The Commission of Assembly
The Commission of Assembly met on the 23rd and 24th of June. It dealt with the libel against the Rev. Maurice Roberts, the Report of the Special (Peace) Commission and the rest of the unfinished business of the Assembly. There were those who felt the Commission was a great success. They said the Church showed it believed in Church discipline. In their view the authority of the General Assembly was upheld. None could be allowed to defy its instructions. The Report of the Peace Commission, altered by additions from the Edinburgh Presbytery, was optimistically assumed to bring the troubles of recent years to an end. A line, they argue, has been drawn under the whole matter once and for all. Alas, they deceive themselves. Only the gullible could possibly conclude that there is peace. What really happened and what are the results of the Commission?
The libel
The first item of business was the case against the Rev Maurice Roberts, who was charged with contumacy (contempt of the Assembly) because he refused to withdraw statements he made at the last General Assembly. He had stated that he had witnessed "irremediable wickedness and hypocrisy". The discussion began with the question of whether the charge was competent, that is, whether there had been any such offence as contumacy and whether the alleged offence fitted into that category of misbehaviour. As far as the prosecuting Committee were concerned the matter of the actual words used and whether they were true or not was not the question. The matter was simply this, "Did Mr Roberts refuse to comply with an instruction of the Assembly?" It was suggested during questioning that Mr Roberts had already been found guilty and rebuked for this offence. How then could he be tried again? (Yet in truth there was no trial first time round nor opportunity given for Mr Roberts to explain what he had said to defend himself). Some expressed concern that the Assembly Minute upon which the whole proceedings were based was itself inaccurate, as tape recordings now show. No one seemed interested in that point. Others noted the lack of reference to the real occasion of the whole matter in the final charge, i.e. the alleged refusal to repudiate claims that the FCDA may go to law against the Free Church.
A lawful instruction?
Mr Roberts requested that he be allowed to call witnesses and adduce documentary evidence. This was not allowed. It is true that normally witnesses are not heard during the first stage of dealing with a libel because it concerns the theoretical question of whether the libel is generally competent. However the fact is that this was not an ordinary case. No one could doubt that the wilful refusal to obey the order of a Church Court is normally a serious breach of Ordination Vows, but it is not always so. The whole matter hinges on the simple question of whether or not it was a legitimate or proper instruction. Peter and John boldly defied the Church Court of their day (Acts 4), but no one would suggest they were in the wrong. Neither would one criticise someone who refused to do something foolish. Was it a lawful instruction? Surely that depends on the truthfulness of Mr Roberts assertion. If his statement that he had witnessed "irremediable wickedness and hypocrisy" was false then he should have withdrawn it. If the statement was true, however, no faithful preacher of the gospel could withdraw it. Mr Roberts wished to prove that what he had said was true. He heard it officially stated in the 1998 Assembly that a private libel was a permissible action to take against Professor Macleod. But official action in 1999 made the three private libels completely ineffectual by "terminating" the whole "matter". He had amassed twenty-seven documents and wanted to cite twenty-six individual witnesses as well as two Presbyteries. The Commission, however, were not interested in the question of what he said. Commissioners did not wish to hear any criticism of themselves or their actions. They wished to confine it all to Mr Roberts' refusal to withdraw. But Mr Roberts felt that to withdraw his comment would be to tell a lie.
What others had said
When Mr Roberts spoke to challenge the competence of the charge, he firstly reminded the Commission that he was not showing contempt for the Assembly by criticising it. After all the prophets had often condemned the leaders of God's people, and the apostles had refused to comply with the instructions of the Sanhedrin. Andrew Melville had reminded James VI that, "for giving you faithful counsel, we must discharge our duty or else be traitors both to Christ and you". Last century, Dr Begg writing in the Watchword, used equally strong language. Secondly, Mr Roberts quoted some recent statements of Free Church ministers which, although very extreme, had not led to any libels being issued. Principal Donald Macleod, who was honoured by this Assembly, had written of another Assembly, that "the Lunatics have taken over the Asylum". How could the Church discipline Mr Roberts and excuse Principal Macleod? Mr Roberts also pointed out that despite what others had alleged he had not called the Assembly itself wicked, or said that all the Commissioners were guilty of hypocrisy. He had only said that he had witnessed "wickedness and hypocrisy". As things turned out that was effectively all that Mr Roberts was permitted to say. He was given only fifteen minutes in which to point out that the libel was not relevant.
Witnesses
The Libel was deemed competent and it was duly placed in Mr Roberts hands. Now the trial proper began. Mr Roberts expected to be allowed to call witnesses. This was denied him by the hostile majority. It was decided that the Commissioners were the only witnesses permissible as they had observed what had happened at the Assembly. A Motion was passed to the effect that only the Minute of Assembly be read and then judgement given. A further motion was carried finding Mr Roberts guilty and suspending him without limit of time.
Summary Justice
What can one make of it all? Most noticeable was the lack of attention to the remarks which provoked the libel. Mr Roberts had ventured the observation that he had witnessed "irremediable wickedness and hypocrisy" during the Assembly. Speaker after speaker misquoted and misconstrued his remarks. One Commissioner ventured the incredible opinion that a believer could not be wicked or a hypocrite. Thankfully another said that he himself had felt convicted by Mr Roberts' words and quoted Jeremiah 17:9. Mr Roberts was not asked what he had meant. No doubt by hypocrisy he had this in mind. The word "irremediable" is surely correct. If "the matter" was terminated, no one who supposed Professor Macleod guilty of anything could ever now bring him to trial. On reflection one can only wonder in amazement at the state of the Free Church discipline. There was summary justice for one while charges against another were dismissed on the slightest technicality.
Peace Commission
The other major item was the report of the Peace Commission. It was obvious to all that it had not been able to tackle the major problem in the Church. The Commission of Assembly followed the Edinburgh Presbytery's agenda to ensure that "peace" would prevail. Critical references to the FCDA were inserted in the deliverance and all references to Principal Macleod were deleted from the report by ruling that they were outwith the remit of the Peace Commission. An Overture from Edinburgh and Perth called for a line to be drawn under the whole matter, destroying the documents and stifling the FCDA. No more mention must be made of the controversy surrounding Principal Donald Macleod and any who does so will be disciplined. This ill thought-out Overture was then accepted. Immediately a 32 point Dissent was registered by members of the Commission who support the Free Church Constitution alleging the Church had departed from that Constitution in a number of important areas. No longer can vital matters be raised anywhere. Men are not even allowed to defend their own good name. The younger men ruled the day and the folly of Rehoboam sprang to our minds. The Peace Commission Report ended up by producing a finding which had little to do with peace.
Leadership but no peace
Certainly the Church has lacked leadership recently. Caught between a rock and a hard place it has struggled on because there has been little willingness to address the real problem. At last a form of "leadership" has emerged. Sadly though, it involves the denial of liberty of conscience and of free speech. It means the abandonment of the Establishment principle and tyranny in the Assembly, which must be obeyed on pain of censure. Leadership it certainly is, but peace it is not. When the Edinburgh Overture was adopted, a protest was lodged by several members of Commission which concludes with these words, "For these and other reasons, we protest, that we and all other office-bearers and members of the Church shall not be committed by the said resolution to any action that may be taken thereupon, and shall be at liberty to oppose all such action by every competent means" (The words of Dr James Begg, 1867).
Undermining the Constitution
Sadly, as things stand at present there is and can be no peace. Those who in recent days have claimed to be guardians of the Church's discipline, zealous for the integrity of the Assembly, and promoters of peace have acted in a way which undermines the very Constitution which unites the Free Church. Certainly the actions of the Commission were not in accord with our forefathers' understanding of the Constitution. The FCDA longs for unity, but it must be a unity based on constitutional principles of truth and honesty, fairness in discipline and above all Biblical orthodoxy and purity. The FCDA will not stand idly back. It will continue to contend for truth and righteousness. This is not a divisive course, for, as the Rev J A Gillies said at the Commission "The truth is not divisive, but it may divide." We long for unity. Those who cause division are those who are abandoning and subverting the Constitution of the Church. We call upon all who love the Free Church to stand with us at this time.
[ Published by the National Committee of the Free Church Defence Association.]
Any comments or questions please E-Mail me or Rev William Macleod the Editor.
[Back to Reformed Christian Pages][Back to Free Church Foundations][Back to the Information Service]