Many in the Free Church are deeply distressed at the decision of the recent General Assembly in its crucial debate and, therefore, we present here an account and evaluation of what happened. Two conflicting Reports were presented from two opposing groups within the membership of the Training of the Ministry and Admissions Committee (TOM). The debate was stretched over three days. Its outcome delighted some but filled the hearts of others of the Lord's people with sadness.
The 1995 General Assembly had decided (without looking at the evidence), that there was "no evidence capable of proof" that Professor Donald Macleod had been involved in immoral behaviour, and, in the absence of new evidence, all further consideration of that matter was banned. However, subsequent to the 1995 Assembly, several letters were sent to the TOM. Some of these referred to a booklet published in October 1996, written by Rev Iain Murray and entitled "Professor Donald Macleod and His 'Opponents'." Other letters referred to articles written by Professor Macleod in the West Highland Free Press, in which there were some statements felt to be possibly in conflict with his ordination vows. A TOM Minority Report recommended that a Special Committee be set up to examine these matters.
The majority on the TOM produced a Supplementary Report in which they stated that the letters and booklet contained matters already covered by the 1995 Assembly. Yet they admitted that the booklet was never studied by the Committee. Further, no consideration was given by the TOM as to whether Professor Macleod had breached his ordination vows by what he has written in the Press. Surely, the 1995 Assembly decision, concerning immorality allegations, does not give Professor Macleod immunity ever after, regardless of what he says or does. The majority argued that the Minority Report was in contempt of the plea for reconciliation made by the Commission of Assembly of 31st October 1996. But surely Professor Macleod himself is, arguably, far more guilty of showing contempt for the plea for reconciliation by the provocative things he writes in the public press. The Supplementary Report demanded that the three signatories to the Minority Report should be censured and removed from the TOM. Professor Cartwright was ill and therefore unable to present the Report. The Rev Angus Smith was not a member of the Assembly. Dr Murchison was a member and presented the Minority Report. The argument which he presented rested on these two points:
1. The communications received by the TOM, and now in dispute, had substantially to do with matters arising after the Assembly decision of 1995. The minority had not contravened decisions either of Assembly or Commission of Assembly for they had only recommended that a Committee be appointed to investigate, according to the normal procedure set down in the Constitution of the Church for dealing with complaints. If this was not done it could no longer be said that all members of the Church were subject to the same discipline.
2. The minority were acting in accordance with their understanding of the duties to which the Church had appointed them. Their dissent from the majority opinion on the TOM was legitimate and they argued that for them to be censured, without trial in which they could defend themselves, would be a fundamental departure both from the Constitution of the Church and from Scripture. Dr Murchison concluded his submission of the Minority Report by saying: "I became a Free Church member in this very building (St Columba's, Edinburgh) over 45 years ago. I thought the Free Church stood for truth and justice and it would be a sad wrong if I were to be censured in this building by the Assembly for trying to do my duty in the furtherance of truth and justice."
In the lengthy debate which ensued, a number of things were noteworthy including the following:
1. It was impossible for those defending the Minority Report to answer the main charge against them. The main charge was that the communications received by TOM contained nothing new and were, therefore, prohibited by the 1995 ruling. However, these communications were not seen by the Assembly. Therefore, as the Assembly members did not know their contents, they could not possibly know if anything in them was new or prohibited. When one minister, the Rev John Macleod (Duthil-Dores), attempted to quote what he believed was new information received relative to Professor Macleod, he was ruled out of order by the Moderator.
2. In excluding any reception of what might be considered new evidence the Assembly repeated its procedure of 1995 when the Professor Macleod case was ruled closed by Fathers and Brethren who had no means of knowing what the evidence actually was, for it had never been before them. There were Commissioners at the 1995 Assembly who did not feel they could vote because they lacked the relevant information. Dr Murchison respectfully suggested to the 1997 Commissioners that the great majority of them did not have the relevant information to vote for censure.
3. Despite the fact that comment on material not before the Assembly was ruled out of order, a number of speakers who wanted the signatories of the Minority Report to be censured were allowed to express their view on the booklet 'Professor Macleod and His Opponents'. When the Rev Hugh Ferrier, senior minister and a previous Moderator, asked for information on inaccuracies in the booklet, the Rev Alex MacDonald, minister of Buccleuch and Greyfriars and the chief spokesman for censure, replied that he refused to honour the Rev Iain Murray booklet by doing so, and that it was full of inaccuracies and bias throughout. Many have tried to dismiss the booklet like this, but nobody has so far pointed out one inaccuracy in it!
4. The Rev J Gillies (Partick Highland) was concerned that matters were being removed from Church courts into the public media where "indiscriminate reporting had given a very distorted picture." The press, as everyone in Scotland knows, has been supportive of Professor Macleod throughout, and especially of his claim that the supposed 'conspiracy' against him is due to his desire to save the Free Church from 'narrow traditionalism.'
5. It became increasingly clear that the Assembly favoured the argument that only the censure of the three men and their deposition from the TOM could bring the whole dispute to an end. Such action, it was said, would bring this matter to a head once and for all and give a clear signal to the whole Church. There was, however, a difficulty. It was that to censure men without any preliminary charges, against which they could defend themselves, would be to act contrary to the constitution of the Church. This argument was supported by the former Principal Clerk to the General Assembly, the Rev Professor Clement Graham. On Wednesday May 21 he moved an amendment deleting any reference to censure for the signatories of the Minority Report. "If you wish to censure", he said, "you must do so specifically and after due process of law."
But the next day, and without further comment, Mr Graham dropped his amendment. Constitutional or not, the leaders of the opposition to the Minority Report had decided, as Professor Macleod had demanded, that the three men must be censured and removed from the TOM. So on Friday May 23, by a majority vote, the three senior men, who had asked that further complaints formally sent to TOM be examined, were duly censured and removed from Committees. Twenty-one men dissented from the Assembly's decision.
Yet this was not the conclusion of the debate. The Principal Assembly Clerk, the Rev Professor John L Mackay, then proceeded to explain that 'censure' was not to be understood in the technical and legal sense of the word but rather as 'strong displeasure.' His reason for this qualification, he admitted, was that if censure was taken in the sense used by the Church in her constitutional practice and procedure then the censure motion, upon which they had already voted, would be incompetent. So Prof. Mackay now wanted the Assembly to vote on the fact that 'censure' had not been employed in the sense in which it is normally used in the Church, but rather only in the sense in which he now redefined it. At this point some present could not avoid recalling the words of Humpty Dumpty in 'Alice Through the Looking Glass'; "When I use a word it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less." But objections that this procedure was simply a manoeuvre to avoid words meaning what they say were swept aside, and the Assembly proceeded dutifully to endorse the understanding necessary to save, in their opinion, its previous action from incompetence. The inevitable result was that the Press missed the modification in terminology and simply reported that the three men were censured.
By the action of this 'Black Friday' the Church has supposedly arrived at a conclusion of all the troubles. However, problems remain:-
1. The ministers accused by Professor Macleod's Defence Counsel in court as 'conspirators' - allegedly planting false evidence on women prepared to perjure themselves to ruin him - have had no opportunity to defend themselves in Church or Civil courts.
2. Church members accused in court of being liars have received no admonition nor any advice from the Church.
3. Three men of unblameable reputation have now been publicly condemned by Church censure and that in a manner contrary to the Church's own Constitution.
4. A booklet containing serious allegations concerning a senior Free Church Minister continues to circulate - unexamined, unquestioned, and unrebutted by the Church.
5. For the third time (the previous occasions being the 1995 Assembly and the Commission of 31st October) the Free Church has breached its own proper procedures in response to one minister's repeated threats of "Do this or I go."
In conclusion, it is worthy of notice that while no discussion of any charges made against Professor Macleod has been allowed in any court of the Free Church (Presbytery, Synod or General Assembly), neither in private nor in open sittings, this 1997 General Assembly debate, with its object of censuring office-bearers who were not present, was carried on openly so that the 'conclusion' could be publicly carried to the whole of Scotland. Many in the Free Church are compelled to believe that by such procedures true Presbyterian Church government has been seriously abused. They cannot avoid the conclusion that the controlling concern in this debate arose not from principle, but from supposed loyalty to a denomination or to a man.