Suspension of Rev Maurice Roberts


The first and longest item of business at the Commission was the case of the Rev Maurice Roberts, minister of Free Greyfriars, Inverness, and Chairman of the FCDA. This arose from proceedings at the Assembly in May (see July issue of Foundations). Under pressure following an intervention by the Rev David Robertson of Dundee, Mr Roberts had declined to rule out the possibility that the FCDA might in the future take legal action against the Free Church and had then stated that he had witnessed "gross and irremediable wickedness and hypocrisy" in the Assembly. Asked by the Moderator if he wanted to withdraw his remarks Mr Roberts declined. This led to a libel against him for contumacy (or "contempt of court") being prosecuted before the June Commission.
We give here the text of the libel and a brief commentary on the main points of what took place at the Commission and finally the text of the dissent and protest which was entered when Mr Roberts was found guilty of contumacy.
The FCDA retains its full confidence in Mr Roberts, both as a minister of the gospel and as Chairman of the Association.

The Libel
"Mr Maurice Jonathon Roberts, Minister of the Free Church congregation at Greyfriars, Inverness, in the Presbytery of Inverness, you are indicted and accused at the instance of the committee appointed by the General Assembly of the Free Church of Scotland met at Edinburgh on 10 May 1999 and subsequent dates, and consisting of the Reverend James Maciver, the Reverend John H. Maclean, Dr Ian R. MacDonald, Mr Angus N. Morrison, Mr Alan R. Mackenzie and Mr James M Fraser (Convener).
That although by the word of God and the laws, doctrines and discipline of the Free Church of Scotland, contumacy is an offence of such a heinous nature and severely censurable, inasmuch as ministers at their ordination and subsequently solemnly answer in the affirmative to the question, 'Do you promise to submit yourself willingly and humbly in the spirit of meekness, unto the admonitions of the brethren of this Presbytery, and to be subject to them, and all other Presbyteries and superior judicatories of this Church...against error and schism, notwithstanding of whatsoever trouble or persecution may arise, and that you shall follow no divisive courses from the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government of this Church?' Yet it is true that you, Maurice Jonathon Roberts, are guilty of such an offence inasmuch as on or about the 14th May 1999 within the precincts of the Free Assembly Hall, Johnston Terrace, Edinburgh you did refuse to comply with an instruction of the General Assembly of the Free Church of Scotland met in Edinburgh on 14th May 1999 to withdraw, and express your profound regret concerning, your allegation that the proceedings of the General Assembly of the Free Church of Scotland met at Edinburgh on 10 May 1999 and subsequent dates, which you had witnessed, were characterised by gross and irremediable wickedness and by hypocrisy, of which the following document bears testimony and that this testimony will be used in evidence against you. The document referred to is in the hands of the Principal Clerk of Assembly and may be seen by you or a copy furnished to you at your request.
You, Maurice Jonathon Roberts, are therefore tried before the Commission of the General Assembly of the Free Church of Scotland and if the facts alleged be proved to the satisfaction of the said Commission of Assembly, you will be liable to such censure, not excluding deposition from the Ministry, as may to the said Commission seem appropriate.
Signed, James M Fraser, Convener
The document to be adduced against you, the said Maurice Jonathon Roberts, for proving the foregoing libel:-
Extract Minute of the General Assembly of the Free Church of Scotland met at Edinburgh on 14 May 1999".

Relevancy
The discussion began with the question of whether the charge was relevant, that is, whether there had been any such offence as contumacy and whether the alleged offence fitted into that category of misbehaviour. As far as the prosecuting Committee were concerned the matter of the actual words used and whether they were true or not was not the question. The matter was simply this, "Did Mr Roberts refuse to comply with an instruction of the Assembly?" It was suggested during questioning that Mr Roberts had already been found guilty and been rebuked for this offence. How then could he be tried again? (Yet in truth there was no trial first time round nor opportunity given for Mr Roberts to explain what he had said to defend himself). Some expressed concern that the Assembly Minute upon which the whole proceedings were based was itself inaccurate, as tape recordings now show. No one seemed interested in that point. Others noted the lack of reference to the real occasion of the whole matter in the final charge, i.e. the alleged refusal to repudiate claims that the FCDA may go to law against the Free Church.

A lawful instruction?
Mr Roberts requested that he be allowed to call witnesses and adduce documentary evidence. This was not allowed. It is true that normally witnesses are not heard during the first stage of dealing with a libel because it concerns the theoretical question of whether the libel is generally competent. However the fact is that this was not an ordinary case. No one could doubt that wilful refusal to obey the order of a Church Court is normally a serious breach of Ordination Vows, but it is not always so. The whole matter hinges on the simple question of whether or not it was a legitimate or proper instruction. Peter and John boldly defied the Church Court of their day (Acts 4), but no one would suggest they were in the wrong. Neither would one criticise someone who refused to do something foolish. Was it a lawful instruction? Surely that depends on the truthfulness of Mr Roberts assertion. If his statement that he had witnessed "irremediable wickedness and hypocrisy" was false then he should have withdrawn it. If the statement was true, however, no faithful preacher of the gospel could withdraw it. Mr Roberts wished to prove that what he had said was true. He heard it officially stated in the 1998 Assembly that a private libel was a permissible action to take against Professor Macleod. But official action in 1999 made the three private libels completely ineffectual by "terminating" the whole "matter". He had amassed twenty-seven documents and wanted to cite twenty-six individual witnesses as well as two Presbyteries. The Commission, however, were not interested in the question of what he said. Commissioners did not wish to hear any criticism of themselves or their actions. They wished to confine it all to Mr Roberts' refusal to withdraw. But Mr Roberts felt that to withdraw his comment would be to tell a lie.

What others had said
When Mr Roberts spoke to challenge the relevance of the charge, he firstly reminded the Commission that he was not showing contempt for the Assembly by criticising it. After all the prophets had often condemned the leaders of Godıs people, and the apostles had refused to comply with the instructions of the Sanhedrin. Andrew Melville had reminded James VI that "for giving you faithful counsel, we must discharge our duty or else be traitors both to Christ and you." Last century, Dr Begg, writing in the Watchword, used equally strong language. Secondly, Mr Roberts quoted some recent statements of Free Church ministers which, although very extreme, had not led to any libels being issued. Principal Donald Macleod, who was honoured by this Assembly, had written of another Assembly, that "the Lunatics have taken over the Asylum." How could the Church discipline Mr Roberts and excuse Principal Macleod? Mr Roberts also pointed out that despite what others had alleged he had not called the Assembly itself wicked, or said that all the Commissioners were guilty of hypocrisy. He had only said that he had witnessed "wickedness and hypocrisy." As things turned out, that was effectively all that Mr Roberts was permitted to say. He was given only fifteen minutes in which to attempt to point out that the libel was not relevant.

Witnesses
The Commission by a majority found that the Libel was relevant and it was duly placed in Mr Roberts hands. Now the trial proper began. Mr Roberts expected to be allowed to call witnesses. This was denied him by the hostile majority. It was decided that the Commissioners were the only witnesses permissible as they had observed what had happened at the Assembly. A Motion was passed to the effect that only the Minute of Assembly be read and then judgement given. A further motion was carried finding Mr Roberts guilty and suspending him without limit of time.

Summary Justice (or Injustice!)
What can one make of it all? Most noticeable was the lack of attention to the remarks which provoked the libel. Mr Roberts had ventured the observation that he had witnessed "irremediable wickedness and hypocrisy" during the Assembly. Speaker after speaker misquoted and misconstrued his remarks. Thankfully one said that he himself had felt convicted by Mr Roberts' words and quoted Jeremiah 17:9. The word "irremediable" is surely correct. If "the matter" was terminated, no one who had evidence that Professor Macleod was guilty of anything could ever now bring him to trial. On reflection one can only wonder in amazement at the state of the Free Churchıs discipline. There was summary justice for one while charges against another were dismissed on the slightest technicality.

Dissent and Protest
The following Dissent and Protest was submitted when Rev Maurice Roberts was found guilty of contumacy and suspended sine die from the ministry.
We the undersigned dissent from the finding of the Commission of Assembly in relation to Rev Maurice J Roberts for the following amongst other reasons:
  1. Mr. Roberts was not allowed to call any witnesses on his behalf at any stage and was therefore denied the opportunity to present a full defence;
  2. No opportunity was given to Mr Roberts to demonstrate his contention that the instruction of the Court was itself not a legitimate instruction;
  3. The Court made an artificial dichotomy between the context of the words which Mr Roberts allegedly uttered and his alleged refusal to obey an instruction to withdraw them;
  4. The Court declined to take cognisance of evidence offered that the Assembly Record forming the basis of the evidence against Mr Roberts was itself flawed;
  5. The procedures of the Court were flawed in several respects.
    And, for these reasons and others we do hereby enter our protest against this finding.

    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]