A response to the article
"The Free Church Defence Association - Duplicity with Dishonour"
The following are some points in reply to the Rev. I.D. Campbell's article with the above title carried in the October issue of the Free Church 'Monthly Record'. We hardly wish to take up matters in this way but such a public and intemperate attack on the FCDA we believe demands some response. May we be preserved from a similar spirit and be kept faithful to the truth.
Revival of the FCDA
Mr. Campbell claims that the movement which led to the revival of the Free Church Defence Association emerged "secretly and surreptitiously" some two years ago. Whatever steps led to the revival of the FCDA it can be clearly demonstrated that since its revival the Association has not operated in a furtive way. Men who support its point of view have sought to make the same known in church courts. The FCDA has produced newsletters and a regular magazine available to the public. Mr. Campbell himself states: "One of the first strategies of the Free Church Defence Association was to arrange a public meeting in Stornoway in June 1997." Numerous other public meetings have been held since that date. Hardly the policy of an organisation that is acting "secretly and surreptitiously"!
Church Union
When the FCDA was revived in 1997 there was no church union involving the Free Church of Scotland being contemplated openly. But is that the only reason which would justify the need for the FCDA? It is quite possible for there to be forces at work within a church which aim to radically alter its character, even though there is no immediate prospect of union with another body possessing a different constitution. Indeed the former is necessary first of all if the latter is ever to take place! Any serious breach of or threat to the constitution of the church is sufficient enough to warrant the existence of the FCDA, particularly if that breach or threat is denied, repeated or irremediable through the courts of the church.
It is not so clear in fact that there is no likelihood of ecclesiastical union of some sort involving the Free Church. What are we to make of the following section of a contribution to the Free Church Message Board by the Rev. David Robertson of Dundee (posted 7/9/99)?
"Let us suppose that the C of S moves towards accepting homosexual 'marriages' and someone (at last) in the evangelical wing of the Church says 'enough is enough, my congregation and I are leaving'. What if they applied to join the Free Church? They accept the Presbyterian government (which is why they are not going independent) and they wholeheartedly endorse the Confession of Faith. But they want to keep their hymns and their organ. What should we say? I believe it would be sinful of us to reject them on that basis. We could allow some kind of associate membership (or even presbytery) whereby such people could join with us. Not to do so would be a betrayal of our heritage and even worse of our Lord in that his prayer for unity amongst his people would be being ignored. It would also be a betrayal of the people of Scotland. The Free Church as it is at the moment is not going to bring the gospel to all the people of Scotland. We need help. We need to grow and we need to change."
Is the constitution of our church safe in such hands as these? We have yet to see a similar charity offered towards those who support the FCDA!
Submission to Church Government and Discipline
Mr. Campbell says of ministers and elders who support the FCDA: "They vowed to be submissive." To what do office-bearers of the Free Church promise to submit? They are asked at ordination: "Are you persuaded that the Presbyterian Government and discipline of this Church are founded upon the Word of God, and agreeable thereto; and do you promise to submit to the said government and discipline...?" They do not vow to submit to any decision arrived at by a church court, however large the majority in favour might be. They promise to submit to "the Presbyterian Government and discipline of this Church" and that is to be found in our constitutional documents, including the Form of Process. It is because recent cases of discipline have not followed "the said government and discipline" that men have not in conscience been able to submit to decisions made at the Assembly and Commissions of Assembly.
'Free Church Foundations'
The FCDA magazine 'Free Church Foundations' is plainly not a "rival" to the Monthly Record as Mr. Campbell asserts. It has never been the intention to supplant our denomination's magazine. The reason for the existence of Free Church Foundations is the perceived unwillingness of the Monthly Record to allow space for the FCDA's point of view. Just last month a letter to the editor from the Rev. William Macleod, replying to the attack on the FCDA by Principal Donald Macleod in the September issue of the Monthly Record, was rejected out of hand by Mr. Campbell. It seems that the "official channels" are being closed to us.
The following points of difference are also evident: the Monthly Record is a monthly publication, Free Church Foundations is a quarterly; the Monthly Record covers the whole range of Free Church news and activities, Free Church Foundations exists primarily to highlight specific problems in the denomination.
Captain
We are told by Mr. Campbell that: " 'the good ship Free Church', to quote from the latest Foundations magazine, has thrown the captain out of the ship." Not quite. The quote actually is, "Worst of all, the Captain is being cast overboard." This is said after a warning about any church "following a course decided by majority votes rather than that charted by her Scriptural constitution." Instances of this are given earlier in the article concerned and some are developed at length elsewhere in the Special June Commission of Assembly Issue.
If the Free Church has a Scriptural constitution, and she does, then to turn from it, even in the least particular, is to reject the authority of Christ in that respect and to grieve the Holy Spirit. If this is repeated then the offence to our blessed Lord is increased. He is made to feel unwelcome and before long will be "as a stranger in the land" (Jer. 14:8). Mr. Campbell may refer to the Free Church as "the most evangelical church in Scotland today" but what is that worth if she is losing her love for truth and justice? The Captain has not yet been thrown out of the ship but the danger is there. Candlesticks can be removed. The glory may depart. It would be better for us if we abandoned our pride and cried sincerely to the Lord, "Leave us not" (v.9).
Charter
Mr. Campbell seems to be in a hurry to see some of us go. It is true that the points of view generally held by the FCDA have not prevailed in church courts of late, particularly in the Assembly. That however is not a final verdict on whether these points are valid or not. Take the libels, which the church "summarily rejected." Were they rejected because they were improper or because they could not be proven? Of course not. Whatever "technicalities" were at fault they could have been easily corrected. The libellers had each undertaken to prove what they were alleging. They were rejected because the majority has for some years decided, quite improperly, that no evidence will ever be heard in the courts of our church regarding Professor Donald Macleod. It was on this point specifically, i.e. the Scriptural laws of evidence, that the Rev. John Macleod of Duthil-Dores said at the June Commission that in 1995 the Assembly "threw aside the Bible." Our supreme standard and charter says, "Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses" (1Tim.5:19). Thanks to Free Church Foundations the people of our church now know that none of the primary witnesses in the Australian matter concerning Professor Macleod has ever been interviewed by the Free Church. The work of precognition was simply never completed. Also that Professor Macleod was not interviewed by the ToM Committee regarding the three complaints that were made against him in October 1994 as he refused to appear. The 1995 finding was against Scripture and was unconstitutional.
We believe that in such circumstances our first duty is to address the church regarding these things. It is not for us to say whether in the long term we will be successful. That lies with the Lord alone. It was stated in Free Church Foundations that our present task is to testify against the sins of the church. As the Rev. William Macleod said in the speech criticised by Mr. Campbell: "If the Free Church becomes a hindrance to the gospel we are better without it. We have not yet reached this point. Let us stand to defend our Church and its Constitution" (July 1997 Foundations).
Schismatic?
We are told that the FCDA is giving support to groups which are "clearly schismatic." We are not aware of any proof that the groups referred to are "clearly" of a schismatic nature. They have not departed from our constitution but would profess their strong adherence to it. They do not make an exclusive claim to be the "true Free Church of Scotland." What we have once again is a refusal to consider the reasons for the origin of these groups and their continuing existence and indeed growth. The majority in our church would prefer to turn away from the continuing serious allegations against one of our professors and to pretend that they do not exist. They do not wish to face the unpleasant fact that there are liars in our church.
Those ministers who have given supply to the Stornoway Relief Free Church have not abandoned their own congregations. They seek as best as they are able to fulfil their preaching and pastoral duties towards their flocks. But they are not deaf to pleas from like-minded believers in Lewis and elsewhere to supply them the means of grace, sympathising as they do with their reasons for worshipping separately. Has Mr. Campbell never preached outside his own congregation or denomination? This is not a situation anyone would wish but it is being exacerbated by the heavy-handed and unbiblical discipline which is being meted out to loyal and longstanding members and office-bearers who have made a stand for conscience' sake.
Threat
Mr. Campbell has accused us of belligerence but we think that his attitude toward us is far more severe than the one we have adopted. He says with reference to the FCDA: "It is time to cast out the bondwoman and her sons." The allusion of course is to Galatians chapter 4. He pictures the ministers who support the FCDA as being of the same character as wild Ishmael, "born after the flesh," while he and others like-minded are "as Isaac was, the children of promise," being "born after the Spirit" (vv.28-29). We are the persecutors and we have no right to be "heirs" with Mr. Campbell and his friends. It appears that we are not even to be accounted as regenerate in his eyes. This is unspeakably sad. We thought that a regard for facts and a love for truth and righteousness were marks of conversion.
We leave aside Mr. Campbell's attempts to read our hearts and to know our innermost thoughts and motives. History will judge who are the rightful "heirs" of the historic Free Church and its testimony. We earnestly desire reconciliation with our brethren but we desire a principled one. The peace the Free Church needs will never be secured except on the basis of truth and justice. For these things we will continue to campaign, the Lord willing, until we are put out of the church if needs be. A church abandoning such fundamental virtues would hardly be worthy any more of that honourable title, the Free Church of Scotland.
David M. Blunt (Rev.)
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]