A Response to the FLA Statement
The Commission of Assembly instructed the Finance, Law and Advisory (FLA) Committee of our Church to prepare a statement to "set the record straight" since "certain statements have been made in public alleging that the Free Church has sought to protect Professor Donald Macleod from its disciplinary processes". Sadly the FLA Statement (28 June 1999), although admittedly brief, is also in many respects inadequate, particularly on account of what it omits. Because the Statement is to be widely circulated (the text is found in the August Monthly Record) and because it deals with matters that go to the heart of our present difficulties we give below some essential facts which we trust will truly "set the record straight". It should be noted that the following deals with the matter as handled by the Training of the Ministry Committee and not by church courts and that it does not deal with complaints regarding the writings of Professor Macleod. (Copies of this Response in the form of a separate leaflet are available; please see page 38 for details.)
1) A Detailed and Exhaustive Investigation?
"In 1990 the Training of the Ministry Committee received a report of alleged improper behaviour by Professor Macleod during successive visits to Australia. The Committee on receipt of these allegations instituted a detailed and exhaustive investigation which included seeking evidence from Australia, and examining all available documentary evidence. The Committee concluded, in December 1990, that the evidence was seriously flawed and that there was no basis for bringing a case against Professor Macleod to a Church Court". (FLA Statement)
The FLA Statement here refers to the Free Churchıs handling of the Australian allegations. The following facts are relevant in this connection:
1. In July 1984, following the discovery of what was considered by certain parties to be convincing evidence of an improper relationship involving the Rev Professor Donald Macleod, a woman in Australia confessed to the Rev John Davies an adulterous relationship with Professor Macleod while the latter was visiting Australia during the early 1980s.
2. In July 1987 the woman confessed the same adulterous relationship to her minister, the Rev John MacCallum (who in 1985 was inducted to St George's, Sydney, a congregation of the Presbyterian Church of Eastern Australia [PCEA] a sister church of the Free Church). The woman stated that the relationship had begun when Professor Macleod was supplying in St George's for several months, in 1982, and had continued in 1983 when Professor Macleod was again supplying St George's and lecturing in Sydney and into 1984 when Professor Macleod was lecturing in Melbourne.
3. In July 1988 the Rev Iain Murray submitted material relating to the matter a statement signed by the Rev's Allan Harman, Iain Murray, John MacCallum and John Davies to the convener of the Training of the Ministry Committee (ToM) of the Free Church for formal consideration by the Committee. The convener did not present the material to the Committee.
4. In October 1988 the woman who made the confessions wrote to the convener of the ToM Committee informing him that she very much regretted saying anything implicating Professor Macleod in a charge of immorality and that she unreservedly withdrew any such suggestion.
5. In Autumn 1989 the ToM Committee agreed to set up an enquiry into allegations of immoral behaviour on the part of Professor Macleod which Mr James Fraser, the new convener of the Committee, had received in July and presented to the Autumn meeting of the Committee.
6. The Committee attempted to secure a statement from the woman who made the confessions but she was unwilling to submit a statement to the Committee (January 1990) and an attempt then begun by the Committee to secure a statement from the PCEA concerning the woman's part in the matter proved unsuccessful (April 1990).
7. In December 1990 the Committee accepted as evidence references to an (alleged) letter from the woman to Professor Macleod which was never before the Committee.
8. The Committee's decision of December 1990 was not reported to the General Assembly and so could not be subject to the Assemblyıs review and scrutiny as all its decisions should be.
9. The General Assembly of the Free Church has never officially approached the PCEA seeking that denomination's co-operation in obtaining a statement from the woman who made the confessions.
10. None of the primary witnesses in the Australian matter has ever been interviewed by the ToM Committee.
11. When the Free Church set up an official enquiry into the allegations (from Autumn 1989) commissioners were never sent out to investigate in Australia.
12. In March 1997 the ToM Committee was asked to confirm whether certain evidence relating to the Australian allegations had been carefully examined by the Committee at the relevant stage of the enquiry. No such confirmation was given.
13. In March 1997 the ToM Committee was asked to confirm evidence of inconsistencies between Professor Macleod's evidence in the 1996 Sheriff Court trial and his admission in 1987 to two ministers of the Free Church of conduct unbecoming of his profession regarding his relationship with the woman in Australia. The Committee made no comment on the evidence.
14. In March 1997 an allegation of failures in procedure by the ToM Committee was brought to the attention of the Committee. The Committee did not confirm or deny the allegation.
15. In May 1997 three members of the ToM Committee who wanted these matters (in 12-14) investigated were "censured" by the General Assembly and removed from the Committee for "raising through the Committee matters declared closed by the Assembly".
We believe we have clearly shown that both procedure and evidence regarding the Australian allegations were seriously defective. The failures in precognition need to be rectified as the Church has not so far done all that it could to obtain evidence. This was a point of view expressed within the Special Commission and incorporated in its Report to the General Assembly (Section 4.A.2: this section was later removed by an amendment during the debate at the Commission of Assembly):
"The Special Commission would be failing in its duty to the Church if it did not take cognisance of the fact that there are still statements being made and publicly repeated regarding Professor Macleodıs conduct in Australia, accompanied by allegations that the Church's investigation into these matters has been deficient in that there exist primary witnesses whose evidence has never been sought or heard by a Church court. In the light of this the Special Commission would ask the General Assembly to recall the decision of the 1995 General Assembly as being procedurally unsafe and contributing to the present unrest in the Church in that there exist grave doubts as to the thoroughness of the underlying precognition previously undertaken by the Training of the Ministry Committee, and that the Training Committee be directed to re-examine matters in regard to Professor Macleodıs behaviour in Australia".
2) No Basis for bringing a Case?
"In March 1993 and October 1994 new allegations of impropriety were sent to the Training of the Ministry Committee. After a thorough enquiry, including interviews with the accusers, in 1993, and again in 1994 the Committee 'found no evidence capable of proving in the Courts of the Church censurable conduct on the part of Professor Macleod'. The Committee concluded therefore that there was no basis for bringing a case against the Professor.
The latter decision caused division in the Committee and the dissenting minority persuaded the 1994 General Assembly to direct the Committee to seek the opinion of the Church's Law Agents. The Law Agents had no fault to find with the Committee's report and the 1995 General Assembly accepted the Committee's decision of 1994 that there was no basis for bringing a case against the Professor". (FLA Statement)
The FLA Statement now refers to the Free Church's handling of the allegations brought by five women in the U.K., including Free Church members. The following facts are relevant here:
1. 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.
2. The advice of the Church's Law Agent was sought and obtained by the ToM Committee in the Summer of 1994 after the first three complaints against Professor Macleod had been examined by them. The Law Agent's advice was not sought again after the three further complaints were brought in October 1994: if it had been his advice to the Committee might have been different.
3. Three out of the four special advisers appointed to the ToM Committee by the 1993 General Assembly specifically to help with this matter agreed with the minority (six) against the majority (seven) of the Committee that there was a case against Professor Macleod and that he should be tried in the courts of the Church.
4. When the ToM Committee finally brought its reports and recommendations regarding the allegations against Professor Macleod to the 1995 General Assembly, that Assembly came to a finding without many of the commissioners hearing or having sight of the necessary information regarding the charges; the finding was formulated as to charges and investigations undefined and even unknown to many of the commissioners, a third of whom registered dissent.
5. When in 1995 the matter was brought into the civil realm, the Procurator Fiscal recommended that the same allegations against Professor Macleod which the ToM Committee (having the further evidence of the adultery allegation in Australia) had recommended should not be tried in a church court should be tried in a criminal court.
6. In July 1996 one of the women (a Free Church member) against whom perjury was alleged in the Sheriff Court trial of Professor Macleod formally requested from the ToM Committee access to Church papers relating to her case. The request proved unsuccessful.
7. The Lord Advocate's enquiry into the 1996 Sheriff Court trial of Professor Macleod found that "further proceedings for perjury against any of the witnesses who gave evidence at the trial or in respect of a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice would not be justified".
8. In September 1996 one of the women (a Free Church member) who was a witness in the Sheriff Court trial of Professor Macleod formally requested from the ToM Committee access to Church papers relating to her case. The request proved unsuccessful.
9. In September 1996 one of the women against whom perjury was alleged in the Sheriff Court trial of Professor Macleod formally requested from the ToM Committee access to Church papers relating to her case. The request proved unsuccessful.
10. In March 1997 an allegation of "a very significant difference" between Professor Macleodıs evidence in the Sheriff Court trial and his evidence to the ToM Committee with respect to one of the women, a Free Church member, was brought to the attention of the ToM Committee with a request for information concerning this alleged inconsistency. The request was unsuccessful.
[NB. The details given in 1) and 2) above do not amount to a complete account of the different attempts to bring allegations regarding immoral behaviour on the part of Professor Macleod before Church committees and courts and the Special Commission.]
Summary
For the reasons given in 1) and 2) we cannot accept the following claims made in the summary part of the FLA Statement:
"Each and every allegation has been thoroughly investigated by the Training of the Ministry Committee".
"The Church consistently followed the process set out in its procedure and practice".
Conclusion
The conclusion of the FLA Statement is worthy of comment:
"The fact that some persons are unable to accept the result of the process cannot in the view of the Finance, Law and Advisory Committee be a basis for seeking by various devices to reopen and repeat the process. This would represent a miscarriage of justice".
a. It is not unreasonable for individuals to challenge the result of a process which they believe was flawed in its operation; indeed they have an obligation to seek a remedy by proper means.
b. Professor Macleod has never been the subject of formal disciplinary process in this matter by the Free Church.
c. It represents a gross injustice that a Sheriff has called persons, including Free Church members, perjurers, liars and conspirators and yet none of these has been formally charged with any offence in either church or civil court and so given an opportunity to make their defence. Neither have Free Church members been able to take proper steps to clear their names before the Church.
d. The Free Church has refused to acknowledge that it was a breach of natural justice for a Sheriff to condemn, unheard, ministers and elders of the Church as liars and conspirators.
e. Private libels in relation to Professor Macleod's evidence given in the 1996 Sheriff Court trial, brought in accordance with advice given at the 1998 General Assembly, have been rejected.
f. The process of investigation does not need to be repeated so much as completed.
"Consequently Professor Macleod should be accorded all the rights and privileges of an innocent man in relation to these allegations". (FLA Statement)
While an individual under allegation must be given the rights of an innocent man unless and until he is found guilty yet his innocence cannot be properly established without witnesses being examined and evidence being tried in the appropriate court. The fama against Professor Macleod is testimony to this and is preventing co-operation in terms of 1Cor.5:11 & 2Thess.3:6.
The Way Ahead
This response to the FLA Statement has highlighted specific deficiencies in the Church's precognition and obtaining of evidence in the Professor Macleod matter. The Church has an obligation in terms of her Practice, for the vindication of her own good name and that of others, to address these deficiencies in the following ways:
1. The General Assembly should recall the decision of the 1995 Assembly as being procedurally unsafe.
2. The Free Church through her General Assembly should approach the PCEA seeking her full co-operation in assisting the Free Church to examine the principal witness in Australia, the woman who made the confessions.
3. The Free Church should undertake to interview all other primary witnesses and to this end commissioners should be sent out to Australia to carefully examine proposed witnesses.
4. The ToM Committee must ascertain where the balance of truth lies concerning prima facie evidence of inconsistencies between Professor Macleod's evidence in the 1996 Sheriff Court trial and his admission in 1987 to two ministers of the Free Church of conduct unbecoming of his profession regarding his relationship with the woman in Australia, which was brought to the attention of the ToM Committee in March 1997.
5. Assurance must be given by the ToM Committee that all the relevant evidence was carefully examined by the full Committee before final decisions were arrived at.
6. Professor Macleod should be interviewed by the ToM Committee concerning the three complaints brought after the Church's Law Agent had been consulted.
7. Advice should be sought from the Churchıs Law Agent regarding the three later complaints.
8. The ToM Committee should ascertain where the balance of truth lies regarding an alleged very significant difference between statements made in the Sheriff Court and statements made to the Committee by Professor Macleod regarding one of the U.K. women, a Free Church member, which allegation was brought to the attention of the Committee in March 1997.
9. Access to Church papers to establish before the appropriate court the innocence of alleged perjurers, particularly Free Church members, should be granted.
We believe that these actions, if carried out in dependence upon the blessing of the King and Head of the church, would contribute greatly to a just resolution of our present difficulties.
Any comments or questions please E-Mail me or Rev William Macleod the editor.
[Back to Reformed Christian Pages][Back to Free Church Foundations]
[Back to Commission of Assembly Issue]