Introduction:  The last Today’s Issues entitled Free Church Crisis initiated a considerable response – for which I am thankful. Several of my colleagues agreed wholeheartedly (including those in other denominations who pointed out that they were going through the same experiences), others were shocked and those who disagreed said nothing (to me).  However I have since received new information which has caused me to reflect a little more.  The Assembly reports came out, the Monthly Record for June arrived on my doorstep and Principal Donald Macleod of the Free Church College wrote a very interesting article in his West Highland Free Press column.  It is the latter that I want to look at as we head into another Assembly because as well as dealing with some of the issues that Free Church Crisis dealt with, it also neatly manages to touch upon almost every report and every area of the Church’s life.  I am grateful to Principal Macleod as always for his stimulation and his willingness to express what he feels.  He is to my mind still the best theologian I have ever met and I will never forget some of the most memorable sermons I have ever heard from him.  Therefore I take what he says seriously and treat it with a great deal of respect.  

Footnotes:  For those who do not have the benefit of the WFHP and since it is now offline I will try to summarise the Principal’s article before commenting on it.  According to the Principal when the Free Church was founded in 1843 its leaders faced the problem of how to provide support for the ministry.  They hit upon a solution known as the Sustentation Fund whereby money was collected at a local level, put into a central fund and then the income divided amongst the ministers – who would each receive an equal dividend.   This arrangement has served the church well for 160 years but now the Stewardship and Policy committee is to ask the General Assembly to scrap the Sustentation fund.   This is a revolution in the churches finances, and an unnecessary one at that.   The church’s finances are in better shape than they have been for years; Ministers are paid an adequate stipend, not only getting £17,000 but also free housing, job security, heating and lighting and a secure pension (besides which cleaners face financial hardships too); every Presbytery is an aid giving presbytery; the Free Church has 80 congregations which pay less than the £25,000 needed to sustain a minister and yet because only 40 of them have ministers these congregations actually more than pay for the ones they have with a surplus of some £48,082.     If we change the system then there is the danger that the weak will be left out whilst the wealthier congregations support Baptist, fundamentalist, Dispensational happy clappy missionaries. The Sustentation Fund has served the Church well and in recent times kept the flame burning in Aberdeen, Dundee and Kirkcaldy. The Free Church does not need to review its finances.  We need to review our congregational boundaries, exclusive psalmody and the ordination of women.  “What we don’t need is the pseudo radicalism that thinks our fathers never did anything right, and great centres of spiritual energy which have no interest in the souls of Arisaig and Glenelg. “ 

So that’s it. The Free Church is doing very nicely thank you, there is no real financial crisis, ministers are actually doing quite well, every Presbytery is aid giving, the smaller congregations are paying their way, the system is working well and all we have to worry about are the pseudo radicals of the Stewardship and Policy committee.  

It’s all very persuasive and stirring stuff, written with the usual verve and Bon Mot of the Principal.  By now it will have been read by most Commissioners to the Assembly and doubtless it will have had the desired effect, with some.  If you are in one of the ‘80’ small congregations who would not want to hear that the church’s finances were healthy, that we have this wonderful biblical, efficient and fair system which is working fine.  Who wants to be accused of having no interest in the souls of Arisaig and Glenelg, of going against the traditions of our fathers by following pseudo-radicals, and of having no respect for Presbyterianism and Calvinism?  On the basis of the information given in the WHFP article I too would be manning the barricades, demanding the resignation of the Stewardship and Policy committee, and writing furious letters to the Stornoway Gazette.  If what the article says is true then we should all be profoundly grateful to the Principal for having warned us of this danger sneaking up. 

The Past - Let’s begin with the history. The notion that our Disruption forefathers created this utopian system of funding whereby everyone was paid equally is I’m afraid a myth.  It is true that a central fund was formed and that every member of the Church was expected to contribute towards it.   The idea was that when, after the Disruption, the Free Church needed to provide manses, churches and stipends all over the country, all Free Church people were asked to consider not only their own local situation but also the wider Church. It was an exemplary model which relied upon two things – the unity of the Church and the ‘power of littles’.   Free Church people were visited in their homes and asked to give one penny per week for the Sustentation Fund.   The whole amount was to be shared as an Equal Dividend amongst all the ministers.  So far so good.  However, this is a far notion from the current practice of the Free Church.  Firstly it most emphatically did not mean that all ministers were paid the same - that was never its intention or practice.   A dividend was paid from the Sustentation Fund which local congregations could then supplement as they saw fit. 

Secondly Deacons’ Courts did not pay into the Sustentation Fund from the general finances of the congregation.  The Fund was financed by special collections from individual members.  The notion of Deacons’ Courts paying a percentage of the income which came into their congregation to the Sustentation Fund was not part of the scheme.  I have no doubt at all that Chalmers, Guthrie et al would have been horrified that their voluntary scheme designed to encourage individual generosity has somehow been turned into a redistribution taxation scheme which even the most unreconstructed Stalinist would be proud of.   The notion of a church being asked to pay 77% of its ordinary income is a million miles away from the philosophy, spirituality, initiative and economics of Chalmers.  The fact that we so readily buy into this myth indicates only the poverty of our understanding of our own history.  

What is more the scheme initially did not work and had troubles throughout the 19th century.   There were those who were happy to take the whole Equal Dividend and seemed to do little to contribute towards it.  Thus the Assembly introduced what was called the ‘One and a Half Scheme’.   This was done to prevent small congregations bleeding the system dry.  Those congregations which gave less than £100 per year could only draw out of the fund what they contributed to it plus one half more. If a congregation contributed £20 then the minister could only draw £30 from the fund.   This scheme also failed because congregations tried to buck the system by borrowing money, so several other schemes were introduced – including the Rating System and the Supplementary Fund.  Without going into detail the point was that the Free Church never adopted a legal scheme which many seem to think we have at the moment.  Indeed Begg and others argued strongly that only moral and spiritual suasion should be used and that one of the major problems was that the Church had too many ministers for the amount of income.  Most Deacons’ Courts do not realise that the current percentage levy is a voluntary levy and they are not obliged to send up the ‘required’ percentage. Indeed the recent change in charity legislation has only brought that to the fore.  The reason that congregations have had to register as individual charities is because the central Church ‘does not exercise control over the funds and assets of congregations’ (P11. of the Assembly reports). 

If we want to be faithful to the principles of our Disruption Forefathers then we need to re-establish the Sustentation fund for the 21st century.  This would be a central fund which individuals and/or congregations would be asked to contribute to and from which a basic salary (an Equal Dividend) would be paid to all ministers.  Then Deacons’ Courts would be free to supplement the income as they wished – although I am sure it would be wise for the Assembly to set a maximum income. No one is arguing for the St Peters minister to be given a £100,000 supplement!  

The Present -  

Current Finances - Principal Macleod argues that the Church’s finances are in a better state than they have been for many years.  It is true that for 2006 we will show a healthy balance of income over expenditure for the first time in many years.  But what Principal Macleod does not mention is that this is primarily due to a substantial legacy, to the stock market recovery helping our pension position and to the Continuing paying our legal fees.  This is exceptional income and the underlying trend is still extremely serious – not least because the size and viability of congregations is mainly declining (of which more later). 

Stipend - We are then informed that ‘the current arrangement is providing an adequate stipend for ministers’.  To justify this statement Principal Macleod implies that the ‘perks’ more than make up for the limited salary.  But if you examine these perks they are not what Principal Macleod states.  Firstly many ministers do not enjoy ‘job security’ – unlike Professors in the Free Church College we are assessed on results.  If our congregations drop in income then we can lose our jobs or have our pay cut, if there is disharmony in the Church we can lose our jobs – indeed many of us would not want to keep them.  Most of us would be more than happy to give up ‘free housing’ for a decent wage and the opportunity to own our own property.  The Free Church offers no property or bonus on retirement (unlike the Church of Scotland).  In an age when social housing has declined just what is a minister supposed to do when he retires?  And yet to run the manse and get on the property ladder on £17,000 per year is impossible.   And although we do receive stated expenses they vary considerably and from the Inland Revenue point of view we are only allowed 20%of our heat and light as legitimate expenses.    

The most annoying part of Principal Macleod’s statement is when he speaks on behalf of ‘we clergy’ and neglects to mention that Professors in the Free Church College are paid double what their brother ministers are paid.  The initial intention of this was that in an era when ministers did receive much more ‘in kind’ than they do today ‘Professors’ should be treated equally.  Now we have moved into a situation where being a Professor in the Free Church College is considered a promoted post and thus worthy of double pay, one and three quarter pension (last year there was even a proposal to increase the Professors pension so that all Professors were paid the same – this alone would have added £1 million to the Pension fund) and help with housing.  Personally I would not begrudge the Professors this, however it is extremely unwise of someone in this advantageous position to write on behalf of his less well off brethren and tell the whole world, and our congregations how well off ‘we’ are.   As for the comparison with nurses, policemen, fishermen and cleaners one appreciates the rhetorical point but it just does not work.  Last week my wife got her P60.  She works part time and last year earned as much as myself.  Her job as a social worker is important but you will forgive me feeling a little embarrassed that after seven years training and 21 years in the ministry I earn less working full time than she does part time.   And what about my colleagues who have to apply for tax credits and other benefits!?  Meanwhile if Principal Macleod really believes that we are relatively well off perhaps he should suggest to the Stewardship and Policy committee that all ministers should be given the choice of keeping their manses or congregations selling their manses and doubling the ministers salaries.  I know which side I would be on.  

Current State of Presbyteries and Congregations.  

In this section Professor Macleod makes two assertions which if true would carry some weight.  The first is that every Presbytery in the Free Church is ‘aid giving’. This is to say the least an interesting use of statistics.  On the basis of £25,000 per minister even my old Presbytery, the Northern, is considered to be aid giving.  But £25,000 is not a realistic figure.  It does not for example take into account pensions which on a conservative estimate last year cost £10,000 per minister in each charge.  £30,000 is more like the figure.  That would mean that the Northern Presbytery with 11 ministers is nowhere near the mark.  If you take away the £63,390 from Rosskeen then the situation is even bleaker.  The reason for this is not because the congregations in the Northern Presbytery are less generous, indeed the nature of smaller struggling congregations is to be more generous.  The problem is that only two of the congregations have more than 50 people (including children) in attendance on a Sunday morning.  In fact the total attendance on a Sunday morning in the whole Northern Presbytery (excluding Rosskeen and Tain) is less than Smithton. That is 14 congregations have less attending than that one congregation – and it is not especially big (300 in the morning).    

When you look at the wider picture in the whole Church it is not encouraging.  Of the 94 congregations the statistics for 2005 are as follows:  Congregations with over 200 in attendance at the morning service (4); 100-200 (9); 50-100 (22); 25-50 (38) and under 25 (21).  These figures include children.  It is astonishing that 18 of the 21 Glasgow Presbytery congregations have attendances of below 50.    A viable congregation really needs 50 plus people – not only in terms of finance but also in terms of manpower (we need elders, deacons, treasurers, cleaners, Sunday school teachers etc).   The fact that 60% of our congregations are smaller than this is astonishing.  What makes it worse is that 50% of the membership is over 60 – and in many of the smaller congregations that is the predominant demographic.  

How then does Professor Macleod manage to claim it is a myth that “there is a long tail of small unsustainable congregations bleeding us dry”?   By a creative and inaccurate use of statistics.  The article suggests that there are 80 smaller congregations (giving less than £25,000) who between them give £1,048,082.  As there are only 40 ministers between these congregations and allowing for £25,000 per minister, according to the Principals reckoning this means that these 80 congregations are actually in surplus to the tune of £48,082.  It’s very neat but it does not work.  According to the Assembly reports there are only 58 such congregations – not 80.  Furthermore they give £862,045 not £1,048,082, meaning a deficit of £137,955.  Using Principal Macleod’s own methodology this actually means that only the top 20 congregations are contributing anything towards the College, Offices and International Mission.  If we use the more realistic figure of £30,000 it means that, if the rest of us are perceived to be paying for every minister in the bottom 92, only the top seven congregations (Stornoway, Free North, Dowanvale, Aberdeen, Back, Smithton and Buccleuch) are contributing.  It is not just that there is a large tail – it is an overwhelming tail – and the failure to acknowledge this means that the whole ship is in danger of being dragged down, and both small and large will be swamped.  

The Future – The Stewardship and Policy Committee report recognises this. When it was proposed at last years General Assembly that the Committee should look at how we finance the Church it was pointed out that the ‘current system is unworkable and ultimately may be harmful to the Gospel’.  At the time the proposer was criticised for using hyperbole and asked to withdraw the phrase ‘harmful to the Gospel’.  He refused.   The sub-committees report now states that the current system is unworkable and potentially harmful to the cause of the Gospel.  Principal Macleod says that the report wants to scrap the Sustentation Fund.  Again this is not true.  The current scheme of ‘percentage levy imposed on congregations’ is to be replaced and the Committee is to come with detailed proposals for a ‘more efficient and biblical system’ to the 2008 Assembly.  In fact Principal Macleod’s article is self contradictory – on the one hand he admits that the ‘old arrangement was never meant to be a percentage levy on the congregations’; on the other he argues against the Committees proposals to scrap the percentage levy.     No one is disputing the principle that the strong should help the weak so that in turn when they are strong they can help those who have become weak.  What we are disputing is that the unbiblical and unpresbyterian notion that none should be strong. (I attach the full report as an appendix so that you can see for yourself what is being suggested).  

Principal Macleod knows all this.  He is after all a member of the Stewardship and Policy committee.  It is therefore doubly disappointing that he seeks to scupper the whole review before it has even come to the Church and that he does so through misleading and inaccurate reports in the secular press (I am still wondering what discussions about Sustentation Funds and Free Church congregational funding have to do with the readership of the WHFP?).  If the Principal feels that the report is wrong then he should speak against it in the Church courts and he should have produced a minority report to the Assembly.  He is of course still free to do so – because, the discussion has only just begun and we need to think this through very carefully.   This is about the future of the Free Church.   

The situation in the Free Church is extremely serious.  If the Assembly adopts the head in the sand approach advocated by the Principal then we will be sentencing ourselves to a lingering death by contraction and strangulation.  We are very close to the edge at the moment – if we do not waken up and strengthen what remains and is about to die we will only have ourselves to blame.   The Assembly reports illustrate this. We are told that a couple of congregations are going to link – only because the minister of one has left and it is now convenient to do so.  The trouble is that this is probably too little, too late.  This should have been a proactive move years ago, not one that was only undertaken when the minimum of fuss and pain could be involved.  No consideration seems to be given to what has been going wrong or how it can be made better.  It is just a financial arrangement which in all probability will mean that two dying congregations just become one dying congregation – but at least they keep a minister for a few more years to preside over the funeral.  

There are other buttons that the article pushes and that are relevant to the Assembly reports – so let me respond briefly to some of them.  

Who cares for Glenelg?  The idea that our concern for the souls of Arisaig and Glenelg is determined by our adherence to a 19th century parish model when the Free Church was 100 times the size it is now, is quite frankly ludicrous.  There have been considerable changes since 1843 – the car, the internet, the telephone, electricity and not least the change in the social dynamics and religious culture of the areas concerned.  Even in the early 19th century one third of the Scottish population lived north of the Highland line – that is no longer the case.  Whenever I drive to my home area of Portmahomack I drive past the old magnificent Fearn Free Church building, now turned into a home.  It is in the middle of a field – not in the centre of Fearn, not in the fishing villages of Balintore, Hilton and Shandwick and not Nigg.  Why?  So that the people could be within two hours walking distance of the church!  Take a compass and draw a two hour drive radius around that building now and you will find over 40 Free Churches within range.  

Glenelg and Arnisdale, Lochalsh and Glenshiel have a grand total on a good Sunday morning of 12 people.  We need to recognise the changed demographics, the changed situations and look to do what we can to reach out in both urban and rural situations where there is little Gospel penetration.  How do we bring the Gospel to the incomers, the tourists and the vast majority of locals who have long since forsaken the church of their fathers?  Not by the maintenance model – putting a minister in, papering over the cracks in a dilapidated building, and then sitting back lamenting the passing of a bygone age and moaning about ‘Edinburgh’ not giving us enough money and destroying the Heritage of our Fathers.  Furthermore Principal Macleod is wrong to imply that the ‘great centres of spiritual energy’ have no interest in the souls of those in the remoter communities.  Smithton Free Church for example have through the innovative use of video technology, together with Ullapool supported the tiny congregation of Coigach.  As a result there is an attendance of 35.  We need that kind of practical, innovative and genuine support.  Not the paper support and the notion that merely having a ‘congregation’ somehow constitutes evangelism or even care for souls.  

Who Cares for Scotland? In this respect the Principal is correct in stating that the marks of great centres of ‘spiritual energy’ should have a determination to look beyond the local to the national and international, and to work with the sister churches in our own denomination to make sure that Scotland enjoys blanket coverage with the Gospel and that we work together in international missions.  We say Amen to all that.  However the system that the Principal is defending is something that militates against that and prevents it happening.  No one really believes that our current system gets anywhere near nor will get anywhere near that. There are vast areas of Scotland that do not have ‘blanket coverage of the Gospel’.  For the Free Church to restrict itself to a 19th century demographic model and financing structure can only do harm to the Gospel. 

On the other hand it should be noted that congregations with spiritual life in them are growing and do have an interest in national and international mission.  The Free North runs Madras Street, Buccleuch and Greyfriars is involved in Bethany and prison work, the Lewis congregations have been supportive of Harris, St Peters started St Andrews and is working in St Cyrus; Greyfriars is helping Duthil Dores and Kingussie, Kirkcaldy has sacrificially given to Dunfermline, London City is planting in Canada Water, Cobham in Maidenhead and there are other examples of local support and initiative; and where would our international missions be without Stornoway and Back?   The frustrating thing is that those of us who want to help, and want to send people elsewhere, and want to church plant, are held back by an overcentralised, inefficient and unbiblical system which often stifles and strangles new life before it even comes out the womb.   We are too busy propping up dead wood and pretending that we live in some glorious past rather than reforming, revitalising and reaching out.  The Stewardship and Policy committees report gave me a faint glimmer of hope that we could perhaps, by the grace of God, turn things around.  

Does Dundee care?  Another claim that the Principal makes is that the Sustentation Fund kept the flame burning in churches such as Dundee when we were close to extinction. The implication is clear.  The wider Free Church kept you going when you were nearly dead now you should be supporting the smaller congregations elsewhere.  At one level that is perfectly correct.  And that is what we are doing.  We are delighted to help birth the new church in St Andrews and we want to support congregations which have fallen on hard times and yet have a desire to reach out, reform and grow wherever they are.    However we have no interest whatsoever in presiding over and supporting situations that are clearly not working and which are acting as a drain upon the wider Church.  In many instances of course we are not in a position to make that kind of judgment and that is where we should trust the wider church to be wise, strategic and radical.  The question that many of our people and Deacons Court’s have is – are we managing things well centrally?  Or is it the case that a mess of legislation and an unwillingness to go anything other than the easy path has resulted in a kind of paralysis which means that our people are very suspicious of how the Church spends their money?  

Furthermore Principal Macleod is wrong to suggest that it was the Sustentation Fund which kept the flame burning here in Dundee.  It is precisely the opposite.  The Sustentation Fund nearly killed the Free Church here.  When I came here in 1992 the congregation was a handful of people, met in a decrepit building and was in a desperate condition.  Free Church people who came to the city would not touch it with a barge pole, the wider Christian community regarded us as a joke and the non-Christian community regarded us as a total irrelevance.  How did we let it get to that state? Because of the Sustentation fund.  The minister was guaranteed his wage, no matter what size the congregation, and the old arguments about the strong supporting the weak could always be conveniently trotted out.   In addition the Church as a whole refused to face up to the real situation in Dundee – officially and in our reports we encouraged people to give money to the McCheyne building and we spoke of the ‘faithful’ work.  Unofficially we all knew it was a mess – so much so that Free Church ministers often had difficulty in advising their members who moved to Dundee to come to St Peters.   We had neither the mechanism nor the will to deal with the situation and so for years we let it decline.  It was only when yet another elder resigned that the Presbytery finally stepped in.  Through the grace and mercy of God we have recovered somewhat to a situation where we are now the fifteenth largest congregation in the whole Free Church (in terms of attendance).  But it has taken 15 years and we are still only beginning.   Radical action needed to be taken much earlier – we have wasted far too many years.  The Sustentation Fund gave us a life support machine to a paralysed body, when what we needed was a burial and a Resurrection!    Perhaps that is a parable for the whole Free Church?  

Who Cares for the World?  As regards supporting international mission there is again a contradiction in the article.  Principal Macleod points out rightly that Deacons’ Courts (and individuals) give freely and cheerfully to central funds – yet he condemns those same courts and individuals if they support a member of their congregation who serves with OM or OMF on the grounds that they may be Baptist (shock, horror!), fundamentalist or dispensational.  Apart from showing an appalling ignorance of OM and OMF these comments are quite disgraceful – trying to imply that supporting those such as Muriel Macleod in Kampuchea is somehow being disloyal to the Free Church! 

 Last night my Deacons’ Court sat down and voted to give £250 to one of our members going to a Muslim country for the summer with WEC, another £100 for someone going to do an elective in Peru and £50 to another going to Panama.  Each month we look at our congregational giving and take 10% of the top line and put it into an international fund.  Some of that goes to support Free Church missionaries, others people working with other groups.  Ironically since we started this practice the interest in Free Church missions has grown thanks largely to the excellent presentation work done by Calum Ferguson and Colin Macpherson.   Also our congregational funds have not gone down because the people are giving more! 

Again the IMB is a paradigm of the wider Free Church.  My view is that we should be spending more on International Mission, not less.  However the percentage levy scheme is a disaster for international mission.  Again we are faced with a choice. We can either operate the closed shop, behind closed doors 20th century policy of the Free Church or we can open out, and trust our churches and people to pay for the missionary work that the Lord lays upon their hearts.  A 12% slice of a declining pie will mean less money for International missions.  Congregations and individuals giving because they are enthused by the Wilsons’ work in Dumisani, the Macphersons in Moyobama, ‘Adam’, the Reanos in Bogota, and a vision for the Muslim work, will do a lot more good.  We want openness and vision, prayer and accountability; not politics, arguments about money, targets and spin. 

Who Cares for the College? Which bring us neatly to the College. I am sure that Principal Macleod wrote as he did out of concern for the College and seeking to defend his corner.  However the current financial system whilst it may have short term advantages for the College is in the medium to long term, disastrous for the College as well.  There is no point in killing the goose that lays the Golden Egg.   In arguing for the financial and structural status quo the Principal is in danger of shooting himself in the foot.  

The Free Church College is an essential and fundamental part of the Church.  I am very concerned that our College prospers and grow, not only for the health of the Free Church but also for the whole Church in Scotland and beyond.  Our College could and should be a real gift to the wider Church.  That is why anyone reading the Assembly reports has to be alarmed.  I was shocked to discover that this year there will only be five Free Church students in our College.  Not five coming in, but five in total.  That is one student per Professor.  It is a staff/student ratio that even Oxford cannot afford!  And it is a Professor to minister ratio that no Presbyterian Church in the world comes anywhere near!  There is no indication that this ratio is likely to change substantially in the future.   Now of course that is not the whole story.  The College provides an excellent service to private students, especially to those from overseas, the Professors are engaged in research and writing, and there is the excellent monthly Saturday course. 

Noone- least of all myself, wants to undermine the College.  The trouble is that any attempt to face up to the reality of the situation is treated as though that is precisely what we are doing.  There is a threat to the College.  It comes from the inability to realise that without growing churches and new churches there will be no new students; without students there will be no College.   The Free Church does not exist for the College.  The College exists for the Free Church and the Church has the right and indeed must exercise that right, to determine how much we spend on the College and what and who are taught in our College.   

Who Cares for the Free Church?  Finally one hesitates to say this but I’ve gone this far and I might as well finish. I believe, as I indicated in my earlier article that our crisis is not primarily a financial or an organisational one. It is a spiritual one.  We do need repentance, prayer and faith.  Alex MacDonald has an excellent editorial in the June Monthly Record where he urges us to look at good practice and to see in particular how good, godly, humble, sacrificial and manly leadership is producing results in the Free Church.  We need that leadership.  I need to become that kind of leader. For that I need to stick to the Word of God and my congregation does not need to hear confusion but rather the clarity of the Word of Jesus. In that regard one of the greatest dangers that we face is that the Free Church (and its College) will lose its way theologically.  Principal Macleod mentions two issues which to my mind indicate that clearly and will become real tests of whether we are a Church under the Word, or above it.  

He suggests that the Free Church needs to review the ordination of women.  This is a quite extraordinary statement to write in a secular newspaper.  There would be no problem if he was referring in general to the concept of ordination or the idea that women should exercise a diaconal ministry (for which there is clear scriptural support).  The difficulty is that the readers of the WHFP will quite clearly understand it to be talking about women elders and women ministers.   Now I while I have no problem with that personally or emotionally, I do have a problem with it scripturally.  No matter how I try it seems to me that the meaning of Scripture is clear, unambiguous and plain.  The Lord does not allow women to be elders or ministers.  It is for that reason that I could not and probably would not be allowed to join the Church of Scotland (because I would be compelled to do something I thought was unbiblical) and I will fight tooth and nail to preserve the Scriptural order of male eldership in the Free Church.   When the Principal raises this issue in this manner it causes a great deal of harm. If he believes that the Church has got it wrong and that the Bible allows women elders then he should bring his studies to the Church and persuade us from the Scripture.  I would be more than happy to be persuaded!  However by writing in a secular newspaper in such a manner he a) gives the impression that it is regarded as an open question in the Free Church (it is not) and thus amongst other things damages our witness and credibility in the wider Reformed world (and no, I do not mean the FCC) and b) he undermines the cause of scriptural reform by feeding the fears of those who use the ‘thin end of the wedge’ argument.  Thus I believe it is scriptural for a woman to pray in public but Joe Bloggs will argue that it is the thin end of the wedge and the result will be deadlock and stalemate. An irreformable Church, paralysed by fear and lacking the courage and principle to debate openly and to discipline, is hardly a Biblical Reformed Church.

It is in this respect that the linking of the Psalmody issue and women’s ordination is so dangerous and mischievous.   The scriptural teaching about women elders and ministers is unambiguous and clear.   The issues on worship that the Special Committee on Worship have been asked to study are not so clear – that is why they have been asked to study them.  I became persuaded a couple of years ago that our position on instrumental music was, to say the least, questionable.  I asked the Assembly last year to look at whether simple instrumental accompaniment in worship could be permissible.  The Committee is due to report on that next year.   There is a biblical argument for using musical accompaniment and there is certainly no biblical ban on such. However there is no scriptural warrant for women elders and there is a biblical ban on women preaching.  The two issues are not similar and it is very damaging to the work of the Church to state that they are.   I suspect that the result will be a fudge which will be disastrous for us all. On the one hand the Principal will remain free to advocate what is to my mind unscriptural, on the other hand nothing will change because rather than making decisions on the basis of Scripture we will do so on the basis of fear, tradition and personality. Ironically this means that those of us who are desperate to organise and run the Church with the Scripture as the only rule to direct and guide us, will be hamstrung yet again.  

Principal Macleod has implied that the Stewardship and Policy Committee is guilty of pseudo-radicalism which ‘thinks our fathers never did anything right’.  That is an unfair, unwarranted and a demonstrably false implication.  It should not have been made in a secular newspaper.  It should not have been made at all.  However the fact that he has made it does at least allow us to discuss in the open some of the issues he raises. In my view it is better to do this ‘in house’, though this website, in the Church courts and as brothers before the Lord, seeking what is best for His Kingdom. No-one, least of all yours truly, thinks that our fathers never did anything right.   In fact we could learn a great deal from the practice of our Free Church fathers.  Would that we took on board Chalmers’ views on instrumental music, or Guthrie’s views on schooling, or Begg’s views on helping the poor, or Cunningham’s theology, Candlish’s vision, Rabbi Duncan’s spirituality! If we had their radical and innovative views of finance (the reality and not the myth), their zeal for home and foreign mission and their willingness to change according to Scripture rather than relying on the past, then we would be a much better Church.  Some of their legacy remains with us, and we do have much to be thankful for, but we do need to strengthen what remains.

Sometimes it is helpful to see ourselves as others see us.  A Free Church minister is going on one of his many missionary forays over the border into darkest Englandshire.  The following is how his church, our church, has been introduced.  They are perceptive and accurate words, I hope they are not our epitaph.  “The Free Church of Scotland is a denomination which is steadfastly committed to the truths of the Reformed Faith, and has its cherished and strong traditions, with a high regard for the Lord's Day (would that we had that), and is committed to preaching, and to singing the psalms exclusively in corporate worship. It's accurate to say, though, that the Free Church has struggled to meet the challenge of a changing and now radically secularised Scotland. In many places congregations are elderly and small, and a denomination which was once so effective in its evangelism (it was the acknowledged  leader in pioneering evangelism in the late 1800s), is now struggling to get a hearing for the Gospel at all.”

I believe that the Lord has set before us an open door.  There are many good things in the Free Church and we do have many assets – particularly in terms of our people.  Scottish society is more open to the Gospel than for many years and we are seeing good practice and results.  However it will not be this way for long.   We are faced with a choice.  We can turn inwards – retreat into our own wee bunker whilst the remainder of the house falls about us.  Sure, we will be able to live off the crumbs for the rest of our lives – but what a desperate sad pathetic vision  - sitting looking at old photos, reminiscing about the past whilst the future dries up.   Or we can walk through that door and seek to build up the Lord’s kingdom by proclaiming the Gospel in liberty, love and joy, living always under the clear blue sky of Scripture, looking for the city whose builder and foundation is God, forgetting what is behind and straining to what is ahead.     

Two visions have been set before the Church.  The Assembly will have to choose.  All we can do is pray. May God have mercy on us.  

David A. Robertson – May 2007

PS.  If you would like to have your own say on these issues then why not go to The Forum and post a comment or question?

Appendix – The Report of the Stewardship and Policy Committee on Finance