Reflections on the Commission of Assembly


Twenty years ago the Rev Neil Macleod was suspended from the ministry sine die for drunkenness. Some of us remember that Assembly. The solemnity, the tears, the emotional prayer meeting in the downstairs hall of St Columba's, who can forget it? How different it was this year when the Rev Maurice Roberts was removed from the ministry! There were expressions of sadness in the motion passed but no evidence of this when the speakers returned to their seats. There was much laughter, joking and hilarity.
After last year's Assembly a great noise of disapproval was made because certain young men took a leading role in debates. It was said to be inappropriate for them to be so active when they were so inexperienced. But this year it was one of the most junior ministers of the Church that moved the motion to put Mr Roberts out of the ministry. Two or three young men dominated proceedings. Where is the outcry? It is all a matter of party spirit and what side you belong to.

Delight
The libelling of the Rev Maurice Roberts was the most serious matter on the Commission's agenda, yet we cannot recollect, either in the public prayers offered by the Moderator or in those offered by the other senior commissioners, a single reference to Mr Roberts. Did they feel so guilty in what they were doing that they could not bring the matter before God in prayer?
The common attitude is illustrated by a note placed on the Message Board on the Free Church website by a Mr A Smith. He had been travelling home from Edinburgh to Leuchars on the Thursday after the Commission. Two ministers sat near him discussing what had taken place. When it came time for one of them to get off, his parting words were; "That was a good day's work". Obviously this man viewed throwing Mr Roberts out of the ministry as something to be proud of and pleased with. There was clearly a delight on the part of those prosecuting him. Although various escape routes presented themselves at different points in the proceedings, the determination of the majority to destroy Mr Roberts and so to intimidate the rest of us was quite apparent.

Could not withdraw
What was Mr Roberts' crime? Was it the use of "unparliamentary" language? If that was all, he should have been allowed to rephrase what he had said. Actually, when he asked for permission to make an explanatory statement, he was refused. It was pathetic to hear speaker after speaker go to the front to quote (and misquote) what Mr Roberts had said and then to give their explanation and silly criticisms of what he had meant. Never was Mr Roberts himself given the opportunity to explain what he had said.
The whole case was "cleverly" limited. The Moderator had asked Mr Roberts to withdraw what he had said and he had refused and therefore was found contumacious, i.e. rebellious, and suspended. Mr Roberts felt that to withdraw his comments would be to tell a lie as it would imply that he had not seen wickedness and hypocrisy at the Assembly. He viewed the Moderator as requiring him to deny what he had seen with his own eyes. The new Free Church demands unquestioning submission to the courts of the Church be they right or wrong. If you refuse the command of the Moderator, whatever it is, you will be found contumacious and will be put out of the ministry.

No defence
Mr Roberts wished to demonstrate the truth of what he had said and had gathered documents and a list of witnesses but he was refused permission to defend himself. He was told that he had no defence. He had been seen refusing to obey the Moderator and that was enough. He was not allowed to argue that the Moderator was acting ultra vires and was demanding that he do something contrary to the law of God.
There was an obvious denial of natural justice to Mr Roberts. The principles of biblical church discipline as these are set out in our Form of Process were overthrown. There is only one disciplinary offence in the Free Church today and that is contumacy. This difficult word appears to some to mean simply being critical of Principal Donald Macleod, for he seems to be the "idol" of the new Free Church. All evidence relating to him must be destroyed. No matter what he says or does he can never be called to account or investigated by any Church committee or court.

Disgraced
The Free Church stands disgraced in the eyes of the whole evangelical world. No Free Church minister is more respected than the Rev Maurice Roberts. His ministry is in constant demand right across the world. Everyone knows him to be a godly man of the highest integrity. Since the Commission his 'phone has been jammed with people from every continent who are shocked at the treatment meted out to him by the Free Church'. Our Church used to be a leader and standard-bearer for the truth. But the Scripture says "He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just, even they both are abomination to the Lord" (Prov.17:15). Never in the history of the Free Church to our knowledge has a man been put out of the ministry for speaking out against hypocrisy, evil and wickedness in the Church. Has it happened in any other Church? I suppose it has in Medieval times in the Roman Catholic Church.

Pride
The most moving speech of the Commission was that delivered by the Rev David Fraser who called the "fathers and brethren" to humble themselves, to take to heart Mr Roberts' words, and to confess their sins and repent. He asked us to look into our hearts and to see the hypocrisy and evil that is there. If only we would bow our knees perhaps the Lord may be gracious and return to us in revival. Alas his words went unheeded. The present Free Church is full of self-righteousness and pride. No wonder it is a dying Church. It has left its first love, it has a name that it lives and is dead, and it is lukewarm and will be spewed out of Christ's mouth unless it quickly repents.

Options
In 1843 the Disruption had to take place because of the tyranny of the civil courts over the church. Today the problem is the tyranny of the Church courts over the individual. Freedom of speech, freedom of association and liberty of conscience are denied. Church discipline has become a means of persecution of some and a means to cover up the sins of others. Sadly we are fast approaching the point where we have to question if we can remain any longer in the Free Church as it stands. There seem to be only four options open to us.
  1. Give up the struggle and continue in the new Free Church by compromising.
  2. Continue to campaign for truth and righteousness and get thrown out of the Free Church for being contumacious, picked off one by one.
  3. Leave in ones and twos to join other churches.
  4. Stand out as a body and organise ourselves as the Free Church (Constitutionalists). In the days that lie ahead we must come to a decision. Every man must be fully persuaded in his own mind because there may well be testing and suffering ahead of us. Who knows what sacrifices we may have to make. But we have been told, "All that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution". (2Tim.3:12)

    Any comments or questions please E-Mail me or Rev William Macleod the editor.

    [Back to Reformed Christian Pages][Back to Free Church Foundations]
    [Back to Commission of Assembly Issue]