Stornoway Reformed Fellowship


Professor Donald Macleod officiated at communion services earlier this year in Stornoway. Many members of the congregation stayed away from the Lord’s table feeling they could not sit there while one against whom there were several serious allegations of wrongdoing, was officiating. A small group of them began to meet separately because they felt that they could not ignore what had happened. They called themselves the Stornoway Reformed Fellowship (SRF) but hoped that their existence would only be a temporary phenomenon. The response of the Kirk Session in Stornoway was to threaten the leaders of the group with excommunication if they did not return to the congregation. The Session then referred the matter to the Presbytery. The Presbytery decided that the Kirk Session should meet with the leaders once more and then if they did not return to the church within a week their names should be removed from the communion roll. The four 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 appealed to the General Assembly against the decision of the Synod.

The Rev I D Campbell
At the Assembly, Mr Campbell spoke for the Presbytery. He outlined the situation that had arisen. He claimed that the Synod had not recognised the seriousness of the sin of schism of which he felt sure that the SRF’s leaders were guilty. He likened the SRF’s behaviour to that of individuals involved in “incest, adultery, murder, atheism, idolatry and witchcraft”. They were guilty of a “gross scandal”. Mr Campbell referred to motions at the Synod which were not the finding of the Synod (and therefore irrelevant), to the comparatively small size of the congregations of many Synod ministers, and his own avoidance of preachers for whom he had little liking when he was younger. He said this case was not about Professor Donald Macleod, or the Rev K Stewart and “not even about the consciences of the four leaders of this separatist movement. What their consciences allow them to do is a moot point. God is Lord of their consciences, as He is Lord of mine. The Presbytery’s concern is not over what their conscience would not allow them to do, but what the law of the Church does not allow them to do. The law of the Church allows for liberty of conscience, but not for liberty of unlawful separation from the means of grace”. He misleadingly affirmed: “The finding of the Synod legitimises the holding of separate services - it says that anyone in the Free Church of Scotland with a grievance over the way in which their minister conducts public worship can follow a similar course of action”.

The Rev James MacIver
Mr MacIver was the second speaker for the Presbytery. He spent his time criticising the way in which the FCDA had referred to the matter in the pre-Assembly issue of Foundations, though this was irrelevant to the Presbytery’s appeal. He also alleged that the Kirk Session were not implementing the sanction of the Greater Excommunication. Rather, what they were doing is what is done when someone leaves an area without asking for a disjunction certificate. Their names can be removed from the roll of communicants.

The Rev Dr J R McIntosh
Dr McIntosh appeared for the Synod. He summarised the Lewis Presbytery's reasons for appeal. They were claiming that:
  1. The Synod failed to recognise schism for what it is.
  2. The Synod in its decision, failed to follow the Practice, has undermined the ministry and Courts of the Church, and has adopted the principles of congregationalism.
  3. The Synod by its decision has actually hindered the restoration of the situation.
He said that the Presbytery’s “Reasons for Appeal” were based on a misunderstanding of the Synod’s decision and of what it sought to achieve. The Synod’s decision does not suggest that the action of the Stornoway Reformed Fellowship was right. The Synod does not suggest that the minister of Stornoway (or any other Free Church minister) is answerable to his congregation (or any members of it) regarding whom he invites to communions and the Synod’s decision takes care not to condemn the actions of the minister, Kirk Session, or Presbytery. The Synod simply was of the opinion that more could have been done on a pastoral level in the handling of the problem, and that there were flaws in the procedures followed by both the Kirk Session and Presbytery. In view of these concerns, the Synod decided that the Presbytery’s decision should be rescinded.
Dr McIntosh then went on to show that there had been too little done at a pastoral level, either by the Minister or Kirk Session, before proceeding to issue an ultimatum to the group to return to attendance at public worship in the congregation or face the removal of their names from the roll. He also noted several procedural irregularities in the Kirk Session’s and Presbytery’s handling of the matter. He referred to the failure to give Extract Minutes to the men, the lack of time given to them to prepare before they were cited to appear at the Kirk Session, and the lack of clarity regarding what they were actually being threatened with. He claimed that there is still uncertainty as to whether the Presbytery was intending lesser or greater excommunication, or merely that their names were to be removed from the roll. If the latter, what were the implications for their being given their disjunction certificates?


The Rev Graeme Craig
Mr Craig, the second speaker for the Synod, began by reminding the Assembly of two things. Firstly, that they were only dealing with the finding of the Synod. References to other motions made at the Synod were irrelevant. Secondly, that although the FCDA had come in for criticism, the Synod’s finding had been moved and seconded by men not connected with the FCDA. Moreover the finding was unanimous. (Unfortunately not all Synod ministers and elders belong to the FCDA!) The fact that the representatives of the Presbytery spent so much time on these things and barely referred to the “Reasons for Appeal” (written arguments) exposed the paucity of their reasoning. Mr Craig then took up Mr Campbell’s comparison of the actions of the SRF with witchcraft, etc., and Mr MacIver’s comparing “removal from the roll” with someone leaving the area without asking for a disjunction certificate and so having his name eventually removed after a year’s absence. The discrepancy was obvious. Moreover the person leaving the area was still in good standing and usually the disjunction certificate would be forwarded to them if their address was known. In this case it was known! Here was further evidence that neither the Kirk Session nor Presbytery were clear in their own minds as to what was intended by “removal from the roll”. It was not the Greater Excommunication, we were told, but it cannot be the lesser either. There were many procedural irregularities. If the Assembly was consistent with its track record up till now in stressing the need for pastoral dialogue before discipline, then it would dismiss the appeal.

Conclusion
In reply Mr Campbell referred to an old edition of the Practice which allowed for a less extreme form of the greater excommunication by removal from the roll. Later in the debate the Rev J MacLeod (Tarbat) reminded Commissioners that this was not in the current Practice.
Mr J O Sutherland (seconded by the Rev R Sinclair) moved for the upholding of the Presbytery’s appeal, with the instruction that the Kirk Session should meet with the four leaders once more and if they did not return within one week their names were to be removed from the roll. This became the finding of the Assembly, and the Western Synod and the Rev J MacLeod entered their dissent with reasons. We doubt very much if this finding will bring peace and unity to Stornoway Free Church.

Any comments or questions please E-Mail me or Rev William Macleod the Editor.

[Back to Reformed Christian Pages][Back to Free Church Foundations]