News & Events

Order for the evening -

1) Continue with the overtures
2) Personnel Committee
3) Report of Communications
4) Memorials
5) Order of Day

Memorials: The wrong form of the document was passed into the Assembly Arrangements Aommittee - but if the Assembly is willing to accept a motion to the effect that the correct form of the memorial is made available for passing into the Assembly, it will be made available.
Assembly agreed.

Moderator calls for motions with respect to overtures re: Barrier Act.

PLEASE NOTE THAT BA = BARRIER ACT

Motion 1) Alex MacDonald: that the GA receive the overtures, but do not grant their crave. Then he gives explanation. Procedure last year was consistent with BA.
Questions:
Farquhar Renwick: When was the matter before the church? A: I haven’t said anything about this being before the church. Alex reads motion again.
William Underhay: The Presbytery of PEI was not represented at the Plenary Assembly. You said all presbyteries were represented.
John Forbes: Is Mr MacDonald aware that the Northern Presbytery sent less than 100% representation? A: Every Presbytery entitled to send 100%.
Callum Macleod: When was detail of change made known to wider church? A: The 4 options were well known well before Plenary. The matter was debated well before.
Prof. Donald Macleod : point of order : these are debating points and not questions.
Andrew Murchison: asks about 2nd ground of motion.

Motion 2) Murdo Macleod
Move that the GA receive the overtures from ........ and grant their crave. And declare the Plenary to have acted ultra vires and go back through Barrier Act.

Motion 3) Farquhar Renwick
Move that GA declare that the Plenary acted ultra vires and instruct that all sessions suspend decisions to change.  (will add more info)

Alex MacDonald - speaking to his motion….
Was the Plenary a properly constituted Assembly? If not, then everyone was culpable. If it was, then we are all bound to accept it.
What is a Plenary? In most cases, it was wider representation than number of charges. Was this the only Plenary ever? No. The FC founded by 2 Plenaries in 1843.
The expression ultra vires used in this debate. Means acting beyond powers. But the Plenary acted in accordance with remit.
To dispose of is to dispose of. Absolutely.
Also, lot of references are made to the practice and to opinions of Chairman of BoT - but our legislation is not the practice. Legislation is in Acts of Assembly. In this case, in the BA 1697 itself. He then reads it.

1st: The BA is to prevent sudden alteration or innovation. Cannot be said that this was sudden - papers circulated. Everyone had access. Four options thoroughly discussed at presbyteries and conference - if not, it was not fault of Assembly.

2nd : BA deals with BINDING rules. The 2010 decision is not a binding rule. It grants freedom. Parts of it are binding. That the whole of worship should be Biblical etc. The controversial part is the non-binding part.

3. It does not form any part of the constitution. Previous acts did not form parts of constitution.

In addition, the Plenary met the terms of the BA. It was appointed for this reason as the fairest way.
Only the GA at which a piece of legislation is being considered is entitled to pass down through the BA. This was not done. If you didn’t know that, ignorance is no excuse.

Finally: a Plenary Assembly has a unique moral authority. The only way a decision of Plenary can be changed is by another Plenary. Surely?
When it did come to the question of BA at the Plenary, the Clerk gave his advice, BUT it was up to Assembly to decide. The vote was overwhelming. No need to count votes. The mind of the church was clear. We should draw line under this now - it will lead to chaos if we go back on this.

Motion 2) Murdo Macleod - speaks to his motion
I’m clear that the practice is a guide. But the practice will not be at variance with legislation. To that end, I submit that there is more to it than the sudden introduction of anything new. Quote from Practice on the BA:
“It is not permitted to pass proposal into law - only in form of overture to Presbyteries. The if majority have not agreed then GA may pass or transmit. The Assembly has no power to pass it into permanent law.”
The decison to enact the decison of the Plenary was on the basis that the requirments of the BA had already been made. But it is the decision of the Assembly that forms the proposals to Presbyteries. Consultation in this context is insufficient. An approval of presbyteries is required. There must be confirmation of a majority of presbyteries. Has there been this opportunity?  No.

Motion 3) Farquhar Renwick
At one level, this has been before the church. Conference in Dingwall. But nobody had vote. Mr MacDonald is right in saying we don’t have to consult the membership. It is unwise though.
There was opportunity for it to be discssed at session level and 70% Kirk Sessions said no change. We have set that aside. So when was this matter before the church? It can only mean one thing - that it was before presbyteries - it was not discussed at Inverness Presbytery.
Refer to letter from Chair of BoT - there is no way we can say this has been before church.
Why did I not go in with composite motion? It is a fudge. If the Plenary acted ultra vires, nobody has authority to give green light for congregations to carry on. If Plenary acted ultra vires, then we have no authority to carry on. No more fudges. What was done was wrong. Time to put hands up and say we were wrong.

Speakers:

John Forbes: Meaning of “dispose of” - hear a lot of finality of “dispose”, but what if the report involves something of a constitutional change? Can’t argue that “dispose of” means circumvent the BA. It means “engage the process”. If the BA needs to kick in, then that is what the law of the church means. It’s clear that there is a huge grey area over Plenary Assembly. It was a lawful court, but we haven’t explained to ourselves where its bounds are or power is. Or what majority was required to form a decision. Suggestion that have to have another Plenary? Have we changed anything since 1843 Plenary? I’m sure we have and no Plenary. No need for Plenary when there is process of BA. This is my 4th GA, including Plenary. I was encouraged to attend this one. I’ve seen this issue from beginning to end. At my first Assembly, Dr Campbell had a motion to fall from this. But it was the conservatives who argued FOR the Plenary.
It was clear then that there was an issue that needed to be resolved. The church is disturbed about this. There is a perceived lawlessness. In a number of areas - that some want to hammer things through.
These presbyteries are asking you to take their opinion into consideration. Ignoring it doesn’t make it go away. One more thing. Mr Renwick said this motion is a fudge. We have to recognise the situation as it is. Practice allows for Interim Act. It is not a fudge.

Donald Jack: The 2010 Assembly in May did not act in accordance with the remit from 2009 Assembly. They ought to have instructed the Plenary to have proceeded under BA procedure.
Finding was approved by 50%.

Moderator:

Prof. Donald Macleod.  Support of Alex’s motion.
Key issue is Assemblies’ authority - it is mandates to decided for itself what acts are BAs and what are not. Principles cannot be self-activating. Personnel are self-activating. Act itself cannot demand BA, nor can BA itself. That is up to office bearers themselves. Church government is in hands of officers. Before this decision, there was great deal of prayer and they made decision not to send this down - right or wrong, it was competent for the Assembly and we can’t review this decision - Assembly was authorised to reach the decision and it did so in competent way.
Was it a sudden innovation? It was not sudden and not innovation. Long process. 4 options were sent down two years previously. No details, but the essential principle was that that the Assembly be allowed to decide - that essential principle as a distinct possibilty. Whatever the detail, that core issue was made plain. Was it innovative? Seems to me there is refusal to address this issue honestly. Most acts regarding worship were not BA issues. The issue is this : from the earliest point, it was acccepted that the church could sing song outwith psalter. The church was not exclusive psalmody until recently. In 1647, it sanctioned the use of scripture songs. These were not modernisers. We are not bound to those psalms of David. 1772 (?) were not dealt with under BA because no principle issue.

What about the Constitution? Was this Act a constitutional revolution? The constitution is implied in Formula, Confession, Claim Declaration and Protest, and the 1843 protest at Disruption. These three documents are implicitly constitutional. Other Acts are regulations. In actual fact, the Constitution is essentially the Confession of Faith. We own it as our own personal confession of faith. This Act in 2010 did not affect the confession. I’m concerned about reference to worship being revolutionised. We have only amended our songs. Not modified our form / order of service or marriage or Lord’s Supper, services etc. Our worship has not been significantly modified - which any Assembly is entitled to do. 1851 Act a clear distinction between Confession and other mere regulations. The 1910 Act was protested against by Lochcarron Presbytery as not necessary. The Assembly authorised to finalise this discussion - left to it. It acted within its power - whether rightly is another thing - we have no right to review its decision.
There are consciences on both sides of this house. It does matter that the church has moved into the age of New Covenant - the church has been persuaded along these lines. The church must now put this matter to rest - to add will only cause more disquiet. Whatever feedback from BA is, we would still be debating it.
Finally, what about the people about whom we’ve heard? The people have got over it! 

ORDER OF DAY

Dr Fergus Macdonald - Former Director UBS.
Address on Authorised Version.

Return to Debate on Barrier Act.

William Mackay: Burden is on me. The decision of Plenary Assembly without any specification of nature of songs or instruments is position contrary to vows in FC during past century, which specify uniformity. They refer to exclusive use of unnacompanied psalms. 1910 reaffirms legislation, and 1932.
We have all made that solemn pledge before a congregation. The psalms of David at time of Reformation are the songs of the church. In 17th century directory of worship, there is section on singing of psalms.
Mr Mackay’s point is to prove that the Plenary decision is such a departure from Scottish and Reformed practice to warrant going down through BA.
At Plenary, after vote taken, there was move to go down under BA, the Plenary was persuaded by one person, who said he had taken legal counsel and the advice of the Clerk was overruled.

Rev. Donald Macdonald: Support Farquhar Renwick’s motion. As far as suddenness is concerned, surely it was the decision of the Plenary itself that was relevant and that WAS sudden. Innovative? Calls into question Prof. Macleod’s suggestion that church in Scotland being always open to other songs than psalms. Quotes McCrie. Paraphrases? Weren’t introduced till 1781 and never authorised by Assembly. They were permitted and Committee permitted this in church use. Prof. Finlayson’s article 1951 re: hymns.
Was this ultra vires? My belief is that it was. I go further though. In 2009, it endorsed the view that the matter be conducted and discussed in free and open manner. This was ultra vires, since it implicitly endorsed the suspension of formula. It required consent and BA - Assembly failed to implement BA procedure.

John A. Mackay: Encourage the brethren how to vote. Don’t know legal points of church law. I’m a conservative. It may surprise you to know how I voted in November. I came with open mind. I was quite prepared to accept the decision as mind of the Assembly. The FCS was never a psalms-only church. My grandfather taught me that. Also my father. What the decision did was allow feedom to congregations who wished to have different way of worshipping. My heart bleeds for this church. Not just on this issue. There will be further division. We’ve had more than enough of that. Lawyers in Jesus’ time were looking at narrow issue. Jesus’ law is love for God and love for one another. I’m bothered if these debates get in the way of our Saviour. This issue sems to have taken up most of our presbytery time, as if most important issue in world - should not be issue to fall out over. Plea - it’s not what I want, or you - it’s what Jesus wants!

Neil D. M. MacLeod: I hope I’m slow to speak. I’ve listened. Ultra vires - there’s no clarity in ecclesiastical law. J. Forbes is unclear about the Plenary - if that is the case, you can’t have ultra vires.
Refers to Fergus Macdonald’s article. This overtures to recind would result in Kirk Sessions having to think through which Assembly they would adhere to.  Mr Cowie wisely said you can’t go back. We can’t go from this position. The attempts constitute a restrospective apllucation of the Barrier Act. Mr Macdonald wants to go back even further. Does anyone want to go back even further? 1932?

Right of Reply

Murdo Macleod:
Certain things are required in terms of our practice. Nobody can counter that.
I suggested in relation to the fact that the decision of Plenary to enact it into standing law was based on the fact or view that the requirements of the legislation had been met.
Has there been confirmation to the GA that the proposal meets the criteria set down as approval by majority of Presbyteries? It was not countered. Hence, no case has been made that the enacting of the decision stood up to the tests I suggested. Hence, the non-compliance of these tests still stands.

Farquhar Renwick: Refuting the following…
Prof. Macleod: consultation. We consulted sessions - set that aside. Presbyteries? My presbytery.
The church should address the issue honestly. Well, let’s do that. It has not been before Inverness Presbytery.
Mr Mackay said it always comes before Presbytery. I did not initiate this. I don’t want my motives questioned.
Have our people got over it? My people haven’t. The Jerusalem council arrived at a unanimous decision. We should try and do the same.
Can we honestly say we have fulfilled the criteria of BA? No.

VOTING….....

First Procedure: Murdo Macleod’s Motion against Farquhar Renwick

Declare that Murdo Macleod’s Motion Carried

Second Vote:
Murdo Macleod’s motion versus Alex MacDonald’s motion.

Declare that Alex MacDonald’s motion carried. (The vote was very decisive).
(This means that the decision of the Plenary is deemed not to be ultra vires and that the issue will not go down through the Barrier Act.)
The exact finding will appear later.

There are 11 dissents recorded.
Report of Personnel Committee - Murdo Murray
Stipend. Recommendation is for 22k as of January 2012. Committee is the conscience of church. We are not bound by financial state of church - but what is right for ministers. They should have adequate provision. We need men who can give full-time commitment and don’t have to be concerned about finance.

Pensions: We are conscious that the 10% we out in is not adequate. We should focus on stipend - that gives ministers choice about how much they contribute.
Expenses: 30 pence per mile. This is minimum.

Half our ministers have no housing provision in event of unforseen circumstances. Should be safety net.
Want to acknowledge the work done by Norman Cumming.

Questions. None.

Moved and seconded.
Speakers.

Gordon Matheson.
Pays tribute to Murdo’s leadership.

END OF PERSONNEL REPORT

Report of Communications Committee Report.

Roddie Rankin.

Address is found HERE.

Questions? None

Report moved by Murdo Macleod
Seconded by:

Colin Macleod

The Future:
1) Lamentation. Suicide - Rev. Robert Macleod and also reference to End of Life Bill. Both of these highlight for us how, for so many, their future is “I shall not live, but die”. Paper on suicide makes for sad reading. Scots have highest suicide rate in UK. The myths Robert highlights help us as ministers understand suicide and have an answer to those contemplating it.
Then there is the End of Life Bill. Margo Macdonald. Seeking the individual’s right to end life. Pray for Margo Macdonald and others who are likeminded.

2) Education. See Murdo Macleod’s paper on sex education. Pg 84. We’re concerned about what our young people are taught in schools.We are, however, reminded in Murdo’s report about how robust these guidelines
are. How do we influence what our children are taught? Their future depends on you and me.

3) Communication. The vehicles: The Record and the Bookshop. Committee is recommending Dr Maclean as sole nominee as editor. Circulation of all paper publications: magazines, newspapers, are down. We live in a changed world - the web has taken over. Bookshop - plans to develop it. Great space - great location. We’re very excited about this. Pay tribute to Roddie as Vice-Convenor and Jim Morrison.

Speakers:

Donald Jack
I’m looking to the past, as well as future. I’m in conjunction with Mrs Nicolson in looking at FC annals.

Charles Douglas
Thanks Committee. Keep thinking about leaving. But this new venture (new café/bookshop) needs prayer - any new ideas, please pass them on. Please use Bookshop.

Roddie Rankin - Reply.

Motion to appoint Dr Malcolm Maclean as editor of The Record. Murdo Macleod moves. Seconded. No other motion.

Dr Maclean appointed as Editor of The Record.

END OF COMMUNICATIONS REPORT

Presentation of Young Peoples’ Memorial - Gary Gunn
I wasn’t involved in drawing up this memorial.
It represents around 70 young people. You all know about it.
Want to say one thing. Why do the young people who signed this feel this way? Not tradition or preference.
They do believe from their own understanding of scripture that the psalms are the songbook of the church.
I know many of them personally. They see a chasm between spiritual songs written by men and psalms as scripture.
The psalms are the design of God for the worship of his church.
It’s only signed by 70 young people - small segment. Felt burdened to do it. May seem small number, but don’t alienate 70 - that could be 70 families in the future.
I think of Jacob taking family of 70 into Egypt. The young people are not troublemakers - faithful intelligent people, who want to hold to previous position of church. From these 70, we got Aaron, Joshua etc. from insignificant number.

Questions? None.
Motions? That the GA receive the memorial. No further motions.

The GA received their memorial. 

END OF DAY