Editorial

The 1999 General Assembly has met. In the pages that follow we provide our coverage from our own perspective upon the debates that particularly affect us as the Free Church Defence Association. The Stornoway Gazette, the Free Church Web Site and the Monthly Record provide coverage of the Assembly from another perspective. There are also several articles which deal with related subjects which have been raised in arguments in these past days.
It was a very important Assembly. Has it sorted out our Church’s problems? What is the feeling now? The Rev Alex MacDonald states in the Buccleuch News Letter: “Although it may seem the Assembly was largely taken up with controversy, a great spirit of unity reigned among the vast majority”. Obviously he is delighted with the result. The Rev Iain D Campbell issued a report to his congregation which states: “Throughout the week the decisions of the Assembly satisfied most Commissioners, and certainly satisfied me”. Many others have similarly expressed their satisfaction with the outcome.

Libels
But for some of us, this was a black Assembly. It showed a determination in what we believe was the wrong direction. It did not seem prepared to listen to any arguments that were raised from the opposite side. For example, serious charges of breaches of the Ninth Commandment were brought up in libels against one of our professors. Contrary to the established disciplinary procedures of our Church, these libels were dismissed without looking at the evidence. Is this individual now placed above the law and beyond the discipline of the Church? It appears that whatever he does no one can now question him. Anyone who dared bring charges or libels against him would find themselves automatically guilty of contumacy without any argument they could use in their own defence. It seems that virtually the only disciplinary offence in the Free Church today, is to make accusations against a certain professor. On this matter several at the Assembly not only dissented but protested against this breach of our Constitution.

Inconsistency
In rejecting the libels great stress was laid on the procedures that should be followed in first contacting the individual concerned privately and pastorally before proceeding to discipline. However, when it came to dealing with the Stornoway Reformed Fellowship, the fact that neither minister nor elder had visited several of the leaders before proceeding to discipline them made no difference. It seems there is one law for one and another for another. If you are perceived to be critical of Professor Macleod, church law will afford you very little protection. Out of a new kind of racism, you will probably also be accused of being an incomer, as some were at this Assembly.

Licensing of Mr David Blunt
Here again the Assembly took an unprecedented step. It decided that the recognition granted by the Training of the Ministry Committee to Mr David Blunt as a candidate for the ministry be withdrawn. The Skye and Uist Presbytery were rebuked for licensing him as a preacher in the face of appeals by two Presbyteries. Skye Presbytery had fully investigated all the complaints and answered them in detail. It therefore decided that these appeals were frivolous. This was a low point in the Assembly. A godly man’s entrance into the ministry can now be vetoed by another Presbytery because they do not like the party to which he is perceived to belong. Mr Blunt had blotted his copy-book in the eyes of several influential people when he expressed concern about Professor Macleod’s involvement with Roman Catholic priests at an ecumenical conference in 1993. How far we have departed from our old robust Protestantism! The two Presbyteries who complained of Skye’s actions in ignoring frivolous appeals had themselves done the self-same thing in recent months. It seems there is one law for Edinburgh and Inverness and another for Skye. Again, some of us found it necessary not only to dissent but to protest against this unconstitutional interference in the proper jurisdiction of another Presbytery.

The Discipline of the Rev Maurice Roberts
On the Friday the Assembly took a surprising turn. Was it a trap? An alleged radio report became the subject of a point of order which led to a demand for the Rev Maurice Roberts personally to repudiate the notion that the FCDA would ever take the Church to law. The FCDA had never discussed the matter. How could he say that a situation would never arise when it would be proper to go to law? After all Dr Begg threatened to go to law against the Free Church in the 1800s and the men of 1900 actually did go to law to secure the Constitution of the Free Church. In the end, Mr Roberts, under hostile questioning from the Senior Clerk, (who was not a member of Assembly and should not have spoken at that point), accused the Assembly of “gross and irremediable wickedness and hypocrisy”. It was not an angry outburst on his part and he believes he can demonstrate that what he has alleged is true. Are we so self-righteous as a Church that we are beyond criticism or being called to repentance?

False Allegations The Rev I D Campbell, in a statement to his congregation following the Assembly, referred to the above incident. Looking for sympathy, he proceeded to make the strange assertion that attempts are to be made to take his church and manse from him and others like him! The fact that Mr Roberts had assured the Assembly that no such plan existed made no difference to him. Meanwhile Mr Campbell seems not to be against the move to take the Rev Maurice Roberts’ church and manse from him. Indeed he views what led to this as a wonderful answer to his prayers “which only the God of Providence could have engineered”.
In the same statement he compares himself to the Rev Hector Cameron of Back who was the only Lewis minister who stood with the handful who formed the Free Church continuing in 1900. But unlike Mr Campbell, Mr Cameron was in a minority of one among the ministers of Lewis Presbytery in 1900 in the stand he took. Further, Mr Cameron refused to submit to the finding of the vast majority in the 1900 Free Church Assembly. Mr Campbell, if he had been around in 1900, and if he followed his usual line, would probably have accused Hector Cameron of “a spirit of rebellion against the God-ordained Presbyterian government of our Church”. Will Mr Campbell stand with the minority as Mr Cameron did and really be prepared to suffer the loss of his manse for his principles?

Contumacy
This, it seems, is the only disciplinary offence left in the modern Free Church. Allegations of perjury, slander and oathbreaking can be ignored but not contumacy. The Rev Maurice Roberts has apparently been found guilty of it even without a trial. The Edinburgh and Perth Overture asked the Assembly to instruct three Presbyteries to charge three ministers with contumacy. What is it? Our Practice defines it as “deliberate defiance of a Church court”. For example if someone were cited three times to appear before the Presbytery and failed to come he would be deemed contumacious. Contumacy in the past was usually this. But now it is being set up as a way to force the minority to do what the majority desire. The prevailing party call men contumacious if they disobey their findings whether the thing required is in Scripture or not. Furthermore you have no defence for your action. The Moderator and the Church court say this and you must do it. The problem with this type of contumacy is that a Church court can act in a tyrannical way and in a way that is contrary to Christian liberty and to the Constitution of the Church. The Moderator and the court are deemed infallible. It is a presbyterial form of papacy. In the Bible we have the example of Peter and John who could have been found guilty of contumacy by the properly constituted Jewish Church court of their day. They responded: “Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye. For we cannot but speak the things that we have seen and heard” (Acts 4:19-20). There are times when the will of the majority party has to be disobeyed. Our fathers took that stand rightly in 1900.

The Commision of Assembly
The Commission will meet from 23rd to the 25th June. Along with the disciplining of the Rev Maurice Roberts there are several other important matters to be dealt with. These include appeals by the Rev John Macleod, Tomatin, the Rev David Murray, and Mrs Susan Harding. Also there is the overture of the Edinburgh Presbytery (printed later) which calls for the disciplining of the Rev William Macleod, the Rev David Murray and the Rev Maurice Roberts. This Overture also seeks the destruction of the FCDA. It further demands the burning of all the evidence (Church papers) which could be used against Professor Donald Macleod. Also on the Commission’s agenda is the Report of the Special (Peace) Commission.

Peace Commision
Over the past year this body had received many submissions and worked hard to solve the problems of our Church. Its report should have been given priority in the programme. Instead it was left over until the June Commission. Why? Some in the Special Commission recognised the divisions throughout the Church as largely connected with Professor Donald Macleod. Were its statements viewed as damaging to him and the plan to make him Principal of the College? It is worth quoting the relevant part of what is said by some in that report: (1) leaving to one side matters dealt with by the decision of the 1995 General Assembly, there has been a considerable number of submissions to the Special Commission regarding the writings of Professor Donald Macleod, expressing disquiet, and the General Assembly through the Training of the Ministry Committee should now formally investigate these writings;
(2) The Special Commission would be failing in its duty to the Church if it did not take cognisance of the fact that there are still statements being made and publicly repeated regarding Professor Macleod’s conduct in Australia, accompanied by allegations that the Church’s investigation into these matters has been deficient in that there exist primary witnesses whose evidence has never been sought or heard by a Church Court. In the light of this the Special Commission would ask the General Assembly to recall the decision of the 1995 General Assembly as being procedurally unsafe and contributing to the present unrest in the Church in that there exist grave doubts as to the thoroughness of the underlying precognition previously undertaken by the Training of the Ministry Committee, and that the Training Committee be directed to re-examine matters in regard to Professor Macleod’s behaviour in Australia. Prayer and Perseverance
Pray for the Commission of Assembly which will meet between the 23rd and the 25th of June. Ask the Lord to intervene and return the Free Church to the Scriptural paths of honesty and justice. Do not lose heart. The FCDA covets your prayers and support. We expect trials but we know that truth will yet prevail. We must stand fast and not give up. “Let us search and try our ways, and turn again to the Lord” (Lam.3:40).

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

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