The Formula and the Psalms

Friday, April 08, 2011

An attempt to answer some pertinent questions by Dr Fergus Macdonald, former Director of the United Bible Society

The pre- and post-Plenary Assembly debate on worship revolves around several critical questions.  This short paper enumerates some of these and attempts to answer them.

What is the Constitution of the Free Church of Scotland?
Some are contending that the decision of the Plenary Assembly is unconstitutional. In order to evaluate this charge, it is important to identify what makes up the constitution of the Free Church.

Act IX, 1851 lists ‘the Subordinate Standards and other authoritative documents.’ These are reproduced in the 1955 Free Church publication with the spine title Confession of Faith &c. The Act distinguishes between the Confession of Faith to which ‘every officebearer in the Church must testify his personal adherence’ and other documents (the Larger and Shorter Catechism, Directory for Public Worship, Form of Church Government and the Directory for Family Worship), which ‘are of the nature of regulations, rather than tests, to be enforced by the Church like her other laws, but not to be imposed by subscription upon her ministers and elders.’  In 1864, a committee appointed to identify which documents are authoritative identified the following Subordinate Standards as binding on the conscience:

• The Formula and accompanying Questions
• The Westminster Confession of Faith
• The Claim of Right, Declaration and Protest of 1842
• The Protest of 1843.

What does the Formula say about worship?
In subscribing to the Formula, the ordinand pledges himself as follows: ‘I own the purity of worship presently authorised and practised in the Free Church of Scotland, and also the Presbyterian government and discipline thereof; which doctrine, worship and church government, I am persuaded, are founded on the Word of God, and agreeable thereto’  (See Appendix 1). 

In church legislation concerning worship, the terms ‘unity’ and ‘uniformity’ tend to have been employed interchangeably, despite not being synonymous. But Act XV of 1707 ‘against Innovations in the Worship of God’ helpfully distinguishes between them in the following phrase: ‘the purity of religion, and particularly of Divine worship, and uniformity therein.’ The term ‘purity of worship’ in the Formula is related by both Class I, Act I, 1910 and Act V, 1932 to the 1707 Act, which resisted the introduction of ritualistic Episcopalian forms of worship, but, interestingly, does not explicitly refer to materials of praise or musical accompaniment. The 1707 Act does explicitly refer to an Act passed by the Scottish Parliament on 12 June 1693, which ordained:

‘that Uniformity of Worship and the administration of all publick ordinances within this Church be observed by all the said Ministers and Preachers, as the same are at present performed and allowed therein, or shall be hereafter declared by the authority of the same [italics added], and that no Minister or Preacher be admitted or continued for hereafter, unless that he subscribe to observe and do actually observe the foresaid Uniformity’ (C.G. McCrie, Public Worship of Presbyterian Scotland, 1892, p. 255).

This parliamentary measure of 1693 was reflected by the General Assembly of the following year, when it approved a form of subscription for Ministers, which included these words: ‘… I shall observe uniformity of worship, and of the administration of all public ordinances within this Church, as the same are at present [italics added] performed and allowed’ (C.G. McCrie, Public Worship of Presbyterian Scotland, p 256).

These Acts of Parliament and Church clarify that the adverb presently in the phrase in our Free Church Formula – ‘the purity of worship presently authorized and practised in the Free Church of Scotland’ – does not preclude the General Assembly changing what might be authorized and practised. The association of ‘present’ or ‘presently’ with the concept of ‘Uniformity of Worship’ indicates that, historically, the Church in Scotland has not equated this concept with the preservation of the status quo. Even the 1910 Act qualified the envisaged presbyterial action to restore uniformity, with the clause ‘until reversed or modified by the Superior Courts.’ 

Acts interpreting practices alluded to in the Formula may change, but as long as the Formula itself remains unaltered, tolerating such Acts does not necessarily compromise officebearers’ subscription to it. That, at least, was the position of the Free Church constitutionalists of 1900, and earlier champions such as James Begg and John Kennedy. Begg did not leave the Free Church when hymns and instrumental music were introduced in the late 19th century. His biographer gives no hint that he ever seriously considered this, although, apparently, he did think very seriously of leaving, should the early proposals for union with the United Presbyterians have gone through. Begg’s attitude then is surely relevant to the current debate. Again, the Free Church constitutionalists of 1900 did not leave the Free Church along with the Free Presbyterians when the Declaratory Act re the Confession of Faith was passed in 1892; their reasoning being that, despite the Act, the Formula remained unaltered, enabling them to stay with a clear conscience. 

In addition, to suggest that the subscription in the Formula to ‘maintain’ the purity of worship practised by the Church at any specific time means that officebearers are thereby conscience-bound to oppose any proposed change to the form of worship by the Assembly is unreasonable in light of the 1693 Act. Anyway, no such Act of Assembly has been identified by the Church as a Constitutional Document. Furthermore, the suggestion takes the subscription out of its immediate context in the Formula, which includes, among other things, the maintenance of government of the Church by Kirk Sessions, Presbyteries, Provincial Synods and General Assemblies – an area where changes have, in fact, been made, e.g. the suspension of Synods; the formation of a Judicial Commission – without any suggestion that thereby either the Formula itself or our subscription to it were being altered . 

The ‘subversion’ and ‘divisive action’ forbidden by the Formula alludes to acts of defiance of decisions of the Assembly and cannot legitimately be interpreted to preclude any attempt to introduce change by legitimate means. The widespread consultation and the long process, which has resulted in the Plenary Assembly’s finding and, indeed, the decision to hold a Plenary Assembly for this purpose, is surely the very opposite of ‘divisive.’

What is the Barrier Act?
Some confusion exists here, due to the fact that The Practice of the Free Church of Scotland, surprisingly - and I am sure, unwittingly – misinterprets the meaning of the Barrier Act. It is there described as ‘a particular course of procedure [that] has been devised for preventing any innovation’ (p 82, 1995 edition). But the text of the Act (see Appendix 2) makes clear that its purpose is to prevent ‘any sudden alteration or innovation’ by ensuring that the Church is ‘more ripely advised,’ thus ensuring that ‘the whole Church have a previous knowledge’ of the issue. The Barrier Act is designed not to prevent innovation, but rather to enable it to take place following due consultation.

It is important to recognise that the Barrier Act has already been employed in the worship debate. Act II, 2009, was sent down under the Barrier Act stating that ‘the General Assembly ordain that this matter be decided [italics added] at a plenary meeting of the General Assembly in 2010 comprising all ministers with a seat in presbytery and an equal number of elders, subject to approval of presbyteries in accordance with Barrier Act procedure.’ This Act was approved by a majority of Presbyteries. Some understand the clause requiring approval via Barrier Act procedure to refer to whatever decision the Plenary Assembly might come to. But surely this cannot be the case. The syntax requires the phrase to refer to the 2009 Act. If it were the case, surely Class I, Act I, 2010 authorising the Plenary Assembly would have made similar reference to Barrier Act procedure. 

In addition, the terms of Act II, 2009 – especially the phrase ‘this matter be decided at a plenary assembly’ – are emphatic, implying they did not envisage the need for the decision of the Plenary Assembly to go down under the Barrier Act. This reading of the terms of the Act is confirmed by the terms of Class I, Act I, 2010, Anent the Appointment of a Plenary Assembly, viz. ‘The General Assembly further direct that the said Plenary Assembly shall take up and dispose of [italics added] a Report from the Board of Trustees with recommendations anent the form of worship to be practised in the Free Church of Scotland …’ (Para 2).  There is no indication in the Act that the Plenary Assembly was to be restricted under Barrier Act procedure to making only an interim decision. Indeed, it could be argued that the new Act on worship has the status of a Class I Act. For this would be consistent with the Plenary Assembly’s action in repealing the 1910 Act, which is Class I, an action which normally an ordinary Assembly does not take without resorting to Barrier Act procedure. Furthermore, a case can also be made that an Act passed by a Plenary Assembly could be repealed only by a subsequent Plenary Assembly. 

Only on two previous occasions has a Free Church Plenary Assembly taken place. Both were held in 1843, in May and in October. The roll of these gatherings makes clear that commissioners were representing presbyteries – in fact, the bounds of some presbyteries were adjusted during the May Assembly. Nevertheless, none of the momentous decisions taken on these occasions were sent down under the Barrier Act. Why? The answer is provided by Robert Forbes in his Digest of Rules and Procedure in the Inferior Courts of the Free Church of Scotland: ‘The Barrier Act was not applied to the Assemblies which convened at Edinburgh and Glasgow in May and October 1843, as they were not representative bodies, but consisted of the whole of the Presbyteries of the Church’ (p 94, 1885 edition). The implication is the Acts of Plenary Assemblies have the status of Class I Acts.

This precedent supports the advice of the Principal Clerk to the Plenary Assembly that it was within its power to decide whether its decision anent worship required to go down under Barrier Act procedure, although, to be fair, he indicated that this was not his preference. The Plenary Assembly decided by a large majority (no count was required) not to follow Barrier Act procedure in this case.

Have previous Acts Anent Public Worship been subject to Barrier Act procedure?
While there have been various acts on this subject, the Barrier Act was invoked in relation only to one of these (Act I, Class I, 1910). The 1872 Act anent the publication of a hymn book, the 1883 Act anent Instrumental Music, the 1905 Act anent Public Worship and the 1932 Act anent Requirements at Ordinations and Inductions – were all Class II Acts (i.e not requiring Barrier Act procedure). Presumably, this was because these Acts were not considered to be innovations. It is surely significant that on the three occasions when the Free Church altered its public worship practice (1872, 1883 and 1905), the Barrier Act was not invoked.  Therefore, according to precedent, it is hard to see how it can reasonably and consistently be argued that the decision of the 2010 Plenary Assembly was irregular. 

Is the act of subscribing to the Formula an oath?
According to Donald Macleod, historically, there was no concept of ‘Ordination Vows’ in Scottish Presbyterianism (‘Plenary Assembly November 2010: Ordination Vows?’). He argues that the oaths and vows as defined in the Confession of Faith (Chapter 22) cannot properly be applied to ordination. The Formula does not use the form of words employed in either the Oath of Purgation or the oath of witnesses (the only oaths referred to in The Practice - pp 99, 186, 223) and there is no hint that the Free Church ever regarded ordination in such terms. The fact that the Confession considers vows to be of a similar nature to promissory oaths may explain why the term ‘Ordination Vows’ enjoys minimal usage in Scottish Presbyterianism and then in popular parlance, rather than in formal documents (the index of The Practice has no reference to ‘vows’). 

The Formula is probably more correctly thought of as a solemn and wholehearted engagement with the Church, rather than as a vow or an oath. This may be why the Free Church has not followed the example of some other Presbyterian Churches (including the Church of Scotland) of incorporating an additional question calling on ordinands to renew their faith in God – Father, Son and Holy Spirit – and to affirm their confession of the Lord Jesus Christ. Of course, ordination is undoubtedly a very serious act and I have no wish to downgrade in any way the appropriately solemn significance of subscribing to the Formula.  I simply want to point out that any association of signing the Formula with oaths and vows, as defined by the Confession, is tenuous. However, I have no wish to dismiss in a cavalier way the scruples of my brethren, who, on subscribing to the Formula, did so believing that thereby they were taking an oath and making a vow. I very much hope that the Church will make every legitimate effort to relieve the consciences of all such ministers and elders, enabling them to continue to fulfil their office and ministry within the Free Church. In recognising two opposing views on worship, each claiming to be biblical, the Church may be more consistent than it has been on its indifference to the question of fasting (which the Confession of Faith recognises as an act of worship). It would also be more realistic to acknowledge that there is a genuine difference within the Church on how the biblical evidence is to be interpreted. 

Does the Confession of Faith bind us to singing only canonical Psalms?
Undoubtedly, the Confession of Faith is a key Free Church Constitutional Document and it includes the ‘singing of psalms’ as part of the ‘ordinary religious worship of God’ (21.5). However, the Free Church has never understood the confessional reference to be exclusively to the Book of Psalms. Not even the 1905, 1910 and 1932 legislation excluding ‘uninspired materials of praise’ took such a view, for it permitted the use of the Scottish Paraphrases. The account in the Inverness Courier of the opening of Dingwall Free Church in 1870 reports that a paraphrase was sung. Dr Kennedy, the then minister, was one of the most conservative ministers in the old Free Church. But he, like the later constitutionalists of 1900 – many of whom were, no doubt, personally convinced of an exclusive psalmody position – apparently conceded that the confessional reference to ‘singing psalms’ could not be restricted to the Psalter. Indeed, this is a reasonable interpretation of the Confession, for Nick Needham has shown that many Puritans understood the term ‘psalm’ to include other Scripture songs. It needs to be borne in mind that in the 17th century, the term often meant simply a religious song and the canonical psalms were distinguished by the possessive adjective ‘David’s’ or by the equivalent phrase ‘of David.’ Needham demonstrates that leading Puritans such as Cartwright, Bayne, Manton, Cotton and Baxter justified from Scripture the singing of songs other than David’s psalms, and some of them – like Manton, one of the writers of the Preface to the Confession - saw no conflict between uninspired hymns and the regulative principle (The Westminster Confession into the 21st century, Vol. 2, 2005, ed. Ligon Duncan, pp 223-307). So, taking the Confession in its own cultural context, it is very difficult to sustain the charge that singing sound uninspired hymns is unconstitutional. (A similar charge against instrumental accompaniment has traditionally been countered by appealing to the Confessional statement (1.6) that ‘there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God … which are to be ordered by the light of nature and Christian prudence’).

Why was there a disparity between returns from Kirk Sessions’ and the vote in the Plenary Assembly?
The Board of Trustees reported that in its consultation process with Kirk Sessions, a majority of 70% of responding Sessions favoured the status quo. Yet the Plenary Assembly voted 98 to 84 in favour of change. This disparity is interpreted by some as a sign that the Plenary Assembly could not possibly have reflected the mind of the Church at large. However, this interpretation assumes apples are oranges! The two exercises were not identical. The final vote in the Assembly was between two motions, while Sessions were asked to indicate a preference for one of four options. In our own Presbytery, a majority of Kirk Sessions favoured retaining the status quo (Option A), but further enquiry revealed that in some of these sessions, more members had voted for Options B, C and D than had voted for Option A, i.e. a majority had, in fact, expressed dissatisfaction with the status quo. The breakdown of the Assembly vote – 54% for and 46% against – indicates that a similar dynamic seems to have operated throughout the Church. Two other factors may also be relevant. First, the Assembly vote reflected not only the mind of commissioners from the 82 Kirk Sessions that responded to the Board’s initiative, but, presumably, also the mind of commissioners from the 13 Sessions that did not express a preference to the Board. Second, some officebearers voting for Option A in the Kirk Session exercise, thus reflecting their preference for their own congregation, at the Plenary Assembly, knowing that their own congregation was being permitted to continue as before, may have voted to grant other congregations freedom to follow a different practice. So, the disparity is more apparent than real. 

What is the way forward?
Some are proposing that the forthcoming Assembly in May impose Barrier Act procedure on the finding of the Plenary Assembly. In my view, to do this would resolve nothing. 

• First of all, it is questionable whether a representative assembly can properly impose this procedure on a previous plenary assembly (which by a very large majority decided not to adopt it).
• Secondly, even if it were legitimate, a representative assembly lacks the moral authority to question the finding of a plenary assembly. The only satisfactory procedure would be to call another plenary assembly to debate the matter again; one wonders why those opposing the change in worship are not proposing this.
• Thirdly, to impose the Barrier Act retrospectively would likely be interpreted by many as a political tactic to frustrate the will of the most representative and democratic General Assembly since 1843. Were the Plenary Assembly and a subsequent Assembly to be set in conflict with one another, the finding of the Plenary Assembly would almost certainly be widely regarded as having the greater moral authority. The result could be anarchy in our church courts and disillusionment among our people, and might even put the survival of the Free Church in doubt.
• Fourthly, to use Barrier Act procedure to review the finding of a Plenary Assembly in a denominational structure where there is a gross imbalance in the size of presbyteries, might well produce a result that could be quite unrepresentative of the mind of the Church as a whole, defeating the purpose of the Barrier Act.

Surely it is time to refrain from denying that there are two main views on worship in the church – both claiming biblical authority, each gaining substantial support – and to begin to affirm the decision of the Plenary Assembly by making room and respect for both positions, and to exercise our governance accordingly. Alex MacDonald’s motion to be debated in the Presbytery of Edinburgh and Perth on 29 March attempts to find a harmonious way forward. If more can be done within the parameters of the Plenary Assembly finding to help those ministers and officebearers whose consciences have been wounded by the change, then let’s explore all such possibilities.

Two final comments on moving forward:
First, any moves that appear to hold the Church to ransom, saying, in effect, ‘If we don’t get our way, we will leave’, must be resisted. Making such threats and/or giving in to them is unbiblical and serves only to reduce governance of the body of Christ to a political power struggle where biblical, theological and spiritual considerations come poor seconds. On the other hand, we must assure those who make such threats that we wish them to remain. It is heartening to learn that many who voted against the finding of the Plenary Assembly have indicated that they intend to remain in the church.

Second, the unity of the church is a precious gift. The apostle Paul urges the elders and deacons and all God’s people at Philippi to stand firm in the one Spirit, striving together with one accord for the faith of the gospel (Phil. 1.27). Let us seek to preserve the harmony in diversity that was visible in the NT church and, indeed, manifest in the Plenary Assembly debate. Let us hold fast to this harmony, despite our differences and stand shoulder to shoulder for the faith of the gospel in Scotland in the early 21st century!

Fergus Macdonald, 16 March, 2011

 

Appendix 1

FORMULA

(To be subscribed by Probationers before receiving license, and by all Office-bearers at the time of their admission)

I,__________, do hereby declare, that I do sincerely own and believe the whole doctrine contained in the Confession of Faith, approven by former General Assemblies of this Church to be the truths of God; and I do own the same as the confession of my faith; as likewise I do own the purity of worship presently authorized and practised in the Free Church of Scotland, and also the Presbyterian government and discipline thereof; which doctrine, worship and Church government, I am persuaded, are founded on the Word of God, and agreeable thereto: I also approve of the general principles respecting the jurisdiction of the Church, and her subjection to Christ as her only Head, which are contained in the Claim of Right and in the Protest referred to in the questions already put to me; and I promise that, through the grace of God, I shall firmly and constantly adhere to the same, and to the utmost of my power shall, in my station, assert, maintain, and defend the said doctrine, worship, discipline, and government of this Church, by Kirk-Sessions, Presbyteries, Provincial Synods, and General Assemblies, together with the liberty and exclusive jurisdiction thereof; and that I shall, in my practice, conform myself to the said worship, and submit to the said discipline, government, and exclusive jurisdiction, and not endeavour, directly or indirectly, the prejudice or subversion of the same; and I promise that I shall follow no divisive course from the doctrine, worship, discipline, government, and exclusive jurisdiction of this Church, renouncing all doctrines, tenets, and opinions whatsoever, contrary to, or inconsistent with, the said doctrine, worship, discipline, government, or jurisdiction of the same.

Appendix 2
The Barrier Act of 1697

The General Assembly, taking into their consideration the Overture and Act made in the last Assembly concerning innovations, and having heard the report of the several commissioners from Presbyteries to whom the consideration of the same was recommended in order to its being more ripely advised and determined in this Assembly; and considering the frequent practice of former Assemblies of this Church, and that it will mightily conduce to the exact obedience of the Acts of Assemblies, that General Assemblies be very deliberate in making of the same, and that the whole Church have a previous knowledge thereof, and their opinion be had therein, and for preventing any sudden alteration or innovation, or other prejudice to the Church, in either doctrine or worship, or discipline, or government thereof, now happily established; do, therefore, appoint, enact, and declare, that before any General Assembly of this Church shall pass any Acts, which are to be binding Rules and Constitutions to the Church, the same Acts be first proposed as overtures to the Assembly, and, being by them passed as such, be remitted to the consideration of the several Presbyteries of this Church, and their opinions and consent reported by their commissioners to the next General Assembly following, who may then pass the same in Acts, if the more general opinion of the Church thus had agreed thereunto.