Devastation Part 5
The breadth and depth of devastation for the family and those falsely accused of serious sexual misconduct with a child who are then denied the right to a considered defence for 18 months.
By Pippa
This fifth article in this series picks up the story seven months into the “nightmare” we have been living through for two and a half years. The first article revealed how we remain strong in the Lord. The second explained why we continue to fight and then began to share the reality of our situation. This was continued in articles three and four.
STOP PRESS!
Yes, the very significant person within the Diocese with whom we spoke was the Archbishop. We are very grateful to and respect Archbishop Glenn Davies for stepping out from behind the lawyers to hear our side of the story for himself. He listened, he comprehended much of what we explained, he did as much as his limited power in the circumstances allowed and he tried to encourage the Tribunal to adjourn so that mediation could occur. We believe that like us, he would like to see a godly resolution to this situation.
So far mediation has not been accepted by the other side but we continue to pray. What the Diocese does not seem to realise is that even if a solicitor driven settlement is achieved, the problems will not have been resolved. The Tribunal may have ended but the Diocese will find that we are still sitting on their doorstep crying out “Follow the Lord”.
We are concerned, too, that the Archbishop has been placed in a position by the Diocese in which he is responsible for the actions of the Director PSU and yet seems to have very little control over what happens within the PSU and Tribunals.
Hot topic
I am posting this article now because the churchdispute.com website is a “hot” subject currently. This article explains some of the process by which the website came about. I believe it is important at this time for this to be made known.
The Archbishop suggested that writing about Mr Bryant’s actions at this time would not be helpful. While we have our reservations about this, I have rearranged and edited my last two articles out of respect for the Archbishop’s request.
Praying for God’s perspective
I have also been praying about and pondering my God-given role in this situation that He has allowed in our lives. At times I think, “Who am I to attempt, with my husband and others, to hold the leaders of the Sydney Diocese, Anglican Church accountable for their actions? Then I remember the following:
- I have had the unique opportunity to witness firsthand the way the Anglican Church Sydney Diocese PSU and hierarchy respond to potential and actual threats to the reputation of their organisation. From this experience I am firmly convinced that these people have made their reputation an idol and this is detestable to God.
- Even though we have been devastatingly affected by this desire of the Diocese to maintain their reputation ahead of following the Lord, I do not see it as my right to therefore call them to account. However, I know it is my responsibility to obey the Lord and as part of that He has directed me to draw this sin to the attention of my brothers in Christ (and only my true brothers will see the truth of the matter) and implore them to repent. I do this with fear and trembling and with many prayers because I want to remain godly in my manner. I also need the strength of the Lord to overcome my natural tendency to avoid confrontation and to keep my heart pure while wrestling with the righteous anger I feel.
- I have no qualifications to be able to do this apart from being a child of God, His servant, a follower of Jesus, a disciple. The disciples wrote very firmly against false teachers. Jesus stood very firmly against the religious leaders who he claimed were hypocrites. It does not take very long to see from our story that what Mr Bryant requested of Drew, to say sorry and make amends with Complainant 1 because he felt hurt, Mr Bryant has never done himself over the two-and-a-half years we have been saying “Ouch! Your unethical and unprofessional actions have really hurt us.” This is grave hypocrisy for the Director of the PSU of a Christian organisation.
Finding a voice – hope within the Nightmare
This post will focus primarily on how we initiated contact with Louise Greentree and our use of her website. It reveals the anguish surrounding the use of the website at a time when we felt it was our only hope. Any reference to Mr Bryant is no more than has already been revealed.
Finally, after seven months of feeling confused, hurt, powerlessness and voiceless, I came across Louise Greentree’s website. I read the plight of others and realised we were not on our own. Louise’s invitation to email her, if you had experienced similar difficulties, was the first ray of hope in a very dark time.
However, so afraid were we as a result of our experience with the PSU Directors whom we had trusted, that I used a pseudonym (my middle name) when I first spoke to Louise! It took a lot of courage, but I then sent her my report and waited with baited breath.
Louise’s initial response was:
“I have read through the primary documents of the complaints and apology and correspondence once, got so angry with how badly you and Drew have been treated, bullied and lied to, I had to go and do something else …”
At last, the issues that we had identified from the beginning and had attempted to discuss with the PSU Directors were being confirmed by someone who had the expertise to assess the situation and assist us in moving forward. At last we had a voice!
Understandably, Drew was initially very uncertain about contacting Louise. However, once our point of view was affirmed by her, I saw a little glimmer of hope and life return to my husband. The darkness of depression and hopelessness that had enveloped him for months began to lift ever so slightly.
Constant denial of rights – hopelessness within the Nightmare
With Louise’s help we were able to ascertain fact from misrepresentation and find our voices.
However, again and again our little bit of hope was dashed as Mr Bryant and other diocesan hierarchy continued their usual practices. (The rest of this article has been omitted for the time being and the first section of article 6 included)
We had already approached Mr Bryant, Mr Barnett and Bishop Robert Forsythe in early 2013 with our concerns about the lack of procedural fairness in Drew’s case. In September 2013, we asked Dr Selden to whom we should send our formal complaint on this subject. The complaint was sent in early November 2013 to the Archbishop, Dr Condie, the chairman of the Safe Ministry Board and Mr Bryant. Mr Marr confirmed receiving it on behalf of the Archbishop.
By February 2014, in spite of our many arguments, the Diocese had confirmed that they were not going to process our complaint that the case had only come to Tribunal due to procedural unfairness, before the Tribunal had concluded.
Having tried for 14 months to get someone in the diocesan hierarchy to listen, we resorted to the only way Louise has been able to make a difference – publish the truth!
churchdispute.com – telling the story of the nightmare
Making the decision to tell our story on Louise Greentree’s website was one of the hardest decisions we have ever had to make.
We worked on many, many different drafts of our letter to the parishioners at our former parish and our website articles and then when we were growing weary (and angry) at waiting and being ignored again, we took the plunge.
Please note that we hated having to reveal details about the complaints. This was a time of huge turmoil for us. However, in order to argue that the PSU were incorrect in their interpretation of the actions described in the complaints as sexual abuse and grooming behaviour, it was impossible to do so without disclosing the details!
And guess what … the charge promoted two months later did not include any reference to either!
Mixed responses – further pain in the nightmare
A friend wrote to Drew (and we really appreciate those who have the courage to actually contact us and discuss things) and said that if Drew had published details of his personal life on the web he would be absolutely horrified. He asked Drew whether he would betray his trust like that.
Our answer to him is “Of course Drew wouldn’t!
Unless you …
- falsely accused Drew of sexual abuse and grooming,
- went behind his back to the Professional Standards Unit instead of talking to him as your brother as per Matthew 18,
- wrote an email to various youth of Drew’s former church accusing Drew of sexual abuse and grooming with the contact details of the PSU included and the permission to pass the email on …
- and then the PSU refused to follow their own rule books
- and as a result of your email and the gossip it engendered, an announcement was made to Drew’s former church that Drew had confessed to grooming behaviour
- and we were pushed to our absolute limit having offered grace to everyone many times over fifteen months…
then yes we probably would!”
Certainly there was one article on the website initially, that strongly criticised complainant 1 as well as the PSU. This was a true response from an Anglican Minister who allowed Louise to post it as her own[1].
But here are two important things to note:
Firstly, as one of our advisers, Louise has read everything. She has 21 years of experience as a solicitor in private practice and 20 years of experience as a lecturer in the Law Faculty at the University of Technology, Sydney. She continues to believe that the complaints are “incomprehensible”. Another four solicitors/barristers have also read everything and concur with Louise.
Secondly, we have had some people read the website and call us in tears saying: “Drew has done nothing wrong. What can we do to help?” Others have simply emailed to say they think Drew’s actions were foolish and they cannot support the way we are going about things.
I think this gets to the very centre of the issue. We all perceive life very differently and anyone who knew Drew and Complainant 1 would know they differed in the way they responded to and lived life. But what wonderful ministry they performed as they complemented each other so amazingly. What a crime that Drew has been condemned fundamentally because he was different to Complainant 1[2] .
We further mourn that both men have been so hurt through the actions of the PSU.
This was an extremely painful time as some former friends turned their backs on us. Of all the consequences for me in this situation, this has been one of the worst.
Accusations – being misunderstood in the nightmare
There are people who believe we have no compassion for the complainants.
Does the following description sound like the actions of people who don’t care?
When we heard that Complainant 1 was upset with Drew and had spoken to the PSU, we packed up our family and belongings in Queensland (uncertain of exactly how to deal with the situation) to come down to ascertain the issues. Complainant 1 said he did not want to talk to Drew, so we contacted the PSU ourselves because we were so distressed by Complainants 1’s feelings and wanted to find out what the issues were and how we could help. Then, even though we strongly disagreed with the PSU’s interpretation of the situation, Drew wrote expedient unqualified apologies to the complainants.
And do you know what we most fear about a Tribunal hearing – the “dog fight” that will be necessary between the complainants and us because the situation is so “loaded” now. We spent years in wonderful ministry with these two men and their families. What we would prefer is mediation as it is the only hope for a godly resolution.
A word about Louise Greentree
Under different circumstances, I believe that anyone who met this well-spoken, articulate and gracious lady would find her very impressive and immensely warm. I greatly admire and am regularly encouraged by her commitment to prayer and the Word and listening to the Lord. She is the prayer warrior of our team. She has lived through experiences that have honed her ability to live in the strength of the Lord. As you can imagine, “feisty” could be aptly applied to Louise while her sense of humour has allowed me to laugh amidst a situation that has been otherwise dark and confusing.
There is nothing for Louise to gain through this situation apart from being obedient to the call by God on her life. In her retirement she uses her immense experience and knowledge as she feels God is leading her. She longs for those who claim to represent God, to desist from employing secular tactics in their dealings with the children of God. She awaits the day when she can publish that this situation has been resolved in a way that brings honour to God.
Over two years on – the nightmare is the norm!
Not a day goes past that is not impacted by our situation …
- a conversation with someone either about the situation or trying to dodge any mention of our former life,
- struggling to make ends meet (although the Lord and his people are taking care of our legal bills),
- hours discussing and writing letters and reports,
- mourning all the things Drew can’t do at church,
- fearing that rumour will spread and infiltrate our new life and work,
- seeing the children frustrated with the ongoing nature of the fight,
- sadness as holidays in places where events took place will never be the same,
- the pain every time we drive close to the parish,
- remembering the many tainted or destroyed friendships.
There is daily pain.
The refining fire – the glory of God within the devastation
But within the pain comes the beautiful results of the refining fire of God …
- a deeper, more profound knowledge and acceptance of God’s character and will and His purposes in this world,
- a more intimate and stronger marriage,
- perseverance and endurance and we pray, character.
Devastation …
For us, the devastation is only of our earthly lives, which as Ecclesiastes reminds us, are but a “vapour”.
However, the eternal devastation that occurs when religious leaders do not follow the Lord and are instead filled with hypocrisy is significant; significant enough for Jesus to criticise them strongly and openly. These are the only people whom Jesus condemned in this way.
[1] This article was titled: “Acquitting the guilty and condemning the innocent the Lord detests them both” Proverbs 17:15 Please help us: Drew is indeed ‘the innocent’”
[2] Please note that we are not saying that if Drew went into ministry today, he would do exactly the same. If he had known his actions could be so misconstrued and that complainant 1 was feeling uncomfortable, he would have chosen differently. But in the contexts in which he found himself, using his “common sense”, he chose as he did with a clear conscience.