Madness has come over the Free Church of Scotland. Around
thirty ministers are due to be libelled on the 19th of January before
the Commission of Assembly and it is expected that they will all be
suspended from the ministry. The Monthly Record, which glories
in the title "The Official Publication of the Free Church of Scotland",
prejudging the issue has urged: "Cast out the bond-woman and her sons"
(October '99). When has such a thing ever happened before? I mentioned
it to a well-known English pastor. He laughed and said, "You must be
joking?" But it is the honest truth. A fifth of the ministers of the
Free Church are about to be cast out of the ministry. Will the majority
never stop to think and to ask the reason why? It is a very serious
thing to remove from the ministry even one whom God has called and appointed.
But surely to remove such a large number in one fell swoop is insanity
or tyranny.
The Crime
Something very wicked must have been committed to warrant such drastic
action. What was it? Simply that they belong to an organisation called
the Free Church Defence Association. But what is so evil about this
organisation? Is it trying to move the Free Church away from the Bible,
from Scriptural morality, from Reformed doctrine, worship and discipline?
No, rather it is doing the very opposite. It is totally committed to
the Scriptures, the Westminster Confession of Faith and the Free Church
heritage. That is why it was formed and its whole purpose is to resist
the slide away from holiness and purity and to call the Church back
again to her Biblical foundations. Surely the majority party is showing
little love for the distinctive principles of the Free Church!
The history of the FCDA
The first FCDA was formed in the 1870s when a union involving compromise
was contemplated with another body. That FCDA, although only a minority
similar to that in the Free Church at present, protested vigorously
and persistently until the move was dropped. They would not accept majority
decisions which they viewed as contrary to the Constitution of the Free
Church. The FCDA was revived in the 1890s when the same union was again
contemplated. By now the FCDA was only a tiny minority but the survival
of the Free Church through the crisis of 1900 would have been impossible
without its work and organisation. Principal Rainy's old Free Church
could easily have done what the present Free Church is doing and have
proscribed this troublesome group. Instead they showed a greater integrity
and a better understanding of church principles in permitting the FCDA
to exist and express its point of view.
In 1996 a new body claiming to be an FCDA was begun under the name Free
Concern. It appeared to many however that this body was more concerned
to change the Free Church than to defend it and its Constitution. The
present FCDA was started in 1997 as a response to Free Concern and because
of the failure of Biblical discipline and morality within the Free Church.
Why ban the FCDA?
'When you are no longer able to argue your case then use force'.
This seems to be the philosophy of many within the Free Church today.
Desperate to keep the dirt under the carpet they threaten vengeance
on anyone who lifts the corner to begin the cleaning process. They say
they have the majority, they have won the election and therefore they
can do what they like. Although they cannot satisfactorily answer the
FCDA's complaints, they are in power and they believe they have the
right to throw us out because we protest at their lawlessness in breaking
the Constitution.
The majority declares the FCDA to be divisive. Yet the truth always
divides. Jesus said: "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth:
I came not to send peace, but a sword" (Mat.10:34). Furthermore, FCDAs
were always divisive in the sense that they stressed and contended in
every way possible for a truth which the majority rejected. Yet no attempt
was made to ban the troublesome FCDAs of the past. In these days they
recognised the right that individuals had to meet together and keep
on protesting for things which were according to the Constitution.
'You are rebels'
The charge against us is contumacy. The Principal Clerk "explained"
that individuals are allowed to dissent and protest against a decision
but must stop there. Yet the FCDAs of the past did not stop there. We
must go on and on protesting against what is contrary to Scripture and
our Constitution. They say we must submit to the Courts of the Church.
They say our ordination vows require that office-bearers submit to whatever
the Church Courts demand. But that would be to deny the headship of
Christ. We must obey God rather than men, otherwise we are little different
from Romanists. If the Courts of the Church command us to tell lies
we will not obey.
Is it not all about one man?
True, there is one man at the centre of all this. It all began with
allegations against him. There is evidence that he broke the Seventh
and the Ninth Commandments in a serious way. Individuals have been prepared
at their own risk to attempt to prove this in Church Courts but in a
desperate attempt to protect this man from proper church discipline
all such attempts have been blocked and the June Commission Finding
states: "They instruct all office-bearers and members to abide by the
1995 finding and, furthermore, not to pursue this matter now or henceforth
in any form whatsoever". This man is placed above the discipline of
the Church. From now on he is answerable to no-one. Lest anyone should
argue that this Finding refers simply to pre-1995 matters let us make
it plain that one of the libels forbidden referred to breaches of his
ordination vows with regard to purity of worship in articles written
in 1996-97. Obviously now he can do or teach anything he likes. Surely
Principal Donald Macleod is dividing and destroying the Free Church?
Is it just about one man?
People say, "You are not going to divide the Church over one man?"
Two points must be made in response. First, it is not just the actions
of one man but also that of those who have surrounded him, men and women,
who are prepared to defend him by fair means or foul. They do not care
what harm they do to the Church in the process.
But secondly, the crux of the problem is the Majority Party's departure
from the tried and tested disciplinary procedures of our Church. Today,
discipline is used to protect those against whom there is evidence of
guilt and to cast out as contumacious those who rock the boat. The 1995
Finding has undermined the whole disciplinary structure of the Free
Church. No proper Church discipline is possible in the Free Church of
today because of the 1995 Finding.
Many others are to be disciplined too
It is not just the thirty ministers that are to be disciplined. Over
and above this there are a number of ministers who are not prepared
to promise never to preach in Stornoway Relief Free Church or the other
Relief Churches. They too will be suspended for contumacy. Then there
are all the elders and deacons who are office-bearers of the FCDA, more
than 50 of them in Lewis alone. They too must be suspended, as will
all the elders who are not prepared to promise to have nothing to do
with the Relief Churches. How many men will have to be disciplined to
protect Principal Macleod?
Who are splitting the Church?
We are not the ones who are dividing the Church. We have resisted the
temptation to walk away despite the provocation. If we were allowed,
we would stay protesting against what we see as wrong and calling the
Church back to repentance. God lays upon every faithful minister the
duty of speaking out against sin and sleaze. "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). It does not matter how
many times the majority party wins a vote, that will not hide the evil
nor remove from us the duty of protesting against it. The majority party
are throwing us out. They are the ones who are splitting the Church.
No desire for peace
At the October Commission there were four separate peace moves to try
to find a reasonable and just solution to the present crisis. They were
all rejected out of hand. The Majority Free Church does not want peace
with justice but rather the peace that comes from a tyranny which suppresses
the truth. Out of a concern for an amicable settlement of the present
dispute, the Convener of the FLA, on his own initiative, contacted three
or four leading individuals from the FCDA to try to work out together
as Christian brothers the best pathway from here. Proposals were drawn
up, but the hostile determination of some was obvious when the FLA met
just before the Commission. Peace plans were rejected and callous threats
issued instead. The majority party find it hard to recognise that we
will not be intimidated. Men of principle will stand for the principle
no matter what the cost.
Pastoral Letter
This letter, issued by the Commission, reminds one of the action of
Joab who took Amasa by the beard with the right hand to kiss him, saying
"Art thou in health, my brother?" and smote him with the sword under
the fifth rib, and shed out his bowels to the ground (2Sam.20:9-10).
Micah speaks of the "prophets that make my people err, that bite with
their teeth and cry, Peace" (Mic.3:5).
Property
The Church's Law Agents have given the advice that if any congregation
whose property is held under the Model Trust Deed wish to join a separate
denomination they could not take their property with them. Of course
that is the case. You could not take Free Church property into a Pentecostal
or Baptist denomination. Our situation however is very different. If
we are forced to separate, we will adhere to the full Free Church Constitution
and will strongly assert our claim to be the true Free Church.
Similarly it is stated that the local Trustees (often the Deacons' Court)
will be held personally liable if they do not evict a suspended minister
from his manse. Oh, what love they show in their desire to throw us
out onto the street! They wish to blackmail the sheep we feed and frighten
them into becoming our persecutors. The problem with this legal advice
is that it only stands if the minister is "justly" suspended. But the
present regime is not acting according to the disciplinary book of the
Free Church. If a minister is proceeded against, he can avail himself
of the remedies which the law of the land offers for a denial of natural
justice. Furthermore, those who act against ministers unjustly suspended
outwith the Constitution of the Church are in grave danger of finding
themselves personally liable for the consequences of their actions.
The New Free Church
It was fascinating to see how the Lewis Commissioners time and again
at the Commissions voted with the Rev David Robertson who has clearly
emerged as a leader of the majority party. I have no doubt that in days
to come when the FCDA men have been cast out, Mr Robertson will lead
the Lewismen a merry dance. The Rev Alex MacDonald has been appointed
chief executioner. As convener of the committee to draw up and prosecute
libels against the thirty ministers he will have a prominent role in
our expulsion. As the Rev John Angus Gillies so well said on the floor
of the Commission: "Perhaps some of you will see that when we are put
out of the Church, the problem will remain".
Any comments or questions please E-Mail
me or Rev William Macleod
the Editor.
[Back to Reformed Christian Pages][Back
to Free Church Foundations]