Editorial

The Commission of Assembly which met on the 6th and 7th of October 1999 has decided to libel the Rev David Murray and me as editors of Free Church Foundations. Our trial is due to be held before the Commission of Assembly on 8th December. The charge against us is contumacy. We did not yield to the command of the Assembly when it told us to cease from speaking out against the sins and sleaze in the Church. There is no possible way we can defend ourselves. The Commission is acting as procurator fiscal, witnesses, judge and jury. No appeals will be allowed to any other body. Normally a minister is charged before his Presbytery and can appeal from there to the Synod and the General Assembly. But it was argued that my Presbytery would not give the desired result, having already expressed support for me, and that the quickest and most efficient way to deal with the matter was to bypass normal procedures and simply to try us before the Commission and that on the narrow charge of contumacy so that we will be unable to introduce the real issues.

1995 Finding
Interestingly, of all the points on which the Commission could have decided to condemn us, the one which they chose was the request made in the last issue (August) of our Magazine that the 1995 Assembly decision be recalled as procedurally unsafe. The June 1999 Commission of Assembly had decided that this matter was forever closed. I remember being approached at the 1995 Assembly by my friend the Rev A M Macleod (Kinloch). He said that he had a motion he intended to move which he believed would solve all our problems. He asked me what I thought of it. I immediately realised that it was far from satisfactory and told him so. Little did he realise then that this motion of his would be the one which would result in my being thrown out of the Church I loved and had served with all my heart. Indeed this very motion which was designed to solve our Church problems by compromise is the one which will split our Church. The 1995 decision is the crux of the problem and was the end of proper church discipline in the Free Church.

The facts behind 1995
Recently I was told facts which I did not know before. It is important to be aware of them. Principal Donald Macleod had an affair in Australia which he has admitted in varying degrees to different people. The woman concerned, when challenged by her brother-in-law, confessed adultery. Three years later when similarly confronted by her minister she confessed again. She withdrew her “allegation” only when it became obvious that the Free Church were about to take action against Principal Macleod. Loving him, she did not wish to get him into trouble. Several other girls alleged that they were sexually assaulted by him. For me, the new and interesting point is that, in 1993, this whole matter was given to a sub-committee appointed by the Training of the Ministry Committee (TOM) to look at all the evidence. This sub-committee came to the unanimous conclusion that Principal Macleod had a case to answer and should be libelled. When they communicated this to the main Committee their recommendation was rejected by a majority, led by the Rev Alex MacDonald. Remember that the main Committee had not seen all the evidence. Party spirit came in at this point and has become an increasing problem since. The majority of the TOM proposed to the 1995 Assembly that the matter be terminated. The Assembly was not allowed to see or consider any evidence and yet closed the case. It was an obvious cover-up. Principal Macleod was never tried by any court of our Church. The only committee that looked at all the evidence came to the unanimous conclusion that he should be tried.

Sheriff Court Case
People say that Principal Macleod has been tried and found not guilty. But he was never tried on the Australian affair. Also there is a difference between what the state would regard as criminal action and what God and the church regard as immoral. Further, since the trial it has become clear that lies and half-truths were told by the defence. One individual whose evidence was given considerable weight and publicity wrongly testified to something which he said took place at a meeting, but, in fact, he was not even present there. It was a fabrication. The whole weight of the defence rested on the allegation that there was a conspiracy. It was argued that ministers had persuaded young women to tell lies to destroy Principal Macleod. However I know of no minister who believes that there was such a conspiracy. Since then it is known that other women have made similar allegations against the Principal.

Dividing the Free Church
It has been alleged that the FCDA is splitting the Free Church. Rather, it is one man that is dividing the Free Church and he is doing it to protect himself. Principal Macleod has ruthlessly stirred up the divisions that have always existed in the Free Church between those who are more conservative and those who are more liberal. He has tried to make out that the present controversy is over modernism rather than his own private life and the failure of the Free Church to apply its disciplinary procedures.

Peace Moves
At the Commission of Assembly there were several moves to try to find a peace settlement. They were all rejected. An overture and a petition were thrown out because they were regarded as incompetent in that they sought the overturning of Assembly and Commission decisions. However the October 31st 1996 Commission was regarded by that party as competent in overturning the decision of the 2nd of October Commission. Hypocrisy and double standards are obviously at work. A Dr David Mackereth, out of a love for the Free Church, had, after long effort, produced a peace plan. He requested just five minutes to address the Commission but this was rejected because it was argued that it was not normal practice to hear private individuals. Mr John Mackenzie produced an elaborate plan which involved the calling in of arbiters from sister churches. He had succeeded in getting a commitment from the FCDA to disband if independent arbiters of this nature were appointed. This again was rejected because there was no provision for it in our disciplinary book of Practice. He argued that the extraordinary situation in which we found ourselves allowed for and indeed demanded an extraordinary solution. But there was no will for his plan in the Commission. They did not want peace. They want rid of us and they are willing to split the Church if it is necessary to protect Principal Macleod from a Church trial.

Stornoway Relief Free Church
Last April, when the problem in Stornoway came before the Synod, only three young men were involved as leaders and a small group of others. The Synod unanimously advised the Presbytery and congregation on a simple and reasonable pastoral solution. This was rejected by the Presbytery. Harsh disciplinary procedures were used. Today there is a growing congregation of 150 folk with elders and deacons, none of whom were the original leaders. Furthermore, little meetings are springing up all over the Island of Lewis. Senior, highly-respected elders have been suspended for the seemingly awful crime of going to hear the Rev Maurice Roberts preaching the gospel in Stornoway Town Hall. The Commission, having learned nothing, decided that any office-bearer attending services in, or making a public statement of support for, Stornoway Relief Free Church will be found guilty of contumacy and removed from office. It is obvious that the majority party want rid of all whom they regard as trouble-makers. The Commission was not looking for peace but for a division. Lewis Presbytery used to be a conservative corrective to the more liberal ways of Edinburgh Presbytery. Today they work together. If anything Lewis is more fanatical than Edinburgh. We await with interest the fruit of this new co-operation.

FCDA
The Commission called upon the FCDA to disband immediately and give notice of this to the Principal Clerk by 30th November. They further decided that any Free Church office-bearer who is also an office-bearer of the FCDA, is in breach of his ordination vows, and, unless he resigns immediately, will be disciplined for contumacy. There is little evidence of enthusiasm to discipline those who are alleged to be adulterers and liars but great determination to cast out those whom they declare contumacious. The FCDA has sought only to inform and to speak the truth. We will gladly withdraw anything we have said that is untrue. No one has yet demonstrated the falsehood of one word which we have written. Some years ago when an attempt was made to forbid Free Church members from being Freemasons, it was argued that such a move was going much too far and was incompetent. The FCDA has an identical constitution to the Free Church, yet liberty of speech, freedom of association and civil rights are being denied to us. How can the FCDA disband when it has a job to do? God has called upon us to bear testimony to the evil that we are seeing in the Free Church and we must continue to do so.

Libel of David Murray and William Macleod
This came up in the form of an overture from Edinburgh Presbytery. The Rev Alex MacDonald, who presented it, was a fellow-student of mine in the early 70s. Alex, with his Bob Dylan music, long hair and flamboyant clothes was generally regarded as a rebel. He seemed to be entering the Free Church ministry to change the Church. I was an ordinary traditional Free Church student. Today Alex sits supreme at the centre of the new Free Church and I am being thrown out. How things have changed and what will the end of it be? When three libels were brought to the Edinburgh Presbytery against a certain Professor they were rejected because we had not first spoken privately to the individual concerned. Edinburgh Presbytery did not speak privately to us before requesting the raising of a libel against us. Who says that there is no hypocrisy in the Free Church and its Commission of Assembly? The treatment you receive depends on who you are. I believe that no libel will ever be allowed to be heard against Principal Donald Macleod no matter what technical niceties were followed. The three ministers who brought the libels must be thrown out of the Church, any charge will do and the procedures followed do not matter. David Murray and I are being charged with contumacy. We are allowed no defence. “Did you edit this Magazine?” “Yes”. “Will you withdraw what you have written?” “No, I believe it is the truth”. “Then you are contumacious and must be disciplined”. The truth of what we have written is not considered. Unless a miracle takes place we will be suspended from the ministry on the 8th of December. I believe I have been called to the ministry. I believe that God has opened my mouth and only He will shut it. If I am convicted of immorality or lying or some other moral offence I will accept the judgment. But attempts to silence me in my proclamation of the truth will not work. My only defence against the charge of contumacy is that God says: “Cry aloud, spare not, lift up thy voice like a trumpet, and show my people their transgression, and the house of Jacob their sins” (Is.58:1). The Free Church tells us to keep quiet and to cover up the sleaze but I must obey God rather than men.

The future
We are now coming to the crisis point. The Commission has made it plain that there is no room in the Free Church for those of our persuasion. Each must make up his own mind. Stornoway Relief Free Church has shown us a possible way. It gives us no pleasure to leave the Free Church. Perhaps we loved it too much. It was our whole life to serve the Lord in the Free Church. We wanted the Free Church to have the highest moral standards, and to be as pure as possible here on earth. Others are quite happy to tolerate immorality and deceit. Sadly we have discovered increasingly that it is not just one man who may be guilty. When confronted with his alleged affair in Australia, Principal Macleod responded, according to Dr Davies the girl’s brother-in-law, by saying that he knew of adulterous relationships of colleagues of his and had never attempted to interfere. Why are so many fanatical in their attempt to keep him from a Church trial? Why are they prepared to split the Church over this? Is it that they feel guilty because of their own immoral relationships and also that he or others may expose them? One Achan was sufficient to bring disaster upon Israel. What blessing can we expect as a Free Church if there are several Achans among us? I fear the time has come when we must say “Come out from among them and be ye separate” (2Cor.6:17). We are plainly warned of the effect of immorality on the Church: “Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump? Purge out therefore the old leaven that ye may be a new lump” (1Cor.5:6-7). In the next few weeks we must decide. Will we give up the struggle or will we stand separate as the true Free Church and maintain our rich heritage?

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

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