A Constitutional shift?

In October 1999, the Commission of Assembly of the Free Church of Scotland adopted findings in relation to the Free Church Defence Association and the Stornoway Relief Free Church. On the face of it, these findings were designed to deal with what were and are considered to be serious problems of divisiveness in the Church. Of course, what exactly the serious problems are is a matter of dispute. Are the problems really the FCDA and the SRFC, or are these only reflective of deeper concerns that are found elsewhere than in these bodies? In any case, the form of the findings, involving as they do the threat of disciplinary action for non-compliance, is clearly of far-reaching importance for the Church, not least for the Constitutional ramifications involved, especially in the terms of ministerial communion. Is there a constitutional change involved in the adoption of the findings? The answer is: it certainly looks like it! Let us look at the form of the findings:

1. Finding regarding the FCDA
First of all the finding regarding the FCDA states this: "They (the Commission of Assembly) declare that the Free Church Defence Association is pursuing a divisive course from the government and discipline of the Free Church of Scotland". Now, the subsequent requirement of office-bearers of the Free Church to resign office in the FCDA or be declared contumacious (and therefore subject to censure and suspension from the ministry) depends on the correctness of that declaration. However, the declaration, that the FCDA is following a divisive course, is simply the declaration of an allegation. Following a divisive course is of course a serious allegation. The guilt of it will be established, however, not simply by a declaration to that effect by a Commission of Assembly, but by a due disciplinary process. That process has not been applied in this case. Now, association with the FCDA can only be a sinful association if there is guilt of departure from the government and practice of the church proven by a case. The FCDA has not been the subject of a case in the Church, therefore guilt of association cannot be maintained, particularly in view of the fact that the constitution of the FCDA is completely in line with the position of the Free Church. The implication of the finding is that in effect an addition has been subtly made, by implication, to the questions and formula agreed by men in their licensing and ordination to the ministry. At least men will have to be told in connection with these findings that formal association with the FCDA (or SRFC) will disqualify them from the ministry of the Free Church. Of course it may be thought by some that the matter of divisive course is self-evident, but nowhere is it even defined. What is more, there is an element of entrapment in the finding, in that it is framed in such a way as to require compliance as a matter of sheer authority, notwithstanding a legitimate problem of conscience one may have about the declaration itself (in relation, for example, to a failure by a process of Church law to establish sinful conduct).

2. Finding regarding the SRFC
The same principle applies to the finding regarding the Stornoway Relief Free Church. It is declarative: "They (the Commission of Assembly) declare that the group known as 'Stornoway Relief Free Church' is not a congregation of the Free Church of Scotland, but rather is founded upon sinful schism from the Stornoway Free Church, and is falsely claiming to be the true Stornoway Free Church". Obviously the SRFC congregation is not a congregation of the Free Church, but again this is a declaration of an allegation, proof of which is not self-evident, The matter of exactly what is a "sinful schism" is not defined. Because there has been no process of law guilt is not established. Therefore association with, or support of it, cannot be assumed to be sinful, and the threat of a penalty for non-compliance is therefore inappropriate. Furthermore, this again implies a change in the terms of ministerial communion, bringing in a prohibition which is not part of the questions and formula. One assumes that for such a prohibition to be valid a proposal would need to go down under the Barrier Act to Presbyteries, and less than 100% approval would be perilous for the Church.
All sorts of things are being done "on the hoof" by majority voting in Assemblies and Commissions. Some may not like the continuing unhappiness or protestations of some against various matters arising in the Church these days. Perhaps the "supreme court of the Church" might have taken a leaf out of Gamaliel's book: "Take heed to yourselves what ye intend to do as touching these men....Refrain from these men, and let them alone: for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought: But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God" (Acts 5:35-39). The present obsession with "Church power" is in serious danger of trivialising discipline rather than encouraging the establishment of righteous authority in the Church.