A Censurable Censure
At the 1997 General Assembly, three men were "censured" and removed from Committees. These men, the Rev. Professor Hugh M. Cartwright, the Rev. Angus Smith, and Dr. Murdo Murchison are long-standing and faithful servants of the Free Church of Scotland. It is surely the greatest loss to our Church that, as a direct result of this censure, Professor Cartwright feels it necessary for him to resign at the forthcoming Assembly. He is a man of the highest integrity and has carried out his duties both as a Minister and as a Professor with great diligence. Those who have studied under Professor Cartwright know him to be one who has the highest regard for the Constitution and courts of our Church. It is deplorable that such a man should now be driven out of our Church. How did we arrive at such a situation?
Background
In 1995, the General Assembly dealt with, and finalised, matters brought before it regarding Professor Donald Macleod. Any further correspondence was to be sent to the Assembly Clerk. Anyone subsequently attempting to bring these matters into Church courts was to be censured.
Professor Cartwright and the other two signatories to the Minority Report may have disagreed with this decision, but they unequivocally accepted the finding of their brethren. Indeed, Professor Cartwright himself, in an address read to the Assembly for him, referred to the fact that these matters were "completely terminated".
The Training Of the Ministry Committee (TOM) met on 2nd October 1996 and had before it a letter from the Lewis Presbytery, and three other letters from individuals. Some of the matters raised within these letters were new and had nothing to do with what had been dealt with at the 1995 General Assembly. They dealt with doctrine, worship and the Church. It is worth noting that the TOM did not itself consider these letters to be covered by the 1995 Assembly decision, since it brought them before the Commission of Assembly asking for advice. Neither did the October 2nd 1996 Commission of Assembly consider them covered by the 1995 General Assembly decision since it remitted them to the TOM for investigation. Due to pressure from persons dissatisfied with the decisions of that Commission, another Commission was held on 31st October 1996. Whether this was a lawful Commission is open to question but it rescinded the findings of the previous Commission. However, while doing so, it did not say what was to happen to the correspondence. Indeed, it did not refer to it.
When the TOM met on 5th March 1997 it had to decide what to do with these communications, plus a further three letters that had been received since the Commissions. One of these letters referred to statements made by Professor Macleod on worship. The other two referred to a booklet written by the Rev. Iain Murray. The majority of the TOM decided that no action should be taken with regard to the earlier communications, and that the later ones should be sent to the Clerk of Assembly as directed by the 1995 Assembly. They asked the 1997 Assembly to approve their action. The minority asked that these communications be considered, and that if the Assembly agreed, a committee be set up of neutral men to investigate the letters. For this they were "censured".
The finding of the Assembly is as follows: "The General Assembly declare that the Minority Report is in contempt of the finding of the 1995 General Assembly in relation to Professor Donald Macleod and is also in contempt of the finding of Commission of Assembly (31 October 1996) on the Report of the Finance, Law and Advisory Committee which urged reconciliation and repentance". The censure therefore depends on two things; (a) these men being in contempt of the 1995 finding of Assembly; and, (b) their refusal to encourage reconciliation and repentance within the Church. It is important to note that no evidence was called for, and no evidence produced, to support these allegations. Indeed, when the evidence is examined, one soon recognises that there is no case to answer.
1995 General Assembly
(i) The 1995 Assembly only dealt with the matters brought before it. To suggest that an Assembly can deal with matters not before it is absurd, and would result in one man (Professor Donald Macleod) being given absolution from any sin ever committed and place him forever after above the law of the Church. This was never the Assembly's intention. To be in contempt of the 1995 decision one must raise matters dealt with by that Assembly. However, the issues disposed of by the 1995 Assembly were strictly moral issues. The matters brought to the 1997 Assembly were not exclusively moral issues. Reference was made to a pamphlet by Rev Iain Murray but even with regard to that, Prof. Cartwright made his concern plain in his address, read before the Assembly: "In as far as Mr Murrayıs pamphlet refers to matters previous to the 1995 Assembly it is on account of statements allegedly made subsequently in public which the author believed should be challenged". The only way he could be censured was by treating his words as untrue.
(ii) The 1995 Assembly stated very clearly what was to happen to anyone who showed contempt for their decision. They should be censured. This did not mean "express strong displeasure at...", but rather that the full weight of Church discipline was to be brought to bear upon such an individual. Why then, if the Assembly felt so sure that these men were guilty of contempt of the 1995 decision (and could prove it!), did it not do as the 1995 decision required it and libel them in the prescribed manner? It is not the three men who have shown contempt of the 1995 Assembly, but by changing the use of the word "censure" to mean something other than Church discipline, the Assembly of 1997 itself was showing contempt for the 1995 decision.
Further, if the majority of the TOM was convinced that the issues involved were covered by the 1995 Assembly decision, why did their report ask that, "The General Assembly approve the action of the Committee in relation to items of correspondence concerning Professor Donald Macleod". Surely the Committee did not need approval for something already approved; it need only have asked the Assembly to note their action. This proves that even the majority of the TOM knew that the issues involved were not covered by the 1995 Assembly decision.
1996 October 31st Commission of Assembly
This urged reconciliation and repentance. We all feel this is admirable. However, if the 1996 Commission of Assembly decision means that, in the interests of reconciliation, one man is placed above the law of our Church, can say and do anything he likes no matter how damaging to the cause of Christ, and others are forbidden to do their duty to bring such matters to the courts of our Church, this Act is totally unbiblical and unconstitutional. Further, how are our sister Churches, the Reformed Presbyterian Church of Ireland and the Reformed Churches of the Netherlands to be dealt with for writing to the Free Church complaining about Professor Macleod's unsound teachings? According to some Presbyteries, even the censure itself cannot now be questioned without one being accused of breaking one's ordination vows. Can such be the basis for true reconciliation and repentance?
Was it Legal?
The good thing about the discipline of our Church was that we all knew exactly where we stood. The "Form of Process" as set out in the Blue Book stated that if we did something amiss, we would be dealt with in a particular way. At the Assembly of 1997, this procedure was set aside and a completely arbitrary and unjust process entered into. There is no precedent within our Church practice for the word "censure" being used as meaning anything other than Church discipline. Indeed, Principal Graham made this very point to the Assembly when he said: "If you wish to censure you must do so specifically and after due process of law". Some, nevertheless, may argue that this is a "one-off" case and therefore unique. However, one-off cases are not only dangerous but they invariably violate the rights of individuals.
Whatever steps the Assembly eventually took to avoid any misunderstanding about the use of the word "censure", its efforts failed miserably. One need only read the spiteful report in the West Highland Free Press of the resignation of Professor Cartwright to see this: "In his absence he was censured for contempt of the General Assembly, which had specifically forbidden all Free Church members to reopen the issues concerning Professor Macleod" (W.H.F.P. 6/3/98). No explanation is given here to explain the use of the word censure. It is obvious from statements made at the Assembly that this is exactly the impression that was intended. To simply express "strong displeasure at" was, for some, insufficient. A stronger message had to be sent out to the Church. If this was not the case, why keep the word "censure" there at all, and why remove these men from committees? The later attempt to redefine the word "censure" was simply a device to legitimise a procedure which had no basis in law, but which left these men under the cloud of Church discipline.
Of course, the Assembly has the right to express its disapproval at the actions of any office-bearer. Yet in doing so it is required to take account of two things. (i)The reason for disapproving of the action of these three men was that they followed a course of action which the majority felt unwise and not conducive to the good of the Church. They were not censured for any specific misdemeanour, but rather for holding a different opinion from others regarding a course of action. It is undeniable that in the present Free Church there are two different viewpoints as to what is best for the Church. The first is that it is wisest that these issues be thoroughly examined and cleared up and the other is that these issues ought to be ignored in the hope that they will disappear. The Assembly took the latter view and these men were censured for holding a different opinion from the majority. It was "rough justice" calculated to produce peace.
(ii) By redefining the word "censure" the Assembly has, in effect, passed an Act in which it has declared that the word "censure" can now mean something novel. However, such an Act, which changes our disciplinary procedures, can only legitimately be brought in by way of the Barrier Act. This procedure ensures that all Presbyteries are consulted about the new form of discipline. Failure to do this is a very serious constitutional issue and shows that the Church has broken the contract that she entered into with her office-bearers at ordination. As things stand, no office-bearer can be certain about Church discipline. Justice dictates that our law should condemn no man until he has been heard. This did not apply in the 1997 Assembly, where two of those condemned were not even present. Will discipline now be by majority vote of an Assembly? Will its decision be deemed infallible, with no right of dissent?
Conclusion
The censuring of these three men has grave consequences for the Free Church. Firstly, this decision makes the TOM Committee very powerful. Once this Committee makes its decision, one may only propose a counter motion against it under the threat of censure. The majority of the TOM need present no evidence to the Assembly. Why have an Assembly if it is only there to endorse what a Committee demands? Secondly, having censured the Professor of Church History and Church Principles it was almost inevitable that Professor Hugh Cartwright would have to resign. He was not only denied the right to bring his concerns before the Church courts, but was openly censured for contempt of Church courts. How could any Professor be expected to teach divinity students Church Principles after having been censured for contempt of Church courts and deemed unfit for Church committees? Were such consequences considered by the Assembly delegates in 1997? Surely some did realise the invidious position in which Professor Cartwright would be placed in these circumstances?
The Lord will vindicate His own people in due time. Those who are persecuted for righteousness' sake will not lose their reward. Yet this censure is a blot on the Free Church that needs to be removed. We hope and pray that the Lord will open up a way of relief for His own people, and that these men will have their good names restored in due time by our Church. To this end, several ministers and elders intend to present the petition below to the 1998 Asembly for the removal of this censure.
A Petition to the General Assembly of the Free Church of Scotland
Whereas the General Assembly of 1997 passed a statement of disapproval of certain actions by three respected men, viz the Rev. Professor H.M. Cartwright, Rev. A. Smith and Dr M. Murchison, under the title of a censure, contrary to the customary and proper usage of the term censure which is recognised in Free Church of Scotland practice and procedure as being a form of church discipline;
and whereas the General Assembly applied to the said Rev. Professor H.M.Cartwright, Rev. A. Smith and Dr M. Murchison, an actual ecclesiastical punishment for conduct deemed censurable;
and whereas in the action referred to, taken against the said Rev. Professor H.M. Cartwright, Rev. A. Smith and Dr M. Murchison, no properly recognized process of church law was followed in that the Form of Process was not adhered to, the said Form of Process having spelled out since its adoption by Act of Assembly in 1707 the principles and practice of the Church in matters of discipline in order to ensure that accused persons be dealt with in accordance with Scriptural principles of justice and equity;
and whereas no formal charges were brought against these men, no proper citation to appear was issued, no opportunity was afforded the accused to defend themselves, and two of those punished were not present at the relevant diet of Assembly;
and whereas the Actions of Assembly referred to are in breach of fundamental Scriptural principles of equity and justice;
and whereas the integrity of the Church's discipline needs to be guarded;
and whereas the Actions of Assembly referred to have left Rev. Professor H.M. Cartwright, Rev. A. Smith and Dr M. Murchison injured in their reputation but without proper remedy;
Wherefore we, the undersigned ministers and elders of the Free Church of Scotland petition the General Assembly to rescind the finding of censure against the said Rev. Professor H.M. Cartwright, Rev. A. Smith and Dr M. Murchison.
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]