We published an article in the April issue which involved a daughter accusing her father of incest. The offence occurred before he was a minister. She has not pursued the accusation in a criminal court. We reported the decision of a church court, the issues behind the decision, the process taken by the presbytery involved and we spoke to the main parties involved in the process and by the decision. Solid journalism. Not surprising, given the sensational subject matter, the article has caused a lot of buzz, some of which you can read by following the article thread online. Including some shooting from the lip by me.
We at the Record hoped readers would be able to unpack the subtext of the story and act appropriately within their churches and presbyteries. So, here is some of that subtext made overt:
The first obvious question is: Are the courts of the Presbyterian Church capable of taking on such a case? Sexual harassment cases are particularly sensitive to interpersonal dynamics. Our civic judicial system has the accused and the accuser face each other, ask each other questions via a lawyer, and present expert testimony in the company of people who aren’t related to either party.
Our article showed how the presbytery did a good job of seeking balanced testimony and educating itself on the complicated dynamics of sexual harassment accusations. But the issue of cross – examination and personal relationships still hangs in the air.
Many online commentators ask where the redemption and reconciliation exists in the article. Good question, wrong focus: Is there room for reconciliation in our polity? If—let us argue—we are the wrong court for this sort of case, then we should be the right court for reconciliation. Is there room in our system for that? Should there be? Instead of determining fault, could the court have attempted to bring healing to a family in pain? Does it have that permission or direction in the available polity? Is this a polity issue? Or a cultural one?
Other denominations that have inherited our polity have rewritten it to embrace healing and reconciliation as the primary focus. Is this a direction we should seek in our own church?
Some of the other accusations online are about in camera sessions and confidential reports. We reported the results of an in camera meeting. That’s fine. We also reported a little about the voting process of that meeting. If you follow the online comments closely you’ll note one person also mentions the close in camera vote. In other words, that result was an open secret.
However, we felt it important to add that detail because it highlighted some of the issues I’ve already noted above. Interpersonal relationships, clarity, process … But … but, should the court have been in camera? Again, was this the right court to do the right thing?
In camera meetings are used by corporate boards to discuss executive personnel issues; and many boards have a process for moving in camera minutes to public minutes. Transparency is most important.
And, yes, we did quote from a confidential document. If you’re following my logic, you’ll recognize I question whether the document should have been confidential. But, it was leaked to us and in reading it we were able to determine the thoroughness of the presbytery’s process. Still the question hangs: Should an open accusation made in an open court lead to confidential reports and in camera process?
The Record should be the place where the Presbyterian Church holds open conversations. Right, Left, East, West, Small Big, Right, Wrong—shouldn’t matter. In these pages we share our success stories and our struggles, discuss our challenges and our failures. But leadership belongs to our presbyters and to the courts and committees to which they have open access.
Our perpetual hope is that the conversation we oversee will encourage your Church’s leadership.
