BREACH OF FAITH
by Peter MastersFROM SWORD & TROWEL 2000 No 1
MANY OF OUR readers will be aware of the great upheaval within the Free Church of Scotland, resulting in a separation in which 33 ministers have constituted a ‘continuing’ Church, distinct from the main body. The new grouping accounts for about a quarter of the denomination’s ministers. The reasons for the division are rooted in a number of alleged sexual misdemeanours
committed by Principal Donald Macleod of the Free Church College. Although acquitted at a criminal
trial, Mr Macleod had earlier made certain admissions to some eminent and honourable Free Church
ministers, but these were later denied, and the ministers branded as liars and conspirators.
The response of the Free Church to this situation has been little short of astonishing. It is
plain, even to a non-Presbyterian independent, that the constitutional rules of the Free Church have
been shamelessly manipulated to avoid proper examination of Mr Macleod’s conduct.
At the criminal trial of Mr Macleod in Edinburgh in 1996 his defence was that several
ministers of the Free Church had conspired in a campaign to bring him down. The Free Church,
however, never placed these alleged ‘conspirators’ on any Church trial but decided that the matter was
‘terminated’. No chance was given to the defamed ministers to defend their good name nor to
ascertain who was telling the truth.
Attempts to have this unsatisfactory state of affairs resolved were resented and disallowed.
In the following months Mr Macleod and his supporters were able to get his critics (who in conscience
could not let the affair die away) put out of the Church under the charge of ‘contumacy’
(disobedience).
The Church’s rules have been further bent and broken in the campaign to discredit and
exclude these godly ministers, some of whom have been disgracefully pilloried. The whole appalling
episode has revealed an horrific lack of righteousness and spirituality in the ministers supporting Mr
Macleod. Not only has there been moral indifference in refusing to examine properly the case as a
church, but this has been reinforced by a vendetta against a large party of conservative evangelical
ministers.
We were stunned to read an editorial on this affair carried in the March 2000 edition
of Evangelical Times. The unnamed writer entirely sweeps aside the facts of the dispute,
treating it as an unfortunate squall between equally reputable sides, counselling reconciliation, and
warning that any legal action on the part of the minority to secure their properties would be
unscriptural. This exhortation to let bygones be bygones is justified by a distortion of the Paul-
Barnabas contention which could have come straight from the lips of any ecumenist, or from the group
of American clergymen who ‘forgave’ President Clinton.
Paul and Barnabas, we are told, simply put their quarrel behind them, and so should the
Free Church disputants. Repentance of wrongdoing appears to be unnecessary. The split is made to
sound as if it were entirely down to the sinful nature that dwells in all of us. The Scottish division (or
so it is implied) is nothing more than a corporate personality clash due to sinful attitudes on both sides.
The writer of the editorial should know that if sin is committed, then repentance must
precede forgiveness and reconciliation. What would he do if an unrepentant wrongdoer had to be
excluded from his church? Would he not expect repentance before readmission? His brief exposition
of Paul’s dispute with Barnabas is sadly the most superficial we have seen for a long time, and his
application of it positively insulting to the ‘continuing’ Free Church.
There is no doubt in our mind that the ‘continuing’ Church has an absolute duty before God
to take a stand for righteousness.
Nor is there any doubt that the ‘continuing’ Church is ethically free to appeal to the civil
courts for a legitimate share of denominational facilities, if they wish to do so. Brother does not go to
law against brother, but if a professing brother abandons his obedience to God, and dispossesses his
brother, he forfeits the privilege of being considered a brother.
This writer, as an independent, would probably choose to go out penniless, and it is likely
that the ‘continuing’ ministers emotionally feel inclined to do just that. But if they conclude that it is
their duty to preserve for the King’s business some of the blood, sweat and toil of their forebears, they
will surely be right to take that course.
We hope that the brethren at Evangelical Times will distance themselves from
the writer of their editorial, whoever he may be, and so preserve their honour, and their faithfulness to
the battle for righteousness and the Gospel.
Mr Macleod has always been, in our view, a speckled bird - and an ecumenist. Soon after
the allegations became public he turned his back on his former professed beliefs and virtually
repudiated the reformed faith on BBC radio. It told us much about the majority party in the Free
Church when they subsequently proved so eager to appoint him to their seniormost teaching position,
and to defend him whatever the cost.
We stand in spirit with congregations of the ‘continuing’ Church, and pray for their
guidance, blessing and protection. Dear brothers and sisters, don’t be discouraged by that
uncharacteristically foolish editorial in the Evangelical Times. The Lord must be
glorified, and your stand is to be respected and supported.
|
