Speech by the Rev David Murray
Our July issue carried the text of a Petition to the General Assembly signed by a number of ministers and elders which sought to get our Church to acknowledge the gross injustice done to some of her ministers and elders in the 1996 Sheriff Court trial of Professor Donald Macleod. They were condemned as liars and conspirators by Sheriff John Horsburgh although they had no opportunity to put their side of the case. The Petition also sought to get the Free Church to write to the Sheriff, his legal superiors and to the relevant political figures with pleas for the redress of this matter.
Following the now familiar pattern of anything to do with Professor Macleod the Petition was rejected by the Bills and Overtures Committee and the appeal against this dismissed by the Commission. The speech by the Rev David Murray of Lochcarron however (given below in a slightly edited form) highlights important aspects of the Establishment Principle, a principle which was declared in the House of Lords Judgment of 1904 to be integral to the Constitution of the Free Church and which we are now in danger of denying.
Moderator, fathers and brethren, I am appealing against a decision of the Bills and Overtures Committee not to accept a Petition signed by a number of ministers and office-bearers of the Free Church. The reason given by the Bills and Overtures Committee for not accepting my Petition as competent, is that they say that it asks the Church to interfere in civil matters, contrary to the Constitution of the Free Church. On one point the Bills and Overtures Committee and I agree this appeal is about the Constitution of the Free Church of Scotland. It concerns the question: "What is the Constitution of the Free Church of Scotland?" My Petition, and my appeal against its rejection, does not enter into the guilt or innocence of Professor Macleod. It does not in any way say anything about the guilt or innocence of the alleged conspirators. It does not seek to overturn a verdict or a sentence of a criminal court. What my Petition is seeking to do is to ask the Free Church of Scotland to address concerns about the behaviour of officers of the State to the State. That's the level of "interference" in civil matters that my Petition is asking for. So this is the question: Does the Free Church Constitution allow, indeed demand, that on occasion the Church has to speak to the State about civil matters? I believe that the answer to that question is: "Yes".
My first argument for that is Free Church history. In 1843 and in 1900 the Free Church did not hesitate to turn to the highest courts and the highest judges of the land and say: "You are wrong". Looking at another historical matter recently, I came across a minute of a General Assembly in 1873, which said this: "It was moved, seconded and unanimously agreed that the General Assembly petition the House of Commons, and if need be the House of Lords against the 12th and 13th clauses of the Entailed and Settled Estates (Scotland) Bill"; and people were given instruction as to how to represent these concerns to both of these Houses. May I also remind the Commission of Assembly that at the first October Commission in 1996, the Free Church Finance, Law and Advisory Committee brought before us a report, which sought to address certain matters that arose in state courts. Also, the 31st October Commission 1996 received a Memorial, signed by many ministers, elders, members and adherents, which twice made reference to events in a State court, asking for action on the basis of that. Free Church history, on these and on many other occasions, warrants the Free Church to address concerns about civil matters to the State.
Secondly, what about the General Assembly's annual "Loyal and Dutiful Address to the Queen"? On many occasions that has addressed the Free Church's concerns about civil matters, matters of law and order, to our sovereign and our government.
Thirdly, what is the Public Questions, Religion and Morals (PQRM) Committee all about if it is not about addressing concerns to the State? My Petition certainly concerns a public question; much of the Scottish public have questions about what went on in the Sheriff Court trial of Donald Macleod. It concerns public religion; the public testimony of the Free Church of Scotland and its ministers. It concerns public morals; the morality or otherwise of a judge condemning people in their absence and without an opportunity to put their side of the case. The PQRM Committee has frequently addressed its concerns about issues of law and order to our government. Just looking back over the last few years' Assembly Reports I noted the following. "The General Assembly condemn the National Lottery as a moral failure on the part of Her Majesty's Government and demand its abolition" (1996). In the same year concerning funding for the elderly: "The General Assembly urge Her Majesty's Government to review the funding". In 1997 concerning land reform: "The General Assembly call on Her Majesty's Government to seek remedies by way of widening land ownership, etc." In 1998 concerning the possibility of elections being held on the Sabbath: "The General Assembly urge Her Majesty's Government not to go down this particular road". Every year, at the end of the PQRM Report, the General Assembly directs that relevant sections of the Report, together with the Deliverance, be conveyed to the Secretary of State for Scotland and other ministers within the Scottish Office as appropriate.
Fourthly, the PQRM Committee recently set up a Scottish Parliamentary sub-committee. This General Assembly this year approved a "Vision and Mission Statement" for this sub-committee and one of the mission statements was: "To seek the fair and impartial administration of justice and to oppose injustice in Scottish society". Fathers and brethren, Moderator, you approved that. That is the theory. Where is the practice?
Fifthly, you, I and many others in the Free Church, have probably been involved with Christian Solidarity International, which directs us how to campaign for the civil and human rights of persecuted Christians in other countries and so regularly "interferes" in the civil affairs of other countries. Over the past few months the Free Church offices have been sending Free Church ministers Christian Witness to Israel Factsheets instructing us and guiding us on how to campaign against certain legislation passing through the Israeli Knesset. In the 21/5/99 Factsheet we were told to write to the new Prime Minister Barak and "request courteously that he resist all attempts to legislate against the religious freedoms of Messianic Jews and Evangelical Christians". In other words the Free Church is "interfering" in the civil affairs of other countries.
Sixthly, let's take some of the public statements, even just recent ones in the Monthly Record of March 1998. The editor of the Monthly Record, the Rev Iain D Campbell, speaking about church/state relations said: "On this issue the Free Church has a clear point in principle: that the civil courts and the ecclesiastical courts represent two quite separate and distinct spheres of jurisdiction; but that Christ exercises sovereignty over both. This undergirds the Establishment Principle, on the basis of which the Free Church separated in 1843, and that says that the state is duty-bound to maintain the interests of the Christian religion, while the church, on her part, is duty-bound to recognise the position and jurisdiction of the sovereign and her government, playing a full and active part in the political and law-making process by bringing the principles of the Word of God constantly before the conscience of the nation. It recognises that 'Church and State are the twin departments of Christ's Kingdom on earth, each owing duty and service to the other' (The Heritage of our Fathers, p.3). "The irony of the moment", Mr Campbell goes on to say, "is that at present the Free Church believes in Establishment in principle and yet is to all intents and purposes Voluntary in practice. Apart from entertaining the Lord High Commissioner at the General Assembly, a potent symbol of our allegiance to the crown, we have very little to say about the State...While we make sure we are singing 17th century versions of the Psalms, we are allowing the humanistic and atheistic forces of the 21st century to forge our political processes. It is to our shame that we have allowed the Establishment Principle to fall into such abeyance in our thinking. It is on the basis of this constitutional principle of the Church that we must resist any attempt to dissociate our Christian values from our political and national life". These are Mr Campbell's words in the March 1998 Monthly Record.
Seventhly, the Westminster Confession of Faith, section 23:1, says that: "God, the supreme Lord and King of all the world, hath ordained civil magistrates to be under him over the people, for his own glory, and the publick good". Who's to tell them how to do that, if it's not the church? Section 23:4 says: "Infidelity, or difference in religion, doth not make void the magistratešs just and legal authority, nor free the people from their due obedience to him; from which ecclesiastical persons are not exempted". Is the obedience unqualified? No, it's not. This section refers to the magistratešs "just and legal authority" and where the magistrate becomes unjust or illegal in his acts, the Free Church, with every other church, must protest. We are duty bound. We cannot give our civil magistrates a blank cheque to do and say whatever they like. The Westminster Confession of Faith section 31:5, speaking of synods and councils, says that they must "handle or conclude nothing but that which is ecclesiastical; and are not to intermeddle with civil affairs, which concern the commonwealth, unless by way of humble petition, in cases extraordinary". Perhaps my Petition is not humble enough. Perhaps some of the more humble fathers and brethren can make it more humble. It certainly deals with an extraordinary case. Jewish law says it is extraordinary. Nicodemus said: "Doth our law judge any man, before it hear him, and know what he doeth?" (Jn.7:51). Roman law says what happened was extraordinary. In Acts 25:16: "To whom I answered, It is not the manner of the Romans to deliver any man to die, before that he which is accused have the accusers face to face, and have licence to answer for himself concerning the crime laid against him". Scottish law, in principle, says it was extraordinary what happened. Andrew Hardie, the present Lord Advocate, said in the Scotsman on the 13th March 1999 concerning another case: "It was a breach of natural justice for a judge to abuse his position on the bench by criticising people without giving
Glasgow Herald said it was extraordinary, so extraordinary that they said on the 26th June 1996 that "The Free Church's moral authority has been destroyed".
Even Brian Wilson said it was extraordinary. In the West Highland Free Press of 28/6/96, speaking in the context of the conspirators in an editorial he said: "Sheriff Horsburgh's summing-up must rank as one of the most damning indictments of witnesses ever heard from the Scottish bench". One problem Mr Wilson these men were not witnesses, they weren't even there, and he knows it.
It is extraordinary in its effects upon the Free Church: people looking back at us will say, Okay, so these Free Church ministers and elders were condemned as conspirators. Well, the Free Church must have taken action against them? Oh no, no, no, they didn't want to know anything or do anything against them. Oh well, they must have supported them and protested against the State? Oh no, no, no, they didn't do that either. In years to come people will view this as extremely extraordinary. It is extraordinary in the effect it's had on congregations, on ministers and their families. Just last week I was hearing of a boy still in primary school, a son of one of the so-called "conspirators", who is being bullied in his school playground as a "conspirator".
Eighthly, if the Free Church takes this line that we don't speak to the State about civil matters, what would it have said at the crucifixion? "Shhh, it's a civil matter, we don't interfere". "But he's been crucified unjustly!" "Shhh, we don't interfere in civil matters". What happens if Free Church ministers start getting persecuted for preaching the gospel of Christ, for saying that Islam and Romanism leads to hell: they start getting put in prison; what will you do and say? "Shhh, it's a civil matter". What happens if Free Church members start getting put in jail for smacking their children in accordance with the Word of God? What message are you going to send to them today? Is it, "We won't interfere. We won't speak up for you or support you. It's a civil matter"?
Brethren, this concerns the Constitution of the Free Church of Scotland. Do we as a Church, are we as a Church, authorised by our Constitution to speak to the State about civil matters? Or has, in effect, our Constitution changed?
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 Commission of Assembly Issue]