Professor Macleod and Ordination VowsBefore someone can become a Free Church minister, elder or deacon, he must make certain promises. Only after taking these vows can he be ordained to office. Surely ministers who stress to marrying couples the binding nature of their commitment to one another, ought themselves to be an example to the flock. A minister's ordination vows cover his beliefs and practices. Having made solemn promises before God, and the congregation, he must keep them. One important distinctive of the Free Church is our form of worship. Any visitor immediately notices the simple worship, with the absence of musical instruments and the singing only of Psalms. This practice in worship, though at one time common in Reformed circles, has now been discarded by most other denominations. However, we as a Church still regard this as the proper form of worship. All our ministers, when ordained and at every subsequent induction, are required to promise that to the utmost of their power they will assert, maintain and defend it. Can it be right then for a minister to continue to take his salary in the Free Church, while ridiculing its style of worship? Really there are two points here. First, there is the fact that we believe this form of worship to be biblical and therefore not to follow it is wrong. But secondly, and in some ways more seriously, if a person makes ordination vows to follow a certain practice, surely it is breaking the ninth commandment to attack publicly that practice. It is bad enough to have doubts and to keep quiet but to attack in the public press the purity of worship as presently practised in the Free Church can hardly be regarded as a sincere keeping of one's ordination vows. Disturbed about one of our minister's utterances and writings on this matter I wrote to him, and also to the body in our Church which is supposed to deal with such matters. You will find below, my letter to the relevant committee and the reply I received. 3/6/97 Dear Sir, Professor Donald Macleod and Purity of Worship I have already written twice to you on this subject but feel I must return to it because in my humble opinion this matter has not as yet been adequately dealt with, and indeed there have been further harmful developments since I last wrote to you. I was asked by you to write directly to Professor Donald Macleod to communicate to him my concerns. No doubt your reasoning was that I should follow the pattern laid down in Matthew 18:15f. If Professor Macleod was ignorant and requiring my counsel I could see your point. However, following your advice I wrote to him on the 9th of April 1997. The only reply I received was through the media. He spoke of a letter he had received accusing him of heresy, Michael Paterson of The Scotsman came on the phone looking for a quote from me as the one he had "guessed" had written the letter, and I was named in the West Highland Free Press the following week 25/4/97 as one who was pursuing the Professor with heresy charges. My point of complaint, actually, is integrity not heresy. At his ordination and also when appointed to the Free Church College, Professor Donald Macleod publicly promised that to the utmost of his power he would, "assert, maintain and defend the purity of worship as presently practised in this Church". I, and many other Free Church members, are therefore deeply upset by Professor Macleod's articles in our local paper in which he attacks the pattern of worship in our beloved Church and appears to us to be publicly breaking his ordination vows. He wrote in the West Highland Free Press 5/7/96 of his desire for a church, "where the worship takes account of the incarnation and sings the name of Jesus; one without membership lists from which power-crazy men can erase my name". To make things crystal clear and to leave no room for doubt as to his position, he wrote in the West Highland Free Press 5/9/96 that, in public worship, "attempts to exclude all spiritual songs except the Psalms, (the Free Church way), is an intolerable violation of our congregational liberty". Further on 2/11/96, that is subsequent to the peacemaking Commission of Assembly on 31/10/96, Professor Donald Macleod addressing a public meeting in Dingwall sought again to undermine, "the purity of worship as presently practised in this Church". He stated: "I am told that I must say nothing about the Church's form of worship because this is part of the Church's constitution. Well, there is something in our ordination vows that we shall worship in public in a certain way. But I am not bound by that to say that questions can't be asked. The constitution does not impose a ban or demand silence. When in the Nineteenth Century, Dr. Kennedy argued with many others against the introduction of hymns, he did not say, those on the other side should be deposed for holding a view or expressing an opinion". What Professor Macleod chooses to ignore is that the Free Church has moved on since the days of Dr. Kennedy, and that the Free Church in which he was ordained had in its statute books Act I, 1910, Anent Public Worship, and Act V. Class II, 1932, and that the ordination vows he took were qualified by these. [These Acts define purity of worship in terms of exclusive Psalmody without the use of instrumental music.] Provocatively, and to show how lightly he holds to his ordination vows, and the contempt with which he regards those of us who try to call him back to what he has promised, Professor Donald Macleod wrote in the West Highland Free Press just the week before the Assembly (16/5/97), ridiculing our Church's purity of worship: "One church....abominates all worship that uses hymns; another concludes that we can sing hymns before the Invocation and after the Benediction but not in between.....Sorry! That makes the church look ridiculous. But then it is all too often ridiculous. Jesus never betrayed the remotest interest in such questions....I am sure Jesus grudges every minute His followers have wasted discussing such nonsense....He says nothing about where we should worship, who should preside, what we should sing....or what music we should or should not use". Many of us regard his statements on these points as an intolerable violation of his ordination vows and I would respectfully request that you as a Committee ask Professor Macleod to publicly withdraw these statements and if he refuses to do so, that you proceed to libel him. I am sure that you will agree that a man who is opposed to Free Church principles cannot have the confidence of the Church in training men for its ministry. I am sending a copy of this letter to Professor Macleod. Yours sincerely, W. Macleod. "The Committee note the letter dated 3rd June 1997 from Rev. W. Macleod. However, they are not convinced that a prima facie case has been made to demonstrate 'an intolerable violation of ordination vows'. Because of this, and in view of the call of the 1997 General Assembly for peace and reconciliation in the church, the Executive recommend that all requests for clarification of public statements made prior to the 1997 General Assembly be left to the parties concerned". From that finding Rev. N Macdonald, Rev. R MacKenzie and Mr. A Morrison dissented. RESPONSE The 1995 General Assembly drew a line under the past. Certain things that happened before that date could not be raised again without the person who did so being liable to censure. Now it is argued that whatever was written or said before the 1997 Assembly must not be raised again. I suppose that if anything controversial is said or done in the next few months an attempt will be made to pass a blanket law by the 1998 General Assembly declaring that all that happened prior to it must be forgotten. Surely this brings our Assembly into disrepute and holds our disciplinary process up to ridicule. The argument raised by the majority of the Committee is twofold. First, we must be governed by a concern for peace and reconciliation in the Church. The real one that "troubleth Israel" must be overlooked. He can write or say anything he likes. Those who call for integrity in adhering to one's ordination vows are the disturbers of the peace. The second argument here is that a prima facie case has not been demonstrated. A prima facie case is one where there appears to be sufficient evidence to make it likely that a trial will establish guilt. In my letter four incidents were referred to. In the second of these (West Highland Free Press 5/9/96), Professor Macleod stated that, in public worship, "attempts to exclude all spiritual songs except the Psalms, (the Free Church way), is an intolerable violation of our congregational liberty". Here he refers specifically to the Free Church way of worship, (his own words), and says it is an intolerable violation of congregational liberty. How could this statement be described as being in line with his promise that to the utmost of his power he would "assert, maintain and defend the....purity of worship as presently practised in this Church"? In the third incident he refers to those who criticised him for questioning the Church's practice in worship. He then refers to those who introduced hymns into the Free Church last century. Surely it is plain that he is not happy with the Church's form of worship? He admits here that his adherence to his ordination vows is being questioned. Sadly, he does nothing to allay the fears of those whom he knows to be concerned. Am I guilty of misrepresenting a good man? Does not Professor Macleod still "own the purity of worship presently authorised and practised in the Free Church of Scotland"? The Committee want more evidence to prove that he is breaking his ordination vows. Surely that is to be found in the most provocative of all his public statements. In the fourth incident referred to in my letter, Professor Donald Macleod wrote in the West Highland Free Press just the week before the Assembly (16/5/97), ridiculing our Church's purity of worship. "One church.... abominates all worship that uses hymns; another concludes that we can sing hymns before the Invocation and after the Benediction but not in between..... Sorry! That makes the church look ridiculous. But then it is all too often ridiculous". Do the Training of the Ministry Committee really think that there is ambiguity here and that Professor Macleod is sincerely asserting and defending the purity of worship presently practised in the Free Church? Now there are many good Christians all over the world who are not convinced of the obligation of exclusive Psalmody. Yet would they not see it as hypocrisy for a man to pretend to be committed to Psalm singing in order to get a job as a Free Church minister? Surely the honourable thing to do, if after having become a minister of the Free Church, one later changed one's views, is to resign from that ministry. To use one's position to undermine the teachings and practices which one vowed to assert and defend, can hardly be honest. Of all the bodies which should be zealous for the principles and practices of the Free Church, the Training of the Ministry Committee should be taking the lead. They are there to safeguard the purity of our Church through the training of our ministers. Too often in the past theological colleges have led the churches astray. Sadly the majority in the present Committee seem quite happy to turn a blind eye to the destructive writings of one of our professors. [Creation and Evolution][Intimidation][Concern for Justice][True calvinism] Any comments or questions please E-Mail me or Rev William Macleod the Editor. [Back to Reformed Christian Pages][Back to Free Church Foundations] |