Mr David Blunt


What kind of man does the Free Church want in the ministry today? Who has the authority to license a preacher? Is prejudice and party spirit sufficient grounds to stop a man being licensed? Can a man’s licence to preach be revoked by an Assembly without any disciplinary procedures being followed? These are some of the questions we are left with after the last General Assembly. Mr David Blunt was licensed to preach the gospel in the name of the King and Head of the Church by the Presbytery of Skye and Uist on Tuesday, 4th May 1999. However, the General Assembly of 1999 took the extreme step of demanding that Mr Blunt’s licence be revoked, that no fresh application be entertained from him for the next five years, and that the minutes of the Presbytery which dealt with the matter be expunged (blotted out). Further, the Presbytery was itself censured for its action. But why did the Presbytery license Mr Blunt?

The Licensing Process
(1) The Role of the Kirk Session: The Practice of the Free Church says, “The Kirk Session...is deemed to have fairly intimate knowledge of the candidate's spiritual experience, general demeanour and reputation...” (Ch.II, pt.II, 1.1). It should be noted that the two Kirk Sessions who had examined Mr Blunt supported his application, viz. Leith (Edinburgh) and Strath (Skye). Yet the General Assembly, the majority of whom had never even met Mr Blunt, decided otherwise.
(2) The Role of the Presbytery: The Practice says, “The Presbytery...make specific examination as to the candidate’s call to the ministry and his possession of the requisite gifts of personality, temperament and ability” (Ch.II, pt.II,1.1). The Presbytery did this. At every stage the Presbytery took its duty very seriously in answering every objection raised by others. He has preached over 600 times in the Free Church, and there has never been a complaint made against his preaching. Indeed he is a most edifying and gifted preacher. Yet men who had never heard him preach (including the objectors) decided otherwise.
(3) The Role of The Training of the Ministry Committee (TOM): The Practice says, “The Training of the Ministry Committee are more directly concerned with the intellectual and academic promise of the candidate and with the known needs of the Church” (Ch.II, pt.II,1.1). The TOM were more than satisfied in this respect. Yet their decision was brought into question by an Assembly who for the most part knew nothing of the very high marks attained by Mr Blunt at the Free Church College.


Objections
On the day of Mr Blunt’s licensing two Presbyteries sent representatives to the Skye Presbytery to object. Although Skye Presbytery were not obliged to entertain these representatives (the legislation simply allows for written objections by the 30th April), the Presbytery out of courtesy allowed the objectors to speak. The objections raised were vague and unsupported. Mr Blunt was not accused of any moral blemish or heresy. He did not disagree with the Free Church’s Principles or purity of worship. On the contrary, he was in wholehearted agreement with the Free Church’s position in every respect. Yes, he does love the Authorised Version. He would like to see Christian Schools established. He does advocate proper Biblical Church discipline. At the encouragement of some Free Church ministers, he wrote an accurate account of certain proceedings of the 1997 General Assembly. In the view of Skye Presbytery, none of these things is sufficient reason to obstruct his licensing. When the objectors appealed against the Presbytery’s decision to proceed with licensing, their appeal was considered inappropriate and frivolous. Two things should be noted here.

Frivolous Appeals
(1) The appeals were made without waiting to receive the written answers to their objections by the Presbytery of Skye. If safeguarding the purity of the ministry was the motive for the objections why did the objectors not at least wait to hear the answers given by the Presbytery?
(2) The same objections as had been given at the Presbytery were restated at the Assembly, despite the fact that many of these objections had been shown to be factually inaccurate and simply untrue. Did the objectors bother to read the response given by the Presbytery? One is left wondering if the objectors had any intention of listening to the answers given. Was there some other motive for proceeding as they did?
Those who sought to defrock Mr Blunt and to censure Skye Presbytery did so on the basis that an appeal automatically sists proceedings. This is not so. In the ordination of deacons, and elders, the Practice states clearly: “If the Session finds that the objections are frivolous or unsupported by evidence, it is their duty to proceed with the ordination or admission as appointed” (Ch.I, pt.II, 3). In the case of the ordination and induction of ministers, when objections cannot be proved instanter, “It is the duty of the Presbytery to proceed...” (Ch.II, pt.II, 3.16). The Practice contradicts the idea that an appeal automatically sists proceedings. Surely the licensing process is analogous to the ordination of deacons and elders and to the ordination and induction of ministers. The Presbytery, with no substantive impediment, and being unanimous in their decision, they were duty bound to proceed to trials for licence.

Who has authority to License?
The Practice states: “The Presbytery possesses inherently the function of deciding whether young men are qualified or not to be received into the number of enrolled students of theology...of examining them as to their qualifications at any stage...of determining whether they may be licensed to preach the Gospel or not, and of licensing them if they be found qualified.” (Ch.II, div.I, pt.1, 1964 edition). This inherent power is a reflection of the fact that the Presbytery is the radical court of the Church (thus we are called ‘Presbyterians’ not ‘Assemblyarians’).
It is for this reason that the legislation of our Church does not state what constitutes a valid objection nor, indeed, how it is to be disposed of. The implication is that it is the responsibility of the Presbytery to deal with these things and satisfy itself. This is also why all the Acts of Assembly dealing with the licensing of a student stress that while the Presbytery must take seriously any objections raised to the licensing, it is for the Presbytery to satisfy itself as to the suitableness of the candidate. One Presbytery of our Church being satisfied should be sufficient to satisfy all the Presbyteries.
When the Presbytery license a man, the name of Christ, the only Head of the Church, is invoked. This is a very serious and solemn event. For an Assembly to revoke a licence is to not only to deny the Presbytery its authority, but it involves the Church taking the name of Christ in vain. The Church, of course, has the authority to revoke a licence, but only by due disciplinary process. This requires the accusers to present credible evidence, and allows the licentiate the opportunity to defend himself. In Mr Blunt’s case the Assembly, without any disciplinary process, and without producing evidence, demanded that the Presbytery revoke his licence and gave an arbitrary five year ban on reapplication. What a sentence! This is unprecedented in the history of our Church.

Conclusion
Where does this decision leave the Church? A man is defrocked simply because his face does not fit (in certain quarters) and one Presbytery’s jurisdiction is overruled by another which simply does not like its decision. If this can happen to Mr Blunt and to Skye Presbytery, then it can happen to any licensed minister and to any Presbytery. Party spirit will see to it that none of us is safe from such treatment.


Any comments or questions please E-Mail me or Rev William Macleod the editor.

[Back to Reformed Christian Pages][Back to Free Church Foundations]