left. It is about right and wrong. I appeal to your consciences.


THE REV WILLIAM MACLEOD’S SPEECH
Why am I raising these matters at this time? People say, “Let it lie. We want peace”. Yes, I also long for peace, but it must be with justice and truth. I am aware that many people are hurting. Ministries have been ruined, reputations of godly men are in tatters, women are scarred for life and churches destroyed. The cry of those in pain demands to be heard.
What is a libel? Chambers Dictionary defines it as “a written accusation”. Normally a libel is something that the Church, (eg. a Presbytery), draws up. If, however, the Church neglects to draw up a libel there is in our Practice provision made for private libels. A private libel is when an individual or individuals bring a charge against someone. A private libel does not originate from a church court or committee. It may have to do with wrong suffered by the individual libeller but can also deal with wrong done to the Church and the cause of Christ. In this case the wrong done was not to me personally but to Christ and His cause.
But surely a private libel is a last resort? It certainly is and that is why I have not brought one before now. Attempts have been made since 1984 to deal privately and pastorally with the individual concerned about his private life, and since 1996 with his public denials about his private life. I personally have also written to him on two occasions with regard to what I considered a breach of the Ninth Commandment as well as what I regarded as errors in his teaching. I received no reply. The TOM has been approached by many different folk including myself, who raised the matters contained in the libels, but they have decided to take no action. We have been told repeatedly that if we have any further complaint then we should bring the matter by means of a private libel. That was stated at last year’s General Assembly by senior leaders of the Church. The last Moderator of the Edinburgh Presbytery, the Rev David Robertson, made plain what should be done by writing the following in Scotland on Sunday (14/3/99): “Any individual can personally challenge a church member if they wish, they don’t have to wait for the church as an institution to act, although they can be disciplined for spreading scandal if they lose. So far no one has been brave enough to take the risk”. Two days later I sent this libel to the Bills and Overtures Committee of the Edinburgh Presbytery. The Presbytery now are the ones who do not seem to have the courage to deal with the matter in the proper way.
The Rev David Robertson mentioned at the Southern Synod the difficulty he had in telling the Presbytery, with Professor Macleod present and unaware of the libels, that the Bills and Overtures Committee had received four libels against the Professor. But why did he tell the Presbytery at that meeting? Should the Committee not have sat on it and told Professor Macleod privately first? The matter could not have been brought onto the Presbytery’s agenda that day anyway.
The Presbytery raised two technical points against my libel. Though these points might have some weight if my libel was a Church one, I do not believe they have any weight when it comes to a private libel. However I did consider withdrawing my libel in order to accommodate the technical points raised. I thought of re-doing my libel and presenting it again. But a passing comment of the Rev David Robertson at the Southern Synod showed me how foolish that would be. He stated that the two technical points raised by Edinburgh Presbytery were only the most obvious. From that it was plain to me that Edinburgh Presbytery would go on raising technical objections to ensure that my libel will never be heard. I believe Edinburgh Presbytery hope to move an overture at this Assembly, (now the June Commission), which will have the effect of stopping further libels. Yes, a private libel is a last resort and that is why I am bringing it now, and it looks as if some wish to ensure that this will be the last chance I will have.
In presenting their case to the Synod, the Presbytery made a great deal of the fact that we had not come first with our complaint in the form of a simple letter rather than a libel. We should have waited for the Presbytery to tell us to bring out a libel. However, if the Presbytery is frank about it, they will admit that if I had written a letter of complaint about Professor Macleod’s behaviour to the Presbytery, it would never have got past the Bills and Overtures Committee. Many letters of complaint about Professor Macleod were sent to the Presbytery. The Presbytery have argued in the past, that the way to proceed with complaints against a professor is, according to Act 1X, 1861, to send the complaint to the TOM. All matters of heresy and immorality, ie. teaching and behaviour, should be dealt with by them. Therefore the only way to bring a private libel against a professor is to bring it in completed form. The TOM cannot of course receive a private libel since it is not a court of the Church. It has to be presented to the Presbytery. If the Presbytery refuse to hear the libel they are denying the complainer his constitutional right. They are making it impossible to bring a private libel against a professor.
What are the proper grounds for proceeding to a libel? The Presbytery, strangely, in dealing with the grounds for a libel at the Synod mentioned only the second ground given in our Practice, p106. 2.9 (2). But we are following the first ground. 2.9.(1) We have provided a written signed statement in the form of a libel, we have provided prima facie evidence in the documentation and not only undertake to form a libel but have actually done so. This is expanded in the Practice 2.10.(2) where it is stated that the Presbytery must require the raiser of a complaint that he makes it out “under the pain of being himself censured as a slanderer. If he allow this declaration to be minuted and put his hand to it, they are called upon to proceed”. This I am prepared to do but they will not allow me. The grounds are there for proceeding to a libel.
The Presbytery rightly lay great stress on the Form of Process and the recommendation there to try to first deal privately and pastorally with the minister concerned.
  1. In this case many have tried.
  2. I myself have tried in the past and am convinced Professor Macleod would not welcome my pastoral counselling of him.
  3. The libels brought no surprising new revelations to Professor Macleod. The matters were all already in the public domain.
  4. A private libeller is not the one who is to carry out the Church’s disciplinary procedures for it. The private libeller only brings his complaint. The libeller may not even be a Christian. The libel should be tabled in the Presbytery and from then on the Presbytery is duty bound to proceed with the complaint in a Scriptural way and in a way that is consistent with the disciplinary procedures of our Church. The Presbytery should notify Professor Macleod. They should deal privately with him. They should, if they see fit, notify the TOM. But if the matter is not resolved, it must proceed to trial.
The Presbytery have objected that the charge I have brought is one that is covered by the 1995 finding. My response is this.
  1. Even if it were a matter covered by the 1995 ruling, that would not exclude my raising it now in this form. The 1995 finding warned that “anyone seeking to pursue it further does so at the risk of being themselves censured as slanderers”. It was not the actual raising of the matter that left one in danger of being censured as a slanderer but rather being unable to prove the accusation you made.
  2. Actually the matter that I am raising is something that happened in 1996. The 1995 ruling was to do with breaches of the Seventh Commandment. My charge is dealing with breaches of the Ninth Commandment.
    Now I fully realise that I am taking a risk. Anyone pursuing a private libel may fail and be censured as a slanderer. Yet I am so convinced of the strength of my case that I am quite prepared to take that risk.
The question has been asked, How could Professor Macleod get a fair hearing in the present climate? But the case would be heard in the Edinburgh Presbytery and no body of men anywhere could be more sympathetic to him than they are. For me, as the libeller, it would be like going in to the lions’ den. However I am prepared to face that, in order that the case be heard.
A serious charge has been made against one of our Professors. There is only one way his name can be cleared. Moderator, threatening me with discipline will not intimidate me to silence. Throwing me out of the Church will not clear his name. Burning the papers will not clear his name. The charges remain and there are witnesses that can prove every point. A trial is the only thing that will bring an end to this matter and bring peace to our Church.

Any comments or questions please E-Mail me or Rev William Macleod the Editor.

[Back to Reformed Christian Pages][Back to Free Church Foundations]