Constitutional experts have already pointed to the examples of ex-Soviet and –Yugoslav states exercising self-determination for independence without the consent of their national government – indeed in the face of considerable opposition, both political and military.   History, it seems, is on the side of exercising, as opposed to granting self-determination.

All that being said, self-determination is, on the face of it, a tricky one for a Christian.   It raises questions about the origin of so-called fundamental human rights – arguably a product of Enlightenment.   Would it be safer to see the Christian’s responsibility in doing God’s will as it is revealed in the Bible?   The Christian can certainly live that way; and live as far as possible at peace with all people – Love God with all your heart, mind and strength, and love your neighbour as yourself.   End of.

But I am sure we can go further – if we are good Calvinists.   Abraham Kuyper, in his Stone Lectures, quotes American historian George Bancroft: “The fanatic for Calvinism was a fanatic for liberty.”   It might not be to everyone’s taste, but Calvinism places God at the top, as the one who invests the civil authorities with power to be exercised for the good of the people.   There is a contract between a people and her government a contract which, incidentally, finds expression in the Declaration of Arbroath and the US Declaration of Independence (to which Bancroft was referring)

“we should exert ourselves at once to drive him out as our enemy and a subverter of his own rights and ours, and make some other man who was well able to defend us our King” – Declaration of Arbroath

“Governments are instituted among {NB not “by” but “among”} Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.” – Declaration of Independence

The state must have a mandate to govern.   Bancroft and Kuyper shaw this in connection to the purposes of God in seeking to alleviate the effects of sin and the Fall.

The Calvinist’s love of liberty is not at odds with the right to self-determination.   In fact, in any other sphere, we would abhor its denial.   Suppose a citizen of North Korea desires to make profession of Christian faith – ought he to have the liberty?   But we also ought to reject its unnecessary limitation.   Suppose a citizen of China desire to make profession of Christian faith – ought he to have the liberty do so out-with the prescribed state-governed church?   Self-determination is a liberty we must contend for – whether we decide it as a fundamental right or not.

As a Calvinist, I must assert that it is not for any government, other than one elected with such a mandate, to set out for the people of Scotland when, where, who and how they exercise their collective right to self-determination.   That is not to deny Westminster’s legitimate governance – Cameron’s coalition was delivered by the will of the people.   But they were not delivered with a mandate to set out the terms of this referendum.   (In fact, to witness the shameful treatment of Nationalist MPs at Westmister shows the contempt in which the desire to exercise this self-determination has thus far been held.)   For the Coalition to dictate  any such terms now is an assault on liberty – they are acting beyond the will of the people who elected them.   Scotland’s self-determination is, according to Westminster, a right we will be given.

But the people of Scotland have already begun to exercise their right to self-determination, in electing – for whatever reasons – a government who committed to run this referendum.  Holyrood’s path is therefore legitmate, and Westminster’srole will be to react to the will of theScottish people post-referendum.

And the courts will agree.

For, like, as long as I’ve been a minister (and then some, sorry a lot more some) my denomination has been looking at what we call non-stipendiary or what Carl’s contacts call bivocational ministries.   That is, Pastors typically have two jobs: they serve their congregations as they can; but their main income comes from their other occupation, whether car mechanic, teacher or whatever.

The bottom line is this – this is coming to a Scottish Church near you soon.   Maybe it has already, and if so, comments would be appreciated.  My gut feeling is that this is a second best option, and doing things that are likely going to lead to it, hasten it, are probably not wise.

The Scottish urban scene is not the same, mega churches of the scale Carl talks about just don’t exist here.   My concern is that in remote, rural areas another factor is driving the move to needing fractions of ministers, and that is fractional church.   Fractional church is when the church needlessly divides up into smaller fractions – all allegedly holding the same doctrine.   There is another name.

Stupid remote/rural denominationalism 

This last week finally saw the birth of a “new church” in my neck of the woods.   The chaps behind it are (understandably) narked at the Church of Scotland’s trajectory away from Scripture.   But, rather than humbly join up with one of the other faithful, but struggling, denominations – with whom they would seem to theologically agree – a new fellowship was spawned.

This hits a whole number of issues dear to my heart.

It’s anti local church.   The reason the new thing shouldn’t directly affect us is that it’s a 40 mile round trip from my door, and further than a half dozen other fellowships, all meeting in sparsely populated rural areas.   Fractional church means many Christians will now drive out of thier local community, where they know their neighbours; where family circles are tight; etc. to join another fellowship that’s more to their “taste” (used deliberately, because there is no doctrinal distinction between these fellowships).   Thanks, but just explain how this helps rural evangelism, where the truth has long been this: you have the most impact where you live?

It’s anti unity in the Gospel.   To be fair, I can see why leaving the Church of Scotland was desirable, but most of the people leaving that denomination locally in these parts joined it within the last 5-10 years.   Has it deteriorated since then, really?   And did the Free Church guys not offer some flexibility in traditional form of worship for the sake of local unity?   Thanks, but just explain how setting up new churches helps unity?   Even if we take unity at its loosest extent, we’re talking unity in the work of the Gospel.   I fail to see how fractional church is even serving that goal, when those abandoning their local churches are often abandoning the Gospel work these churches are doing.

It’s anti fellowship.   I love it when people break away from a fellowship, and pretend that it’s a small thing to not be able to overcome differences.   If we follow Paul’s teaching in Philippians, fellowship is, among other things, a sharing in suffering.   In these remote rural areas Christians are suffering.   The depopulation alone means younger Christians are rare – so stripping them out of fellowships to gather in one place seems not to have true fellowship at its heart.   There is a lot of sadness in these days where growth is small, where Gospel witness and light seems to be flickering.   Fractional church does nothing to help this and it hurts those who don’t share the same “taste”.

It’s anti Christian education.   Satan loves to undermine what we’re doing when it serves God’s purposes.   Just imagine these rural communities being blessed with their churches running  a Sunday School jointly – remember, there’s no practical doctrinal difference to speak of.   That might just help overcome generations of denominational hostility and misunderstanding in the Scottish Highlands.   But now, it’s threatened because some of the staff feel they couldn’t try to overcome the pull towards factional church, and have to drive away to another area.   Thanks, but just explain how this is going to help future generations of kids understand Christian doctrine, e.g. the unity o the church?

Count the Cost

My point is that spawning new factional churches in remote rural areas, rather than working out differences, is actually bad for the Gospel.   Urban strategy might be different – the numbers are hugely different for one thing.   But rural work is not helped by this.
It means more Christians in smaller churches, who will not be able to afford to pay a pastoral ministry to do all the distinctly pastor-led ministry that rural work demands.
It means more Christians in smaller churches able to organise less effective servant ministry to the needy in the same community.
It means more Christian denominations to confuse an already confused, superstitious and mocking population.
It means Christians, who actually have an awful lot in common, holding on to denominational suspicions for longer.
It means more Christians having to fall back on untrained teachers, as supply preachers, and so on – some of it might good, but hardly a recipe embraced by the Church, who have for hundreds of years recognised that theological education was necessary for the good of the Church.
It means more older Christians marginalised, as they get left behind, holding onto perhaps a misplaced but real sense of connection to buildings and places of worship they loved and had put serious effort into maintaining.

Yeah, fractional church is nothing to do with the Gospel, and will just mean less ministry, by more divided groups, served by distracted ministers, and with limited cohesion, sorry, unity.

(And note, this post doesn’t even address the macro-denominational issues Fractionalism like this will pose for the Scottish church scene – new denomination ahoy!)

In line with my political overlords in Edinburgh, and Westminister, there is a New Year message from the Council Chamber:

For everything there is a season, and a time for every matter under heaven:
a time to be born, and a time to die;
a time to plant, and a time to pluck up what is planted;
a time to kill, and a time to heal;
a time to break down, and a time to build up;
a time to weep, and a time to laugh;
a time to mourn, and a time to dance;
a time to cast away stones, and a time to gather stones together;
a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing;
a time to seek, and a time to lose;
a time to keep, and a time to cast away;
a time to tear, and a time to sew;
a time to keep silence, and a time to speak;
a time to love, and a time to hate;
a time for war, and a time for peace.
(Ecclesiastes 3:1-8 ESV)

This is a time for everything.   But there is not time for everything.   Use it well.

Bliadhna Mhath Ur

When there are 1.2 billion people in the world living on less than a dollar a day, it’s a shame that the churches’ priorities are focused on [opposing the redefinition of marriage].

Aye, that would the same Stonewall who have been lobbying the UK Government to cut aid to some of the world’s poorest countries.   This is all part of a heavy handed carrot and stick approach (carrot supplied separately) to promote gay rights in parts of the two thirds world.

Literally, taking money away from the poorest in the name of gay rights.   To then suggest the Church needs to sort out her priorities?

Is this a case of the pot calling the kettle black?   For the benefit of Mr, Macfarlane, here are just some of the areas the church’s efforts are directed:

1. Establishing medical work in the towns of Lakhnadon and Chhapara – this has been handed over to Emmanuel Hospital Association
2. Blythswood Care – this month taking their annual shoebox appeal out to Eastern Europe
3. Tearfund – where to start… through their work, local church have been able to set up education, food security and healthcare programmes
4. SCIAF – whose Christmas appeal  is in aid of a girls’ refuge in Uganda
5. Just a quick local one here – Faith and Hope School in Zambia, the recipient of thousands of pounds raised by the local Church of Scotland in south Skye.   These guys don’t even have a website, they’re just a group of Christians trying to some good.

You see, the Church does have a concern for the poor.   But unlike the policy Stonewall have managed to get the UK Government to follow, it is a carrot and stick approach without the stick.   Showing genuine compassion, often in almost subversive, non-trumpeting ways – not threatening to withhold it – is proving time and again the one sure way of changing societies to be better.   That’s what it means to be salt and light in a decaying and dark world – and we do it following the example and instruction of Jesus.

Honestly, we don’t look for praise, just that you sort out your facts:

Thus, when you give to the needy, sound no trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may be praised by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward.

[A] steady stream of courageous ministers are taking a stand and choosing now to leave as the CofS courts seem to have reached a point where it is no longer possible for ministers to expect them to maintain and defend that most important mark of the church – the true preaching of the Word.  The courts of the church seem indifferent, if not hostile to it.  In other words, as the Reformers would have seen it, the C of S as an institution seems to have left the church of God.   Those who leave the C of S are thus not schismatics; as an institution, she is no longer a church in the Reformation (and indeed biblical) sense; she has left them, not vice versa.

My concern is to simply note the courageous Church of Scotland guys putting it all on the line.   To demit a charge with a wife and family as dependents is no small thing.   Job opportunities for such men are scarce – even if they were willing to consider leaving a task they feel called to.   Nor do I want to question the courage of guys staying in to “fight”.   If I had to make one observation of them it would be that I’ve yet to see a strategy for “fighting” that doesn’t involve attacking those brothers who are leaving.   Maybe the stay-in guys feel abandoned, but it’s hardly the fault of men demitting that the CofS has ended up the way it is!

But the challenging analysis is that with the numbers we are now seeing demitting charges, plus the high number of evangelical ministers who are getting very close to retirement (perhaps the 70s were a high point for the training and recruitment of Evangelical ministers in the CofS?) it is going to prove very difficult to turn the ship around in 2013.

But then the question is, “What next?”   The Presbyterian Church is Scotland is notoriously fractured – partly because our brand of Presbyterianism is terribly Victorian with monolithic structures.   I have long suspected a more relaxed Presbyterianism would be better, where doctrine and mission, not money and influence, were the key points of communion.   Just imagine – if men had been humble, and not worried about a tension over Highland/Lowland influence, would the Free Church have had nearly such a horrible schism in 2000 – a schism which ended up disproportionately affecting Highland churches!

The demitting guys should rightly fear entering a Presbyterian union not because of joining “schismatics”, but if the one big factor in driving its functions is money.   If you think I’m wrong, here’s the commonest objection to a lot of CofS guys joining the Free Church: “We couldn’t afford them.”   That’s true, but only because we’re not willing to be agile with our structures, and think outside the neat Free-Church-franchise box.   Victorian monolithic Presbyterianism is not helping.

But at the same time, the alternative is lots of non-Presbyterian Presbyterian churches springing up.   The result is not just chaos, but generations of Christians worried about their tribal divisions. Congregationalist Christians are a whole lot more fractious than Presbyterians!   Practical Independency is not the solution either.

Is there an alternative somewhere in-between – and what will have to be “put on the line” to reach that?

…have had a really positive few days, little steps of progress continually happening. He has been moved out of Intensive Care today to High Dependency Ward which is a step up. We have all really been moved by everyone’s prayers, and would ask you to keep praying for his continued recovery. We are really praising God for the way he’s looked after Dad and us

At the risk of being labelled a fawning hagiographer I think David is one of the finest Christian apologists of his generation. He could easily be making the big time in well sponsored ministries in the U.S., or hold tenure in the academy. But he has seen his calling to be a minister in the largely insignificant realm of the Scotland. Not only Scotland, but in the Free Church, where he’s been unfairly demonised by insiders; dismissed as a Wee Free by outsiders.

And Scotland needs his message. We stand on the brink of the moral abyss. Our politicians try to write social policy to suit minority groups with little care for the fabric of society. We stand on the brink of financial ruin. Our politicians try to appease the enemy – not bankers, but the incessant greed that’s rooted deep in each one of us – pretending our standards of living can go on rising. (“An end to boom and bust” – they laughed, but are Cameron, Osborne, Balls or Millbean acting with any practical difference to Brown’s folly?). These symptoms cry out: Scotland needs the Christian message David preaches. Scotland needs the Christian messengers David educates. The good of Scotland seems to demand these things…

And yet, it has pleased almighty God to silence his servant at this hour. I can’t stop asking myself, “Why?” Not the why of doubt, but the why of wonder – what is the reason for this?

Isaiah 6 holds some sort of answer. For a long while now, Christians have been busy talking to each other. The agenda of the Presbyterian Church in Scotland has not been counter cultural – the Church of Scotland presses ahead with conforming, the Free with worries, legitimate yes, but distracting too. Yet the message of Isaiah – not just the remedy he presents, but his diagnoses of the malady – that is missing. We’ve relied on specialists like David to speak into this moral chaos, while sitting back happy to watch, or worry about other things.

I wonder, is God asking, “Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?” Will you be sent, and will you go – that age old tension between God’s sovereign choice, and our will coming together, so delicately stated. The qualification already declared: not a sense of our greater righteousness, but our shared guilt with our fellows in their moral vacuum. And not a pride in our glorious heritage, but in the glory of the One upon the Throne.

There is also another side to Isaiah 6 – Isaiah was told that even if he went, few if any would listen. I don’t know if Scotland is in listening mood these days. But the messenger must still carry the message. Scotland needs faithful messengers. Who will go?

Please pray for David’s recovery, but also for an answer to this question: “Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?”

That means Twitter can’t cope with me. My Twitter follows are in two diverse and seemingly exclusive bubbles – church leaders and politicians. Twitter struggles in vain to peg me into one of these two bubbles. Digging a bit deeper, this is because all the church leaders I follow (Keller, Piper, Macarthur, Derek Thomas, Sproul, Chandler…) are followed by other church leaders. When they tweet, they mostly tweet within a bubble, with other people sharing their interests. The political types are the same.

Inside each of these bubbles, the tribal factions are evident. Among the Church issues I follow, the Reformed and Neu-Reformed camps are waging a never ending series of debates – this week, the mission of the church is in focus (who’d have thought that was an issue?). It doesn’t take much to realise that the Church is pretty fractured and tribal. My local area looks set to give birth to yet another “fellowship” in the coming weeks. This will be made up mostly of refugees from the Church of Scotland, but who are tribal in the sense that none of the existing denominations in the area are quite what they are looking for. And there are Scotland’s religious hate crime figures – up 10%, and disproportionately targeting Roman Catholics – not Muslims, but Catholics. 693 charges aggravated by religious prejudice is 693 too many. Sectarian tribalism is pretty standard for us.

Inside the Scottish political scene the tribal Labour and Nationalist divisions are fierce. The political tribalism means most of the “discourse” is noise, trying to drown out the other side. Sometimes this can be hilarious (#newscarestorylatest). But mostly it’s no better than the sectarian chanting at an Old Firm match – annoying noise unless you feel strongly about one side or the other.

A typical "cyber-nat" - not threatening really

Let me make a couple of observations:
Many of Scotland’s problems with tribalism look like humanity’s problems with tribalism. But owing to history, Scotland’s sectarian problem isn’t quite like normal tribalism. It isn’t just political. It isn’t just religious. My Reformed friends don’t go stabbing their Neu-Reformed opponents. My Nationalist friends will take great pleasure in winding up Tom Harris, who sees Cyber-Nats everywhere, but he isn’t going to glass them in a Holyrood pub (if he ever gets there!).

Scotland’s sectarian problem is rooted in both bubbles, owing to our ethno- and religio-political past. But our current crop of largely secular politicians don’t get the issues of the Religious bubble, and so will fail miserably to address these problems. Sadly, the religious leaders don’t get the issues of the Political bubble either, hence the rise of irrelevant faux parties like the SCP, or the muscle flexing of Philip Tartaglia.

A solution to the sectarian problem will need fine minds working in some harmony, and with sensitivity to many agendas. The secular agenda that longs to dispose of an embarassing past will not expunge the errors of the past. But similarly a religious agenda that longs to return to a glorious past will only repeat the errors of the past. Tribalism of religious leaders vs. political leaders will not serve Scotland well.

Scotland needs Christian religious leaders who will engage our political class not with brawling tactics, but with guile and sensitivity. But Scotland also desperately needs politicians who will engage with, not over-ride or mock our religious classes and the concerns they represent.

Until that respect is thrashed out, I fear efforts to tackle sectarianism will be largely fruitless; and tension over religious “rights” – to name just one concern – will only heighten.

In Galatians 4 the case Paul contrasts the rule-bound minority of being under the law – the elemental principles – with the wonderful liberty of both the legal and experiential reality of adoption. In Christ, and in-dwelt by the Holy Spirit, believers really are sons of God. And we really do experience son-ship in meaningful ways.

It strikes me that in my context, this is about the path to maturing faith. It seems that returning to slavery of the elemental principles is all about living out discipleship constantly obsessing about rules. “Is it right to wear skirts just this length?” “What about the Sabbath – how do I keep it holy?” There are plenty believers around who will say that ongoing Christian growth depends on working hard make sure we “go and sin no more.”

But Paul sees the path to maturity in other things. The path from minority to maturity seems for him to be all about Christ – the Timing of his coming, his divine Origin, the Manner of the incarnation, the Conditions he lived under (i.e. the Torah), the Purpose for which he came (i.e. to redeem) and the Outcome of his coming (i.e. the reality of our adoption). That makes us sons! And no longer minors!

Not only is the work of Jesus vital to really making us sons, but the work of the Holy Spirit enables us to experience it. He is the one who confirms to us the loving fatherhood of God, so that we can cry with trusting affection, “Abba! Father!”

So, application time – do you learn more of what it means to cry “Abba! Father!” through obsessing about law keeping, or through meditating on what your Father has done, and resting on his provision for your life? I suspect it’s the latter.

And what of these elementary principles? Well, is it possible that Paul is talking about them the same way we talk about elementary math? You don’t obsess (normally) about the detail of what exactly happens when you add things. You just know that if you had two apples, and you buy four more, you have six. The same in the disciple’s life: if you are maturing, you don’t obsess about the rules of a Godly life too much. instead, you live them in the life the Spirit is working in you. Such obsession will reward you with frustration, because your life is in Christ, not in the rules he has taught you.

My theme through the series has been this: these are not simple rules we break, they are a commentary defining the “character” God looks for in us – a character we are totally unable to attain in our own efforts.   This “character” we fall short of is the perfect Image of God which was ruined by the Fall, and original sin.   That means the commandments serve at worst to merely condemn us, but at best can be used by God to show us our need for the gracious salvation offered in Christ Jesus.

Today I suggested a reason why the Ninth Commandment is included.   By bearing false witness we are betraying not a character shaped by the Image of God, but we are betraying a character more akin to that of Satan, the Devil himself, the “Father of Lies”.   Clearly, God would rather we bore the Image of God in Christ Jesus, the “Faithful and True”.

My question – was this too harsh?   Certainly, today some folks in the congregation felt that went a bit too far.   Have we become too comfortable with the commandments, thinking they are merely rules we can follow if we just put in enough effort – and does that mean we are uncomfortable with our character not measuring up to their requirements?

The word of the week was certainly “trajectory”.   Where was the Free Church heading?   Was the November Plenary Assembly’s decision to permit some flexibility in use of hymns and musical accompaniment going to stand, or prove divisive?   After a high-profile resignation last year, there was an understandable fear that eight overtures from within the lower church courts (and two publicly signed memorials from the wider membership) would be used as wrecking balls to demolish the church’s peace and harmony.

James Maciver

James Maciver, in the moderator’s chair (James has been, for several years, our Principal Clerk of Assembly), and David Meredith, as retiring moderator, set the perfect pitch for the week.   David’s sermon on Acts 1 on the opening night, but especially James’ excellent address on the Glory of Christ gave us a clear direction (watch it here).   Christ is glorified in the lives of his people – but James drew special attention to the glory of Christ in the unity of the church.   His comments on John 17 were, for me, especially noteworthy:

[It] is clear that Jesus connected the oneness of his people with the oneness he had with the Father. It is also clear that the unity of his people for which he prayed was not an invisible, “spiritual”, unity but one which would be visible and noticed by the world, so that the world might “believe” – an organisational unity, corresponding as much as possible to the organic, spiritual, unity his people have in union with him.

We cannot hide behind the notion of invisibility when it comes to our thinking and practice of what the Church is, or must be, in the world. Nor can we erect it as a screen in an attempt to conceal our visible disunity. Too often we have lived with, and justified, division and separation by claiming that what Jesus prayed for was an “invisible”, spiritual unity in the truth. Unity in the truth, yes – we repudiate the species of ecumenism that holds lightly to doctrinal distinctives. But unity in the truth must be visible, and therefore external, if it is to mean anything at all in relation to the Lord’s desire that the world may believe and come to know the love of God. Just as the “grace and truth” of God were visibly displayed in the incarnate Son while he dwelt among us, so they are to be made “visible” to the world in the unity of the Church.

This positive message, of a church striving to do all it could to foster unity both internally, and externally, for the sake of the Glory of Christ, is still enthusing me almost a week on.   We are very blessed as a church to have men of this calibre and vision in our ranks.

The week’s routine business revolves around receiving reports from our various boards and committees, and the Assembly giving them direction in their work for the year.   There are some less visible committees, like Personnel or Pastoral Advice.   But there are also big, highly visible Boards.   The Free Church’s International Missions Board is fantastic, punching well above our weight, through the focus in recent years of staffing seminaries and partnering in theological training institutions in Latin America, South Africa and other far-flung parts of the world.   Our Home Missions Board oversees church planting and redevelopment work, and youth ministry in the UK.   These reports were remarkably encouraging.

Another encouraging report came from the Board of Ministry, who presented four applications for admission from ministers formerly of other denominations.   Suffice to say, while these applications were all taken up in private, they were all accepted.   One was a former Baptist; another, a former Church of Scotland minister; the remaining two were young Free Church (Continuing) ministers (the group who broke with us 11 years ago!).   I was pleased we were able to be a home for these men (especially one of the FCC guys who worked with me as a green grocer when we were Seminary students!), and pray their ministries will be fruitful in years to come.

We also took up reports from non-standing committees.   Most important was the Report on Marriage and Divorce.   This report was very welcome – highlighting that in the past, we’ve gotten seriously wrong the legitimate grounds for divorce.   (Abused wives were too often instructed to remain with thuggish husbands by ministers with a misplaced zeal to preserve a marriage.)   Hopefully we’ll see, probably even have seen our way clear of these days.   But at the same time, it is a difficult balance to strike.   I do find myself attracted to John Piper’s position, and I don’t think this report has done enough tackle his exegesis (although I’m sure others have).   That said, I remain somewhat undecided myself.   We’ll spend the next year or so discussion this at presbytery level, and feeding any comments back into the committee’s discussions.   I hope we will have clear position, an answer to the chaos of marriage in our society, and not an over-accommodation to the spirit of the age.

The Communications Committee Report was equally awesome and worthwhile.   Roddie Rankin’s paper on Transhumanism displays the breadth of insight the Free Church has at her disposal.   I commend this paper, which you can read here.

The overtures and memorials led to three tough-going debates.   The first five basically asked for the decision of the November Plenary Assembly to be passed to presbyteries for approval, before being brought into law at a future assembly, under what is called the Barrier Act.   The Debate on this matter is here and continues here.   The outcome was that the Assembly concurred with the previous decision not to transmit the Plenary Assembly’s decision under the Barrier Act.   This was in fact, an enlightening debate:

• Alex Macdonald’s observations that the Plenary Assembly’s decision was not sudden (it was the result of much discussion and consultation); it was not BINDING (but permissive); and it was not affecting change to the constitution of the church.
• Donald Macleod’s observation that the Barrier Act is not constitutional, but procedural.   It dictates how we exercise powers, but not what these powers are.
• Neil DM Macleod’s observation that for a Court to act “ultra vires” (beyond its powers) you must first determine what exactly these powers are – and since none of the people banding about words like “ultra vires” could show what these power were (in fact professed to be confused as to what its power were), they couldn’t possibly show how the PA had gone beyond them.
• Neil’s Glee moment!    The toothpaste can’t go back in the tube, i.e. we can’t go back without making a mess, if at all.
• Neil’s final argument, that the notion of retrospectively applying the Barrier Act to previous Assembly Acts is a bit preposterous.   Why stop at last year’s?   Why not pass some obscure Act from 10, 50 or 100 years ago under the Barrier Act?

The reason I highlight these arguments is not to give a one-sided overview of the debate.   It’s rather to stress that any legal challenge to this decision (something I’ll come to in a moment) is on seriously shaky ground.   This should, I hope, put to bed any suggestion that the constitution of the church was broken in some way last November.   That being said, there were a small number of dissents to this finding.

There were a couple of memorials from the membership of the church in this connection.   The first, from [some of] the young people of the church, was well meant and received.   They simply seemed to want to clear up the misconception that “all” the church’s young people were clamouring for hymns.   They are not.   Their [Our?   I’m still young, ain’t I?] opinions vary on this point as much as that of the 70 and 80 year olds!   But the respectful tone of their memorial was well received.

There was sadly a second memorial, which had attracted some press coverage before the Assembly, and seemed to be hinting at trouble to come.   This memorial call ministers vow breakers, and seemed to suggest the subscribers would even break away if the decision wasn’t reversed.   I’m disappointed that DR Macdonald wasn’t able to categorically rule out the threat of legal action from the people he represented in delivering the memorial.   He was appointed to speak on their behalf, and must have known that this question would have come up.   The lack of an answer is troubling.   There was a motion to simply not even receive this memorial, but after a very passionate plea from Andrew Murchison (an elder from the Inverness Presbytery), Alex Macdonald withdrew this.   Instead, he moved we receive the memorial, but expresses concern about the unwise language and veiled threats in it.   I hope those who subscribed to the memorial will appreciate this – it was unwise to threaten, or appear to threaten like this.   I hope they will adopted, instead, the attitude we saw in James Maciver (who still disagrees with the use of uninspired materials of praise).   Unity for the sake of the glory of Christ is far more important than disunity.

The other set of overtures related to granting some mechanism whereby office bearers could satisfy their conscience in relation to the changed position on form of worship.   I have to say, Dr. Iain D. Campbell is a great theologian, preacher, churchman (and now fitness fanatic!), but he should be most noted for his humility and graciousness.   On the final night of the Assembly, he unveiled what looks like the wisest and best possible way for us to put a line under these debates and move on.   His gracious manner in dealing with the “counter motion” was something I resolved to emulate, and pray I grow into.

He moved the following (pdf if you want it for print is here):

The General Assembly, noting that the change in the form of worship in the Church authorised by Act 1, Class 2, November 2010, is permissive and not mandatory, enact and ordain as follows:

1. The GA recognise that the practice of the FCofS prior to the passing of Act 1 [&c] 2010 was to avoid the use in public worship of uninspired material of praise and instrumental music and that the Questions and Formula referred to such practice.
2. The GA affirm that, while the Questions and Formula have not been changed by Act 1 [&c] 2010, nevertheless the said act allows for a wider understanding of the Questions and Formula with regard to worship.
3. The GA recognise that the change authorised by Act 1 [&c] 2010 may have created difficulties of conscience for some office-bearers and some who may be elected to office in the Church.
4. The GA therefore ordain that in order to address such difficulties candidates for office, at the time of licensing ordination or induction may indicate to the relevant church court their own personal conviction with regard to sung praise and the use of instrumental music in public worship.
5. The GA further ordain that existing office bearers may intimate to the relevant church courts at any suitable opportunity their own personal conviction with regard to sung praise &c.
   The clerk shall record any such intimation (presumably in the minute).
6. It shall be the duty of the Clerk of Presbytery or Kirk Session in all cases to record any such intimation.
7. The GA exhort all office bearers, members and adherents to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.

After debate, this became the finding of the Assembly.   A couple of comments, as I understand things:

• This means we recognise that nobody is obliged to “assert, maintain and defend” a form of worship they do not agree with – the Plenary Assembly’s decision was not mandatory (in fact it permits only some very specific changes to form of worship).
• There had been some arguments put forward that our ordination promise was only to do what the church courts decided in this regard (governed by the phrase “as presently practiced”.)   It clears the conscience of those who understood their ordination promises to have meant what they thought it did (i.e. to assert, maintain and defend the avoidance of uninspired materials &c., the practice of the time).
• It means that any or all office bearers (I understand this relates to ministers and elders, but also to deacons) may intimate their personal conviction, only if they so desire.
• Nobody can be compelled to state their personal conviction, particularly not as a precursor to election to office.   They may ask, but they cannot use one’s position on, for example, hymns as a grounds to object to a call.
• Such intimations of conviction will be minuted – I presume that’s what is meant by “Clerks … to record”.

Is this good enough to keep people happily in the Free Church, and comfortable with the avoidance of uninspired materials of praise no longer being a strict point of our practice?   Probably for most it will – but there may remain a small group opposed to the change.   There were certainly no dissents to this decision – and that alone bodes well for us.   [I have now received notification that I got this wrong - there was one dissent!   Does that still bode well for us?   I'm not sure - but I'd be very sad if it was followed up by schism.]

So, after such a week, what is the Free Church’s trajectory?   I would say, confidently, we are heading for glory!   Despite these very difficult debates, and also despite the clear hurt that some commissioners expressed (one commissioner feeling his ecclesiastical heritage had been robbed from him!) I feel the Free Church remains clearly committed to good preaching, good theology, and good leadership and vision.   I think Paul Levy was spot on with his analysis at Ref21.

I was very encouraged by the two days and although there was lots of references to the weakness of the denomination the amount of excellent men sitting in that room is a great sign for the future. What denomination wouldn’t want to have David Meredith, Iain D Campbell, Colin Dow, Donald Macleod, the mighty Neil DM and Iver Martin in their ranks. The future if they can hang together is bright for the Free Church.

The Free Church will do well if she attempts great things for God; expects great things from God.