The problems which have, for some time, been felt by good people in our Church are not confined to the things which occurred at the Assembly. They include changing attitudes in our Church which are equally serious.
Firstly, there are signs that systematic theology is out of favour. A Free Church office-bearer, writing recently for the Free Concern newsletter, stated that we need to choose between "a system or a Saviour." He said, "The fruits of persisting in a system-centred approach are sterility, a stunted approach to Scripture."
That use of language is not new. All that is new is that such things could be written by a Free Church writer, who ought to know better. Such a way of talking fails to see that the Bible itself has a system of doctrine. It is impossible to choose between a system and the Saviour for the obvious reason that the same Bible that reveals the Saviour reveals also the "system". So we have to take both the Saviour and the Saviour's system of doctrine.
Secondly, there is a lack of passionate affection for Calvinism. The Free Church has, since its beginning in 1843, taken the system of doctrine known as Calvinism as its professed theology. Chalmers, Cunningham and Candlish all signed their names to this form of doctrine, and Free Church office-bearers have done so ever since. The very first General Assembly of the Free Church placed an item on the agenda to commemorate the 200th anniversary of the Westminster Confession of Faith. The infant Free Church encouraged the reprinting of the great old Puritan divines.
Our Church formerly rejoiced in the great Reformed heritage which was hers, and gave wholehearted support to every enterprise which promoted Calvinism and Puritanism, whether by publishing books or else by holding conferences. If we are not mistaken, a significant change has taken place in recent years. There is a decline in reading of the solid books written by Free Church writers of the past. Also, attendance by Free Church persons at conferences of this kind is very weak.
Even the School in Theology, which our Church organises annually, is woefully attended. Where is our passion for the truths which form our doctrinal foundation? Have we not developed a mentality in which we want to throw off the old because it is old? We are not to be prisoners of our history, it is true, but we dare not forget our history. There is a feeling in our midst that history is a waste of time. Such a view is contrary to our best interests.
Thirdly, there is a lack of zeal for God's worship and a vital relationship with Christ. It is true that we need more than a system. We need a living relationship with the risen Christ. We fear that antinomianism (anti-God's-law) has made inroads into our midst. There is too much interest in worldly pleasure and entertainment and not enough devotion to Christ in the secret place. Also, gone are the attitudes which taught a better age to prepare the soul carefully for God's house and to attend Church services with deep reverence and concentration.
Finally, there is a making too much of the intellect. In our Church, in the last few years, intellectual powers and academic qualifications are being emphasised more than spirituality and godliness. Our best days as a Church were times when men stressed the supreme importance of saintliness. They held up to our example the lives of Samuel Rutherford and Robert Murray McCheyne. While it has always been agreed that learning and scholarliness are important, they have in our best days been looked on only as handmaids or assistants to faith and sanctification.
We need to have learning - the more the better. But we dare not forget that unsanctified learning has done great harm to the cause of Christ in all ages. Satan has more learning and scholarship than all of us and yet is no friend to the gospel. It needs to be said that Churches are usually spoiled and corrupted from the top, not from the bottom - not by the humble and the less educated in the pew, but by the learned and the academic in the Church's theological colleges.
We do not suggest that the faults which we draw attention to are confined to one section of the Church only. All of us are guilty in one way or another and all of us need to humble ourselves before God for our shortcomings. However, we have to say with pain and not with pleasure that we view the changes which we refer to above as seriously harmful to the spiritual good of our Church. The question is: Shall we take these evils to heart and repent of them? Or shall we continue on the road to further decline?