Important changes have been taking place in the Free Church of Scotland over the past few years. During this time many who love the Church have been deeply troubled to see new and unfamiliar actions Important and attitudes develop among a section of the denomination. People who have spent all their lives in the Church have begun to wonder if it is the same Church as the one they became members of in years past. They are distressed that cherished Biblical principles and practices are being broken down and swept aside.
Godly people are patient and do not usually react to new situations with haste. But the time comes when even the patient have to respond. If they do not, they become guilty of a sinful silence. After the 1997 Assembly, we are absolutely certain that the time has come for good people to speak out.
Across the country, in different areas of our Church, an organisation is being formed under the name of the Free Church Defence Association. The ultimate aim of the Defence Association is to identify dangers facing our Church, to prevent further demolition, and to rebuild as a Church on our original Biblical constitution and foundation. We would like to emphasise that the issues at stake are far greater than Free Church distinctives, important though they are. At stake are the very foundations of Christianity: the Bible, truth, honesty, fairness, justice, morality and the Gospel.
As we go to print, we hear that the Lewis Presbytery have asked the local Defence Association to disband. They seem to fear division. However, our concern is not to form a party, but to unite the Church on its Biblical and Confessional foundation. There is work to be done and we are just beginning.
Free Church Foundationsis now issued for the first time as the Defence Association's magazine.It seeks to inform and guide all people in the Free Church who feel worried or threatened by the changes which they have seen taken place. We hope also that we shall have something worthwhile to say to others in different parts of the world who love what the Free Church has stood for, and who are wondering what is happening to us.
We also realise that many parents are deeply concerned that their children should come to love the Free Church and all that it has stood for in the past. We hope, therefore, to produce from time to time in the months ahead, a supplement for younger readers: Young Foundations. It will address some of the issues facing young people today and teach them the biblical basis of our "goodly Heritage". We pray that our young people will yet thank God for the Free Church of Scotland.
Many in the media continue to caricature and misrepresent those involved with the Free Church Defence Association. Some of our readers will know little about us apart from second-hand stories or what appears in the media. It would not be surprising, therefore, if some people might be prejudiced or biased against what we might write or say. We hope that Free Church Foundations will help to clear away some of these caricatures and prejudices. All we ask is that our readers evaluate whether what is written is Biblical.
Although we would prefer if those who disagree with us would address the issues and the arguments we present, we realise that instead some resort to name-calling. Some call us "traditionalists." If this means that we value the Biblical principles and practices handed down to us by our forefathers, and that we seek to hand them on to coming generations, then we are happy to be called "traditionalists." Some call us "hardliners." If this means that we love the good old Gospel and the ten commandments, and that we try to be consistent with our ordination vows, then we are happy to be called "hardliners." Some call us "a vocal minority, peripheral rather than mainstream." It may be true that we no longer command a majority in our Church Courts. However, we suspect that our love of Biblical principles and practices is still shared by a silent, suffering majority in the pew.
A question which may be worth pondering is: "If Jesus were living in Scotland today, would He be known as a mainstream, modernising softliner?" Might He more possibly be described by the media as "a traditionalist, a hardliner, a peripheral figure in a minority group?"