Edinburgh Moves to Ban the FCDA
The FCDA is disliked by a group of powerful men within our Church. The reason is obvious. Having gained control of the Committees of our Church, and having unlimited access to the secular media these men thought that they would now have a free run in their design to transform the Free Church into a more liberal and ecumenical grouping. Most of the members of the Church could be led blindly on, no one would tell them what was really happening, and, by the time they found out, they would be powerless to do anything about it. But the FCDA appeared. Why are they so angry with us? Is it because we try to defend what they wish to destroy? Our aim is to preserve our rich biblical heritage for our children.
Our opponents in the Edinburgh and Perth Presbytery decided on 31st March to present the following overture to the General Assembly:
Whereas anyone who thinks that he has suffered injury or wrong, or that injury is being done to the cause of Christ, or that there exists a case for Church discipline, has access to the Courts of this Church;
Whereas the Free Church Defence Association (so called) claims to "uphold and defend the Presbyterian church government and discipline of the Free Church";
Whereas the Free Church Defence Association was set up without authority of the Courts of the Church, acts outwith the Courts of the Church and constitutes "a Church within a Church" with an alternative magazine and alternative conferences;
Whereas the Free Church Defence Association is divisive and is disturbing the peace and work of the Church;
Whereas Free Church Foundations, the magazine of the Free Church Defence Association, has consistently attacked decisions of the supreme court of this Church and in particular the decisions, conduct and officials of the 1997 Assembly;
Wherefore it is humbly requested that:
1. The General Assembly declare that the Free Church Defence Association (so called) has no authority to use the name "Free Church";
2. The General Assembly instruct the Free Church Defence Association to disband;
3. The General Assembly cite Rev. Maurice Roberts, Chairman of the Free Church Defence Association and Rev. William MacLeod, editor of the Free Church Defence Association's magazine Free Church Foundations, to appear before the Assembly to answer for attacks made on the General Assembly, particularly the attack made on the integrity of the General Assembly, the Moderator and the Clerk of Assembly in Issue 3 of Free Church Foundations under the title "Intimidation". (Alex J Macdonald)
Access to Church Courts?
Let us look at the various points raised in this Overture. Firstly, the claim that anyone "has access to the courts of the church" is clearly untrue and, indeed, this is one reason why the FCDA has been revived. Letters of complaint about a certain Professor were sent to the Training of the Ministry Committee and when members of that Committee asked the 1997 Assembly that they be dealt with according to the law of the Church they themselves were censured.
Also, a petition was presented to the 1997 Assembly by a large number of ministers and elders because of the repeated charges made by Free Church members in the media that some Free Church officebearers were "conspirators" and "liars". The petition asked that, in future, accusations made by fellow Church members should be made before the appropriate Church court or withdrawn. The Assembly rejected this petition. So, Professor Donald Macleod continues to call his fellow ministers liars and conspirators, but the Church Courts refuse to either discipline these "liars" or him for his slander. In a BBC 2 programme broadcast on 10th April, Professor Macleod, compared himself with Jesus and some of his fellow ministers with Judas.
These examples prove that access to the courts of the Church is firmly closed against some who think that "they have suffered injury or wrong, or that injury has been done to the cause of Christ or that there exists a case for Church discipline".
Set up without Free Church Authority?
Secondly, the Presbytery state that the FCDA was set up without the authority of the Church courts. However, it is because Church courts are acting unconstitutionally that there is a need for the FCDA to fight for the truth. Remember, the FCDA had a very important role in 1990 and there would be no Free Church today if the men of the 1900 had slavishly accepted majority decisions of the Assembly. Are folk going to argue that the FCDA had no right to exist in 1900 because it had not been set up by a Church court?
We seem to remember the Rev. Alex MacDonald setting up a pressure group called 'Free Concern' when an Assembly decision went against him. He even organised a Church-wide petition and demanded another Assembly to overturn decisions with which he was unhappy. Which Church court set up 'Free Concern'? Did it not have its own magazine and conferences?
Disturbing the Peace?
Edinburgh Presbytery also claim that the FCDA is divisive and is disturbing the peace of the Church. However, the Free Church was divided before FCDA was revived in 1997. One great purpose of FCDA is to re-unite the Free Church around its Biblical Constitution of Reformed doctrine, worship and discipline. The peace of the Church is only disturbed when people depart from this and introduce innovations. In passing, it must be noticed that one of the Edinburgh Presbytery's own members regularly attacks the doctrine, worship, and ministers of the Free Church in a newspaper column and yet the Presbytery do nothing to halt this destructive divisiveness. If, following his acquittal, Professor Macleod had kept quiet, thanking God for his deliverance, the matter would now be in the past. Instead he keeps trying to justify the conspiracy theory by saying more and more outrageous things and stirring up as much unrest in the Church as he can.
Attacks on the Assembly?
The Edinburgh Presbytery claim that the FCDA has consistently attacked General Assembly decisions, especially the 1997 Assembly. This, we confess, is true. However, this is not a confession of sin. It is a confession of duty. Along with the Reformers, the Covenanters and the Free Church men of 1900 we do not believe that majorities in church courts are infallible, or to be obeyed if they are disobeying God's Word. We have argued in Foundations that some of the General Assembly's decisions in recent years have been unjust, unbiblical and unconstitutional. We stand by these criticisms. Officebearers' vows do not commit them to absolute subjection to Church courts regardless of whether or not they conform to the Constitution, but to the Church courts as conforming to the Constitution. Our criticisms of Assembly decisions do not spring from a desire to subvert the Courts of the Church, but from a concern for the authority of Church courts, and a desire to reinstate their authority by bringing their decisions back into line with the Bible and her Constitution.
The Westminster Confession of Faith says: "All synods or councils since the apostles times, whether general or particular, may err, and many have erred; therefore they are not to be made the rule of faith or practice, but to be used as an help in both" (WCF 31.3). A A Hodge, commenting on this passage says: "These synods and councils, consisting of uninspired men, have no power to bind the conscience, and their authority cannot exclude the right, nor excuse the obligation, of private judgement. If their judgments are unwise, but not directly opposed to the will of God, the private member should submit for peace sake. If their decisions are opposed plainly to the Word of God, the private member should disregard them and take the penalty" (The Confession of Faith by A A Hodge, p378).
We can think of very serious attacks on the integrity of the General Assembly which were carried out by members of Edinburgh Presbytery. For example, Professor Macleod described the General Assembly as a lunatic asylum on the front page of a newspaper. Also, in 1996, the Rev Alex MacDonald organised a church-wide petition in which the signatories, (many prominent ministers and elders among them), pledged to "support Professor Macleod in his intention not to submit" to an investigation ordered by an Assembly Commission.
The name "Free Church"?
The Edinburgh Presbytery are also asking the General Assembly to declare the FCDA has no authority to use the name "Free Church". However, we believe that the FCDA has as much right to use the name "Free Church" as many who presently do. If the FCDA uphold the Constitution of the Free Church concerning doctrine, worship and government we have a legal right to call ourselves the "Free Church Defence Association". The House of Lords decision of 1905 confirms the right of minorities to claim even the whole name rather than majorities who have abandoned their principles.
Instruction to Disband?
The Edinburgh Presbytery are asking the General Assembly to instruct the FCDA to disband. Strangely, those behind this move are those who frequently argue for a broader and more tolerant church. Their tolerance does not seem to stretch beyond themselves. Their move to ban the FCDA strikes a serious blow at the heart of religious and civil liberty. J Gresham Machen said: "One of the essential elements of civil liberty is the right of voluntary association - the right of persons who have come to have any view upon any subject whatsoever to associate themselves for the propagation of their view and to educate their children accordingly" (J Gresham Machen by N B Stonehouse, p.403). Even the Rev Alex MacDonald himself has argued for the principle of having a Free Church Defence Association. In the first newsletter of 'Free Concern' he said of the Free Church: "Sometimes the system can go wrong...It is for that reason that Free Concern was set up. There is of course a historical precedent for this. Last century when James Begg and others felt that the Free Church was under threat, they formed the Free Church Defence Association. In effect, Free Concern is a Free Church Defence Association." If we substitute FCDA for Free Concern then we have excellent justification for the FCDA.
Church Defence Associations existed in the Church of Scotland prior to the Disruption and in the Free Church during both Union controversies last century. Not even Principal Rainy tried to suppress them or deny them the right to use the Church's name. The FCDA must be judged by its own constitution and aims, and members of the FCDA can only be disciplined if they do or say anything that is censurable under Church law.
Attempted Citation?
The Edinburgh Presbytery's demand that the Rev M. Roberts and the Rev W. Macleod be cited to appear before the General Assembly to answer for attacks made on the Assembly and its officials is unprecedented and unconstitutional. The Practice of the Free Church of Scotland states: "When allegations of misconduct against a member of the Church arise, the necessary enquiry and procedure must be undertaken by the Church court which has immediate pastoral responsibility" (Practice V, II, 1 [p.90], 1995), which in this case is the Presbytery. When a matter of scandal comes first to the attention of a higher court "it is its duty to inform the primary court (the Presbytery) so that it may initiate appropriate action" (Practice, V.V., 4 [p.112]). In not approaching the Presbyteries of the men named, before approaching the Assembly, the Edinburgh Presbytery is asking the Assembly to exceed its powers and behave again in an unconstitutional manner. There are no specific charges for the men to answer and no evidence is presented. The Presbytery make no attempt to show that the criticisms in Foundations go beyond what is legitimate in a free society, or that they go beyond what is fair comment on what actually happened. If the FCDA has attacked anything it is certainly not the Presbyterian structure of the Free Church but rather the way that has been administered by individuals - a way that threatens the structure.
I have attended Assemblies for over 20 years and have never found it so difficult to address the Assembly as I did last year. There was no doubt what side the Moderator was on and, having the majority of the Assembly on his side, he could interrupt and harass at will. Surely a Moderator should be completely impartial.
Now it seems there are only two censurable offences in the Free Church of Scotland: (1) Seeking that any allegation against Professor Donald Macleod be dealt with by the Church courts; and (2) Raising the possibility that Church courts which come to findings favoured by the majority may err, or that their officials may be criticised in any way. This Overture from the Edinburgh Presbytery proves the whole point of the article 'Intimidation'. Will the disciplining of the Rev Maurice Roberts and the Rev William Macleod bring peace with justice to the Free Church. Having succeeded in pushing out Professor Cartwright, is it now a matter of picking off any others who dare speak up for the historic Free Church. Though in the past Edinburgh Presbytery members have been very strong in insisting that there must be private conference (Matt.18:15) before public discipline, Rev Alex MacDonald, made no contact with me. A hostile press reporter was first informed and so I was contacted for my comment.
Conclusion
If the Edinburgh Presbytery really do want peace, and really do want an inclusive, tolerant church then this Overture is hardly the way to achieve it. Indeed the Overture suggests that the Presbytery is not prepared even to listen to the concerns of a large number of Free Church people. To achieve peace an Overture would at least have to acknowledge the legitimate concerns of the FCDA and its many supporters. That would be a first step along the road to the disbanding of the FCDA and the reuniting of the Free Church on its Biblical foundations.
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 Pre- General Assembly Issue]