(More) About the Sydney Anglican Disciplinary Tribunal
by Louise Greentree
Last Saturday I posted a review of the disgraceful behaviour towards Machelle Dobbs at a recent directions hearing in the Sydney Anglican Church’s Diocesan Tribunal in a case in which she was totally uninvolved other than to be there to assist her husband, who was appearing for the respondent, by taking notes. Not only was she targeted with a threat to be ejected from the hearing room but she was coerced into making an undertaking not to show her notes to anyone else, albeit a much reduced undertaking from the original demand that she not disclose to anyone anything about what happened in the hearing room.
As I commented, this attempt to impose secrecy was very concerning, because injustice breeds behind closed doors.
I also commented on the fact that the members of a private tribunal of a private organisation established by a private ordinance have no power and authority. This particular tribunal is NOT the Diocesan Tribunal established through an Act of Parliament, which has the same standing and powers of any other Tribunal established by an Act of Parliament even though it only can be concerned with clergy misconduct.
The members of the Disciplinary Tribunal are not members of a Court, they are not judges, they do not have any powers of contempt of court to enforce authority. They have to rely on respect which, as in all cases where it is sought, has to be earned. The Disciplinary Tribunal has only the responsibility to review the evidence and to make a recommendation to the Archbishop.
In the Dobbs case, the recommendation was that the charge be withdrawn and dismissed. This recommendation was acted on by the Archbishop of the time, Peter Jensen. Other recommendations, particularly that an announcement be made to the congregations of all services at Figtree Anglican Church clearing Dr. Dobbs of any and all wrongdoing, the Archbishop seemed to be unable to implement due to the refusal of the Figtree leadership and former Bishop for Wollongong Al Stewart to obey his request. That remains the case to this day.
But despite the fact of their lack of power and authority the members of the Disciplinary Tribunal have a responsibility that is far greater than even their responsibility in a State or Federal court of law: here they are acting as members of a church organisation that is representing Jesus Christ. They have a responsibility not only to act ethically in accordance with their various admission or ordination vows but also to act as Christians representing to the world the moral character of God. This is an awesome responsibility that each one of us Christians share.
The character of God has been revealed to us in the histories, literature and the prophecies of the Old Testament and in the character of Jesus in the Gospels.
So what do we know about God’s character as revealed in these sources? Well, we know that He is described as a God of Justice and Truth. In the Old Testament He describes His character: slow to anger, having mercy and compassion and offering salvation to all who believe in Him. In the New Testament we see how that mercy and compassion towards all His creation and the offer of salvation by forgiveness of our sins has been demonstrated, brought into being in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. His justice is well documented and as for His character of truth is demonstrated, it was Jesus who said that Satan is the father of lies. We know that God is filled with loving kindness. We know that Jesus treated people with courtesy (except the moneychangers in the courts of the Temple) and He was filled with sorrow even when they rejected Him (as with the rich young ruler). He prayed for his torturers, those who murdered him.
A regular reading of the Bible discloses each day more wisdom, knowledge and understanding about the character of God.
So that is what is expected of the Tribunal members.
In earthly terms a Tribunal member also has a responsibility to seek the best way of resolving the dispute. For that reason, members of State and Federal Tribunals also undertake alternate dispute resolution (one of the forms of mediation or facilitation) in cases, usually before the case is decided by a form of court hearing. The ‘hearing’ is the final step where all other resources for resolution have been exhausted. And in the context of a Christian Tribunal there is also the responsibility to be aware of issues of Christian forgiveness and reconciliation.
I am now taking down the last post about the particular details of what happened that day that Machelle Dobbs was treated so badly. I do so at the request of the respondent who was at that directions hearing. I can understand his concerns. But it will have served its’ purpose if the Archbishop has read it, if the Tribunal members have read it, and each of these people resolve that proceedings will be conducted in the light of God’s character.
Whatever else happens, God cannot be excluded from that room. And He is not likely to give undertakings. More likely He will require undertakings from us Christians to behave like Him.