Over the last two months there has been a slow but nearly constant stream of news coming out of the Church of Scotland and the Free Church of Scotland.  Having not posted on any of the individual bits and pieces I thought I would now try to go back and summarize the general flow of the news.

While one particular item is simmering, there have been a couple of  other interesting, and not completely unrelated, news items.  One of these is the initiation of Sunday ferry service to the Islands.  Earlier this month the ferry service between the Mainland of Scotland the Isle of Lewis began, leading to silent protests and discussion over the end of a way of life.  As an article in the Telegraph put it:

The staunchly Presbyterian island is one of the last areas of the country where the Sabbath is widely regarded as a day of rest.

and later

The Free Church of Scotland – the Wee Frees – claim the move will destroy a way of life, while supporters say it will drag Lewis and neighbouring Harris – which have had Sunday flights for seven years – into the 21st century.

Although the church has showed some skepticism with the explanation, in the article the ferry company says that by not running on Sunday they are in violation of a European law “if it followed the wishes of one part of the community on Lewis, while sailing to almost every other large island on a Sunday.”

This is just one in a series of protests by Presbyterians in the UK protesting activities moving onto the Lord’s Day, including a protest just under a year ago by members of the Free Presbyterian Church in Ireland when the first Sunday football (soccer) match was held.

Now, at about the same time last month the Isle of Lewis made the news again for the first same-sex partnership ceremony or wedding in the Western Islands.  Again, in that conservative corner of Scotland the locals were not enthusiastic about the news, reported in the Sunday Mail, especially the leadership of the Free Church.

And in an interesting twist a court ruling was returned this week over church property, but in contrast to the cases stateside, this was the conservative Free Church (FC) prevailing in the case against one of its congregations that had broken away in 2000 as part of the formation of the more conservative Free Church of Scotland (Continuing) (FCC).  This is reported as one of about 12 congregations where there is a property dispute.  In his decision the judge said:

The defenders admitted that they had left the structure of the FC and had set up their own structure. There was and is an FC and the body to which the defenders belonged took themselves away from that and set up their own structure. As the defenders did not aver that the FC no longer adhered to its fundamental principles they had lost their property rights. There was a sharp issue between the parties as to how the series of authorities had to be understood. The defenders’ analysis of the authorities was fundamentally misconceived: if they were correct chaos would result since the FCC had set up competing trustees. What the authorities clearly showed was that those who left a voluntary church and separated themselves from its structure lost their property rights in it unless they showed that they adhered to the fundamental principles of the Church and that those who remained within the structure did not. Neither group in the present case averred that the other did not adhere to fundamental principles.

In other words, at least as I understand it, since this was a disagreement over details of the faith and not the major substance of their doctrine the FCC has no legal basis for claiming the property as the “true church.”  (I welcome clarification and/or correction as I am not as familiar with Scottish legal decisions.)  My summary is echoed in articles from The Herald and the Stornoway Gazette.  And in the article in The Herald it says:

But Reverend John Macleod, principal clerk of the Free Church (Continuing), said: “Our legal committee will be studying Lord Uist’s findings and consulting our lawyers in early course.”

The FC spokesman says they hope this will set a precedent so that legal action against the other congregations will not be necessary to recover the property.  Variations on a theme, no?

Finally, the continuing “hot topic”:

When we last discussed the situation in the Church of Scotland the General Assembly had just concluded, the Rev. Scott Rennie had been approved for his call to a church in Aberdeen, a moratorium was in place on any new calls to same-sex partnered ministers, and a gag order had been placed on all officers of the church.  So where do we go from here?

On July 3 the Rev. Scott Rennie was inducted (installed) as the pastor of Queen’s Cross Church in Aberdeen Presbytery. (BBC)

On July 25 a Church of Scotland minister announced he would step down from his call in disagreement with the General Assembly decision (BBC) but did not announce plans to leave the Church of Scotland.  A few days later a member of one of the church councils announced that he was leaving the CofS over this. (The Press and Journal)

At about the same time the editor of the Free Church magazine The Monthly Record, the Rev. David Robertson, wrote an editorial in the latest edition that suggested that those leaving the Church of Scotland could find a home in the Free Church.  Titled “Ichabod — The Glory Has Departed” he criticized the action of the CofS General Assembly  and says:

Whatever happens, barring an extraordinary outpouring of the Holy Spirit, the Church of Scotland is crippled and dying and will find itself increasingly unable to bring the Living Water of Jesus Christ to a thirsty nation.

The editorial then goes on to suggest responses from the Free Church (highly edited for length):

We have to respond. This is the most significant event in the history of the Church in Scotland since the union of 1929. It affects us all. Again, we simply list some suggestions.

1) We need to repent as well. There must not be even a hint of schadenfreude, delighting in another’s misery in order to indulge in an ‘I told you so’ kind of self-justification. How eff
ective are we in reaching Scotland’s millions? Any form of pride or thankfulness that we are ‘not as others’ is utterly reprehensible and totally unjustified.

2) We must offer as much support we can to our brothers and sisters who are really hurt and suffering within the Church of Scotland. Not because we want to entice them to join us, but simply because they are our brothers and sisters. Many of them are faithful, hardworking and fine Christians who have served Christ for many years within and through the Church of Scotland. They are pained beyond belief. Now is not the time to stick the boot in. Now is the time to offer a helping hand, including to those who will stay.

3) We need to provide a home for those who cannot stay. If this means for the sake of Christian unity that we have to allow them to worship God in the way they are used to – then so be it. It is surely not a coincidence that the year before the Special Commission is due to report, the Free Church will be debating and deciding on whether to amend what forms of worship will be allowed within our bounds. We should not do what is unbiblical or sinful in order to facilitate Christian unity, but neither should we allow disagreement on secondary issues (disagreements which we have amongst ourselves already) to prevent us from uniting with likeminded brothers and sisters. [text deleted] It is time for us all to recognize that we are no longer in the 19th century, or even in the 20th. We are no longer a Christian society with a national church which just needs to be reformed. We are in a postmodern secular society where the vast majority of people are ignorant of the Gospel, ignorant of the Bible, and have little or no meaningful concept of the Church. For us this is a new beginning. We need new wine, and for that we need new wineskins.

4) We need to inform the Church of Scotland that the stumbling block in our negotiations with them has just become a mountain. We always knew that the issue of scripture was the major one, but now that the Assembly has decided that Scripture is not synonymous with the Word of God, it is difficult to see on what basis we can have any meaningful official discussions. [text deleted]

5) We need to seek realistic co-operation and build bridges to overcome years of prejudice and misinformation on all sides. At an official level, Free Church presbyteries could offer associate status to Church of Scotland ministers, elders and congregations. We should seek to form Gospel partnerships in areas where we share the same theology and understanding of the Gospel. We would support rather than compete with one another and perhaps plant churches and worship together…

While these are personal comments of the editor of the official magazine, point 4 reflects the concern expressed at the General Assembly of the Free Church of Scotland for the direction of the mainline Church of Scotland and the implications that had for the continuing talks regarding their ecumenical relations.

The editorial concludes with this:

These are dark days and the worst is yet to come. But these are also days of great opportunity for the light of the Gospel to shine all the more brightly… Where is the passion of Knox who declared, ‘give me Scotland or I die’? Where is the vision of Chalmers when he stated, ‘Who cares for the Free Church compared with the Christian good of Scotland’? Those who share that passion and vision must unite – across denominations – and make a stand to uphold and proclaim the wonderful full gospel of Jesus Christ. Who knows – it may be that these past days have been the shake-up that a complacent church in Scotland has needed. May the latter days of the Gospel in Scotland be greater than the former.

I have been looking for reaction to this editorial in either official statements or news coverage and have not seen any yet.  I’ll update when I do.

There are definitely rumblings of concern out there, and an article in The Herald today puts some of them in writing, but without naming a lot of names.  It mentions a church that is looking at withholding its annual contribution to the national church.  It says that there are 35 churches that have said “they will not accept gay ordination under any circumstances” with the report of more congregations to follow.

Finally, the restrictions on discussing the ordination standards in the Church of Scotland, particularly in public or to the media, are starting to be questioned.  In particular, the Rev. Louis Kinsey presented an argument last week on his blog Coffee With Louis about the problem with the ban on discussion, and the comments got picked up by The Herald.  He concludes his argument with this:

It is simply contrary to the spirit of the church, the church that worships the Word made public in Jesus Christ, to prevent its Courts, Councils and congregants from trying to talk this issue and its implications through in every way possible, including publicly, albeit with graciousness and respect.  It cannot be argued that further discussion can continue within Presbyteries.  It just won’t happen.  We all know that.  Life and Work?  The pages of Life and Work are sealed, as far as letters and articles on this matter are concerned.  That magazine just will not publish.  They are following the moratorium. 

There is, now, no arena in which this debate can continue, and yet it should continue, because God continues to have a strong view on the matter.  All parties to this debate can at least agree on that.

My hope is that the moratorium will be challenged.  It only serves to drive debate underground and it stifles the exchange of opinion.  It is patronizing because it infers that the Assembly simply cannot and will not trust the members and ministers of the Kirk to hold a public discussion in a spirit of respectful disagreement.  It was agreed without evidence, on the say-so of the proposer, and because it prevents Kirk members from hearing one another’s perspective, it only adds to the momentum towards disintegration.

This moratorium is hurtful not helpful and should be ended.  It is a mistake that needs correcting.  It is the absence of freedom of speech.

There is much going on here, most in initial stages, including the work of the Special Commission.  We will see how all of these facets of the situation develop.