Shooting the messenger: now Complainant 1 is threatening to sue me

By Louise Greentree[1]

Late last week I received a letter by email from a lawyer for Complainant 1 stating that his client took exception to the content of some of the articles I have posted about and on behalf of Drew and Pippa concerning the disgraceful mismanagement of their case by the PSU and giving Drew the opportunity denied him by the PSU to make his defense and clear his name.

Complainant 1 threatens to take me to Court.

One of the issues raised on behalf of Complainant 1 is that he objects to the assertion that Drew and Pippa made that he did not comply with Jesus’ requirements reported in Matthew 18 for dealing with disputes between ‘believers’. He is a Christian man, his lawyer says, ordained a deacon and working in Christian ministry, and following Biblical principles is important to him.

Good.

But let us look at the reality.

This is what Matthew 18:15 – 17 says:

15 “If your brother or sister sins, go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. 16 But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ 17 If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector. (NIV)

As readers will have seen from the articles, the first that Drew knew there was a complaint by this man was by receiving from him a text message saying three things: first, that he was talking to the PSU; second, that he wanted to make sure that Drew did not work in Christian ministry again; and, third that the complainant did not want to speak to Drew again.  The text message has been seen by a number of people. It exists. Complainant 1 sent it. It is true.

What can one say?

Well: that it is not only in respect of Drew that Complainant 1 has not followed the process Jesus has given us Christians: he has failed to follow it with me also.

I too am a Christian, baptised and confirmed in the Christian faith according to the rites of the Anglican Church of Australia. I am a regular communicant at a nearby Anglican church and also in company with my mother in her aged care centre when our senior minister comes there to administer it to her once a month. I have been blessed by a father who was, and a mother who is a devout Christian. I have devout Christians going back through generations of my family, even a great-uncle on my father’s side who was a powerful Methodist lay preacher in the Hawkesbury River area below Wisemans Ferry just north of Sydney. I could go back further, but I won’t.

If I were not a devout Christian I would not care so greatly about the errors, lies and mismanagement of cases in the PSU Sydney diocese that I have been writing about for some time now. I am also a lawyer and it is painful to watch the wholesale neglect of justice and abuse of the principles of natural justice in the handling of these cases that God has brought to my care and attention. God is a God of justice and His Name should not be brought into disrepute by behaviour such as this.

Now Complainant 1 is trying to shoot the messenger to close down the flow of information into the world of Drew and Pippa’s friends and former colleagues that is needed to correct the defamatory statements made by him in emails and Facebook messages about Drew. These also exist and have been seen by people so there is no point in him denying them, despite his lawyer saying that he does.

As well the effects of the defamatory announcement and publications by the director PSU about Drew need to be counteracted by publication of the true situation.

And it is a fact that Pippa and Drew have followed Matthew 18 in their approach to the PSU. They have approached them many times, they have approached them with my support many times, then they approached the diocesan hierarchy and still after 4 months they do not have confirmation that their complaint is being processed. The Archbishop’s executive officer last said on Dec 10, 2013 it would be considered “in due course”. They have had no contact since then. For a similar amount of time the PSU has failed to get on with preparation for the tribunal hearing by drawing up a statement of the actual charges.

Drew and Pippa have been driven out of desperation to the only avenue they can conceive as a possible way of putting an end to the dilatoriness of the PSU and others.

Of course, Complainant 1 will not succeed in stemming the flow of carefully considered information. He could not stop another source taking over even if I removed that part of the material on my website that he objects to. God’s purposes – his desire to have his church behave in a fully Christian way with truth and justice – cannot be thwarted by human means. How many people is Complainant 1 prepared to threaten and how much money is he prepared to spend in the maintenance of a delusion that he has been a good Christian in his way of dealing with these things, and that he has not canvassed people in defamatory emails in an attempt to get others to bolster up his complaints?

Who else will he be prepared to threaten and how much money is he prepared to spend to try to delude himself that he has not become Drew’s enemy when that is exactly what Drew is saying about him?

Who else will he be prepared to threaten and how much money is he prepared to spend trying to stop Drew making his defense? Who else will he be prepared to threaten and how much money is he prepared to spend trying to stop fair comment and fair reportage of people’s feelings about his actions, some of the reportage by the very people themselves?

Is this because he, and members if the PSU, the diocesan secretariat and senior clergy know that his complaint should never have been handled in the way it was in the first place? Perhaps they know that it should not now be taking up diocesan time and money by being brought before the Tribunal. Does he and those others fear that the Tribunal will be forced to dismiss his complaint, finding it unsustainable and he will be left with a reputation tarnished only by his own actions?

Are they anticipating this and trying to close down proper discussion of a disgraceful situation?

Certainly it means that in the interim Complainant 1 is demonstrating the truth of what has been said: he has failed to follow Jesus in this matter and now he is threatening me in direct contravention of how Jesus says Christians should behave one to other.

 

Post filed under Anglican Church.