A father pleads for his daughter


Mr John MacPherson has been trying for some years to clear the name of his daughter who had been publicly accused of lying and conspiracy. He is trying to get access to Church papers relating to this matter. Why will they not give him access to them? What are they trying to hide? Now there is a move to have these papers destroyed. Mr MacPherson appealed to the Presbytery and eventually to the General Assembly. His appeal was rejected on the grounds that he did not have documentary evidence that his daughter wanted him to represent her. His speech to the Assembly is of interest and therefore is included below.

I came to the 1998 Assembly with a Petition intended to get at the truth with relation to my daughter, by establishing and examining all the facts in order to clear the names of innocent persons. That appeal was rejected on the grounds that, “The crave was not specific, and that it seems to deal with matters which should be properly originated in a lower court”. As a result of that advice the matter was subsequently brought before the Kirk Session of St Columba’s Free Church, Edinburgh, where my daughter was a member. The Session were requested to obtain all the papers and documents relating to her complaint to the Training of the Ministry Committee.
After a number of meetings both of myself and my daughter with that Session, we were given an Extract Minute which among other things stated that my daughter was, and continues to be, a communicant member in good standing in the congregation. This decision, according to the Extract Minute from the Session, appears to be based on the decision of the Lord Advocate which was given some time after the conclusion of the Sheriff Court trial and not on any facts gleaned by the Church. Further meetings with the Session requesting that they obtain all the documents proved unsuccessful.
As I disagreed with the finding of the Session, I duly appealed to the Presbytery of Edinburgh and Perth. On the 23rd March 1999 I received an Extract Minute from the Presbytery stating that at their meeting on the 16th of March 1999 they had rejected my appeal as incompetent on the grounds “that there is no demonstrable evidence that Mr John A MacPherson is acting on behalf of his daughter in lodging the appeal”. Had the Presbytery cited the Session or myself to appear before it, they could have ascertained that I had the necessary authority to represent my daughter before them. Since then my daughter has put that in writing.
My main purpose at this time is to appeal against the finding of Presbytery which was upheld by the Southern Synod. There are a number of very brief points which I wish to make.
  1. The 1998 General Assembly made no objections to my acting on behalf of my daughter and others, when I appealed unsuccessfully last year.
  2. In a letter from myself to St Columba’s Kirk Session on 5th October 1998, following a meeting my daughter had had with the Session, it was stated by me: “My daughter has discussed the matter with the family and agrees that because of the memories and the trauma such meetings cause her it would be better that I should communicate with you in an effort to resolve the issue”.
  3. The Kirk Session agreed that it was right and proper for me to represent my daughter, whose full consent I had. As I said to Synod, it is right and surely within the bounds of Christian decency that a father should be allowed to represent the interests of his daughter when she so desires, before such a Church Court, in what I can only describe as a hostile environment, where it is possible that the one who she alleges assaulted her would possibly be present. Are the Presbytery really suggesting that a young woman must appear before Presbyteries, Synods or General Assemblies to press her case?

The Courts of the Church are, by their actions, obstructing me in my endeavours to establish the truth and obtain justice, and are causing much heartbreak and upset to us as a family.
The Rev David Robertson made a statement earlier about ministers being unchristian in bringing libels against fellow ministers. Is not the Free Church as a whole being unchristian in denying young women, ministers, and others, the opportunity of having their names cleared and the right to have the whole matter fully investigated by a Court of the Church? This matter has never been before a Court of the Church.
I can assure you that it is not an easy thing to bring these matters before you but someone (or ones) are not telling the whole truth. It is surely our duty to establish that truth, by all the means available to us. We had at one point a Member of Parliament calling for perjury charges to be brought against those who had made the complaints to the Church. Yes, many of you may have friends in high places in the land but these women who have been accused of lying and conspiracy also have a Friend in a High Place, the Lord Jesus Christ.
At the risk of being seen as presumptuous to make such a suggestion in such a place as this I would plead with you all prayerfully to consider the situation in which we now find ourselves and the fact that one day both you and I will have to stand before the Judgment Seat. What is our answer going to be? Have we harmed our Lord’s children? More importantly have we, and are we, as a Church grieving the Holy Spirit?

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

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