Response to the Rev. Alex Macdonald

The Rev Alex MacDonald has written an article entitled "True or False?" which was posted on the Free Church Message Board and subsequently printed in The Monthly Record. In it he asserts, "Free Church Foundations is full of misrepresentations, half-truths and outright falsehoods". Making such serious allegations, and touching as it does on matters dividing our Church, it deserves a reply. A brief response to the most important points is to be found below and it is anticipated that a fuller response will be available D.V.

Affair
Referring to the October issue of Foundations, he comments: In this edition, the editor states "Principal Donald Macleod had an affair in Australia" (p.1). This is stated without any qualification such as 'allegedly', and without any substantiating evidence. It is stated as fact. The full quote in Foundations clearly indicates the existence of substantiating evidence: "Principal Donald Macleod had an affair in Australia which he has admitted in varying degrees to different people. The woman concerned, [G], when challenged by her brother-in-law, confessed adultery. Three years later when similarly confronted by her minister she confessed again". Documentary evidence (including written confessions from Donald Macleod) exists to substantiate what is claimed but we think it inappropriate at this time to reveal these letters and documents in this magazine. They can be produced if it is required.
In July 1984, following the discovery of what was considered to be convincing evidence of an improper relationship involving Principal D Macleod, G's brother-in-law confronted her. She confessed a full adulterous relationship of which she was ashamed (Affidavit of Dr Davies, 8/12/87, p.3). In July 1987 G tearfully confessed the same adulterous relationship to her minister, the Rev John MacCallum, who had been inducted in 1985 to St George's, Sydney. The woman stated that the relationship had begun when Principal Macleod was supplying in St George's in 1982, and had continued in 1983 when Principal Macleod was again supplying St George's and lecturing in Sydney and into 1984 when Principal Macleod was lecturing in Melbourne.
Admissions
What exactly has Principal Donald Macleod admitted? The Rev John MacCallum wrote to Principal Macleod on 31st July 1987 regarding his relationship with G. Mr MacCallum alleges that Principal Macleod phoned him from Lewis expressing shame and repentance. Principal Macleod wrote to him expressing how back-slidden he had been. In another letter to the Rev Iain Murray he similarly spoke of the sinful nature of his relationship with G. The Rev J MacCallum alleges that in a phone conversation (29/8/87) Principal Macleod told him that G, in her confession, had been telling the truth. The Rev Maurice Roberts and Professor Douglas MacMillan were the first ministers in Scotland to confront Principal Macleod with the allegations. The letters and testimony resulting from that interview make plain that Principal Macleod admitted a sinful, physical relationship although he denied actual adultery. Even if there had been no actual adultery, surely a sinful, emotional and physical relationship could appropriately be described as an "affair"?

Withdrawal
Mr MacDonald further states: Let's look at the real facts which were of fundamental significance in the decisions of the Committee and the Assembly. First, the woman who supposedly made this allegation, withdrew any such suggestion and refused to give evidence against Professor Macleod - fact. Mr Macdonald speaks of the woman supposedly making this allegation. Does he not accept the testimony of the Rev Dr John Davies or the Rev John MacCallum? It is worth noting the actual words of the woman's "withdrawal". She wrote: "I very much regret saying anything implicating Donald Macleod in a charge of immorality and unreservedly withdraw any such suggestion" (26/10/88). She is admitting that she said something implicating Principal Macleod in a charge of immorality. Further when Principal Macleod was interviewed by the convener of the Training of the Ministry Committee (ToM) on 9/9/89, he stated that the woman told him that she had confessed an adulterous relationship with him to Dr John Davies and the Rev John MacCallum. What did the woman withdraw? Was she unreservedly withdrawing any suggestion of implicating Principal Macleod in a charge of immorality? Was she saying that there had never been immorality between them or was she not rather saying that she was unwilling to testify against him in a court? This is an important distinction.
Second, her minister (John MacCallum), knowing all about these allegations, gave her a disjunction certificate as a member in good standing - fact (Mr Macdonald).
In July 1987 when the woman confessed an adulterous relationship with Professor Macleod to her minister, the Rev John MacCallum, he believed that she was repentant and he dealt with the matter pastorally. When the woman's disjunction certificate was signed at St. George's Session (February 1989), it was noted that the woman had absented herself from the privilege of the Lord's Supper on the previous three occasions. It was also noted that during that time she was being privately counselled by the minister concerning aspects of her life and that the Session was of a mind that her spiritual well-being would benefit from continuity of that counselling.
Third, the Synod of the Presbyterian Church of Eastern Australia [P.C.E.A.] issued an extract minute stating that the matter had never been formally before their church courts and had been settled pastorally by one of their ministers - fact (Mr MacDonald). Mr. Macdonald has not explained the "fundamental significance" of this fact. It proves nothing.
Mr MacDonald argues: In another article in [October] Free Church Foundations (p.13) it is stated that "Thanks to Free Church Foundations the people of our church now know that none of the primary witnesses in the Australian matter concerning Professor Macleod has ever been interviewed by the Free Church. The work of precognition was simply never completed". This is a misrepresentation of the facts. When the Free Church became the party prosecuting in the Australian matter in Autumn 1989 it regarded the woman in Australia as the principal witness, and when she was unwilling to submit a statement to the Committee (January 1990) the ToM Committee asked her church, the P.C.E.A., to cite the woman to answer specific questions which the ToM wanted to be put to her. The P.C.E.A. declined. As regards precognition the most significant facts in the current situation concerning the Australian matter are:
a) The woman who made the confessions remains the principal witness in the matter.
b) The Free Church continues to have an obligation to carefully examine this witness.
c) The questions which the Free Church wanted to put to the woman have never officially been put to her to this day.

Evidence
Mr MacDonald writes: The editor says "The only committee that looked at all the evidence came to the unanimous conclusion that he should be tried". This is not true. Certainly, in the beginning the sub-committee (not committee) looked at the evidence, but when they brought their very full report, the Committee were not convinced by the evidence they presented....subsequently the papers which constituted the evidence were copied to the whole Committee, and the Committee again came to the same finding.
Mr MacDonald's account of the ToM's handling of the evidence conflicts with that given by Mr John Mackenzie, a member of the sub-committee. He has stated: "It was competent for the main committee to reject the advice of their precognitions sub-committee but, logically, they could only do so on the basis of taking the evidence under their own scrutiny. This they refused to do" (Stornoway Gazette, 4/11/99). So when the main Committee made their crucial decision on 13/12/93 it was without studying all the evidence. Mr Mackenzie has said that when the unanimous decision of the sub-committee was brought to the main Committee it "generated immediate outrage and antagonism" (Letter to James Fraser, 28/6/99). This suggests that the reason the Committee did not find the evidence convincing might have been other than the quality of the evidence itself. When the papers were copied to the whole Committee (June 1994) it did not come to any finding until 26/10/94. In the meantime the Committee had received complaints from three other women (October 1994). Principal Macleod declined the invitation to meet with the sub-committee and the main Committee came to the same finding as on 13/12/93, without hearing a response from Principal Macleod to the new allegations because the Committee took the view that the three later complaints lacked credibility. It seems then that the whole Committee saw the full evidence only after they had already made up their minds on the matter.

Interview
Mr MacDonald writes: In the same article it is stated that "Professor Macleod was not interviewed by the ToM Committee regarding the three complaints that were made against him in October 1994 as he refused to appear". That is not true. He was never asked to appear for interview, because the Committee took the view that these complaints lacked credibility and evidenced the existence of a campaign against Professor Macleod. These were the same arguments which convinced the 1995 Assembly that he had no case to answer.
The following is a summary of the facts regarding Principal Macleod's appearance (or non-appearance) before the ToM Committee during October 1994:
(a). On June 16th 1994 Principal Macleod wrote a letter to the main ToM Committee in which he made it "categorically" clear that he would not submit to any further investigation in the matter.
(b). On 4th October the main Committee met and unanimously agreed to appoint a sub-committee to carry out the work of precognition regarding three new complaints against Principal Macleod. As a member of the main Committee, Principal Macleod was present throughout the meeting. When the submissions were being discussed the convener asked him to leave but he refused and spoke to them at length. The letter of June 16th from Principal Macleod was read to the meeting.
(c). On 11th and 13th October the sub-committee met and interviewed other parties.
(d). On 11th October the sub-committee unanimously agreed a letter to be sent to Principal Macleod inviting him to a meeting of the sub-committee on 19th October so that he might make a composite response to the allegations.
(e). On 19th October the sub-committee met. Principal Macleod failed to attend the meeting. Through a lawyer's letter he declined the invitation or any other dealings with the ToM Committee on the new allegations.
The reason given by Mr. MacDonald for the supposed unwillingness of the Committee to ask Principal Macleod for interview regarding the three later complaints astounds us: "these complaints lacked credibility and evidenced the existence of a campaign against Principal Macleod". Does this prejudging of complaints indicate the impartiality which is necessary for handling such serious and sensitive matters?
How much of this was voiced at the Assembly?! When Mr MacDonald says that the ToM finding was "confirmed" by the 1995 General Assembly he fails to tell us that the Assembly had no knowledge of precisely what it was ratifying, neither the charges nor the evidence were allowed to be presented. To this day the basic evidence regarding the allegations has never been examined by any Church court. We would have much preferred to present these facts in private before a Church court. However, this has been repeatedly denied us. In the interests of truth, therefore, we have no option but to correct the public tale-bearing of Mr MacDonald. We are still waiting to be shown one "misrepresentation, half-truth or falsehood" in Foundations.