The Free General Assembly & The Barrier Act

Last week my pack of General Assembly papers arrived. Of some note are a number of Overtures (formal requests that the Assembly ordain and act in a certain way) relating to the decision of the Plenary Assembly (PA). The main thrust of these requests is that the decision not to apply the Barrier Act procedure to recalled, and that the proposed legislation agreed at the PA be transmitted to Presbyteries for a simple “Aye” or “Nay” vote before it can be ratified at a subsequent assembly, to form binding, or “Class 1″ legislation.

I’ve no doubt that the reason for this is because the those who want the Barrier Act applied see it as an opportunity to overturn a vote that they are at best uncomfortable with – at worst threatening schism over. For the record, when the PA voted not to transmit its finding to Presbyteries for approval, (i.e. vote not to apply the Barrier Act requirements) I abstained, because I felt this was a legal question to which no clear advice had been provided. The decision would have better made in a calmer, more informed manner. I was genuinely unable to see clearly which way to vote.

This is no longer the case. Having taken the time to read it, my understanding of the Barrier Act is quite simple. It seems to me to require two things: 1) that as wide as possible a representation of the church’s leaders be consulted on decisions which are wide-ranging in their effect on the whole denomination; and 2) that such decisions not be rushed into legislation.

Representative Consultation

There is no doubt that the first of these requirements has already been fulfilled. A Plenary Assembly is, by dint of its composition, as representative as the sum of all Presbyteries – in fact more so. The Barrier Act gives disproportionate influence to smaller Presbyteries. For example, the Presbyteries of the North American Synod who between them have five congregations – only three of which have serving ministers – have between them two Barrier Act votes. Glasgow & Argyll Presbytery, on the other hand, has 20-odd charges and 18 or so ministers, but has only one Barrier Act vote. The vote of a Plenary Assembly evens out the imbalance that gives such disproportionate influence – and is clearly therefore both preferable, and certainly within the intent of the framers (who worked hard to ensure Presbyteries were of as near-equal composition as possible).

Consideration

But what about the second requirement – that the Barrier Act ensures a barrier to at least consider innovative legislation? We should be clear that the Assembly legislates every year, but only a tiny fraction of such decisions need to be passed under the Barrier Act. This is because most things are routine, and ought not to be binding for the long term on the whole church (e.g. congregational linkages might be routine, but wholesale change to our disciplinary code is more binding). Permissive legislation does not change the forumla of subscription, and it clearly doesn’t affect the whole church – because individual Kirk Sessions are under no complusion to use such permissions.   Permissive legislation is not church-wide.   Surprisingly, in the Scottish Presbyterian church, it wasn’t until 1910 that such action was taken on a matter to do with Form of Worship. In fact, the 1910 Act anent Public Worship is the only piece of Free Church legislation on Worship ever passed under the Barrier Act.   That was probably becuase then, the whole church was being brought to heel, every Kirk Session was forced to comply.

But here’s the really interesting thing: at the Plenary Assembly, everyone proposed or supported legislation which would repeal the 1910 Act. Let me say that again – everyone wanted rid of this piece of troublesome legislation. That was clearly on the cards from at least the Special Conference of Worship in Dingwall prior to the Plenary Assembly. It was certainly the position of the Board of Trustees, circulated in advance of the PA. And it was also the position of those who wanted amendments to the Board’s Deliverance.

Why is this significant? It’s significant because at the very least, repealing the 1910 Act was what everyone knew would happen at the Plenary Assembly. That decision was not being rushed into – it was taken with clear prior knowledge – and nobody opposed it.   Not Farquhar Renwick (whose Kirk Session now want the Barrier Act applied to retain it!), not Alex Cowie (who I understand moved Glasgow Presbytery’s Overture), and crucially nobody behind the Memorial which many people feel is calling the GA to reverse the decision of the PA outright, such as Donald Macdonald or Joe MacPhee (who were both commissioners at the PA). So repealing the 1910 Act seems to have been the unanimous considered mind of the church after much (about 4 years) discussion.  My perspective is that if we deem to have passed the rest as routine legislation in keeping with the normal Scottish practice, the only part that has to be treated as Class 1 legislation is the part repealing the old Class 1 Act.   And that part we all agree is a good move.

A More Basic Issue

But shouldn’t the other proposals be passed under the Barrier Act too? There’s certainly no historical precedent for this, but wouldn’t it be good to have binding legislation on something as important as Form of Worship? If we get rid of the 1910 Act, which we all want to do, we are left with the clear situation where all legislation on Form of Worship is simply a routine Assembly Act, because it is permissive, not obligatory. Surely that’s a more sensible way to act – especially when it is clear that the Free Church is divided almost down the middle on how we interpret passages like Ephesians 5:9? In fact, with permissive legislation the whole church is not bound to act in any certain way.   It is certainly not bound to think a certain way.   So is the Barrier Act even required to pass permissive legislation that clearly doesn’t bind the denomination to one position?

Driving for binding legislation now would be disastrous. What if the Free Church did decide to put this legislation out to the Barrier Act? There are two alternatives: 1) we get a “Aye” vote – but what then? Will those who framed the overtures respect that outcome? This would subject the Church to an enormous threat of schism, because many would be deeply unhappy with binding legislation like this. (Certainly far more unhappy than they seem to be about the Barrier Act not being applied – and that’s already seriously straining fellowships in some parts!)

But worse still, what if 2) we get a “Nay” vote? We’re back to the position we had prior to the Plenary Assembly. We are stuck with the 1910 Act which nobody wants – even those now asking for the Barrier Act to be applied! We are stuck with a Church still divided over the permission to sing hymns – and we destine ourselves to yet more years of bitter infighting, or even schism.

Conclusion
So, my conclusion: I would argue that to apply the Barrier Act now is constitutionally unnecessary as its provisions have been met already. Class 1 acts seem to me to be Acts which bind the whole church to a certain course, and that is precisely what the PA was trying to avoid, so i feel it would be a huge threat to the peace of the Church to press ahead now. I would urge my fellow commissioners to see this danger, and act confidently to vote it down the Barrier Act overtures without fear of breaking our “constitution”.

Advice for Troubled Young Men

Over the last few weeks, a number of young guys – bear in mind, I’m a young guy myself – in the Free Church have spoken with me about how troubled they are that the Free Church has changed her position on worship. They are disappointed; some feel betrayed and let down; some have made foolish remarks; some have given voice to their hurt in the matter; some feel the church’s leaders should have listened more to the people in the pews. And most of these young guys are asking how they can stay members of a denomination that permits hymn singing and musical accompaniment in worship – a position they are not at all in favour of.

I should say, in this blog I’m not going to argue for what the Free Church has done – we’ve made a decision, and regardless of its merits, the only real question is how you should live with the decision. To enter into a guerilla movement seeking to reverse a decision you dislike is dishonourable, dishonest and contrary to the principles of unity. I am convinced that once the Assembly of the Church has reached a decision, we must, with humility, put the peace of the church ahead of our preference, i.e. live with the consequences. So how can these young men, who are sometimes vocal in their discontent, be advised to put the peace of the church first?

Membership of Congregation
The first step is recognising you are members of a local congregation, not the denomination. The local church is where you live out your Christian life – they are your main community of Worship, its elders your principle source of Instruction, its members your Fellowship, and your witness is a part of its Evangelism. When you become a member of a Free Church congregation you are not subscribing to everything the Free Church holds to – you are rather agreeing to be part of that local fellowship, which lives under the leadership and discipline of Christ’s under-shepherds, the local Kirk Session. This is why, incidentally, if you move congregations you do not automatically become a member of the Free Church you start attending – the elders of your new church will look for your previous church to vouch for your Christian profession and character, perhaps asking for a certificate stating such.

Congregations of the Denomination
While you are members of a congregation, that congregation is part of the Free Church of Scotland. The denomination is a complex idea, but it grows out of pragmatic necessity – not all Christians will agree all of the time, but in order to express some sort of unity at a national level, Presbyterian Church government demands we lay down some principles our local leaders agree on, and subscribe to. This is why all elders sign “The Formula” – which is their subscription to the denomination’s confessional doctrine, presbyterian government, and “purity of worship”. In this case, a plenary assembly (i.e. a full representation of every congregation) decided that a congregation could remain within the Free Church’s Presbyterian Polity if they used hymns or instruments.

The tough question for elders is whether they can agree to remain part of the Free Church’s Presbyterian Polity, when other congregations can worship the same God, with different words, or with musical accompaniment. I think, given that we’re now three weeks past the Assembly, and there has been no division in the church, most elders are coming to realise that this is a change they can live with – unhappily, perhaps in the hope that it will be over-turned in the future – but nonetheless a decision they will live with for the time being. Most Kirk Session will not, in fact, use this permission right away anyway, if ever – so locally, most Free Church congregations will be unchanged.

Advice for Trouble Young Men
So, let’s get the picture clear – you are a young guy, not an office bearer (so not required to sign “the Formula”), in a congregation whose elders have decided not to use the permissions granted by the Assembly, but have also decided not to break from the Free Church. You are unhappy with the decision, so what should you do?

1) You are not required to agree to everything the Free Church holds to (not the whole doctrine of the Confession; not the principles of Presbyterian church government; and not even what she holds to be true concerning purity of worship) – but you are required to have the humility to put up with it in such a way that the peace of the church is not hindered, and the teachable spirit that is open to correction and persuasion. In being a member of a Free Church congregation, you are only submitting to that Kirk Session’s brotherly discipline as Christ’s under-shepherds, and to share in the Christian goals of the congregation under their leadership and the stewardship of the deacons they appoint. Or, Respect the elders Christ has appointed to shepherd and lead you.

2) If you have difficulty with their decision to remain part of the Free Church’s polity, by all means, take that up with them – but do so in private, with humility. The temptation today, with access to cheap self-publication in the from of blogs, is to mouth off in public, the 21st century equivalent of pamphleteering. There has always been a tendency to form little cores of discontent, unrestful cliques within congregations. Don’t yield to these temptations. If you are part of a local congregation whose elders have decided to remain as part of the Free Church, then your public comments and unrest slander and attack the elders you’ve chosen to submit to. Or, Avoid making a fuss that will disrupt the peace and unity of your church.

3) What about if you simply can’t shut up and put up with the decision of your elders? What if you feel so strongly about this, that you are convinced they are wrong and you need to protest loudly and often? Then leave. Christian unity is the best witness we have to Christ. Your congregation’s unity will not be served by your noisy disruption, and your personal witness will be best served by your being in fellowship with like minded Christians. Whatever other wonderful gifts and talents you have, they are made useless by noisy protests about how awful the Church has become. Or, If you really can’t do #1 & #2, consider leaving for a more agreeable denomination.

4) If you choose, however, to stay then you will face difficulty. It will be unwise for you to speak out often, if at all – for young guys that takes a lot of humility. Your elders might recognise your gifts and desire to give you more responsibilities in the congregation – eventually these roles will cross an imaginary line where subscription to the denomination’s polity will be required. You should be ready to acknowledge that in staying, whilst you might rightly desire the office of overseer, you simply will not be able to. If that is a cost too high, again, there is no dishonour in leaving to another denomination where you can fully agree with their stance. Or, Count the cost of staying where you are.

The Free Church has a huge amount of work to do in reaching the people of Scotland. It is my hope and prayer that many of these troubled young men I’ve spoken to will see their way clear to commit their gifts and energy in sharing in that work.

Do Non-Believers Play a Role Leading Worship at your Church?

This from R. Scott Clark, and this from Collin Hansen at The Gospel Coalition got me thinking a bit about some of the unusual contradictions recently highlighted in the Free Church of Scotland’s debate on Purity of Worship.

My denomination has one point of diverse practise that really bothers me – the (mainly) West-coast trend of baptising the infants of unbelievers.   The main reason for doing things this way, as articulated by Ruling Elders pressed on the matter, is a pragmatic one – a pragmatic reason that sounds to me remarkably similar to the pragmatic reasons articulated for having non-believers (or pagans as RSC bluntly calls ‘em) involved in leading the worship in some significant U.S. Reformed churches.

To quote Scotty Smith (TGC article linked above)

…we do enjoy having non-believing instrumentalists offer their gifts in ways that greatly enhance the worship of God in our community. Examples would be professional string or brass sections from the Nashville Orchestra, along with various players serving in different configurations of worship teams. Many of these relationships have built bridges for conversations about the gospel, and in many cases, have led to individuals becoming Christians, or being renewed in the faith and reconnected to a local church.

To quote Zach Nielsen (TGC article linked above)

I have invited unbelievers to play in my bands in the past simply as a way to get to know them and for them to get to know our church. I don’t offer them a consistent role in the musical life of the church but just a chance to come play and get to know us once or twice. It can be a means to building trust, and for some it would be the only way they would ever think about coming through the doors of a church. I have seen this “work” quite well in the past as long as their is a close relationship with someone from the church who is committed to discipleship and evangelism. Relationships are the key here.

That’s exactly the line of reason some of our (my) Ruling Elders use to justify baptising the infants of unbelievers.   The oft quoted argument is that if we don’t do it we’ll lose the contact and, who knows, maybe God would bless that contact to their later conversion and salvation!   It’s a pragmatic but not a convincing, let alone Biblical argument.

Thankfully, ask the same Ruling Elders if we can have the same unbelievers leading worship on a Sunday morning, and they’d mostly hit the roof.  They understand that Christian worship is not an expression of Common Grace – it is an expression of Special Grace, an expression of praise made by the saved in light of the sacrifice paid for them.   That simple rule should apply to both who leads the worship of God, and who is blessed with receiving the sign of God’s Covenant with his people.

Two things:

1. People like us in the Free Church live in glass houses – let’s learn to be careful about throwing stones.   I know some of my brothers would maybe become scornful at the failings we might see in other churches – lest we forget: we have our own, so lets us address the failings of others with humility.
2. When it comes to “purity of worship” we’re frighteningly exposed with bad theology.   Peter Wallace from the OPC was an observer for our Plenary Assembly – you can read his report here.   The main point of his conclusion is that as a denomination, the Free Church is clearly struggling to articulate a theology of worship.   I think perhaps this confusion lies at the root of all the discrepancies we “tolerate”, perhaps even our apparent unease with our historical identity as a church.   We need a coherent theology of worship – lest we forget, worship is the point of all doctrine.
3. R. Scott Clark is again wrong – people do go to war over 11am or 10am services – just saying.