The response to my last article on this subject was very interesting – especially from overseas. Most people were completely unaware of the circumstances and the fact that the FCC are trying to take every single Free Church Manse and Church. Now things have moved on. And the FCC, through their commission of Assembly, have issued a statement (March the 11th) which gives their reasons for suing us. It makes most interesting reading and, as many readers of this column will not have access to it, I thought I would share its substance with you. The whole document is an interesting exercise in sophistry, irrationality and post-modern language. Fascinating.
New fundamental of the gospel!
Firstly we are informed that the split on 20th January 2000 was not ‘merely a dispute over whether or not a case of ecclesiastical discipline had been properly conducted’. It was in fact about ‘the fundamentals of the Gospel’. It was about doctrine. The doctrine of the Confession of Faith. Now readers may wonder just precisely what doctrine is under threat? What ‘fundamental of the gospel’ is being denied by the current Free Church? Is it the resurrection? The atonement? The divinity or humanity of Christ? Heaven and Hell? The Scriptures? None of the above. Some of you may have difficultly grasping this but according to the FCC a fundamental doctrine of the gospel is ‘the continued right of protest’. I am not sure what version of the Bible our friends in the FCC are using but it seems as though it has Paul saying in 1 Corinthians ch. 15 – “For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance; that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day, according to the Scriptures, that he appeared… and that he gave the right of protest”! How sad that these men equate their desire to protest against a disciplinary decision of the church with the glorious gospel of Jesus Christ – especially when one remembers that that decision they protested against was not to declare the guilty innocent, nor to seek to hide sin but simply that there was not sufficient evidence to bring a case.
Protests ad nauseum
But let us move away from the ridiculous and into the weird. In actual fact the right of protest that our friends in the FCC claim has been taken away from them, was never taken away. Indeed they were told that they had every right to protest. As convenor of an Assembly committee set up to answer some of their protests let me assure you that they took full advantage of that liberty! - to the extent that their legalese, pomposity and verboseness nearly caused me to become a manic depressive. More than once I wondered how Christians could descend into such pettiness? They made politicians look like paragons of virtue and honesty! Furthermore they were still entitled to protest as much as they wanted. However they were not entitled to continue to defy the General Assembly. This is where some people get confused. Is this not making the GA infallible? Not at all.
Anarchy in the Church.
Let me explain it this way. Every society and group as rules. Doubtless these rules can be changed but until they are, there is no point in belonging to that society if one refuses to work within those rules. That is as true of the Church as anywhere. Anarchy is not a biblical method of church government! Let us suppose that someone in the FCC decided that they wanted to sing hymns and that they argued for this in their congregation. And let us suppose that the FCC Assembly decided that this was out of order and forbade the practice. Can you imagine the ‘defendant’ being able to argue that he had the ‘right of protest to argue against error in the church’ and that he was therefore not going to obey the GA which was acting tyrannically and against the principles of Presbyterianism? I can assure you that if you argued such a position then your feet would not touch the ground as you were booted out of the church. In fact we do not need to imagine such a scenario – it actually happened. Maurice Roberts sought to libel Prof. Donald Macleod for daring to raise the question of public worship in a newspaper article. He wanted him to be removed from the church – not even for protesting against the decision of the GA not to use hymns – but for merely questioning it. Whatever happened to the ‘fundamental right of protest’?
Indeed if the FCC are seriously going to argue for the fundamental right to continue to protest against any action that an individual does not like – and more importantly the right to defy whatever the Assembly says that one does not like – then we are left with spiritual anarchy. They have made a mockery of their ordination vow. “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 the 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?”. These men, have in a classic piece of post-modern sophistry, reinterpreted this vow to mean that in order to be faithful to it one has to disrupt, broadcast, attack, publish, protest, campaign and do everything in ones power to overturn a decision on a discipline case that one does not agree with.
Secular Courts to decide doctrine.
Let us imagine that the FCC are successful in getting the secular court to agree that the right of protest (which according to them includes the right to continue to campaign against, and defy a decision of the assembly one does not agree with) is a fundamental of the Church. And let us imagine that one of their ministers suddenly announces he is homosexual and that he thinks homosexuality is something that should be allowed in the Church. He will of course be suspended. But then he goes to court. You see the General Assembly has removed his right of protest. The GA has affected his temporalities (his manse and wage). The GA has gone against the European Bill of Rights. And natural justice. He will win his case and the FCC will be able to do nothing about it because that is precisely what they are arguing. They argue that it is the State that has the right to determine in Church discipline cases. It is the State which says whom and who not the Church can employ as ministers. And it is the State which will determine the doctrine of the Church. Or at least the State will be the final arbiter in any dispute – which amounts to the same thing. The FCC statement admits that. “Clearly the parties cannot settle such a fundamental dispute themselves”.
Unconstitutional
It is interesting that in their latest public statement the FCC recognise this and seek to pre-empt criticism by suggesting that “an attempt was made at the October 1999 Commission to introduce a process of arbitration involving our sister churches but this was ruled as incompetent and unconstitutional by the Moderator on the advice of the Principal Clerk”. I read this statement with some astonishment as I was the person at the podium when this issue was raised. One FCC man came forward with a proposal which was so bizarre and unconstitutional that not one person, including all his FCC colleagues who were present, supported it. His case was that that Church had acted unconstitutionally, however he then went on to propose something which itself was unconstitutional. When I pointed out to him that his proposal would go against the constitution of the church he agreed – as did everyone else present. Not one person present was prepared to argue that the Assembly was allowed to undertake such an action – and so the matter fell. Not on the ruling of the Moderator but rather because everyone, including the proposer, agreed that what was being proposed was unconstitutional! Still why bother with the truth when you want to make it look as though the FCC were being reasonable and the Free Church obstructionist?
Encouraged by Lawyers and Martyrs
The FCC are obviously concerned about the effect this is having on some of their people and their reputation elsewhere and so they try to reassure their people in this latest statement. Firstly they say – be comforted - ‘we are encouraged by ‘Counsel’s Opinion’. Secondly they play the martyr card – “the current situation is causing such hardship for many of our people”. Apparently their members have to ‘face daily’ an ‘incredible…bitterness and intimidation’ from those ‘who would claim to be disciples of the Lord Jesus’. The persecution is such that the ‘harassed’ have to be remembered daily at the throne of grace. What image does this conjure up? I’m afraid that in the civilised Edinburgh and Perth Presbytery I have not witnessed nor am I aware of any of this ‘incredible bitterness and intimidation’. Indeed the ‘hardship’ faced by the only viable congregation they have in the whole presbytery is that they continue to occupy the manse of St Columba’s Free Church and thus deprive the Rev. Derek Lamont and his ever increasing family of a suitable family home (having to live in a church flat for the moment). Still perhaps they are speaking of the Wild West or Portmahomack. What daily privations are taking place in Lewis? Do the small congregation of the faithful in the Port have to run the gauntlet of the Rosskeen minister and his gang of thugs? Are FCC members in Stornoway routinely rounded up and sent to Ness? Are they refused service in shops – do people stare at them in the streets and though they were asylum seekers in Partick? I think we should be told. After all when our we are concerned for the murder of Christians in Pakistan, the imprisonment of believers in China and the expulsion of evangelicals from Russia we should be aware of the ‘incredible’ bitterness, intimidation and hardship faced by Christians in this country. Do you suspect that there might be just the smallest bit of exaggeration in this FCC commission statement?
Money for the Fight.
Still I suspect that this comfort – Our Counsel says we will win (did you ever hear of a Counsel being paid several hundred pounds per hour telling his clients that they were going to lose?) – is being given to motivate people to give more money. The Commissions statement ends up by giving thanks for “the outstanding financial support being given to the Free Church Continuing by our loyal people as we seek to defend the witness and testimony of the Free Church of Scotland”. So there you have it. If you are a member of the FCC you are now being told that your weekly givings are to be given to lawyers – all in the name of faithfulness. Perhaps if the ‘right to campaign against the GA’ is a fundamental part of your spirituality, perhaps if you believe that your brothers and sisters are being horsewhipped in Lewis, perhaps if you think that the Free Church has become liberal and gone to the dogs – then maybe, just maybe, you can be glad that your hard earned money is going to your ‘counsel’. On the other hand those of us who have an interest in the gospel can only be saddened by the waste of time, energy and money involved.
What really counts.
Although we are not happy about some of the difficulties faced by the theft of our property we cannot, in the light of recent news about Christians in other parts of the world, complain of our ‘incredible’ hardships. Above all, even though this action by the FCC could result in my losing my home and my church building, I cannot get too obsessed or upset by it. There are far more important issues to deal with. Not least church planting, bringing the gospel to the poor, developing our worship and dealing with my own sin. Neither can I regard this whole issue as about the fundamentals of the gospel. Certainly I am very disappointed that Maurice Roberts ‘misled’ me when he promised at the ICRC conference that the FCC would not claim ‘the title and assets’ of the Free Church. It just goes to show that even those who write editorials about holiness can be as sinful as the rest of us. Certainly I am disappointed that some good men have got caught up with some of the more eccentric and disturbed characters in the Church. And I cannot say that the Free Church is without sin. Yet there are fundamentals of the gospel which are continually under attack in our society. It is far more important to me that I write to the Scotsman than that I write in the Christian media. There is a real battle to be fought in the real world out there – not in the makey up world of the FCC. I am fed up of the politics, the shame and the greed of the whole thing. I am disgusted that the FCC have so little regard for the real fight that they want to wash our dirty linen in public, destroy the largest evangelical Presbyterian church in Europe and cause the name of God to be ‘blasphemed amongst the Gentiles’ – and all for self justification and a pot of gold.
Lancing the boil and fighting the GOOD fight.
I am sorry that I have had to write all the above. I guess it lances the boil for me. I hope it informs others and above all, I believe we should be encouraged and comforted. Our comfort is not in ‘Counsel’s Opinion’. We trust not in princes, nor in lawyers… in whom there is no stay. Our trust is in the Lord and his Word. I am certainly encouraged. Already this week I have heard Rico Tice, author of the Christianity Explored course, speaking at the Crieff Fellowship. I wish every minister could have heard it. It was excellent. Stimulating, refreshing and full of Jesus. I spent last night in the company of a fine group of young Christians who have just formed the first Free Church in St Andrews for a century. What a great bunch of young people! (Anyone want to come and minister to them? We are looking for a suitable pastor). Tonight I will go to my own prayer meeting and in a couple of weeks time we will celebrate Easter – with an outreach supper, a day of prayer and a communion Sunday. What more could a body (or a soul) ask for?! Let’s fight the good fight – and leave the bad one to the lawyers and those who think that going to court is the way to defend biblical doctrine.
back |
