Hypocrisy and Wickedness in the 1999 Assembly
The Rev Maurice Roberts explains briefly why he could not withdraw his statement regarding some actions of the recent General Assembly, even though it meant suspension from the ministry:
Confusion
When I said that I had witnessed "gross and irremediable wickedness and hypocrisy" in the Assembly I was not speaking out of bad temper but because I really did see these things. I never stated that the Assembly itself was inherently wicked, though I have been misquoted to that effect. I wish to clear up the confusion in some peoplešs minds as to why I said at the Assembly what I said. As people now well know, I was asked in the Assembly to withdraw this statement. I was unwilling to do so, not through obstinacy but because I was not prepared to say what I did not regard to be the truth. I have now been suspended from the ministry of the Free Church, probably forever. I am not bitter over this but I do believe that it was unfair and unjust.
Evidence
At my trial I was not permitted to give the evidence which I had prepared to show that there had been hypocrisy in the 1999 Assembly. The truth or falsehood of what I said was considered to be irrelevant. The libel served on me simply required me to take back my words. Not to withdraw the words was said to be contumacious. But if these words were true how could I take them back without being myself guilty of hypocrisy?
Let me give some examples here to show why I believed and still believe that I really did witness hypocrisy in the Assembly. I owe it to people to give this information so that they may judge for themselves whether I was right to say that hypocrisy had been practised. And in Godšs eyes hypocrisy is wickedness.
Private Libels
In the 1998 Assembly, at which I was present as a visitor, I heard with my own ears the leaders of the Assembly say that if anyone felt they had evidence against Professor (now Principal) Macleod the way to go ahead was to take a Private Libel against him. It was made clear that no one is above the law of the Church.
Technical
But when in 1999 four men, of whom I was one, did go to the Church courts with Private Libels against the Professor in question it was very clear that these libels were not going to be allowed. They were stopped on technical grounds at the Presbytery of Edinburgh, and then at the Southern Synod and finally at the Assembly itself.
I regard this as hypocritical. If it was stated in 1998 that Private Libels were allowable they should have been treated as allowable in the 1999 Assembly. They were stopped on technical grounds. No permission was granted to the libellers to 'correct' the alleged technical objections. It was obvious that the Private Libels would never be allowed into the Assembly no matter how technically correct we made them.
Terminated
At the close of the debate on the Private Libels it was stated that the 'matter' was 'terminated' forever and must never be reopened in the future. But that is to place a man above the law of the Church. When a matter is terminated it requires first that it be brought to a church trial. This matter has been examined by the Church but has never been the subject of a church trial. The Professor has never been served with a Libel. The verdict of the criminal trial of 1996 does not exempt the Church from carrying out its own trial.
I call that hypocrisy and wickedness. It attempts to terminate a matter which has greatly troubled the Free Church but it does so in a manner that leaves the problem without remedy. Hence I called it 'irremediable' in my comment from the floor of the Assembly. To act in this way is, surely, "gross" sin.
Stornoway
How different the way in which the group in Stornoway were treated! Several members of the Free Church congregation of Stornoway in Lewis had felt unable to attend the Communion Services in their own congregation in February of this year. They believed it inappropriate for Professor Macleod to officiate at holy Communion services with a fama (rumour of wrong doing) circulating about him. Yet these conscientious persons were referred to insensitively in the Assembly as guilty of 'schism'. Their 'schism' was described as a sin so enormous that they were comparable to 'fornicators' and 'adulterers', to those who commit 'witchcraft' and 'sorcery'! The Assembly evidently endorsed this opinion as the voice raised against this opinion of the Stornoway Christians was negligibly small.
Reasonable
I regard this as hypocrisy. No account was taken of their conscientious reasons for absenting themselves from the Communion services. No account was taken of the fact that this fama constituted a very reasonable explanation for their not going to their own congregation on the occasion for Communion. No account was made of the fact that they had been true Free Church people for years and their families perhaps for some generations past. It was not made clear that these Christians, who have since been meeting in a separate building in Stornoway, have not become heretical but are still confessionally orthodox and are keeping to the Free Church's forms of worship. They show every indication of loving the Church's doctrine and worship but they felt they had a just complaint relating to her discipline.
De-licensed
I regard it as hypocritical for the Assembly by a majority to have voted to disannul the licence to preach of Mr David Blunt. Mr Blunt is well known to be a godly man. There is no precedent for anyone being de-licensed in the way that the 1999 Assembly sought to do. It was perfectly obvious to some of us that the real objection to Mr Blunt was that he has been guilty of thinking for himself over the Free Church's present problems and has come to a point of view that is not acceptable to the now 'ruling party' in the Church. Those who are tempted to reject Mr Blunt would do well to remember that as a student in Edinburgh he made it his practice to go to the Grassmarket to give food to the down-and-outs. He made it his policy to give them gospel knowledge too. He has a zeal for evangelism. Unfortunately for Mr Blunt, he confesses to a great love for the Authorised Version and is no friend to modernising trends in the denomination. He must not be allowed into the Church.
Petition
Take another example. A Christian man had sought to obtain documents from the Church to clear the name of his daughter. When his last Petition was turned down by the 1998 Assembly he was advised by that Assembly to go back to the Kirk Session. He worked his way through the church courts to the Assembly of 1999 only to find his Petition again turned down. He had not enclosed a letter from his own daughter to say that he was acting on her behalf.
He still does not have his papers perhaps by this time they have been destroyed in spite of a legal request for them. Is it right for a technicality to be used in this way? It looked to me like hypocrisy.
Peace and Reconciliation
I was astonished that the Report of the Special "Peace and Reconciliation" Commission set up by the Assembly of 1998 was not taken in the business of the Assembly in May this year. Instead it was postponed five whole weeks till the Commission in June. This Report was surely the most crucially important of all the Assembly's business. It contained material submitted to the Committee by many persons in the Free Church. Its contents related vitally to the ongoing troubles in the Church. But this Report was not even heard in the week of Assembly! It is astounding. Less so perhaps when one knows that there was a section of the Report which was very critical of Professor Macleod.
I was not to know this at the time but the Commission in June voted to remove all the critical passages altogether. Perhaps these will appear in the final minutes but few will see these. Is there no fear of God left among us?
Put off
I think it was inappropriate for the Assembly to have postponed certain items of business from its Agenda in May which again were highly relevant to the Church's problems. Among these matters was a Petition from the Rev John Macleod of Tomatin and a Petition from Mrs Susan Harding. Both these matters referred in one way or another to Professor Macleod. But once again these items of business, which should have had priority in any Assembly, were put off till the June Commission. Was this also hypocritical, one wonders?
Trustees
One of the Church's Trustees actually said on the Assembly floor, "We should forget about the Blue Book (i.e. Book of Practice)". Another Trustee used the text, "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone" (Jn.8:7) to suggest that the Church might justifiably ignore the fama which has troubled it for so long.
Were these not hypocritical things to hear said on the Assembly floor? Ought not the Moderator and Clerk to have pointed out that these carelessly spoken words were misleading and mischievous? No correcting statements were made however.
Discipline
A sound church with discipline is a very different thing from that church without discipline. The Free Church was once renowned for its godliness and spirituality. But we are now a very different Church. I believe fully that there was no sin in my pointing out to the Church, which I love and of which I have been a minister for nearly twenty five years, that it has been guilty of hypocrisy.
Appeal
In the light of the above I hope it is clear to all candid persons why, when I was required to do so, I could not say that there was no hypocrisy or wickedness in the 1999 Assembly. To have taken back my words to save my position would have been outrageous. It is far better to suffer loss, even the painful and very great loss of one's congregation, than to tell a lie. No Ordination Oath framed by any church on earth can bind a man to say what he cannot say in good conscience before Almighty God. I may not have any appeal from my sentence of suspension to an earthly tribunal but I do appeal to the tribunal of the Lord Jesus Christ. Let others judge whether my suspension was just or unjust. Perhaps the whole story should be written up.
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 Commission of Assembly Issue]