The Anglican Church of Australia
Sydney Diocese
Twenty-one reasons why the case promoted by Sydney PSU[1] Director Lachlan Bryant against Drew should, and in a just world must, go to mediation.
By Louise Greentree[2]
Introduction
Just a week ago, I published an article entitled ‘Twenty-one reasons why the case promoted by Sydney PSU Director Lachlan Bryant against Drew cannot and should not be allowed to go to a hearing.’[3]
Several weeks ago the Anglican Archbishop of Sydney, the Right Reverend Glenn Davies, who is also the President of the Disciplinary Tribunal, had a conversation with Drew and Pippa. During this conversation they discussed the idea that mediation of the issues would be a far more appropriate way of resolving the case because the disciplinary tribunal process was not reflective of Christian values. The tribunal process is also a very limited process; the tribunal has no power, it cannot make orders, it can only recommend to the Archbishop particular findings and suggest penalties or protective outcomes that the Archbishop can ignore in any event[4].
It certainly does not have the ability (jurisdiction) to address and to resolve the very many issues that this case has raised, particularly arising out of the behaviour of Mr. Lachlan Bryant, Director PSU in his admitted ‘errors’ in his handling of the case right from the beginning.
The Archbishop has also been moved to intervene pastorally out of a genuine concern about the conduct of Mr. Bryant and the distortion of PSU and PSC[5] processes resulting in the case being promoted at all, and the devastation this behaviour have caused and continues to cause Drew and Pippa and their family.[6]
It is important to note that the Archbishop has been thwarted in his attempt to behave pastorally not only towards Drew and Pippa but also towards Complainant 1.
Dear Reader, since the first conversation between Pippa and Drew and the Archbishop, I have known about these sincere Christian attempts to bring some sanity and resolution to the case and I respected the Archbishop’s desire to do this without publicity and without involving heavy-weight interference from no doubt well-meaning ‘advisers’. However, in this he has been unsuccessful and he has had to withdraw from trying to pursue the Christian way. And yet, mediation is what would save all parties – the complainants, the lawyers, Mr. Bryant and Mr. Barnett, the diocesan Registrar Mr. Marr and his predecessor Dr. Selden, members of the Professional Standards Committee, members of the Safe Ministry Board and its Chairman Dr. Condie, Drew and Pippa, the tribunal members and the Archbishop – from leaving issues unresolved and maintaining the situation where a number of Christian people are out of Christian fellowship one with the other, especially where they have rejected an offer to find a pathway towards Christian reconciliation.
What is mediation?
The fundamental concepts of mediation across the board are these:
- The parties take responsibility for negotiating an agreement between themselves that deals with the real issues between them, rather than delegating that responsibility to a process of adjudication by another person (such as a judge or arbitrator,) in a process that is not a hearing or a trial but a strictly controlled discussion.
- They do this with the assistance of an independent third party who has no interest in the outcome of the mediation, and who is trained and experienced, –
- who applies a process that enables the parties to sit down together in a safe and mutually respectful environment to discuss the issues and come to an agreement as far as possible.
The variety of mediation processes:
There is a variety of mediation processes (as well as practitioners in the processes).
- For the usual run of court disputes where the issue is not so much liability but the amount of damages or distribution of property (in Family Court property disputes for example, or for human rights violations, breaches of contract, disputes over wills and so forth) a classic mediation model is usually applied. Emotions are excluded by the process other than in private sessions between a party and the mediator to vent these so that the party can apply a rational approach to the issues. The emphasis is on identifying the issues and working with the parties to trade-off and negotiate a settlement that the parties can all live with. Sometimes this is called ‘bottom-line’ mediation. It is often the appropriate process in mediations ordered by the various civil courts and tribunals both Federal and State as well as various commissions.
- But where relational issues predominate (the issue of wrongdoing or liability has either been resolved or is of lesser concern to the parties than the relationships[7]) then one of the transformative mediation processes are used. These processes have various names according to the way the process unfolds, such as Narrative mediation, but the fundamental process is one which allows the parties to talk about their emotions and their ‘story’ that are at the base of the issues; acknowledgment of the emotional base (which can be the result of deeper concerns such as religious beliefs or ethical concerns) is seen as a way of addressing these deep needs which are standing in the way of resolution of the surface issues.
Experienced mediators will draw on their skills and training in these various forms of mediation to tailor a mediation process that is going to address the issues and concerns that the parties have to acknowledge and deal with, and with emphasis on one or another form at particular times during the mediation. The aim is to enable the parties to talk about the different issues in a meaningful way that can lead to resolution without any sense of having been forced into agreement without their deeper needs having been acknowledged.
Mediations can also be deemed successful even if the parties do not resolve all their issues, but resolve a few, or merely identify the issues out of a mass of accusation and counter-accusation and mutual recrimination. With the achievement of such clarity the parties and their advisers can move forward with negotiations, another mediation or even to a hearing on the real issues.
Twenty-one reasons
Reason 1: Because the case came into being based on admitted errors, and lies and incompetence on the part of the Director Sydney PSU Lachlan Bryant and the director PSU for the dioceses of Bathurst and the Riverina Mr. Peter Barnett, and therefore both of these men are out of Christian fellowship with Drew and Pippa. It is a matter of importance that reconciliation be attempted between such professed Christian people, all of whom desire to inherit eternal life. Does one or other believe that they will get into Heaven and the other or others will not? A dangerous assumption to make, especially if it is based on a refusal to be reconciled in this life. 1A: and, as a subsidiary reason, I surmise that they are also out of Christian fellowship with others including the complainants themselves because of the way this case is progressing. The opportunity for Christian reconciliation to happen must be provided in the resolution of disputes within a Christian organisation.
Reason 2: Because the case brought by Mr. Bryant as promoter is fatally flawed. As I have been pointing out in several of my articles and to Drew and Pippa and their legal team the case for the PSU is that Drew’s conduct was disgraceful if performed by a youth minister (and yet, nothing he did was unlawful or immoral, and nor was it prohibited by the Bible or church legislation or codes of conduct), AND that it caused or, if known, would have caused a scandal (when it was widely known about and did NOT cause a scandal). Mediation could enable the PSU representative at the mediation (most likely PSU director Lachlan Bryant) to accept this and the devastating consequences of pursuing a case that is without foundation. He could be encouraged to look at ways of extricating himself, the Archbishop (who is responsible for the diocese) and all others affected by the initial mis-handling of the complaint from continuing trenchant criticism. Here is an opportunity to settle all issues, including claims for legal and other costs of preparation of the case for a hearing (at a proper commercial rate) as well as a claim for compensation for bringing a hopeless case against Drew.
Reason 3: Because Mr. Bryant has exposed himself and others to a claim by Drew for defamation because of the terms of the announcement to the relevant parish stating wrongfully that Drew was accused of grooming. The subsequent charges make no mention of this, and in fact they are not based on anything constituting child abuse or child sexual abuse or grooming.
Reason 4: Because the diocesan officers should not place the Acting Judge the Hon. Peter Young, Mrs. Brigden and the Rev. Mark Charleston, the members of the Disciplinary Tribunal, in the position of having to deal with the case at all. These are people of good reputation and an ongoing position of influence in the Sydney diocesan organisation. They should not be put in the position of having to dismiss the case out of hand, providing no vindication or consolation for the complainants. Rather, it will open the complainants up to the risk of civil proceedings against them for damages. 4A. and, as a subsidiary reason, the ‘justice’ of the tribunal process has been compromised because complainant 1 has written a letter direct to Acting Judge Peter Young appealing to him to continue the case, because he is sure his position will be vindicated. In doing this complainant 1 is placing the tribunal members in the position of appearing to be bias in his favour because of these representations outside the hearing room if they make any decision that supports his claim.
Reason 5: Because the diocesan officers should not place the Hon. Acting Judge Peter Young, Mrs. Brigden and the Rev. Mark Charleston in the position of having to scramble to try to find that Drew’s actions were disgraceful, even if the case still had to be dismissed for the lack of any scandal. This would set an undesirable precedent of characterising lawful and unexceptionable actions as disgraceful in an arbitrary manner without the provision of clear definitions. 5A. and, as a subsidiary reason, it would open the door to further complainants seeking compensation. 5B. and, as a further subsidiary reason, the process has been compromised by complainant 1’s direct approach to Acting Judge Peter Young – see subsidiary reason 4A above.
Reason 6: Because a decision that otherwise lawful and unexceptionable actions can be arbitrarily characterised as ‘disgraceful’ without proper definitions as to what these actions might be will stifle and choke the proper work of youth ministry. Church workers trying to work within the new precedent would find their ability to assist the people to whom they were ministering severely curbed from fear of complaints, retribution from the PSU, the trashing of their reputation and having to endure the devastation of which Pippa writes.
Reason 7: Because, as a result of the case, the position of the senior minister of the parish at the time is equivocal. He, under the Clergy Code of Conduct that was the only code applicable at the time, was responsible for the actions of the youth minister. In some of my previous articles I have pointed this out: that in the event of a finding against Drew in the disciplinary tribunal even as to part of the charge, Drew has a claim against the senior minister for failure to provide the responsible guidance and oversight that was his duty by his staff.[8] That claim could possibly give rise to damages.
Reason 8: Because, as a result of the case, the position of John Mark Ministries in relation to their training generally and in particular concerning mentoring programs is equivocal. Drew has produced evidence that his mentoring was based on the training provided by John Mark Ministries. If this form of mentoring is deemed by the tribunal members to be disgraceful if performed by a youth minister, then John Mark Ministries’ training is firmly in the firing line. 8A. and, as a subsidiary reason, the case should be mediated because despite complainant 1’s attitude to the program many other members of the youth group at the same time as complainant 1 have attested that they found the mentoring very helpful and are grateful for it. The good reputation of the programs should be confirmed.
Reason 9: Because, as a result of the case, the position of the training program Promise Keepers is equivocal. Drew has produced evidence that he applied the program Promise Keepers to his mentoring program (which complainant 1 has not denied) to devise a program for the young men he mentored. Following this program these young men took responsibility for keeping to their staged program of promises to put an end to whatever addictive or sexual behaviour was hindering their development not only as emotionally mature men but as mature Christians practicing the self-control advocated by Paul in his many letters to the members of the young churches he established. 9A. and, as a subsidiary reason, the case should be mediated because despite complainant 1’s attitude to the program many other members of the youth group at the same time as complainant 1 have attested that they found the mentoring and the use of the Promise Keepers program very helpful and are grateful for it.
Reason 10: Because, as a result of the case, the position of the present-day pronouncements of experts endorsed by Sydney diocese of the Anglican Church as to the dangers of addiction to internet pornography is equivocal. What Drew identified many years ago as a major addictive problem for young people – the accessibility of internet pornography and its effect on the developing brain and sexuality of young people (even if he did not then have the advantage of the results of longitudinal studies now available confirming this), and, like all addictions, the development of a need for more and more explicit (and therefor illegal) pornography – is now endorsed by the church experts, and training programs are being developed for people in Christian ministry to assist people caught in this addiction. It needs to be made clear that mentoring to help rid a person of this dangerous addiction is important. It is not disgraceful conduct but fulfills a real need.
Reason 11: Because, as a result of the case, the position of mentoring programs to deal with the other problems with sexuality – such as masturbation, maintaining celibacy until marriage and homosexuality – are equivocal. The bombardment of youth with sexual images in many aspects of modern life, such as in films, computer games and advertising, is a serious issue and trusted adults need to be available to give clear advise to youth as to the Christian position on these matters as well as ministering programs to break any unhealthy attitudes or addictions without the fear of being. An adverse decision can make church workers unable to minister to those in their charge because of fear of complaints and retribution from the PSU.
In reasons 8 to 11 the value of these programs is diluted, or eradicated completely should the tribunal decide that mentoring discussions constitute disgraceful conduct if performed by a youth minister. If not by discussion with a trusted adult (not being a parent) then by whom and how are these young men who are earnestly seeking a way to reconcile burgeoning sexuality (and other problems) with their commitment to live a Christian life to obtain assistance? The dedicated parish youth minister provides a free service at a time that suits both near home. How can these youths consult a professional counsellor when the majority have neither the money nor the time away from home or school to spend on a consultation, and who, in any event, would need parental permission concerning something that they do not feel they can discuss with their parents?
Regarding complainant 1: complainant 1 has now placed himself in an unenviable, even tragic, position from which there is no way forward if the case is not mediated and if he should continue to refuse to be involved in a non-adjudicated solution.
Reason 12: Complainant 1 is fearful of publicity. He instructed Mr. Bryant to ask the disciplinary tribunal to make a suppression order hiding his name and details of the charges. This was granted even though there was no compelling evidence in favour of the application because the charges did not involve any allegations of sexual abuse and because the complainant 1 himself had identified himself as the complainant in s host of messages and the use of social media to reach former members of the youth group, requesting recipients to pass the messages on. When the case ends, that suppression order ends also. He needs to negotiate some way of protecting his identity if he does not wish it to become even more widely known, perhaps in more online articles and other publications examining this case.
Reason 13: Because complainant 1 needs to negotiate with me for some way of protecting his identity after (or even before) the case ends. The suppression order of the disciplinary tribunal does not bind me but I voluntarily observed it as to complainant 1’s identity if not as to the nature of the charges. The end of the case if it goes through the tribunal process or is not others negotiated brings to an end my voluntary compliance.
Reason 14: Because complainant 1’s identity is in any event known among friends and supporters of Drew and Pippa and former members of the youth ministry who were approached to give statutory declarations supporting Drew. These people are horrified by complainant 1’s actions and his defamatory messages and his refusal to be reconciled. Complainant 1 needs to be given and to take the opportunity to work at restoring his reputation among a number of people who know him, and who shared in youth group activities, if he is at all serious about holding any ministry position in any Christian church.
Reason 15: Because at best, complainant 1 has placed himself in the position of being regarded as mentally unbalanced or otherwise neurotic because of the trivial nature of his complaints, the contradictions in making the complaints yet admitting he did not believe that there was any sexual intention or element to any of the actions, and making such ludicrous claims of ‘harm’ where rationally none could exist. He needs come to a mediation to demonstrate that this assessment of the reason for his complaint is wrong.
Reason 16: Because at worst, complainant 1 has placed himself in the position of being regarded as malicious and unchristian, and therefore unsuited to Christian ministry. He needs to take the opportunity to work at restoring his reputation among a number of people who know him, and who shared in youth group activities at the time, or who are parents of those who did, if he is at all serious about holding any ministry position in any Christian church. If the case goes to the tribunal and is dismissed, then he stands condemned in that influential circle of observers of the case as well as in public opinion. In a mediated resolution there is an opportunity to try to place him on a firm path back to credibility.
Reason 17: Because complainant 1 has issued defamatory messages to many former members of the youth group. He needs to negotiate a way forward removing the risk of civil court proceedings for this and for the devastation he has brought on Drew, Pippa and the children as well.
Concerning Dr. Condie and the members of the Safe Ministry Board and the Registrars, Dr. Selden and after his retirement, Mr. Douglas Marr: These individuals have been at pains to avoid acting on Drew and Pippa’s legitimate complaints about Mr. Bryant’s and Mr. Barnett’s behaviour, and their complaints about failure of process and about the appalling announcement to the parish which misrepresents the actual nature of the complaints.
Reason 18: Because each of these individuals have betrayed the integrity of the church organisation. Each needs to negotiate via repentance and an apology for causing even greater hardship and distress to Drew and Pippa and their children because of the hard-hearted, in some instances ruthless rejection of the proper and well-presented complaints, the misdirection, the run-around and the contempt to which they have been subjected.
Concerning the members of the Professional Standards Committee who heard Mr. Bryant’s (mis)representations and considered the documentary ‘evidence’. These individuals failed to act in a competent and responsible manner, denied Drew fair process and came to a conclusion that was manifestly inconsistent with the provisions of the Discipline Ordinance 2006 under which the PSC is constituted.
Reason 19: Because each of these individuals failed to carry out proper process and must bear direct responsibility for failing to exercise competence in their assessment of the case and the proper procedure dependent upon this. Each needs to negotiate via repentance and an apology for causing even greater hardship and distress to Drew and Pippa and their children because the complaints were inadequate on the face of them and because the apologies were unconditional apologies on the face of them, and because they failed to apply proper process.
Concerning complainant 2: as I said in my previous article ‘Twenty-one reasons why the case promoted by Sydney PSU Director Lachlan Bryant against Drew cannot and must not be allowed to go to a hearing’ complainant 2’s evidence has been contradicted by another member of the same confirmation class, and he has not produced any corroborative evidence. Other parts of his evidence is contradicted by other youth group members. All of his evidence is denied by Drew. He now stands at risk of being found to have lied and for all of his evidence to be rejected as unreliable.
Reason 20: Because complainant 2 needs to seek restoration of relationship with repentance and an apology for making a false complaint and causing Drew, Pippa and their children grief and hardship.
Concerning the Anglican Archbishop of Sydney, the Most Reverend Glenn Davies. In Sydney diocese of the Anglican Church there has arisen a policy of diminishing the role of the Archbishop, to remove ‘power’ from him and to reduce his position to one that is largely ceremonial and divorced from the day-to-day affairs of the diocese. He is the spokesman for Christianity in Sydney diocese, the visible presence advocating for the Christian life for the 21st century, and yet his ‘voice’ is largely muted and largely ignored by the mainstream media.
However, he remains deeply responsible to God for what he does and for what others do while he is Archbishop of Sydney, ‘on his watch’, so to speak. In other words, it would be rash to assume that God regards his role as one devoid of responsibility even though those around him are working to remove his authority.
In Drew’s case, he has demonstrated his awareness of the need for a Christian pastoral response in reaching out to Drew and Pippa and seeking their views on how to bring the case to a conclusion that honours God in the eyes of those affected by it and in the eyes of the world.
Reason 21: Because the Archbishop of Sydney and Drew and Pippa have agreed that this is a way to bring the case to a conclusion that addresses the needs of those affected by the case, thus honouring God.
Let us pray earnestly that a God-honouring solution will be found and that the lawyers will not push for just a bare settlement that will leave all these issues still festering.
In a follow-up article that I will publish shortly I look more closely at the use of mediation and some other forms of negotiated resolutions between the parties and others affected by the case.
Louise Greentree
22 April 2015
[1] PSU – Professional Standards Unit of the Anglican Church Sydney diocese.
[2] Louise Greentree B.A. LL.B. LL.M. (Hons) ProfCertArb.
[4] As I pointed out in the series ‘Drew’s Adventures in Wonderland’ published on www.churchdispute.com
[5] PSC – Professional Standards Committee of the Anglican Church Sydney diocese
[6] Read Pippa’s articles in the ‘Devastation’ series on www.churchdispute.com
[7] As in Family law custody cases where the parents need to concentrate on building a new relationship post separation in order to care for the best interests of the children and get over ‘he said/she said’ acrimoniousness.
[8] Whether Drew would pursue that is another question entirely but complainant 1 has put the senior minister in the firing line. That complainant 1 is aware of this (or those who drafted his statutory declaration are aware of it) is indicated by his attempt to portray the senior minister as detached from the youth ministry and not exercising responsibility for it. This opinion would be even more evidence against the senior minister for his failure to take proper responsibility.