Principal Macleod, "The threat to the Church",
A Response

The following is a response to an attack on the FCDA by Principal Donald Macleod. It appeared on the Free Church web site under the above title.

1. Propaganda campaign. Principal Macleod accuses the FCDA of a propaganda campaign. It was not the FCDA which began such campaigns but rather Free Concern and Principal Macleod’s supporters, a year before FCDA came into existence. The FCDA was a reaction to this, in order to defend our Church, its Constitution and its discipline. We have not indulged in propaganda but have sought only to inform. Principal Macleod has many influential friends in the media who ensure that the FCDA’s opportunity to do this is strictly limited but even the little exposure that we do have greatly angers him. It is interesting how he tries to discredit all journalists who are not uncritical admirers of him. Fearing that the truth might yet come out, he has already employed this line of defence.
   
   
2. The Constitution. On paper it is safe. The Constitution is unlikely to be changed because if the majority party did change it they know that their claim to be the true Free Church could easily be refuted. Our concern is that it is ignored in practice. For example Principal Macleod himself undermines our purity worship which is written into our Constitution, by his attacks upon unaccompanied Psalm singing. Instead of defending our practice as he vowed to do, he has used his West Highland Free Press column to undermine it, and yet he is not disciplined. No redefining of public worship is necessary to show that he is unhappy with the "purity of worship presently authorised and practised in this church". When the rest of us are forced out of the Free Church, hymns and instrumental music will soon come in.
   
   
3. Tradition. We uphold the "tradition of the apostles and prophets", which is the Bible. We certainly admire Chalmers, Miller, Cunningham and Candlish, yet we will not slavishly hold to every view they endorsed. They teach us many things but they were mere men. However we are thankful for the godly ethos that was passed on to us from our fathers. Of course there are a range of views held amongst us on secondary matters. We are independently minded people. But what really concerns us is those who are undermining foundational doctrines such as the inspiration of Scripture (for example by unfavourably comparing Paul’s writings with the words of Jesus) and the casting of doubt on the eternal punishment of unbelievers (because they never heard the gospel or because they were led astray). Principal Macleod may call these doctrines crotchets of the FCDA but we do not.
   
   
4. Free Speech. On the subject of free speech, Principal Macleod thinks it fine to call the Assembly a lunatic asylum but not allowable to speak of witnessing hypocrisy and wickedness there. The ruling majority in the Free Church, self-righteously thinks of itself as above criticism and treated a faithful man of God, the Rev Maurice Roberts, the way the Jews did Stephen. Jeremiah would have very little chance of surviving in the present Free Church. No word of criticism is allowed. Further, we have always spoken with far more restraint than Principal Macleod and his associates. I seem to remember that he was the first to call people Nazis.
   
   
5. Property. In many ways it would be easiest and far less hassle to walk away and leave the property to the "liberals". But would that not be a denial of the trust that our fathers placed in us? At great cost to themselves they built these churches and manses so that the full-orbed gospel would be preached there. It was different with Chalmers. He and his associates were not in conflict with the Church but with the State. He knew that the Free Church at the time had no legal entitlement to the property. Today the situation is different. It is a dispute within the Church and the question today is, Who are the true Free Church? Is it those whose love for our purity of worship is less than wholehearted and who trample our disciplinary procedures under their feet or is it the faithful minority? Why should the money we and others like us have given over many years be used to finance the destruction of the Free Church as we have known it? Many old ladies are shocked to think that church halls purchased with the money which they or their forebears gave sacrificially, are now being used for ceilidhs and dances. If some among the majority are behaving in this way already what will they do if they get rid of us?
   
   
6. Conclusion. We agree with Principal Macleod’s final exhortation to his friends to pray without ceasing and meditate night and day. It is sad to see the neglect of the weekly prayer meeting. Yes, true heart religion is what is largely missing in the Free Church today. If Christ had the place that football, politics and pop music has, we would be a very different Church.
   
   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 the Information Service]