|
January 2000 Commission of Assembly
When Commissioners gathered on Wednesday 19th January
2000 for the meeting of the Commission of Assembly, all were conscious
that the Free Church was at a most critical stage in her history. This
was signified by the large numbers in the public galleries, most of
whom were supporters of the FCDA. Soon after the Commission was constituted,
and despite protests from the Rev J MacLeod (Tarbat) and the Rev J A
Gillies (Partick Highland), it went into private session. The Principal
Clerk announced that the ministers due to be libelled, who were not
themselves Commissioners, were to go to the downstairs hall until required.
He also announced that those in the public galleries should leave the
building. As it was a cold winter’s night many of us thought this was
a gross discourtesy to our concerned Free Church people, some of whom
were old and had travelled long distances to be present. It was quite
unnecessary. However those put out on the street entered the downstairs
hall by a back door. The Rev H Ferrier, taking the lead, initiated a
prayer meeting at which there was a wonderful sense of the Lord’s presence
and a display of Christian love and unity, much to the encouragement
of the brethren. These meetings continued throughout the next day also. Cover up Meanwhile, upstairs, the Commission, in considering how it was to go about its business, decided to hold all its sittings in private. No reason was given to the many members of the public present, who made their disapproval and disappointment evident. Later it emerged that the possibility of trouble was the excuse used to keep everything in private. Yet there had been no evidence of trouble. Certainly those who had filled the public galleries hardly looked like rent-a-mob. When the ministers to be libelled were called for they made it clear that they were suspicious of the reason behind keeping things private. It was "all a cover up", it was said. The Principal Clerk, Professor J L Mackay, replied that the Commission was merely following normal practice, which, he said, was to hold disciplinary hearings in private. It was pointed out to Professor Mackay that the trial of the Rev Maurice Roberts had been public. Also, the matters to be discussed were of public interest, and not of a scandalous nature. Furthermore, those to be libelled had asked in writing for a public hearing. All was to no avail - the decision had been made. The suspicion remains that the majority kept everything in private because they feared they would lose the argument, though win the votes - which in fact is what happened - and that anything said might be used as evidence in any Civil proceedings arising out of it. The embarrassment of being seen to unreasonably and unjustly throw out many ministers on a false charge was thus avoided. The Rev Daniel Mackinnon, one of those to be libelled, protested at this manner of handling the business, and left the meeting. During the subsequent debates, it was obvious that the Principal Clerk and many Commissioners were very concerned about being found personally liable at law for any temporal loss sustained if those libelled were thrown out of the Church. However, this concern seemed to be insufficient to restrain their determination to rid the Church of the accused ministers.
Opportunity Lost The report of the Committee appointed to prosecute the libels was taken along with a Petition from the Rev Graeme Craig. Mr Craig's Petition and speech appear elsewhere in this issue of Foundations. Basically he argued that, due to a number of procedural illegalities, the Commission should proceed no further with the libels and apologise to those named in them. A motion to that effect was later moved. The three strands of his argument were 1. That it was outwith the remit of the Commission to take up these libels, and if they did so they would be acting more like the anti-evangelical Moderates of the 18th Century rather than the children of the Disruption. 2. That the case had been prejudiced by the official Free Church press release in December (later published in The Monthly Record) which, anticipating these trials, presupposed guilt and not only declared the verdict but also the sentence to be imposed. There was therefore no chance of a fair trial. 3. It was unjust to have any trial before the Commission as it would deprive those libelled of any right of appeal. During the debate that followed, Professor J L Mackay warned Commissioners particularly of the weight of the first of Mr Craig's arguments and of the possible consequences of ignoring the Petition. By the end of Thursday morning it appeared that the Petition would carry. However, lunch intervened. Immediately after the break the Rev Iver Martin made an angry speech which blatantly ignored all Mr Craig’s arguments. He said that the threat of law did not matter. Rather, the problems in the Church needed decisive action, regardless of consequences. Thus the Commission were swayed into rejecting the Petition. One opportunity was lost for pulling the Church back from the brink and the case proceeded, with the Church lurching forward closer to the rocks. Disaster was only one step away. There seemed to be no will for peace and reconciliation. The following Protest was then tabled: "We, the undersigned, protest that, in taking part in any proceedings arising in connection with the Libels before this Commission we are not to be understood as admitting the lawfulness of the Commission having raised the said Libels in the absence of specific authority to do so from the General Assembly, or without having been empowered by the General Assembly in a manner consonant with the precedents of the Church".
The Real Debate The Commission proceeded then to consider the libels. This, as is normally the case takes place in two stages -- the relevancy stage and the proof stage. The relevancy stage asks the question: “Is this a sin?” The proof stage asks: “Is there evidence of this person committing this sin?” Normally the relevancy stage is relatively brief and the main debate centres on the question of evidence. However, in this case the main debate centred on the relevancy stage which considered the question: “Is membership of the FCDA a sin?” “Is it sinful defiance of a church court to remain members of the FCDA?” None of the charged ministers disputed their membership of the FCDA. However, they all disputed that membership of the FCDA was sinful defiance of a church court. Therefore, if at the relevancy stage the Commission decided that membership of the FCDA was sinful defiance of a church court then the charged ministers would have no defence at the proof stage. This must be borne in mind when asking why events took the turn they did later that day. During the debate on relevancy, many FCDA ministers spoke (see the speech by the Rev H Ferrier in this issue), and it must be thankfully acknowledged that the Moderator and the Commissioners allowed them to speak without interruption. In the speeches it was pointed out that the ministers were not being contumacious and indeed that those associated with the FCDA were only being faithful to their ordination vows in warning the Church of her wrongdoings. There was nothing in Scripture or the Constitution of the Church to warrant the banning of the FCDA. No one had proved the case that the FCDA was divisive. Whatever was said by the ministers in their defence was to no avail. It was obvious the majority party disliked the message of Foundations magazine and were not interested in the actual arguments. It was little surprise that on Thursday evening the vote went the usual way and the charge against the ministers was found relevant. A second opportunity to avoid disaster was scorned. Again a Protest was lodged which said: "We, the undersigned, protest against this Commission having reached a finding of relevancy in regard to Libels which are based on matters not condemned by the Word of God or the standards of this Church; and we further protest that, in continuing to participate in these proceedings, we are not to be understood to be admitting the lawfulness of the Commission acting in these matters in what we believe to be an unconstitutional manner…….."
Suspension The Commission then proceeded to what was called “fraternal conference”. They simply asked the ministers to acknowledge their guilt. All 22 responded "no", because they did not believe themselves guilty of contumacy. The Libels were immediately served on them, and they were told that they were now suspended from the work of the ministry and from the preaching of the gospel. Anything they did as Ministers they could no longer do, and it was made plain that any breach of the suspension would be viewed as further contumacy and would be dealt with severely.
Strange turn of events It was expected that the Commission would then proceed to the proof stage, something which, as explained already, was really a foregone conclusion. Instead, strangely, it was agreed to remit the case to the May 2000 General Assembly so that the possibility of indemnifying Commissioners against possible personal liability under Civil law could be explored. The 22 Ministers were to be suspended for four months on full pay until the issue was resolved. It was suggested by those who wanted the ministers suspended that perhaps negotiation could take place between now and May to help resolve the current crisis and prevent disaster for the Lord's cause in the nation and the loss of many useful ministries. The Rev G Craig pointed out that there was no excuse for delay. If they had followed the rules of the Church there was nothing to fear regarding Civil action. Moreover, it did not show concern for the Lord's cause to unjustifiably close the mouths of 22 Ministers. It would cause havoc in their congregations. If they wanted negotiation, why suspend them? This was negotiation with a gun at your head. The Rev H Ferrier made a final plea to have the suspension lifted. This was ignored. The point of no return had been reached.
The split Seeing that the 22 Ministers had already effectively been found guilty, and that it was widely circulated both in The Monthly Record and in the Press that they would finally be suspended sine die, the 22 knew that they would never get back into their pulpits again. Once the Assembly came, they would be formally put out, but they were effectively out now. What was the point of waiting four months and weakening the pastoral bond between people and pastor? The Commission had already condemned their actions which they were duty bound by Scripture and their ordination vows to pursue. There was no option for the 22 Ministers but to formally decline to recognise the Commission as a valid Court of the Free Church. Despite being shouted at by the Clerk and attempts being made to drown out his voice by the stamping of feet, the Rev J A Gillies (a former Moderator) manfully read a Protest and Declinature. It was sad to see the Principal Clerk, Professor J L Mackay, running to the front of the Assembly Hall to switch off Mr Gillies’ microphone. When Mr Gillies tried to lay the Protest on the Clerk's table for signing he was physically pushed away from the table by the Principal Clerk. However, the Rev Harry Woods got down on his knees before the Assembly, the Rev William Macleod placed his brief case on Mr Woods’ back and there all the 22 ministers were able to sign the document. Then having again placed the declinature on the Clerk’s table the 22 Ministers, joined by 6 loyal elders who were also Commissioners, left the building. The Declinature stated: “We, the undersigned, protest against this Commission having reached a finding of relevancy in regard to Libels which are based on matters not condemned by the Word of God or the standards of this Church; and we further protest that, by this action, the Commission have disqualified themselves from being a duly constituted Commission of the General Assembly of this Church; wherefore we, in our name and in behalf of all who may adhere to us, hereby decline the jurisdiction of this Commission, declaring that we shall not be bound by any judgements pronounced in regard to us, and that we resolve to meet as a Commission of the General Assembly in a manner consonant with the constitution of the Church and with the Act of Assembly appointing this Commission. And the more effectually to carry out the said resolution, we call upon all members of this Commission who wish to remain loyal to the constitution of the Free Church of Scotland to assemble in the Magdalen Chapel in the Cowgate of Edinburgh at 9.45pm to continue in a constitutional manner the present sederunt of the Commission".
The Reconstitution As the Ministers and Elders left the Assembly Hall they were met by over 200 concerned supporters who spontaneously began singing the forty-sixth Psalm. Together they proceeded to the Magdalen Chapel, site of the Reformation in 1560, and which later was used as a mortuary for the Covenanter Martyrs. There, seeing the Moderator's chair was empty, the Rev J A Gillies was called to the Chair to continue the session of the Commission begun in the Free Assembly Hall earlier that evening. It was not a new Assembly, or even a new session of the Commission. It certainly was not the beginning of a new Church. It was the Free Church Commission of Assembly going on with its business, but this time with a desire to adhere faithfully to the Constitution. Mr Gillies made a statement, and the forty-third Psalm, the Psalm sung at the beginning of the first Free Church Assembly in 1843, was given out. After worship, the business carried on as before. As the Clerk's chairs were also vacant, the Rev John MacLeod (Tarbat) was appointed Principal Clerk, and the Rev Graeme Craig (Lochalsh & Glenshiel) Assistant Clerk. After a brief narrative of events was read, the Declinature tabled earlier that day was read. Then the Declaration of Reconstitution of the Historic Free Church of Scotland was adopted. After Mr Ferrier had led the Commission in prayer, each Minister and Elder present wwa solemnly asked if he agreed with its terms, and after acknowledging his agreement, they signed the Declaration. In total 23 Ministers and 18 Elders signed it. After thanking all those supporters who by their prayers and presence had been a great source of encouragement to the brethren, the Moderator, the Rev J A Gillies, called on the Rev Kenneth MacDonald (Snizort), the most junior minister present, to conclude the evening’s business in prayer and the business was suspended until the next day. When the business resumed on Friday 21st January, there was much organising to undertake. Amongst other things, the following was agreed: 1. A Supplementary Declaration of Reconstitution, to be subscribed by those adhering to the Declaration of Reconstitution who had not been able to sign the previous day. 2. Arrangements to keep Presbyteries and Synods functioning including the appointment of Assessors to various Presbyteries. 3. An Interim General Interests Committee to oversee the needs of the Church in the current situation, seeing that the former Committee structure was no longer workable. 4. The Rev John Keddie to be Interim Treasurer. 5. A statement containing guidelines for Contributors for circulation to Congregations. 6. A Pastoral letter drawn up by the Rev Hugh Ferrier and the Rev J A Gillies. 7. The Rev John MacLeod (Tarbat) to be Press Officer.
Conclusion After the Rev A Sinclair Horne and the Scottish Reformation Society had been thanked for the use of the Magdalen Chapel, and the Clerks for all their preparatory work which had enabled the Commission to continue in an efficient manner, it was agreed to suspend the Sederunt of the Commission to resume in Inverness at 6pm on Thursday 10th February 2000. As the Gospel is to both Jew and Greek, the Moderator most fittingly asked Rev H R Moshe Radcliff to engage in prayer. Thus the harmony evident amongst the brethren throughout these days was again emphasised. Here, age or background did not matter. All were one in Christ Jesus.
Any comments
or questions please E-Mail
me or Rev William Macleod
the Editor. |