Lawlessness at the Western Synod

Only very rarely is an emergency meeting of Synod called and when it is, one assumes that there must be a pressing necessity. It was not surprising then, that the calling of such a meeting of the Western Synod (the Presbyteries of Lewis, Lochcarron and Skye & Uist) generated much interest in both the Church and media. However, apart from some members of Synod exposing themselves to the charge of double standards and lawlessness, little else was achieved.

Illegal
First, as was normal, a vote was taken over whether it was necessary or indeed right according to Church law for the meeting to take place. It was argued that the main items of business (two similar petitions) related specifically to matters decided at Skye Presbytery meetings on 26/10/99 and 9/11/99 and therefore subsequent to the request for the calling of the meeting (19/10/99). Church law clearly prohibits introducing new matter to a pro re nata (emergency) meeting. Despite this, the Synod, swamped by extraordinary numbers from Lewis, approved the calling of the meeting.

Lawlessness
Immediately following this approval of the calling of the Synod, fourteen ministers and elders dissented and complained to the General Assembly, a legitimate move which should have stopped all proceedings. However, many were amazed that the Rev K Macleod, Barvas, Moderator of the last General Assembly, moved that the appeal be ignored, and this was accepted in blatant defiance of the laws of the Church. Many readers will remember that the same Mr Macleod in May this year, rebuked the Skye Presbytery in the name of the General Assembly for just such an alleged "crime", ironically over the licensing of Mr Blunt. Mr Macleod on this occasion argued weakly: "It would be totally unacceptable for us to go away with nothing in view of the expense and inconvenience we have suffered in coming to this meeting". It was considered immaterial that there were other valid ways of bringing the concerns in the Petitions to the attention of Church Courts. They argue that technicalities must not get in the way, unless of course it suits the majority. The meeting continued despite the protests made. This was lawlessness.

No time for defence
More lawless behaviour was to follow when the Synod discussed the two Petitions regarding the conduct of the Skye Presbytery in the implementing of decisions of the General Assembly. The Presbytery were unaware of the Petitions until that evening, and had no time to prepare any sort of defence. Indeed no-one had access to any of the proper documentation needed to secure a fair and just judgment. Yet despite this, deliberation of the matter took place and it was only eventually halted by an appeal to the General Assembly. The Rev K Macleod using a typewritten motion, (the very thing he condemned from the Assembly Moderator's chair), proposed to rebuke the Skye Presbytery and instruct them to implement certain Assembly decisions, failing which their conduct would be reported to the December Commission of Assembly. A counter motion that the Synod give the Skye Presbytery the right to refuse to implement decisions of Church Courts which are contrary to Scripture and the Constitution of the Free Church of Scotland was ruled out of order, although the right to refuse to implement such decisions was acknowledged. Although the Rev K Macleod's proposal carried, no action could be taken on it, as an appeal was made to the Assembly.

Skye Targeted Again
Finally, the Synod discussed the desire to hold public meetings because of the current crisis in the Church. Strangely, there was little relish for organising informative public meetings on a large scale. A personal invitation from the Rev DP Murray to the Rev K MacLeod, Barvas, to speak at a meeting in Lochcarron, was emphatically declined. Concern was expressed that the people of Skye were ignorant and needed instruction in the truth. Yet the Presbytery of Skye, contrary to widespread allegations, had not withheld or distorted information. Indeed they had invited Mr James Fraser and the Rev Angus MacRae (from the FLA), both of whom had made allegations in the local press that information was being withheld from the people of Skye, to speak at a public meeting in Portree. Needless to say they declined the invitation.

Hypocrisy?
The Rev D P Murray proposed that the Synod arrange public meetings in various locations throughout the bounds of the Synod and that at these meetings both sides of the present controversy be allowed to speak and the public be permitted to ask questions and express their opinions. Another motion was proposed that public meetings take place only in Portree and North Uist and that only the majority point of view be represented. Although this motion carried, an appeal was made to the Assembly against this decision because it continued the suppression of information. Concern was also expressed by members of the Skye Presbytery that the Lewis Presbytery had caused such havoc in their own area that they should try to sort that out first before bringing trouble into another Presbytery. Despite an appeal being lodged, the Synod continued to arrange the meetings and they have now taken place. Strangely at these meetings the majority party clearly stated that "an appeal always sists proceedings". How could men chair and speak at these meetings in the full knowledge that the Synod had twice ignored legitimate appeals? It has certainly exposed them to the charge of hypocrisy! It is little wonder the Free Church is in crisis when there is such evident party spirit and lawlessness.