Portree Public Meeting

The "message" below comes from a concerned Church of Scotland elder. It was posted on the Free Church internet site but was almost immediately removed from the site by the Rev David Robertson who is now acting apparently as chief censor of the Free Church Message Board. We believe that this message makes valid points and, as it is always worthwhile considering how others see us, we have printed it here (slightly edited).

On Thursday 2nd of December I attended a public meeting at the Local Council offices in Portree. The meeting was held in order to inform Free Church people about recent decisions, which had been made at your General Assembly and its Commissions, and which have a direct bearing on the recent troubles in the Free Church.
Although I am not a member of the Free Church, I have closely followed its problems in the press, on the Internet and through the fellowship that I enjoy with Free Church people on Skye, some of whom are supporters of the FCDA and others not. I make no secret of the fact that I have often thought of leaving the Church of Scotland and joining the Free Church but on account of its problems it does not seem like a very wise move. On Thursday I was expecting to hear an account of events that would put another slant on the facts as presented by the FCDA and perhaps even show that their contentions are unfounded. But, on the contrary, I was shown that the FCDA's main argument is extremely sound and I hope you won't mind my saying that I thought the speakers at the meeting (all representing the majority party) were inconsistent and contradictory. Also, I was quite taken aback when the Chairman told the one man who asked a direct question about Professor Macleod that it was not right to raise the issue. The question was to clarify whether the alleged adulteress in the Professor Macleod affair in Australia had been questioned or not. I had gone to the meeting hoping to hear the answer to that and other questions.
The whole meeting, apart from the contribution of the man who spoke at the end, Rev AM Macleod, was taken up only with the symptoms rather than with the main problem which is the way in which the Free Church has dealt with the allegations that have been made against Professor Macleod. Rev AM Macleod acknowledged in his speech that the troubles began with the Professor and explained that he personally, serving on the Training of the Ministry Committee (ToM), could not see grounds in the evidence against him to go ahead with proceedings. However, he did not answer the question that the Chairman would not answer or refute any of the writings in the Free Church Foundations which show that a thorough inquiry has never been made into the facts of the case. Even Rev Robertson on the Internet reluctantly acknowledges that an Australian inquiry has not taken place and that primary witnesses have not been examined. Recently, on the radio, a journalist who has investigated the Australian allegation stated: "In Australia, two ministers, the Rev John MacCallum and the Rev John Davies, made allegations about Professor Macleod's conduct over ten years ago. Now, I have spoken to both these two gentlemen and they say that despite what the Church says about having investigated the allegations they have never been asked to give evidence to the Church" (Iain Maciver on 'Benchmark', BBC Radio Scotland, 5/12/99).
I am also aware of other ministers who served on that same ToM committee who did, and still do want to proceed against the Professor. Speaking personally, I have seen documents (there are a lot in the public domain) which, if they are faithful copies, ought most certainly to merit the attention of your Church courts. All in all I think that the analogy of symptoms and illness is a good one and it's plain to see that the Free Church has not dealt with the main cause of the illness.
Rev Meredith took up the subject of Mr Blunt. I cannot recall his exact words but did I detect a glaring contradiction? He first of all assured the people that the revoking of Mr Blunt's licensing was not anything to do with his views regarding Professor Macleod. There were seven points, he said, against Mr Blunt and none of them even mentioned the Professor. So far this would seem to paint Mr Blunt in a good light. Rev Meredith then went on to tell how that the seven objections (which were not detailed) against Mr Blunt showed that he was not prudent in his behaviour and/or that he did not have a peaceable disposition and/or that there were questions about his theological principles. But later Rev Meredith told how that Mr Blunt's doctrine and morals were never in question. This is surely an inconsistency. Either Mr Blunt is morally lacking in peace and prudence and guilty of theological error or he is not.
The fact is, one cannot fault Mr Blunt's conduct or his faithfulness to the Free Church doctrinal standards and Constitution. Besides feeding the down and outs in the Edinburgh Grassmarket when he was a student, he has also spent several years preaching the Gospel every Sabbath in Free Church congregations all over the Highlands and has been zealous to do good works in many situations. What then was it that made Mr Blunt so unacceptable to the Inverness and Edinburgh Presbyteries? I took the trouble to find out because Rev Meredith had said that there was always another side to a story. I was utterly astonished and very angry when I read the objections. I cannot remember them in great detail and I am willing to be corrected if I am very wrong.
One objection was that Mr Blunt is supposedly intolerant of versions of the Bible other than the AV (something tells me that that won't bar him from the Kingdom of Heaven). Another was that he has a "pressure group mentality" (which sounds very wicked) and this was to be seen in the fact that he is a member of the Highland Christian Schools Trust, a couple of Reformed Societies, including the James Begg Society and of course the FCDA. Another one was that he had written a letter to a certain magazine commending its editor or thanking him for some of its content but apparently the magazine is not sound in other parts of its content and Mr Blunt was assumed to have aligned himself with it.
Another objection was concerning a pamphlet that Mr Blunt edited after the 1997 General Assembly. The pamphlet consisted of nothing but transcripts of speeches made at the Assembly and did not add any commentary upon the words spoken so that the speakers would not be misrepresented in any way. The pamphlet was written in order to show that certain other publications had not faithfully presented the facts. Many people, myself included, were grateful to Mr Blunt for his diligence in this matter. Yet another objection was that some of his assumed theological views had been controversial in the past. But those who objected did not even clearly specify what these views were or why they were wrong or controversial. I cannot remember the other two points on account of the fact that I thought them extremely trivial.
I believe that Mr Blunt's problem is not a lack of peaceable spirit or imprudence but rather a desire to present the truth and challenge error. I suppose it could be said that John Knox wasn't very peaceable especially in the eyes of those who didn't agree with him. He was intolerant of a lot of things.
It looks to me (and I am not alone) that when it became imminent that Mr. Blunt was going to be licensed, those who could not abide his strong views hurriedly looked round for some mud to throw and not finding any they mixed Mr. Blunt's clear water with a bit of dirty rhetoric and hearsay and threw the lot, seven splashes, and the majority of the Assembly appear to have been glad to see the stains stick.
Before I leave the subject of Mr. Blunt I wish to relate another most spiteful thing that happened to him. It may be remembered that Mr Blunt was interviewed for the ministry of the Free Church in 1998. He was unsuccessful on that occasion also. Shortly before this interview, Professor Macleod wrote in the West Highland Free Press a hostile article about the Highland Christian Schools Trust, of which Mr Blunt is a trustee. After this other articles made out as though the Trust was some kind of sinister organisation that had links with Irish paramilitaries and wanted to set up divisive "Calvinist Schools" where the children would be taught "Creationism" and the AV only, which all sounded horrendous in the secular press. This again was a case of clear water made to look mucky but one can imagine the effect that this had on Mr. Blunt's application. If the timing of this was only coincidental then it is just too bad but if it was planned then it was despicable. The Highland Christian Schools Trust has done good Christian work in the realm of education and if anyone would care to look I defy them to find otherwise.
Dr MacIver, the man who spoke about the Rev Maurice Roberts' suspension, again did nothing to convince me that the Assembly had acted in accordance with Scripture. Dr MacIver presented Rev Roberts as a man who had definitely sinned and needed only to say a simple sorry. He quoted from the Assembly minute, which made out that Rev Roberts had called the Assembly wicked and evil and hypocritical per se. This is not true. Rev Roberts explained his words in Foundations for which again we ought to be thankful because the Assembly did not ask him to do so. Surely if a man says he has "witnessed" sin, one must ask him where and in what, so that one can either repent of it or refute it. Rev. Roberts writes: "I never stated that the Assembly itself was inherently wicked, though I have been misquoted to that effect". I can see no reason to disbelieve this godly man and if one reads his explanation of the wickedness and hypocrisy that he has witnessed I would say that it would be more in order for the Free Church to do some explaining. Also a tape recording of the Assembly has shown that there is an error in the minutes about exactly what Rev Roberts actually said. That minute has not yet been corrected. This point alone would show that the judgment pronounced upon him is itself an injustice.
I do not know Rev Roberts very well but my opinion to date is that he is one of the most discerning and gracious preachers and writers I have ever come across. Your Church has lost another good man. And, that article by the Rev A MacRae in the West Highland Free Press a few weeks ago attacking the character of Rev Roberts, was not worthy of a Christian minister.
When the question is asked in the future why the Free Church was divided the simple answer will be that there were two groups within it. Those who were willing to examine and if need be discipline Professor Macleod and those who were not. A simple conflict of wills, but the majority held sway in the Church courts. From my viewpoint I would say that the Church has not acted wisely. If it had simply attended to its duty concerning this matter then it would all have been concluded years ago. If the available means at the Church's disposal had been followed fully she would be looking forward to different challenges, more fruitful and honourable ones.
Tomorrow (8/12/99) the Free Church in its wisdom will no doubt suspend another minister, Rev W Macleod of Portree and then there will be more, until at last they have all been ousted for "contumacy". Someone told me that contumacy is similar to contempt. Should not that send the alarm bells ringing when a third of the ministers and office-bearers are prepared to lose their charges because they hold the wisdom of the Assembly in contempt?
This catch-all charge of contumacy is the only lever with which the majority can move the rigidity of the FCDA. It is impossible for them to face head on the objections of the FCDA because they are too sound, too logical, and too truthful. So, it is contumacy with which they fight; "Raise the subject of the Professor's alleged sins and you're out!" Surely, surely the Church can see after all these years that this wisdom is flawed. Simple logic dictates that this problem began with Donald Macleod and it will not end until he is brought back into the equation. Everything else, like the meeting on Thursday (2/12/99), is an exercise in applying sticking-plaster.
Finally, and I mean no disrespect in saying this, I am amazed at the Professor himself. Whether he is innocent or not, he could end this turmoil. If he is innocent and he were to request an investigation and to be libelled he could remove the dirt that clings to his name, but if he is guilty and makes confession of his sin, the Lord and His people would forgive him in this life and the world to come. Certainly, it lies within his power to heal this grievous wound.