Dear Friends,
As you may be aware the Free Church has undergone the most vicious assault upon it for many years. The Lord has brought us through and there are signs of peace and his blessing upon the Church. However the attack continues. Iain Murray of the Banner of Truth and Dr Murdoch Murchison of the Free Church Continuing have published a book which makes a number of serious accusations against the Church. In one sense this book is not worth replying to, indeed to do so only runs the risk of encouraging our attackers. However I have decided to make a detailed response to this booklet which you can read below. For most people within the Free Church the book is irrelevant and old news. We know the agenda behind it and we know that much of what is written is not true. But for our friends in other churches who wonder why the split occurred there is a danger that this book which is subtitled “An explanation of the Division in the Free Church of Scotland”, may give the wrong impression and indeed the wrong information. It is for that reason that I am making this refutation available. It is a sad day when men like Iain Murray and Murdoch Murchison use their undoubted talents and the Lord’s money to publish such an attack. If there is anything wrong in this review then the fault is mine alone. I have done by best to ensure that everything written is accurate and true.
David A. Robertson
When Justice Failed in Church and State - A Review by David A. Robertson
This booklet by Iain Murray and Murdoch Murchison is subtitled ‘An explanation of the Division in the Free Church of Scotland’. It is on that basis that I am replying to it. The whole book is sad and even the fact that is has been produced at all is an indication of the author’s obsession with this matter. I know both these men and have admired their work and service for the Lord in the past. Which is why it is particularly grieving to report that this account is inaccurate, illogical, and misleading. I wish to demonstrate that in the following comments. However before I do so I need to make the following caveats:
1) I have no intention of acting as the defense counsel for Donald Macleod. It is improper and unjust that having been tried by a civil court he should now be tried by pamphlet. I accept fully the decision of the civil court and also that of the Free Church that there was not enough evidence for a trial. My concern in this response is to deal with the quite unwarranted attack upon the Free Church and several individuals within it.
2) I have no intention of speaking of matters that I do not have first hand experience of. There has already been too much gossip and second-hand information spread around. I was a member of the Training of the Ministry committee for a time. I am also a member of the Edinburgh presbytery, I played some part in the events of the 1999 assembly and I was often consulted by the press on this issue. It is from this experience that I speak.
3) I have no intention of disclosing private letters or conversations. The fact that the authors of this pamphlet openly admit that they are passing on private papers and in at least two instances, personal letters that were written to them, is a sad indictment of their lack of integrity. It is disturbing to say the least that Murray quotes from a letter written to the then clerk of the Training of the Ministry Committee (TOM), Rev. John Macleod (p.76).
4) There are things that I have seen and heard that I cannot disclose. Not only because of privacy but also because of the threat of legal action. I have already been the victim of legal threats made by some of those involved in the campaign against Donald Macleod. Some things that I saw and heard I cannot prove and therefore I must be silent because of this threat. I find it ironic that whilst the authors of this pamphlet claim to want the whole truth out, some of their supporters are willing to, at the drop of a hat, take recourse to the civil courts, in order to prevent the whole truth coming out.
For the above reasons you will understand that this is not intended as a comprehensive refutation of every point made. However it will amply demonstrate that the booklet is highly selective, illogical, inaccurate and misleading.
1) The Press – Aware of the criticism that has been leveled at them for engaging in a press campaign the authors of this pamphlet several times try to suggest that they have done their best to keep this out of the public domain.
- On page v. they state “as far as we know no copies were supplied to the press”. This is at best a naïve approach. The document was widely circulated, copies could be freely obtained and Mr. Murray must have been aware of those on his side who had frequently leaked material to the press. I cite four examples from my own experience.
a) A journalist working for one of our national newspapers contacted me to discuss the aftermath of the case in 1996. He told me that when it looked as though the case might go in favour of Donald Macleod his newspaper had received a letter from four men who were described as leading reformed evangelical English ministers. These men wrote to this newspaper claiming that even Donald Macleod’s solicitor had not seen all the evidence. The newspaper was so intrigued by this that their reporter was sent to investigate what was going on. His comments to me included the following – “The Reformed world is a very small world…..all roads lead to the Grey House” (The Edinburgh HQ of the Banner of Truth).
b) I received a phone call and a fax from a number of journalists with a copy of what was meant to be a press release which attacked the Free Church and Donald Macleod. This press release was sent out by a media company headed by an ex-Sun journalist, who had in turn been hired by group of ministers. I was told at the time that Mr Murray was one of this group – perhaps he would be willing to deny that now and to condemn those who hired a secular media company specifically to conduct a press campaign. It certainly gives the lie to the notion that those opposed to Donald Macleod were not conducting a campaign in the secular press.
c) Another time I received a phone call from a journalist who asked me to comment on various matters. I refused until she gave me some information that she could not have had without someone having passed on church papers. I told her I would comment and she asked if I would be willing to be ‘on the record’. When I said that I never commented ‘off the record’ she told me of two of the main protagonists who had passed on information to her and who said that they would be willing to let her have anything provided it was ‘off the record’.
d) On p. 45 Murray claims that “Far from there being any attempt to air allegations in the press, Christian or secular, or to respond to those made by Macleod, there has been virtually unbroken silence”. This is at best, myopic. Murray himself is far too clever to give interviews to journalists but he has had no qualms about giving information to those who will contact the press, write letters to newspapers and generally raise the profile of the case again. One classic example of this was when four of Murray’s supporters appeared with ‘private libels’ at the Edinburgh Presbytery. I was the moderator at the time and at that stage we did not allow the presbytery to see them. Nonetheless details of these libels appeared in the press the following day. The secular media knew what was in these libels before the presbytery did. It is not only the Labour government that knows how to ‘spin’.
e) Numerous letters appeared in newspapers all over the country accusing the Free Church of cover up and Donald Macleod. After one assembly Rev. Angus Smith even wrote to the Stornoway Gazette giving details of a private T of M committee meeting.
From all the above it was quite clear to me that an extensive and bitter campaign was being waged in the press. One editor told me that they were fed up of the whole thing because if they even spelt a name wrong someone from the FCDA would be on the phone threatening them immediately! I know men in the FCDA who scoured the press, kept all the cuttings about the cases they could find and who delighted in the fact that this was ‘important’ enough to be in the national press, and they were part of it. Others of course, like most of us, were saddened that the Church received such bad publicity.
2) The Court Case
There is a paranoia and an illogicality about many of the comments concerning the 1996 court case. I answer some of these below.
a)There is a complaint that the defense team took out a court order and thus had access to the Free Church papers. The obvious point is that the prosecution could have done the same.
b) Another complaint that Murray and Murchison have is that the prosecution did not prepare for the ‘conspiracy’ defense. This also does not make sense and implies a level of incompetence and indeed stupidity on behalf of the prosecution team. The only defense against the Moorov doctrine is that of conspiracy or at the very least collusion. It is not surprising that that was what the defence used.
c)The Sheriff is portrayed in terms which are quite frankly libelous. He is an incompetent, ignorant coward who was bullied by the Dean. There are hints of worse than incompetence in the booklet. The Sheriff was influenced by the Dean’s position of ‘undoubted influence and patronage within the Faculty of Advocates, one cannot but wonder if this also unduly influenced the outcome. As the Rev. D. Murray very succinctly put it, ‘you do not beat the boss at golf’.” (p.18). Leaving aside the convoluted prejudices of Mr Murray about bosses one wonders at the desperation of Murchison in accusing a Sheriff of the land of such manifest corruption. Some of the evidence cited for this ‘injustice’ includes the statement on p.4 that “the sheriff accepted most of the objections made by the Dean but very few made by the Depute-Fiscal” . The implication being that there was some kind of bias – on the other hand it might just have been that the objections by the Dean were more valid. Another objection is that the Sheriff abused his position by ‘savagely condemning those he had never seen’. I am still puzzled as to why it is deemed so important that the sheriff should have seen these people. One FCDA man even went so far as to say the sheriff could not have been sure that they even existed. – (I have never seen George Bush – I do not on that basis doubt that he exists!)
d)What seems most upsetting to Mr Murray and Mr Murchison is that they were cited as witnesses by the defence but never called. This was apparently a brilliant plot to prevent them attending the case and then by not calling them, outwitting the prosecution who expected to be able to question them. They cite no evidence for this interesting theory and it is rather spoiled by two facts – firstly it was open to the prosecution to call whoever they wanted, including Mr Murray and Mr Murchison. Secondly there were many people cited who were not asked to appear as witnesses. Yours truly was one of them. The defence are allowed to cite whoever they want and then decide if they will actually use them.
e)The Dorcas fund - A great deal is made of the Sheriff’s criticism of the Dorcas fund. Murray and Murchison contrast the Dorcas Fund with the fund that was set up for Prof. Macleod’s defence team. But they conveniently forget to mention one very important fact – in Scotland the state is responsible for funding the prosecution. The defendant has to fund his own defence. This meant that if the Prosecution deemed it necessary to have a witness fly from Australia they have the resources to pay for that. For the campaigners against Donald Macleod to set up a fund was an interference with the course of justice and could very easily be misconstrued as an attempt at bribery. For Donald Macleod to have a fund for his own defence was simply a matter of justice.
f)As well as criticizing the Sheriff, Mr Murchison attacks the depute fiscal as not having presented the prosecution case well. This was not the opinion of the Sheriff who at the end of the trail commended the depute fiscal for her handling and presentation of the case. One wonders if the professional sheriff or the amateur is the better judge?
g)The effect on women’s rights – This is one of the more extreme illogical statements in the pamphlet (p17-18). “There is no doubt that this particular case has set back women’s rights in Scotland by many years”. I find it incredulous that these men think that they are somehow champions of women’s rights. I recall being in the manse of one of the leading FCDA men and being told why it was wrong for women to wear trousers (both literally and metaphorically). I also find it unbelievable that they attach so much importance to this case. Was it really that important?
3) Miscalling and rubbishing of key witnesses for the defence
Another thing I have learnt in this is do not get in the way of Ian Murray or his allies. They have no hesitation in miscalling and placing every negative implication on your motives.
a) Dr Eric Mackay - Both Murchison and Murray try to pour scorn on Dr Eric MacKay’s testimony. They claim it was uncorroborated. That is true but that does not mean that Dr Mackay was lying. Indeed it was up to the Sheriff to determine his credibility as a witness. I am not surprised that Dr Mackay was deemed to be a credible witness. Anyone who has ever met him knows him as a gentle, godly and humble man. To implicitly accuse him of lying because one does not like his testimony says more about the accuser than it does Dr Mackay. Dr Mackay has been harassed and challenged to make his statements outwith court. It is no surprise that he does not do so. There are men who would love to take him to court and see it as yet another opportunity to have a go at Donald Macleod. It is typical of Murray’s style of writing that he mentions that the Vice-Convener and Clerk of the TOM do not believe Mackay. Murray neglects to mention that the Vice-Convener was his collaborator in his booklet Dr Murchison, and that the Clerk was Rev. John Macleod, one of the alleged ‘conspirators’.
b) Rev. Alex MacDonald – Again without any evidence whatsoever both Murchison and Murray seek to besmirch the name and reputation of Alex MacDonald. He is the organizer at the centre of this conspiracy. He is accused of falsehood and conspiracy. (Both Murchison and Murray should be thankful that most men in the Free Church do not share the desire that the FCDA men have for legal action!). Again anyone who knows Alex MacDonald knows that he does not have the mentality nor the personality suitable for such Machiavellian goings on. Alex MacDonald is far more gracious and humble than I or most ministers could ever hope to be. Yet because he was on the ‘wrong side’ and because he gave evidence which contradicted Mr Murray and supported Prof Macleod, he is to be demonized. The booklet says that Alex MacDonald testified that Gordon Mair had phoned him trying to engineer his reappointment as Convener of the TOM. We are told that Mr Mair denies this and has a complete record of his phone calls to prove it! (The booklet does not tell us that Mr Mair denies speaking to Alex MaDdonald – just that he denies a phone call – that point may be pedantic but I am afraid it is the kind of detail that some of those involved in this revel in). I find it extraordinary that even at this stage Mr Mair thought it necessary to record his calls. Why? Mr Mair, as I have found to my own cost, is not averse to passing on private letters and information to others, in order to get someone into trouble (earlier this year Mr Mair sent a copy of some personal correspondence that I had had with him to the moderators of the OPC e-mail forum, without my consent or knowledge). If I had to choose between Mr Mair and Mr MacDonald for reliability then there is no contest.
c) Unnamed Senior members of the Free Church establishment - Couched in the form of a question, Murchison suggests (again without any evidence, other than that they did not support him) that these men were involved in a cover up because they knew the allegations (about conspiracy) were false and could not bear further scrutiny. In actual fact I was involved in discussions about whether we should discipline some of the men involved. My own view was that we should have done so but I accepted the majority view that the matter was over and that we should now seek to have peace and let everyone get on with the work of the gospel. There was most certainly no cover up. Given the inability of Macleod’s opponents to keep anything private there was no way that anything could be ‘covered up’.
d) The Edinburgh Presbytery – Murray claims that there were ‘influences at work’ in the Free Church wanting to prevent full investigation. He claims that there was a pro-Macleod campaign based in the Edinburgh Presbytery and centered on Buccleuch and Greyfriars Church. This is a serious accusation for which he offers little evidence. The one piece he offers is the fact that he whilst the Presbytery refused to admit a letter from St George’s, Sydney they were eager to admonish one of its members John J. Murray for spreading criticism of Macleod. This is disingenuous to say the least. Iain Murray knows that the Edinburgh Presbytery did not have the right to consider such a letter which is the responsibility of the TOM who are responsible for the discipline of Professors. On the other hand the Presbytery are responsible for the conduct of its ministers. Therefore it was perfectly in order for us to deal with the extraordinary admission of John J. Murray that he had shared his concern about this matter with members of his family and elders and ministers within and without the Free Church. It is interesting that Iain Murray puts ‘allegedly’ in front of this claim. He knows that it is true. He also knows that John J. Murray admitted it and was prepared to accept a simple admonishment, until Prof. Cartwright objected.
e) The Macleod inner circle. (p.72) . Murray speaks of an inner circle who were concerned to preserve Macleod at all costs. Yet this brave and fearless writer neglects to name who these men are. I guess I am probably one of them as he speaks of us as dominating the 1999 Assembly. There was no inner circle and there never has been as far as I am aware. I don’t think I ever sat down with a group of men and Donald Macleod to plan what should be done. Most of my involvement was reactive rather than proactive. Murray has no evidence of such a circle. It is really a product of a mind obsessed with conspiracy theories and ecclesiastical politics.
4) St Columba’s
I was involved in two investigations into St Columba’s and the conduct of their minister. It is therefore with some degree of shock that I read the paragraph on p45 which commends Rev John J. Murray as a ‘singular example of restraint’ and how he suffered for remaining silent about Donald Macleod and ‘went on steadily in an increasingly appreciated ministry’. Most of this paragraph is false. Rev. John J. Murray was certainly not restrained. He admitted that he had freely passed on private information to people. Furthermore the decline in St Columba’s was considerably more than the 50 people claimed by Iain Murray. We received a list of some 100 people who had left the congregation. Furthermore most of those who left did not do so because of their ministers attitude to Donald Macleod but rather because of a wider dissatisfaction with the ministry. It would not be appropriate for me to mention the details here but suffice it to say that I was personally involved in interviewing several members of long standing who made it quite clear why they were leaving.
In all of this one has to feel a great deal of sympathy for Rev. John J. Murray. He was a pawn in the game and was sacrificed by Iain Murray. The latter’s role in St Columba’s is interesting. When he returned from Australia he attended St Columba’s and in a letter to all the elders could speak of ‘our minister’ indicating his affiliation with the congregation. Yet, despite having been an elder before, he did not become a member in the congregation. When our Presbytery conducted an investigation into the whole matter it was quite clear that Iain Murray was the man pulling the strings. He would have been happy to meet with us to talk about Donald Macleod but when we wrote to his presbytery in Australia to complain about his interference we received a reply which said that although Mr Murray was a minister of the Presbytery it was really none of their business as he was so far away. One has to wonder why Iain Murray refused to join a local church and wished to remain a member of a presbytery at the other side of the world. In effect he is under no effective church discipline. This did not stop him writing to all the elders in the congregation. This letter incidentally contradicts his claim in the booklet that people in the congregation did not know about the Macleod case.
However the most damaging matter in all this was when one of the witnesses, a member in St Columba’s, came to John J. Murray to make a complaint. The normal procedure in this matter would have been to involve the woman’s elder and Kirk Session, inform the person who was being accused and then if matters were not resolved refer it to the body responsible for discipline. John J. Murray did not do this. He informed neither his own Kirk Session nor Prof Macleod. Instead he involved Iain Murray and sent a copy of the woman’s statement to a group in Cambridge which included Sir Fred Catherwood and Roy Clements. In effect John J. Murray was handing an issue of church discipline over to a group of men who had nothing to do with the church. It was seen as suitable ammunition for ‘the campaign’. This was neither fair to the woman concerned nor Prof Macleod. Iain Murray is fully aware of all this and yet he fails to mention any of it in the booklet. Hardly an accurate account! Perhaps someone could explain why Iain Murray was brought in on this when he was not even a member of the congregation and the congregation’s own elders were not informed.
5) The 1999 Libels - As Moderator of the Presbytery of Edinburgh and Perth at the time of these libels I am one of the few people to have seen all the libels and the accompanying documentation. Murray again insinuates that these were not allowed to continue because of a campaign within the Edinburgh Presbytery. I well remember the night these came to our presbytery. Four ministers turned up (Maurice Roberts, David Murray, John Harding and Willie Macleod) with four individual private libels. I ruled these out of order for the following reasons:
a) They were not in proper form and it would have been incompetent for the presbytery to accept them.
b) They did not follow the correct procedure – notably and most cruelly they had not contacted Prof. Macleod as biblically they are required to do. As a result the first he heard of these libels was when they were presented to the presbytery. He sat there, face ashen, as I announced the business. He did not even know then what was in them. The Presbytery regarded this as so cruel that I was asked to inform him privately of the main substance of the accusations.
c) In my view these libels could in no way be regarded as individual private libels. They were quite clearly part of an organised campaign. Were we really to believe that these four men all came individually, without collusion, on the same day, from four different presbyteries, with four separate libels which just happened to dovetail with one another?
Iain Murray also fails to mention that not all the libels were about accusations of immorality - one related to the question of hymn singing.
6) Heresy or conservative v’s liberal?
The FCDA and Murray cannot seem to make up their minds about where to go on this one. On the one hand they know that there are Christians who will look askance at splitting a church over a discipline case and so there is a need to bring in the question of a decline in theology. On the other they know that charges of theological liberalism will not stick and will only make them look ridiculous and so at one and the same time they claim that this is not about theology and yet it is.
An example of this is on p.49. Murray knows that the question referred to is that of whether the Pope is the Anti-Christ. He also knows that most Free Church ministers do not accept this as a ‘doctrine’ of the Confession and that we are not committed to this by our ordination vows. Yet he mentions neither and rather seeks to give the impression that Prof. Macleod was opposed to the Westminster Confession and his ordination vows.
Another example of not telling the whole truth is found on p.50 where he gives a selective quote from Donald Macleod, implying that he was questioning the uniqueness of Christ. What Murray does not state is that this matter was discussed at the General Assembly and that after Donald Macleod gave a brilliant defence of the uniqueness of Christ, the whole matter was dropped. Even the proposer of a motion seeking to investigate this withdrew it after hearing what was said. Indeed not one member of that Assembly considered that the matter should be pursued – that included the members of the FCDA present. But yet again Murray mentions none of this and seeks to perpetuate a false impression.
6) Some other misleading statements
a) “There followed the enforced departure of two alleged conspirators (Rev. A Smith and Prof H. Cartwright) to another denomination” (p.17). No one questions that these two men left. What is not true is that they were forced to leave. They left of their own accord. Indeed Prof Cartwright’s departure came as a great surprise to his presbytery. I regard Prof Cartwright as an honourable man and his actions in leaving were quite consistent with the stand he had taken. As far as I am aware the only complaint I would have against him was that he initially refused to be involved in a TOM investigation on the grounds that it would not be fitting for him to investigate a colleague in the College. It is regrettable that he later changed his mind on this.
b) “It also seems that the allegations of woman 1, reported to the convener of TOM at this time, never came before TOM. It was only when larger numbers of ministers came to hear of her in 1993, after Woman 3 had come to light, that her allegations gained the attention of the committee”. Murray’s informants on the TOM have let him down here. I was on the TOM a couple of years before this and I well remember reading and discussing the allegations of woman 1.
c) “If it had not been for the pro-Macleod campaign he would certainly have been tried by the Church, and the women all heard, as they ought to have been” (p.42). This is again one of those accusations without any evidence being offered. Indeed it is possible that the reverse is the case. Iain Murray’s campaign being primarily conducted outwith the Church courts ensured that any fair trial would be very difficult to have. Murray and his supporters (i.e. Paul Cook writing to every Free Church minister) lobbied, campaigned and ensured that anyone involved in any judgement of a case would have already been prejudiced. If there was evidence capable of proof against Prof. Macleod then the Free Church would have acted. There is something ironic in the fact that the campaign by Iain Murray actually gave Prof Macleod his best defence.
d) The breakaway group known as The Stornoway Reformed Fellowship “affirmed their commitment to the constitution of the Free Church”. Murray states this and does not seem to realise the illogicality of the statement. The SRF were a group of people who refused to sit at the Lord’s table in their own congregation. This was hardly in keeping with the constitution of the Church. It was divisive and schismatic behaviour which is specifically condemned by the constitution of the Free Church. The behaviour of the SRF in seeking to tell a minister whom he could and could not have to preach was an attempt at mob rule. As such it was out of step with the traditional Scottish Presbyterianism of the Free Church and more in tune with the tradition of English separatism which Maurice Roberts and Iain Murray seem to be more comfortable with.
e) “Instead opponents of the FCDA worked to ensure a representation which would see that the Edinburgh Presbytery could not be out voted again”. This is a lie. I know of no-one who ‘worked’ to ensure that the Edinburgh Presbytery would not be out voted again. Mr Murray is assuming that those who opposed him acted in the same way as he did. An entirely unwarranted assumption.
f) “Two peace proposals were made at the October 1999 Commission to avoid a final crisis. Both involved the use of independent arbiters from sister churches. Both were summarily dismissed” (p.66). Mr Murray knows that these were not peace proposals – they were a delaying tactic. They were so incompetent that no-one actually moved them. Furthermore even if it had been constitutionally competent for the Free Church to hand its discipline over to other churches does Mr Murray really believe that independent arbiters could have been found? It was after all Mr Murray and his followers who ensured that the details of this case (or at least the ones they wanted people to know) were spread world wide.
g) “All the defendants asked was that the 1995 ruling be reviewed” (p.67. No-one in the Free Church believed that. And I doubt Mr Murray does. The FCDA had already had their own trial. They had already determined Donald Macleod was guilty. What was on trial now was not the professor but the Church. If the Free Church would declare him guilty then doubtless we would be a pure church. If we would not do so then we were corrupt, liberal etc.
h) “The General Assembly of 1999 the majority probably voted for the closure of discussion with little idea of the weight of evidence against Macleod”.(p73) Again untrue. Commissioners were sent detailed letters – I regularly received anonymous copies of confidential papers sometimes with the most absurd accusations added to them. The truth is that the 1999 Assembly commissioners were fed up with the whole thing.
7) The 1999 General Assembly and the Suspension of Maurice Roberts (p.59-65)
Again as Murray acknowledges I was deeply involved in this. But otherwise he gets many things wrong with his account. Note some of the following:
a) Murray complains that the report of the Special Peace Commission was kept ‘so far down the order of business that, in the event, it was not to be considered as all at the May Assembly’. He obviously regards this as significant and part of the plot to suppress information. He should have told his colleagues Rev. Willie Macleod and Rev. Maurice Roberts who, like myself were on the business committee and drew up the schedule for the Assembly. At no point did they question the order of business which was accepted by every member of the committee. The fact is that it was felt fairer to get the various appeals and cases out of the way first before going on to deal with this very important matter. Mr Roberts outburst on the Friday meant that things had moved on and got a lot more serious. Both the Roberts case and the Special Commission report were then put off to a special meeting a month later.
b) As regards the Special Commission report Murray misses out the most important information of all. Information that he is well aware of. The 1998 Assembly had appointed a special commission which then issued draft proposals to all presbyteries. The astonishing thing was that these proposals were accepted by every presbytery including my own – even though there were aspects of it that we were not happy with. It looked as though peace was about to break out. However when it came to the General Assembly report we discovered that these draft proposals had been changed and that there was a minority report as well. What had happened? The FCDA men on the commission had changed their minds – the draft proposals which had unanimously come down from the commission and were unanimously accepted by all presbyteries were suddenly not good enough for these men. The point is that the FCDA men had no interest in the peace of the Church, nor any interest in maintaining the unity of the Church. They wanted blood and they were going to get it. With outsiders like Mr Murray egging them on from the sidelines. All I did was move that the original draft proposals be restored, proposals which had been accepted by the commission and the presbyteries. The Edinburgh Overture was then added to this. Yet Murray writes as though there was some plot by the Edinburgh Presbytery to overturn the will of the Church. It is interesting that he says nothing about the Lewis presbytery which was far harder on the FCDA than we were.
c) My intervention on the Friday morning was not as Murray puts it ‘a procedure of questionable legality’. There was a report on the radio which indicated that the FCDA were threatening legal action against the Free Church and encouraging FCDA members not to give their money to the Free Church but into this fighting fund. Incidentally this was ‘spun ‘ to the journalists by a leading figure in the FCDA. This was an attack on the Assembly and the Church and it would have been remiss for me not to have raised it. At first David Murray refused to answer it and indeed asked if he could have ‘ten minutes’ in private with me. At that point Maurice Roberts was called to answer. He would not deny the report and indeed told the assembly that the possibility of legal action depended on ‘what happened that day’ (not as Mr Murray states ‘on what steps might be taken against them’). (See appendix below for transcript of the proceedings).
d) Murray makes a great deal of the actual words spoken by Roberts and what he meant. This of course is important. All Roberts had to do was say that he did not mean that the Assembly was hypocritical and evil or irremediably wicked but rather than he disagreed with some of the actions taken by the Assembly. He refused to do so. He could have apologized for his words but my own view is that he wanted to be a martyr and when we appeared to be getting somewhere at the following commission he immediately reinforced his comments and refused to withdraw them (these were the comments as minuted – a minute which he at that time accepted). However the major difficulty is that after the Assembly Maurice Roberts twice lied in public as to why he said these words. On the 14th of May 1999 at the FCDA National Rally in St Celia’s Hall in Edinburgh Mr Roberts stated that he had accused the Assembly of ‘gross wickedness, irremediable evil and hypocrisy’ and that he had done so for the following reasons. 1) All avenues of complaint against Prof Macleod had been barred, 2) He sympathized with Mr Macpherson, 3) The business of the special commission had not been taken and 4) Donald Macleod was made Principal. “If I have to say these things I would do it again, I would do it again for the sake of my daughter – who incidentally was converted at the age of 8 (much clapping and stamping)”. On the 15th of July 1999 at a meeting in Inverness Royal Academy he repeated that he had called the proceedings of the Assembly wicked because, amongst other things the special commission report was not taken into the business of the Assembly. Mr Roberts was lying as to why on that Friday morning he called the Assembly wicked etc. He could not have known that the Special Commission report was not going to be dealt with at that Assembly. Indeed it was the next item of business as he well knew because he himself had arranged it to be so when he was on the business committee. So when Mr Roberts claims that his outburst was not against the whole assembly but against specific actions it had taken, and when he claims that one of those actions was the cancellation of the Special Commission report he is lying (unless he was claiming prophetic status) as at that point consideration of the report had not been cancelled. The report would have been considered if Mr Roberts had not made his outburst and if the assembly had not taken up so much time dealing with him.
e) Murray also attempts to put the most favourable interpretation on Robert’s words – “His charge was not made against the Assembly per se, it had to do with ‘the proceedings’ of the party determined to silence any continued questioning” (p.73). That is not what Mr Roberts said. He spoke neither before nor after of a party. He spoke of the actions of the Assembly.
f) Several of the FCDA men spoke to me after this and at the time not one of them agreed with Robert’s remarks and all thought he had gone too far. One even put it down to stress. I note that they seem to have changed their minds and now regard it as a courageous principled stand.
g) The incident with Rev. Iain Smith reported on P.65 is one which I can comment on as I was the commissioner referred to. I regret that I was unable to explain my point more simply so that he could understand it. What I told Mr Smith was that Maurice Roberts was perfectly entitled to call any witnesses relevant to his case. Given that the offence was committed in the face of the assembly the only relevant witnesses were those who were actually there. What Mr Roberts wanted to do was justify his behaviour by accusing Donald Macleod. I simply pointed out that this was not acceptable. It was nothing to do with crucifying Maurice Roberts in order to protect Donald Macleod. Mr Roberts was accusing myself and 70 other brethren of acting in an irremediably wicked, hypocritical and evil way. If he really believed that then he should have left the Free Church there and then.
8) Free Church Foundations
Murray states that the “The FCDA journal now spoke out in far clearer terms than it had done before” (p.65). This was undoubtedly true and demonstrated the falsehood of their previous argument that all they wanted was a trial. They no longer used words like allegedly or pretended that they thought there might be any possibility of Donald Macleod being innocent. They declared ‘Donald Macleod is guilty of an affair in Australia’. No ‘ifs’, no ‘buts’, no need for a trial. The faithful FCDA had spoken. The Free Church must act. Meanwhile one of the editors went on Radio Scotland national news and accused the Free Church of lying. No Christian Church should have to put up with that kind of behaviour. It was destroying our church and we had to act.
At one commission I mentioned that Willie Macleod (the editor of Foundations) had accused Donald Macleod of adultery. He then had the nerve to stand up and say he had not said this. When I read from the offending article he was silent. One of the things I have noticed about the FCDA men is that if you do not quote them exactly word for word they will deny they said anything. Thus a man who wrote ‘Donald Macleod had an affair in Australia’ can publicly deny that he accused him of adultery because he did not say the exact words ‘he was guilty of adultery’. This playing with words is characteristic of what we had to deal with and quite disgraceful for any Christian church.
9) The Effects of the split.
Whilst it is true that 35 ministers left the Free Church the authors neglect to mention that 13 of them were retired. He also makes the quite incredible statement that ‘about a fifth of the membership of the denomination’ left to form the FCC. Mr Murray is guilty of some exaggeration– our own figures suggest about 8% of the church left, certainly no more than 10%. 26 of our 30 largest congregations were unaffected. Even where the FCDA thought they had control (the Presbytery of Skye and Uist) more than 50% remained with the Free Church. Of course he could easily have checked this out by asking the FCC their figures (I doubt their membership is much more than 500) and finding out ours. As a matter of fact the Free Church had the same income the year after the split as it did the year before it. Indeed for the first time in many years we did not have a financial deficit. Whilst the split itself was sad, in general its effects seem to have been beneficial.
10) Why publish this booklet at all?
Ian Murray in particular is in a position of some power. He knows many things about many people. Ministers falling into sin is not something new. Even if we grant that Mr Murray truly believes that Prof. Macleod was guilty of a wrongdoing it is still a puzzle as to why he has gone to such lengths to campaign against him. It is interesting that Murray admits that there was a campaign (p.24). One person used in the campaign was the Rev. Roy Clements of Eden Baptist Chapel – indeed a letter from Mr Clements asking how ‘the campaign’ against Donald Macleod was going, was a significant piece of the evidence used in court. Yet when Mr Clements left his wife and family to live in a homosexual relationship did Mr Murray use his writing and publishing skills to publish an expose of this?
It seems as though there are those who have an unhealthy obsession with this case and there are others who help feed that. Let me give you two personal examples –
1) Rev. David Murray told the Southern Synod in 1999 that God had told him that if he did not continue his pursuit of this case then he would be killed. It was at that point that I realized that some of these people had become so unbalanced by their obsession with this that no amount of reasoning or action would ever satisfy them. A man who claims special revelation of a divine death threat is not a man that most sensible people would put as spokesmen for their movement. Nor a man who one would have as minister in your largest congregation.
2) Another major player in the campaign against Donald Macleod told me that this was the most important issue facing the Western church today. It is little wonder that with such grandiose views, men who were struggling with declining small churches suddenly found it attractive to be at the centre of a big ‘conspiracy’ with phone calls from Australia, attention from journalists and lots of ecclesiastical politics thrown in as well.
3) Murray himself seems to have an obsession with this. Although he writes that ‘these pages are made available with sorrow and reluctance” (p.50) there is little evidence of that sorrow. It was certainly not enough to prevent him republishing the material and making it available to all and sundry.
Murray writes: (p.51) “It is principle, not personalities, which is fundamental to the present tragic contention.” This is not the case. For Iain Murray and others this has become ‘personal’.
One thing I do agree with “ Lying for Christians, is a matter of utmost seriousness”. Let me add to that, that distorting the truth, leaving out information which one does not like, and making false accusations against a whole church is also a matter of utmost seriousness. I do not doubt that Iain Murray is sincere in his belief that Donald Macleod is guilty. However that does not justify his own behaviour and his inability to accept that he may be wrong.
I have been deeply disturbed by Iain Murray’s role in all this. His ability to leave out relevant facts, distort others and be totally dismissive of those who do not agree with him do not bode well for his case against Donald Macleod nor for that matter do they give me confidence in his other historical writings. One hopes that they are at least somewhat more objective.
The Free Church has suffered enough from this attack. We could do without Mr Murray continuing to blacken our name. He is doing us and himself a great deal of harm. I would appeal to him to let things be, to repent of his distortions and to use his undoubted talents for a far more constructive purpose. Another organization which has suffered because of this is the Banner of Truth. Mr Murray has used his extensive network of Banner contacts and his position within that organization in a way which has done it a great deal of harm. It is time for those who are involved in the organization to lose their fear of Murray’s patronage and to take control of their own organization. The magazine needs a new editor and the whole organization needs to recover its purpose. It should stay out of internal church politics and perhaps then it will cease to be seen as the personal fiefdom of Mr Murray.
Meanwhile we could all do with prayer. This matter is over. We leave the final judgement to God.
David A. Robertson
Appendix - Free Church General Assembly
Friday 14th May 1999 - 8th Sederunt
_____________________
Notes
Rev David Robertson, Dundee [DR]
Rev Maurice Roberts, Inverness [MR]
Rev Kenneth Macleod, Back, Moderator [Moderator]
Professor John L Mackay, Assembly Clerk [JLM]
Taped Transcript Excerpt:
DR: Can you indicate that these reports are false?
MR: They might be false ... [tape inaudible]
DR: I’d be very satisfied if you can answer yes to this question: can you repudiate the reports, can you repudiate any such threat and can you promise that you do not intend to take this church to court?
MR: I would need to confer with my brethren in the FCDA before I can say. It depends on what happens today, I should think.
DR: Well that is precisely my point. It was reported today, it was reported today that it depended yesterday on what happens next. I still believe, Moderator, that there is an implied legal threat against this court. Mr Roberts, you have not answered my question.
MR: Moderator, what I am saying is that I cannot say this will be my intention or that it will not be. It remains to see what happens today.
JLM: I’m sorry, Moderator, but I do have to say that this is not a satisfactory response from someone who has taken an oath ... is an office bearer in the Free Church and he has pledged not to follow any divisive courses. He should be able to make a categoric statement that you have no intention of taking the church to court.
[foot stamping from commissioners]
MR: Moderator, I accept the will of the assembly and must take the consequences of that, whatever they are. I have taken my vows and must take the consequences of [tape inaudible] what ever that is.
Moderator: Well, I think that it is appropriate for us to .... uh ... to know ...to remind us of what our vows are. And one of our vows ...uh ... as office bearers we take, is this: ‘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, where God in His providence shall cast your lot; and that, according to your power, you shall maintain the unity and peace 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?’[1]
I think any of us appearing here ... uh ... and seeing ... uh ... the judgement of this court on any particular matter, comes here and ... uh ... understanding ... they are not willed or co-erced into leaving the church but that this is a condition of your remaining [tape inaudible].
MR: May I respond, Sir? My response, Moderator, is that I have been an officebearer in the Free Church of Scotland for the past thirty years and a minister for nearly twenty five and I have always submitted myself to the jurisdiction of this church. But ... if we’re facing ... gross and irremediable wickedness then we have certain reasons for objecting to it.
Moderator: A Point of Order. For this assembly to hear of ‘wickedness’ is totally unacceptable and I think that you ought to withdraw that statement.
MR: How can I withdraw what I believe in my heart? I have witnessed today in these courts ... I have witnessed hypocrisy and evil.
JLM: Moderator, I think I had better say something at this point. How Sir, can you continue to be a minister of the church?
MR: I would say Moderator that it is for the church itself to decide now.
JLM: No, I think in this case it is for you to decide. As I understand the principles of the church, you have already entered your dissent and protest against error ... in this assembly. The principles of this church perhaps can be understood best by differentiating them from the principles of our brethren in the Free Presbyterian Church. As I understand it if you have entered into dissent and protest against the decision of their superior court you are automatically separated from the church. The Free Church has not taken that position. It does not view a dissent and protest from a decision of the superior court with any less seriousness, but it leaves it to the conscience of the individual who has submitted that dissent and protest, as to whether or not they can, in conscience, continue to live in the church that has made that decision. Entering a dissent and protest does not license this individual to continue to seek to subvert the decisions of the superior court. If they can, in good conscience before God, say that ‘this decision is one that doesn’t affect them, I can continue in good conscience before God’ - then it is the position of the church that the individual can continue, but we leave to your conscience. It is your decision, you’re the one who has dissented, you’re the one who has to make up your mind. But it is utterly forbidden by the laws and practices of the historic Church of Scotland that you continue to seek to subvert the decisions of the Assembly. If one looks back just a few months into the last century, there were disputes over the introduction of hymn singing into the Free Church - there were many there who protested and who continued in the church because they said I can live in conscience with this decision, I am not personally forced to introduce this form of worship. And that is a perfectly legitimate position. But should the decision of the church be such that you cannot in conscience live with it, it is your responsibility.
Moderator: Thank you, Clerk.
DR: Moderator, I have a suggestion for a motion. It appears to me that Mr Roberts has answered my question with a ‘yes’. He has said that legal action is dependant upon the decisions of the Assembly today. That to me is not just an implied threat, it is a definite threat. It is a threat which is unconstitutional and which is completely out of order. I would therefore suggest that there is a prima facie case whereby Maurice Roberts or any of the Free Church Defense Association office bearers who wish to appear, have acted in contempt of the Assembly by seeking to influence the decisions of the Assembly in threatening legal action, that Mr Roberts should be censured by this Assembly. I believe he has acted with great emotion, but it is breathtaking that a office bearer of the Free Church can stand up and say that the church is hypocritical and evil. Personally, I could not remain in a church which is hypocritical and evil, and I can’t see Mr Roberts. I want to know if my motion is in order.
[1] From. Act Anent Questions and Formula (As Amended by Act II, 1874), Part 3, question 6. The Practice of the Free Church of Scotland, Knox Press, Edinburgh
back |
