Editorial
The 1999 General Assembly is about to meet. It will be a very important one. Major issues will be discussed which affect us all. Again this year we feel that it is essential to send out a Pre-Assembly issue of our magazine in order to inform our people. We believe that because the Free Church is in crisis we must speak plainly even at the risk of at times appearing harsh.
The Peace and Reconciliation Commission
This body was set up by the last General Assembly to try to sort out the divisions in our Church. As an FCDA we were criticised by some of our members for our low profile over most of last year. However we believe that it was right to give the Peace Commission every opportunity to produce peace with justice and truth. We believe it did some good work at a general level in defining where our Church stands. However it was not able to deal with what we perceive as the most pressing and fundamental difficulties. These are largely related to one man who apparently sees himself as above the discipline of the Church and has publicly stated that he will never submit to investigation by any Committee or Court of the Church. In this he has been supported by a large number of ministers and office-bearers, some of whom attended the Free Concern meeting held in Perth on 7th October 1996. His supporters will not allow him to be cited. Some years ago he threatened that one word from him could put the Free Church on the rocks. Sad to say, this is the situation in which we now find ourselves. Those of us who have attended two Synods recently see the division in the Free Church to be crystal clear. There seem to be two churches operating under the one roof. An inordinate amount of our time is being wasted on futile confrontation. What is to be the eventual outcome? “Can two walk together, except they be agreed?” (Amos 3:3). Can we have peace and reconciliation on the basis of the constitution of the Free Church or should we be looking at the formation of a new peace commission that will oversee a good-natured parting of the ways? Where will this end? Is it a matter of going on for years battling against one another and possibly ending up eventually in the civil courts which hardly seems the right place for Christians to settle their differences ?
Stornoway
A problem arose in the Stornoway congregation when Professor Macleod was asked to officiate at the February Communions. Probably a fifth of the membership stayed away from the Lord’s table feeling they could not sit there while one against whom several serious allegations of wrongdoing had been made, was officiating. Some of them stayed at home that Sunday. Others worshipped in other churches. A small group of them met separately and spent the time in prayer and worship. This group has continued to meet separately because they felt they could not just ignore what had happened. While they had greatly appreciated the preaching of their own minister they now felt deeply hurt. The response of the Kirk Session in Stornoway was to threaten them with excommunication if they did not return to the fold. They were ”cited” to appear before the Session and then the matter was referred to the Presbytery. The Presbytery decided that the Kirk Session should meet with those members once more and then if they did not return to church within a week their names should be removed from the Church roll, ie. subjected to the greater excommunication and so treated as outcasts from the entire Christian Church. The group’s leaders appealed to the Western Synod who unanimously recommended that some effort be made to find a pastoral solution before resorting to the drastic action of discipline. Several of the families had had no pastoral visit from the minister or elders in connection with this matter. The Presbytery are appealing to the General Assembly against the decision of the Synod.
Rev John Macleod, Tomatin.
The Rev John Macleod is appealing against a decision of his own Presbytery and Synod. He is concerned to have the notorious 1995 finding overturned. This finding was an attempt to end disciplinary proceedings against Professor Macleod by simply closing the matter without hearing or testing the evidence. There was a fama clamosa, ie. widespread rumour, against Professor Macleod concerning his private life. By a majority of one the Training of the Ministry Committee decided not to Libel him and prosecute him. It was a strange decision considering that our Free Church Practice makes plain that the appropriate way of dealing with a widespread rumour is by Libel in order to clear the name of the individual concerned and to vindicate the Church itself. The Training of the Ministry Committee, without presenting any evidence, moved that the matter be closed. Many dissented from this motion which was seen as drastically undermining the disciplinary procedures of our Church and virtually putting Professor Macleod above the discipline of our Church.
Mr David Blunt
Here we have an illustration of the problem that now exists in the Free Church. Mr Blunt is a very able young man who has completed his course in the Free Church College. He has expressed his desire to be licensed to preach. The Training of the Ministry Committee has approved his application. His Presbytery wish to proceed. However, three Presbyteries have objected to his being licensed, two wish to send representatives to object, as does the Southern Synod. This is something for which we have been unable to find any precedent in the entire history of the Church. Yet Mr Blunt is, to those of us who know him well, a sincere and holy Christian. This matter may even reach the Assembly. It is sad that the divisions in the Free Church have reached the point where attempts are made to keep back good men from serving God in the ministry because they are perceived as belonging to a certain party.
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 Pre- General Assembly Issue]