THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE CHURCH OF SCOTLAND.
Call for Church Unity.—The General Assembly of the Church of Scotland opened in Edinburgh on May the 24th, 1955. And the Lord High Commissioner, the Duke of Hamilton, addressed the assembly, his theme being Church Unity. He had been at Evanston, U.S.A., as a delegate to the World Council of Churches—a Council which is prepared to welcome both Modernist and Roman Catholics. He said that through lack of basic fellowship between Christians, we stand accused of denying the Lord that we proclaim. He laid the responsibility of this upon members of the Church of whatever denomination. The Duke did not consider any of the real basic causes of lack of fellowship between some professing Christian denominations in Scotland, for instance. Those who hold to the Bible as the inspired and infallible Word of God, from Genesis to Revelation, cannot have fellowship and unity with a Church permeated with Modernism and the denial of some of the most precious doctrines of the Gospel of Christ, as the Church of Scotland itself is. True unity must be unity in the Truth. The Bishop of Durham, Dr. Ramsey, also spoke on the urgency of the unity of the whole Church. He was concerned in the conversations proceeding between the Church of England and the Church of Scotland on this very question, as between the two National Churches. He said he thought that God was giving them something of the spirit of self-criticism, as he called it. These are the men who speak about unity and they will not recognise the validity of the ordination of a Presbyterian minister, and much more to the same effect.
The “Tell Scotland Movement.”—The convenor of the Home Board, Rev. W. A. Smellic, Perth, presented a report in which he had much to say regarding the “Tell Scotland Movement” linked up with the “All-Scotland Crusade.” He spoke in glowing terms of what he considered to be the success of these activities. He said, “The Crusade has been mightily used of God to further the ‘Tell Scotland’ Movement.” As far as we know the “Tell Scotland” movement is one which would need a radical change in its witness and work and aims before its furtherance will benefit Scotland. Has it any word of telling Scotland that unconverted Church members are on the broad way that leads to destruction? Has it ever made any endeavour at all officially to tell Scotland that Church dances, plays, and whist drives, concerts, etc., are of the world and that God-fearing persons shun such things? Has this movement told Scotland that the Church cannot tolerate any longer ministers of religion who do not preach the Gospel of Christ and Him crucified? In this connection we may note what the Rev. D. P. Thomson, a “Tell Scotland” leader, said in the Assembly in reference to Billy Graham. He was acknowledging
what he considered to be a great work, and then in the middle of his speech said he was not asking the Assembly to endorse Dr. Graham’s theology, methods, or views about anything but that Dr. Graham had been God’s messenger to them. And now if Billy Graham helped on the “Tell Scotland” movement, why could Mr. Thomson not ask the Assembly to accept Billy Graham’s theology? Why? What confusion, and what a Babel of ideas, when on the one hand Billy Graham does a mighty work to further a Church of Scotland movement, and on the other the Church of Scotland cannot really be asked to accept Billy Graham’s theology! Where is the unity based on a settled, Scriptural foundation? It does not exist here. By these observations we are not to be held as endorsing Billy Graham’s theology, but those who eulogise him and use him are in a very different category from us.
Gaelic Evangelist for the Highlands.—Under business ament the National Church Extension Scheme, it was proposed that the appointment of a Gaelic evangelist would help the recruitment of candidates for the Gaelic ministry, as well as quicken congregational life. This was opposed by Commander K. MacKenzie, R.N., who said, among other things, that the island of Lewis did not need evangelism. We understood him to mean that preaching of an evangelical character was to be found throughout Lewis. The Commander’s view was supported by Mr. G. P. Boyd, Dunblane, who said he had known campaigns in which evangelists had addressed meetings composed of the converted, not of those who needed conversion. He said he would support evangelism in other parts of Scotland other than the Highlands. This, to our mind, reveals that there are those in the Church of Scotland who discern a difference between religious conditions in their Church as between the Highlands and other parts of Scotland. This may be true to a certain extent as to external forms of worship and other matters, but the Church of Scotland is that Church wherever its congregations are. The original proposal was adopted.
Foreign Missions.—The Rev. J. L. Kent, Cathcart, convener of the Foreign Missions Committee, said their missionaries were living under conditions of unprecedented political turmoil. Three races, European, Asiatic, and African, were struggling to create a society in which they could live and work together in harmony. This was on the African Continent. The work needed that the income for missions be increased from £240,000 to £300,000, the increase of £60,000 being necessary to meet commitments in men and money. The convener said that there was required as soon as possible 52 new missionaries. There was a decrease of 70 missionaries in the last ten years. In reading this report, only part of which is given in the press, we cannot but be amazed at the task of organising missions employing 310 missionaries.
Sectarianism in the Highlands.—During the Assembly, and at the Church of Scotland’s Home Board night in the Assembly Hall, the Rev. R. MacDonald of Stornoway said that rigid sectarianism was strangling spiritual life in the Highlands and Islands. Co-operation was the exception rather than the rule. We may state here and now that it will take more than he says to kill real spiritual life wherever it is in any part of the world. Of course, the kind of spiritual life Mr. MacDonald was thinking of, and what we are thinking of, might be quite different. Mr. MacDonald looks for a remedy to his problem. He said the Highlander needed “a good splash of inspiration in his daily diet,” whatever he meant by that as his context to the consideration of spiritual life in the Highlands. Then answering his own question: “Where is it to come from?” he said, “I know of no better source than the religion of his fathers.” We are still at a loss to know exactly what Mr. MacDonald means. Does he mean the religion of the godly and eminent ministers and men of the past, who held to the Word of God as such from Genesis to Revelation, and preached and loved the pure doctrines of the Gospel of Christ? Mr. MacDonald may not know but there are those who have no place for the Church of Scotland, as it is now, but who still believe in, love, and seek by divine grace to live according to the religion of their godly fathers. The religion of our godly fathers did not tolerate Modernism in doctrine, and all manner of worldly and vain practices within the Church if they could help it. No doubt there is what Rev. R. MacDonald calls sectarianism. We have another view of this, viz., “Come out from among them, and be ye separate, and touch not the unclean thing.” All this talk down in Edinburgh about rigid sectarianism strangling spiritual life in the Highlands is just talk. It is supposed to be wise talk. It is still just so much talk. Spiritual life in the Highlands, as in other parts of the land, is at a low ebb, and the Spirit of God alone can bring spiritual life back to our Highlands as elsewhere.
Congregational Adjustments.—Rev. G. Sutherland, convener of the Committee on Unions, said that 20 unions of congregations had been effected last year. These adjustments were needed, as Mr. Sutherland pointed out that the Church lost over 100 men from the active ministry, while only 35 students finished their course. In all the discussions of manpower for the Church we can never get our minds away from the thought that the Church of Scotland leaders have no consideration for the need of men converted, according to Bible conversion, and called by the Lord to the work of the ministry of the Gospel of Christ. What a plague unconverted ministers are to a land!
Nuclear Arms.—Rev. Dr. N. Davidson, convener of the Church and Nation Committee, dealt with nuclear weapons and the Christian standpoint in face of them as the main subject of his speech. He said, “To give superiority in armaments to a potential enemy might be
to surrender the very safety of civilisation, to betray the future of mankind. It is for this reason, and for this reason alone, that we cannot, dare not, condemn the manufacture of nuclear bombs by our own country.” He referred to the forces of godless materialism intent on world domination. In this connection we remember an American general recently speaking on this whole question. What he made clear to us was, that even although the Western Powers and Russia gave up completely atomic weapons, there still remained the fact that Russia and her supporters have millions more of men than the Western Powers and would be prepared to throw them into war in practically endless masses, irrespective of losses. But the General made clear that the Western Powers, in a defensive war, were not prepared to sacrifice untold masses of human lives on our side against overwhelming numbers. Atomic weapons were thus the deterrent and the defence. We see that Russia knows that in calling for the banning of atomic weapons by all nations she would have this advantage in manpower to be used without any regard to the loss of human life. The Christian is not called upon to refrain from defensive measures in face of a potential, powerful, and pagan enemy!
Re-Marriage of Divorced Persons.—Rev. Professor J. Pitt-Watson, reporting on behalf of a special committee on re-marriage of divorced persons, said committees had been labouring on this question for nine years. Cleavage of opinion on theological and exegetical issues had prevented agreement. He hoped a decision would be reached in 1956. Of course, some in the lead in the Church of Scotland are trying to find agreement over the offending parties in divorce cases. The Confession of Faith allows that the innocent party after divorce may marry another, as if the offending party were dead. At present the Church of Scotland forbids re-marriage by a minister in one case, that of a defector divorced for adultery.”
Original Secession Church and its Accession to the Church of Scotland.—Rev. Dr. William Maenicol, as Leader of the House, suggested that the letter from the United Original Secession Synod be read.
The Principal Clerk, the Rev. J. B. Longmuir, read the letter, which reported that returns received from Presbyteries, sessions and congregations of the Original Secession Church showed a large majority in favour of proceeding to negotiate with the appropriate committee of the Church of Scotland with a view to the accession of the Secession Church to the National Church.
The General Assembly greeted the letter with loud applause, and the Moderator, the Right Rev. Professor G. D. Henderson, said that a committee would be appointed to negotiate.
The United Original Secession Church is the direct ecclesiastical descendant of the seceding fathers of 1733.
This formal move on the part of the Original Secession Church to be received into the present-day Church of Scotland is a retrograde decision indeed. Would the fathers and originators of the Original Secession Church, such as the eminently godly Erskines, even dream of such a step if they were alive to-day? Never. But from what we know, the present-day Original Secession Church, whatever its professed witness may be on paper, has become very much like the Church of Scotland as to worldly practices within its borders, and so finds affinity with the modernistic Church of Scotland.
Conversations with the Church of England.—We give here as full a report of the debate on this question as possible that our readers may be kept informed of what is going on in the largest professed Presbyterian Church in Scotland as to negotiations with Anglicans. The Established Church of Scotland of Reformed times, 300 years ago, was a Church purged of Episcopacy. But to-day the Presbyterian heritage is in the process of being bargained away.
The following is an account of the debate in the Assembly in May of this year:—
Rev. John A. Macrae, speaking of the conversations with the Church of England, emphasised the importance of maintaining friendly relations. A great deal had been achieved already, and if they were able to be friendly he believed there was no essential difference that could not ultimately be resolved.
The Rev. J. C. Macnab said that unless they had agreement on the essential principles first the negotiations were useless. The question was whether the ministers of the Church of Scotland were valid administrators of the Sacraments. His answer was that they were, but they were very foolish to enter into negotiations with the Church of England if that Church had any doubts of the position.
Mr. McNab also criticised the composition of the Inter-Church Relations Committee on the grounds that it included too many professors.
The Procurator, Sir Randall Philip, Q.C., as a layman taking part in the conversations, said they had to leave the main charge of the discussions to the people best qualified to conduct them. “These conversations are being conducted in the most competent way, and the most Christian way,” he added. “The conversations are making practical progress, and I appeal to the membership of the Church, lay and ministerial, to support the negotiators in what may be the greatest work which the Church is called on to do.”
Mr. McNab, in reply, urged that the representatives of the Church of Scotland must be loyal to the essential principles of the Presbyterian system, which must not be put into the melting pot or used as a bargaining counter or surrendered.
The Very Rev. Principal John Baillie, commenting on Mr. McNab’s views, said that he had a strange conception of a conference. It seemed to him that Mr. McNab was maintaining that each side should say, “These are our essential principles and we are not going to budge.” If the Church of Scotland and the United Free Church had conducted their pre-Union negotiations in that way they would have remained apart eternally.
He supposed it was true that the Anglican Church at present did not recognise the Orders of the Church of Scotland, but did the Church of Scotland recognise the Orders of the Congregational Church? If a Congregational minister applied to be transferred to the Church of Scotland he was only admitted after reordination. “If it is such a terrible sin for a Church not to recognise the Orders of another Church, then we are not free of that sin ourselves.”
Sir James Ferguson emphasised that these conversations must be approached with Christian humility.
Mr. J. D. Michael, Drumnadrochit, said he had had experience of the joy of intercommunion in India. He hoped that every support would be given to those taking part in the conversations between the Churches, in which the greatest principle involved was the support of the one Catholic Church.
Rev. J. C. Macnab of the Church of Scotland seems to be keeping a sharp eye, and a critical eye, upon these conversations. But as far as we read, he is somewhat of a voice crying in the wilderness. No other minister or layman is reported as supporting him on the floor of the Assembly and in such a manner as to make the leaders of the Church sit up and listen with some alarm. Rev. Mr. Macnab himself does not appear to be going far enough. He should condemn these conversations out and out and move that they terminate forthwith. He would get little support at this stage, but he might begin a public move and agitation which might gather momentum. We are certain that thousands of Church of Scotland people know little or nothing of what is being done in their name in these conversations with dignitaries of the Church of England.
Rev. Principal John Baillie’s statement regarding Congregational ministers being re-ordained on admission to the Church of Scotland was quite an unusual item of information. Mr. J. D. Michael stated as his view that the greatest principle involved was the support of the one Catholic Church. And so the propaganda goes on apace to undermine and weaken the view that there are great principles involved in true Scriptural Presbyterianism.
A Minister’s Cremated Remains.—A petition from the Kirk Session of the Holy Rude, Stirling, asked for the authority of the Assembly to the depositing of the cremated remains of Rev. Lewis A. Sutherland, D.D., within the Church. He had expressed in his will the
desire to have his ashes placed in the fabric of the Church. The crave of this petition was refused. And so such strange things are thought of in the religion of these times. One minister in supporting the petition, said of the “cremated minister,” that no honour could have brought more delight to his heart than for him to know that his memory was to be so perpetuated. We read of Absalom: “Now Absalom in his lifetime had taken and reared up for himself a pillar, which is in the King’s dale: for he said, I have no son to keep my name in remembrance . . .” (II Sam. xviii. 18). And what profit had poor Absalom of all these arrangements originated in his own mind after he died? Samuel Rutherford considered in his lifetime that if one soul from Anwoth would meet him at God’s right, that would be glorious to him in Emmanuel’s land.
The Assembly and Temperance.—There was a protracted debate following upon the report by the Assembly’s Committee on Temperance. The debate centred upon the recommendation to adopt and practice total abstinence, which recommendation was formerly accepted by the Assembly, and the amendment to recommend the practice of temperance. The amendment was carried by 68 votes to 63. The Bible exposes and condemns drunkenness as a great sin and a fruit of the flesh. The more we see and know of this sin, the more we abhor it. But one impression which we gathered in reading the debate on this question was that if even half of the time spent on this debate and a measure of the zeal and seriousness brought into it by speakers was devoted to the vital question of intemperance as to the propagation and imbibing of unscriptural and false doctrines in the Church, it would make us more sympathetic with those who are publicly and zealously concerned with temperance in the Church of Scotland. Are their members throughout Scotland temperate as to Sabbath keeping, temperate in their congregational activities, etc.? Members buying “Sunday” newspapers and organising dancing and card playing, and so on, these do not practice temperance, far less total abstinence, as to vain and worldly practices. And are those members in full communion in the Church, who are guilty of drunkenness, when known to be guilty, are they brought before Kirk Sessions and disciplined?
Moderator’s Closing Address.—Rev. Professor G. D. Henderson, Moderator of the Assembly, in his closing address contrasted to-day with 1855. One thing he said was: “We are fundamentally the same as our fathers but scarcely so complacent, more puzzled.” Again he said: “And in Church life, while family worship, fast days, prayer meetings and grace before meat have lost the place they had, very great activity has developed in organisation and administration, Church halls and all that they stand for . . .” We shall quote no more. There is no expression of regret in the Moderator’s address (in the report we read of it) as to such a practice as family worship having lost its place. Scotland does not as yet show signs of turning back to the “old paths.”
THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE FREE CHURCH OF SCOTLAND.
The New Moderator’s Address.—This Assembly began also on the 24th of May, 1955, in Edinburgh. The new Moderator of the Assembly, Rev. J. M. Morrison, M.A., took as the subject of his opening address “The Church and Her Character.” He indeed cut right across the expressed views of the Duke of Hamilton in the Church of Scotland Assembly on the question of divisions in the Church at large. He said these were the bitter fruitage over centuries of doctrinal controversies, and that the responsibility must be laid at the doors of those who perverted the right ways of the Lord. He said, “Our Christian heritage had been dearly bought and must not be carelessly bartered away.” He criticised “a vague evangelism which may appear to achieve quicker and more sensational results.” With these assertions we concur, and to-day we must not only declare the truth but must be very watchful to defend it and conserve it against every undermining influence.
Welfare of Youth.—Presenting the Committee’s Report on this question, Rev. J. Weir Campbell said that the Committee had been considering ways and means of co-ordinating and extending the youth work of the Church. Yet he remarked that in certain Protestant denominations youth groups had reaped not the fruits of the Spirit but of the flesh. In this business of youth organisations, we always have in mind that the primary aim of the Church of Christ is the conversion and salvation of young and old. The principal means to that end are the reading and the preaching of the Word. And the Holy Spirit alone can make these divinely appointed means effectual. What have youth clubs, etc., accomplished to the above great end, the salvation of sinners? What youth needs is the pure, full gospel with the Holy Spirit sent down from heaven. If and where youth live without a Scriptural influence in the house, then parents in such homes need the means of grace to bring them to wisdom’s ways. Although we thus write, undoubtedly Sabbath Schools have had a beneficial influence in the case of many young persons. Rev. Mr. Campbell further referred to Billy Graham, and said he did not think it could be doubted that the Spirit of the Lord had been moving up and down the land. We would ask with reverence, did this occur just during the period when Dr. Billy Graham was in this country? Rev. Professor R. A. Finlayson said there was a stirring among the youth . . . There was a seeking after God. We do wish this were true.
The Church’s Finances.—Reporting on the income of the Church, Mr. W. M. Mackay, Dundee, convener of the Finance Committee, said that although there had been an increase in the Church’s income during the past year, some committees were short of income for a long time. Members should review their contributions from time to
time. Contributions of shillings could be made into pounds. This observation is a proper one and applies to quite a number of Church people other than Free Church people. Rev. Professor D. M. Renwick said that it was only with difficulty that the Sustentation Fund was able to provide an equal dividend salary for ministers of £400. We in the Free Presbyterian Church now provide a salary of £420 per annum for our ministers.
Loyal Address to the Queen.—We are glad to read that in the Free Church’s address to Her Majesty a paragraph expressed deep grief at the general disregard of the Fourth Commandment. Yet it is indeed the duty of Christian Churches to intimate to Her Majesty their sorrow at, and disapproval of, Her Majesty’s own disregard of the claims of the Lord’s Day in recent times.
Overture Anent the Free Church Witness.—The General Assembly had before it an overture which referred to “the supineness and shortcomings” of the Church with respect to its own distinctive witness.
The debate—in which many outspoken comments were made—lasted for most of the day, and at the end a ballot vote was called for and the overture departed from by 53 votes to 37.
The overture from the Synod of Glenelg was presented by the Rev. Kenneth A. Macrae, Lewis, who said: “The Calvinistic witness of our Church was never in so much danger as it is in Scotland to-day.”
The overture said that the religious life of Scotland within the Protestant sphere appeared to be dominated largely by the twin forces of Modernism and Arminianism. “While our people are comparatively safe from the nebulous theories of Modernism, there are not lacking indications to show that they are by no means immune from the insidious tenets of Arminianism.”
There was, therefore, urgent need to strengthen the Church’s Calvinistic witness.
The overture suggested that the Presbyteries and Kirk Sessions should take special steps to ascertain that all persons to be ordained by them fully understood and wholeheartedly accepted in all their bearings the terms of the Formula to which they bind themselves; (2) That Presbyteries at expedient intervals, and at convenient centres, should arrange and convene public meetings for the purpose of making known and emphasising the principles and witness of the Free Church of Scotland, both for the edification of their own people and for the information of the general public; (3) That Thursday, June 16, be observed by the congregations of the Church as a Day of Humiliation and Prayer, “with special reference to the low state of religion in the land and to the supineness and shortcomings of our own Church with respect to her distinctive witness.”
Our comments here upon this overture are:—(1) That it is a document used in procedure within Church Courts to enforce acts and laws already in existence or to enact new laws; (2) This overture was not presented to the Assembly by an individual, but originated in and came from a Synod, viz., the Synod of Glenelg. A Synod represents a number of Presbyteries, or, rather, is constituted of representative ministers and elders from all the Presbyteries throughout the Synodical area. Whether or not, the overture was agreed to by the Synod and to be sent to the Assembly by a majority of Synod members, it placed before the Assembly the considered views of a considerable number of Free Church people; (3) The statements, implications and requirements of this overture are indeed serious from the point of view that the Free Church made much of its Calvinistic Witness. The overture avers that the Free Church has not been “immune from the insidious tenets of Arminianism.”
Whatever transpired in the debate upon the floor of the Assembly, we cannot think that responsible Free Church ministers of long standing would deliberately proceed in a Synod, and then at their Assembly, to place on record in formal document and by word of mouth statements which had no basis whatsoever for being made; and especially when the terms of the overture were bound to considerably disturb the Church. If we know anything, the Rev. Kenneth A. Macrae, Stornoway, who presented the overture to the Assembly, and was doubtless prominently concerned in drafting its terms, is himself a staunch Free Church man, irrespective of what was said of him in the debate.
Rev. K. A. Macrae said, regarding the Arminian danger: “There were some among us who could not bear to hear this danger mentioned without blazing up into unwarrantable and unreasonable anger.” He said, “Undoubtedly there was need for more Calvinistic doctrine.” These statements appear to be made from a competent knowledge of conditions in his Church.
Rev. Murdoch Macrae, Kinloch, said, among other things: “Discension was being caused in congregations over the question of Arminianism. There was a real danger to the Church where it was strong.” It is not clear from the report before us as to whether Rev. Murdoch Macrae meant that the discension or the Arminianism was strong. Again his statement appears to be made seriously and from personal knowledge. We assume surely that such a statement gave no satisfaction or pleasure to Mr. M. Macrae, Kinloch, as to these conditions obtaining within his Church.
Rev. Professor R. A. Finlayson moved that the Assembly pass from the overture, and thereafter he moved in for the attack upon Rev. Kenneth A. Macrae, Stornoway, and the overture. He said that this overture had its roots in a pamphlet by Rev. Kenneth A. Macrae, entitled The Resurgence of Arminianism, which we have read. It had
damaged the ministry of the Church in the eyes of outsiders, said Professor Finlayson. He further asserted that Rev. Kenneth A. Macrae had for years carried on a warfare of protest, rebuke and attack, all under the guise of a superior faithfulness. He challenged Mr. Macrae if Arminianism did rest within the Church ministry to expose it and have ministers concerned cited before the Church Courts. This appears to be a very strong argument and thrust against Mr. Macrae, Stornoway, on the Church Law aspect of the matter, on the question of fixing down a case where actual Arminian doctrine is taught and held to. But there is such a thing as a general and continual presentation of gospel doctrine in which some vital doctrines (or doctrine) are relegated to the background almost entirely or altogether. And in such cases it may be what a minister does not say which marks him out as failing in a Calvinistic presentation of truth. On the other hand, when there are actual witnesses and proof that a minister has obviously taught Arminian doctrine, then such a case ought to be taken to the appropriate Church Court. Can Rev. K. A. Macrae do this? If so, will he do it?
Rev. J. W. Fraser, Plockton and Kyle, charged Mr. Macrae, Stornoway, with saying that some ministers in the Free Church were preaching Arminianism. “I submit,” said Mr. Fraser, “that this is a cowardly attack upon unspecified brethren in the ministry.” He compared Mr. Macrae to Ham, the son of Noah, when he discovered his father’s nakedness, he went and published it abroad; and he further said of the overture: “In spite of its apparent piety it was nothing but a whited sepulchre.”
Rev. K. A. Macrae, as far as published reports go, did not make a very spirited reply or defence against all the accusations levelled against him personally. Some of these accusations were serious enough, and it is a wonder to us that the Moderator of Assembly allowed some of them to be made without a demand for withdrawal. For example, replying to the debate, Professor Finlayson said of Rev. K. A. Macrae that his work as an ecclesiastic had been divisive and disruptive. Surely this, as other statements, were outwith the merits of the overture and out of order. But if pursued formally could oppose Mr. Macrae to Church Court procedure. Is Professor Finlayson prepared to do this?
We think that Rev. Kenneth MacLeay, Kilmorack, put his finger on the factual background to the whole case. He said, “That there was dissatisfaction among all true Calvinists as to what was going on in the Church was evidenced by that overture . . . Many people in our Highlands were in a very dissatisfied condition.”
Nevertheless, by a secret ballot, the overture was departed from by 53 votes to 37 in support of a motion by Professor Finlayson. The secret ballot method of voting was also adopted on a motion by Professor Finlayson. What could possibly be the reason for secret
voting in a Christian Church Assembly on an issue of this nature? Were some members afraid to let it be known how they would vote on this overture?
The World Presbyterian Alliance.—By a majority the General Assembly of the Free Church of Scotland decided to withdraw from the World Presbyterian Alliance. There was considerable divergence of views among members, and it was only after long discussion that the vote was taken.
The proposal for withdrawal from the alliance came from the Synod of Glenelg, who submitted an overture to the Assembly, describing the constituent membership of the alliance as “now largely that of Churches which have come under the blighting influences of Modernism.”
The overture declared that the alliance had shown itself particularly active and vocal in its support of the heretical World Council of Churches, and maintained that the Free Church was diametrically opposed to the present policy of the alliance. It was held that continuance in membership of that body threatened to compromise the testimony of the Free Church of Scotland as a faithful defender of the Faith, and withdrawal from the alliance was called for.
In support of the overture, the Rev. Kenneth G. Macrae, Stornoway, declared that conditions had changed greatly since the Free Church became associated with the World Presbyterian Alliance. One of the changes was in respect of its policy. The new policy lay in the direction of doing everything possible to strengthen the World Council of Churches. The Alliance had embarked upon an ecumenical policy which the Free Church could not support.
He maintained that the World Council of Churches was a most dangerous movement. It was dangerous religiously and politically. It was organised in the name of the social gospel but that was simply another name for Socialism. It was a Socialist body and when politics were united with religion in that way they had the very same genus as was the Church of Rome. Was it right, he asked, that they should continue to contribute to an organisation which said its duty was to do all possible to encourage the ecumenical aims of the larger organisation?
The Rev. Murdoch Macrae seconded.
The Rev. Professor D. McKenzie moved that the General Assembly pass from the overture. There were some people, he said, who thought that isolationism was the correct attitude, but he disagreed with that. Those Churches in the alliance who were not in the World Council would be all the weaker if the Free Church stepped aside, for within the alliance itself there was active opposition to the World Council. He suggested that the Free Church should not put an iron curtain round itself.
They talked about bearing their Calvinistic witness, said the Rev. William Macleod, the Clerk, but if they were doing that they would be careful not to withdraw from a body like the Alliance.
On this occasion Rev. Kenneth Macrae, Stornoway, had his motion accepted, requiring the Assembly to withdraw from the Presbyterian Alliance, by 45 votes to 38. Professor D. MacKenzie and 18 others entered their dissent against this decision.
And so the Free Church Assembly were again sharply divided on quite a major issue. It appears that some leaders in the Free Church cannot bear to be limited in their activities as ecclesiastics, to the realm of their own Church. Their view seems to be that they can carry their professed witness almost into any company, without supporting what is contrary to it or compromising it in any way. But can they?
Moderator’s Closing Address.—The subject dealt with by Rev. J. M. Morrison, Ness, the Moderator, in his closing address, was “The World’s Need : The Church’s Challenge.” From published reports the Moderator diagnosed the evil character of Communism but declared that the source of all the woes from which man suffered was to be found in his sin-rumined self. And the Church must adhere to the principles of the Faith. The Church could not reach down to the world’s deepest need through a Gospel that was merely social or by giving a place under her roof to worldly amusements.