"Is that the Rev. David Robertson? ", asked the journalist. "Can you comment on a report we have which indicates the Rev. Maurice Roberts of the Banner of Truth and the Free Church Continuing are being funded by extremist right wing groups in America?" "I’m sorry I do not know what you are talking about (I did not)" no comment". The report nonetheless appeared in one of the Sunday newspapers which, as I do not get the Sunday papers, I did not read. That was over a month ago but since then this same report/rumour has surfaced many times. Always it is the same story - Maurice Roberts has been fundraising in the US. Always the response is no comment. But now the time to comment has come - not to the secular press but rather to the few who actually read this column – especially those who are reading this from the US. IF Mr Roberts and the FCC are fundraising in the US then our American friends should realise what the money is going to be used for. It will not be used for evangelism, or Christian literature, or building new places of worship, or employing preachers. No this money will be given to lawyers and will be used to sue the Free Church. This article seeks to try and explain why and also to make sense of the nonsensical.
But let me begin with some good news. I am very encouraged. Over the past couple of months in St Peter’s we have seen record attendances, a new work begun in St Andrews and an increased sense of the Lord’s presence. More than that I have heard from and visited some other Free Churches where there are small and large encouragements. In fact I doubt the Church has been in such good health for the past three decades. We enter the New Year aware of the major difficulties and the general decline in Christianity in our country. But we also enter it with great hope and a sense of anticipation. On a wider level I am also very encouraged by the increasing interest and involvement of our American brothers and sisters. However some of our American friends are a little bit puzzled – why is the Free Church being sued? Is this for real?
This is a real threat to all the encouragement above. An almost unbelievable one. Let me stick to my own congregation and tell you of the threat St Peter’s faces. It is quite extraordinary to think that it does not come from the secularists, or the politically correct brigade, or the Muslims. No. It comes from men who claim to be acting in the name of Christ. The ‘Godly’ and the ‘Good’. They want to take our church building, manse and any other assets we might have. They claim they are the ‘True Free Church’ and have gone to the secular courts to get them to state that. They have no members or adherents in my congregation. When the split occurred we lost no-one. And yet these men have the brass neck to claim that our church and manse belong to them. And they are prepared to spend a fortune to prove it.
It is also a fortune they don’t have. Costs were awarded against Mr Roberts in the most recent episode of this sorry saga. Yet the FCC issued a statement which said “The opinion of our Law Agent was that these would represent an insignificant proportion of total costs.” They lightly and almost gleefully dismiss the costs awarded against them in the light of the fact that if this goes on for years (which it will do) then it is more likely to cost £1 million rather than a few thousand. Given that the whole FCC income is less than £500,000 per annum how can they afford such an action? They can’t. Instead they have to go cap in hand to Christians in America and somehow persuade them that the FCC legal action is worth bankrolling. Doubtless there will be the hope that if they win and gain control of millions of pounds worth of assets they will somehow be able to repay their benefactors. The FCC has now reached the stage where it has placed all its hope on taking over the buildings and assets from lively Christian congregations in order that they can then sell them to make money for themselves and for their law action.
And why are they doing this? Is this some great spiritual battle? Some matter of doctrinal significance? Has the Free Church turned ‘liberal’? None of the above. The simple fact is that these men did not get their way over a discipline case and as a result left the Free Church. So now in a desperate act of self-justification and with delusions of grandeur they want to represent this as some great point of principle, crucial for the church in Scotland. This is an illusion. The FCC is irrelevant to the advance of the gospel in Scotland. The only thing they can do is hinder the one conservative Presbyterian denomination which is actually doing something (no matter how small). Of course none of this will be said when they plead their case. Some who give money will be conned into thinking that they are combating liberalism and defending the gospel. The truth is that they will just be assisting in an action which is destructive, greedy and can only result in further weakening the Reformed cause here in Scotland.
For anyone who has any notion of Free Church history it is almost unbelievable that men who claim to be Free Church should act in such a way. The foundational principle of the formation of the Free Church in 1843 was the question of spiritual independence. The Church has a right to select, train, ordain and discipline its own ministers without the interference of the State. For that principle 451 ministers were prepared to give up their homes, churches and stipends. In an incredible about turn the FCC are turning that principle on its head. They now want the State to determine the conditions of employment of the churches ministers, they want the State to determine the Church’s discipline and they want the State to decide on the Church’s doctrine. Of course they deny this and state that all they are concerned with is the ‘temporalities’. In one sense that is true. It is all they seem to be concerned with – they show little interest in the gospel and the impact of their actions upon many local congregations and indeed upon the wider church. As long as they get their pound of flesh. However the question of ‘temporalities’ as understood by the FCC is a catch all phrase which includes everything. If one were to disagree with something in the Church and end up being disciplined then it would affect your ‘temporalities’ and thus you could be justified in taking the church to court. In other words the ‘sue’ mentality has really taken hold. If one wants any further proof of this consider the case of the two FCC men who are taking people from the Back congregation to court for ‘defamation of character’! What next? Will I be sued for calling someone a sinner? For suggesting that they deserve hell?! (If that mentality prevailed I would have to stop writing this column immediately or get Private Eye to cover my legal costs!)
How has this sad situation come about? It is a mirror of something that happened in British politics in the 1970’s and 1980’s. The Labour party was infiltrated by a well organised and motivated Trotskyite group known as Militant. They argued that they were the true constitutionalists of the Party, they tithed, they published their own magazines, they used the parties disciplinary procedures when it suited them and ignored them when it suited them. To those of us involved in the Free Church in the 1990’s this all sounds horribly familiar. We too were infiltrated by a group of men, many of them young, who argued that they were the true constitutionalists, published their own magazine, tried to use the church’s disciplinary procedures and then completely ignored them. Their loyalty was not to the Free Church but only to their own small group. I first became aware of this mentality in the early 1990’s when Maurice Roberts and I were working together on the College quinquennial. I wanted to start a scheme of student placements but Maurice had reservations – there were some Free Churches he would not want ‘his’ students to go to. In fact he would rather they went to certain Baptist churches rather than some Free Churches. Yours truly was somewhat naïve in those days and wanted to know why. His answer? - “Because there are two Free Churches”. From that point on I realized that a split in the Church was inevitable. Such a divisive spirit, whilst it may have seemed normal in the English separatist background of Mr Roberts, was alien to the whole centralist ethos of the Presbyterian Free Church of Scotland. Ultimately the self-styled Free Church Defence Association was to prove as intransigent as Militant and the Church was only saved from destruction when they left us in January 2000.
Any split is sad. And this one certainly was. Especially as it is still actually impossible to get the real reasons for it. However this split was worse. Basically because it was such a failure. From claiming that up to 50% of the church would support them the FCC only managed to take 8% of the Church with them. What made it worse for the FCC was that most of the Free Church property and assets were held under what is called the Model Trust Deed. The purpose of this deed was precisely to prevent the kind of thing the FCC were doing – a small group breaking away and taking the church’s property with it. For any split to result in a split of the property over one third of the ministers had to leave with their congregations before the property would be split equitably. With the recent split this did not happen. So the FCC were not entitled to any of the property. To get anything they therefore had to claim it all and claim that the Free Church had so changed that it was no longer the Free Church and therefore no longer entitled to any of the property and assets it held in trust. Everyone involved in this knows that such a claim is just a lie and that in a modern court it has almost no chance of succeeding. Indeed in a meeting at the International Conference of Reformed Churches, Maurice Roberts told me that no judge would understand the issues and that the route of claiming to be the Free Church and thus having all its assets was one they would not be going down. A position which was endorsed by the clerk of the FCC Assembly, John Macleod. Can you imagine my astonishment when I heard that this promise had been broken within six months of it having been made? Why go this route at all? I think the answer is that the FCC are getting desperate – they need the money and they hope to bully the Free Church into settling out of court and give them a substantial sum. We cannot do this – at least not without causing major harm to the cause here and having to do something like closing the College or ceasing Church Extension work. It would also be wrong to hand over things that were entrusted to us for the propogation of the gospel within and through the Free Church.
Given the above why would anyone want to give their money to such a group for such a reason? One could understand American Christians, who are noticeably generous, giving £1million for evangelism and church planting in Scotland. One could even understand those who think that the FCC are the greatest thing since John Knox giving them £1 million. But why would anyone give money to fund lawyers to destroy the largest evangelical Presbyterian Church in Europe? There are various reasons.
1) Some think that they are defending Maurice Roberts, a man whom they admire. In their view the world is divided into the good guys and the bad guys and Mr Roberts is one of the good guys. Therefore anyone opposed to him must be one of the bad guys. Most of us don’t live in such a black and white world. But if you do, it makes things easy. It is true that the trustees of Greyfriars Free Church have taken Mr Roberts to court,’ trying to get their manse back. One can understand why. After all Mr Roberts left their congregation, most of the congregation stayed with the Free Church and Mr Roberts even claimed a pension from the Free Church. As one normally leaves the manse when one retires and claims a ‘retirement package’, the good people of Greyfriars were perfectly entitled to feel that they could now call another minister and then have a home to house him. But apparently not. Mr Roberts decided to stay put. The Trustees decided to go to court to get their house back. They did this knowing that this would not make Mr Roberts homeless – he was after all in the unique position (for a Free Church minister) of owning another home in the area. Nonetheless I have to say that my own personal position is that, even though he is quite clearly in the wrong, I would not have taken him to court. I think it is not right for Christians to take one another to a secular court. I told Mr Roberts this and he thanked me for it and agreed with the principle. Yet now he is taking me and my Church to a secular court seeking to obtain all our assets. How the mighty have fallen!
2) Some think they are defending the gospel against liberalism. Of course no charge of liberalism would ever stick but the rumour , nudge-nudge method is just as effective. After all one could hardly justify destroying a church if it was a conservative evangelical one. I wonder if the people Mr Roberts is allegedly seeking to raise money from are aware that the charge of heresy he tried to bring against Prof. Macleod was one of advocating hymn-singing!
3) Then there is the ‘Reformed Network’. Forget about church structures and discipline. Welcome to the post-modern world of networking, or perhaps it is just the traditionalist ‘Old Boys’ network? Anyone who has had anything to do with the Free Church over the past few years knows that there has been a concerted campaign waged against us from some men within the Banner of Truth (though by no means all). This all boils down to personalities and sin. When this was all headline news in Scotland one journalist investigating the whole matter made the perceptive statement ‘All roads lead to the Grey House’ – the Banner’s HQ in Edinburgh. The sad thing is that the Banner has done and continues to do a good work. And yet it has allowed itself to be diverted from its primary task by Iain Murray’s obsession with Donald Macleod. Thus the editor, Maurice Roberts, and his deputy, John J. Murray have been wheeled out to take part in the skirmish. And the Banner has suffered in this suicidal war. Yet it still has influence and prestige in some quarters. And so Iain will speak to R and R will speak to J and J will speak to….and so it goes on. Men who have never spoken to us and never will speak to us, know very little about us and even less about the FCC– yet their opinion and support is sought and passed on behind the scenes. Now thankfully most people cannot be bothered with this nonsense. Most recognize it for what it is worth and most realise that the Free Church has nothing to do with them and is of little significance to them.
So where now? Can I make three appeals in the somewhat desperate hope that the people concerned will read this and perhaps the even more forlorn hope that they will act upon it (other than by suing me).
1) To the FCC - Brethren why don’t you drop this nonsense? Do you really see any value in pursuing this other than for monetary gain? What good will it do you and the cause of the gospel in Scotland to destroy the Free Church? Going to the civil court as an exercise in self justification is futile for a Christian. You claim to be the Free Church of Scotland – do you remember the words of our founding father, Thomas Chalmers, “Who cares for the Free Church compared with the Christian good of Scotland?” Can you please explain how your attempt to take all the Free Church assets is for the Christian good of Scotland? Can you explain how giving £1 million to lawyers is for the Christian good of Scotland? Does that question even register?
2) To our American brothers and sisters – Please don’t waste your money on Scottish lawyers. If you have £1 million to spare then please give it to church planting, outreach or something else worthwhile. (If you need any guidance please feel free to get in touch!). Use your money for eternity – not to satisfy the short term power games of those who should know better.
3) And to those of us in the Free Church. We must not despair or panic. We will probably have to see this thing through. We are being sued and it is impossible to stop that. Meanwhile we must get on with the work that the Lord has called us to and not be distracted by the small mindedness and greed of those who think that godliness is a means to financial gain. Even if the worst came to the worst and we lost all our material possessions that will ultimately not matter. We have the people. We have the gospel. And there are clear indications of the Lord being at work. That is the only thing that should really bother us. It does not ultimately matter what a secular court thinks, nor does it matter what man does to us. A far greater threat to us is that we will not fulfill the Great Commission, that we will fossilize and that we will not take the tremendous opportunity that our post-modern lost society gives us. We must not be sidetracked into the wastelands of ecclesiastical politics. We must not let the evil one dictate our agenda.
I don’t really care about the FCC – I am quite happy to let them get on with their own work (as long as that work does not consist in attacking us) – and if the Lord blesses them and uses them to bring his gospel to the people of Scotland, I will be surprised and then I will rejoice.
I do care about the lost. And I do care about the Church. And I do believe that these two things are almost synonymous. For the lost to be reached we need good, biblical, lively, contemporary, loving, sacrificial churches. Perhaps we could all work on that for the next few years and forget about lawyers? Is that too much to ask?
May you have a Christmas with Christ and a New Year without lawyers.
back |
