“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.”

While the eyes of the world’s media rarely rest long on the goings on in Church courts, this week they gave one Assembly in Edinburgh more than the usual casual and disdainful look. But I was across the road, in the less reported Free Church General Assembly. We had an altogether better week, and ended with no apparent resignations. So, no controversy, no news!

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, 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 in 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 even other 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 even 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.
3. 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.
5. 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.
7. 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.
9. 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.
10. The clerk shall record any such intimation (presumably in the minute).
12. It shall be the duty of the Clerk of Presbytery or Kirk Session in all cases to record any such intimation.
13. 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.

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.

Gordon Matheson is a Minister in the Free Church of Scotland and serves a congregation in the Sleat region of the Isle of Skye. He blogs at Jedi Rev http://jedirev.WordPres.com (yes, he actually owns a lightsabre!) where this article first appeared. It is used with his permission

[Editor’s note: One or more original URLs (links) referenced in this article are no longer valid; those links have been removed.]