Synod Resolutions and Findings

Proposals for Concerted Prayer

In view of the fact that the Saviour teaches us that “if two of you shall agree on earth as touching anything that they shall ask, it shall be done for them,” the Synod agrees on the following proposals to be viewed in the light of concerts for prayer referred to in the May issue of the F.P. magazine.

• A That believers be requested to set aside time on Saturday and Sabbath evenings for prayer, and that at such times they be exercised regarding the following:—
  1. The confession of sin
  2. The acknowledgement of our helplessness to better any aspect of circumstances of God’s cause
  3. The imploring of divine mercy and grace —
     • (a) To effect a revival of the graces of the Spirit in the hearts of the godly.
     • (b) To visit the Christless in the power of His Spirit, blessing His word to the conviction and conversion of their souls.
• B That the first Sabbath of January, April, July and October be given over in a special way to prayer for revival, and that those conducting public worship on these days keep this in view.
• C That in the issues of the F.P. Magazine for the months previous to those above mentioned space be given to provide our people with information on matters to be remembered in prayer. This would specially respect our mission in Rhodesia, but other aspects of Church work could be included at the discretion of the magazine editor.

NOTE: 1 In recommending the setting aside of time for prayer, it is especially secret prayer which is intended. The hour or duration of prayer is left to the circumstances and the conscience of the individual.
2 This appeal is addressed to believers among us: we expect that in their prayers they will especially seek the our-pouring of the Holy Spirit on our own congregations to the conversion of sinners among ourselves. This solemn matter, however, might not be approached in any exclusive spirit. Rather we would set before our people the example of David when he prayed: “Let the whole earth be filled with His glory.”

Northern Ireland

The Synod of the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland met at Glasgow this 26th day of May, 1972 expresses its sympathy with the people of Northern Ireland in their present troubles. We express also our admiration for the restraint shown by the Protestant majority in the fact of great provocation while on the other hand we deplore the murderous attacks made by the I.R.A. not only against the security forces, but against innocent civilians as well.

The action by the British Government in suspending the Northern Ireland freely elected Parliament has conceded in part one of the aims of the I.R.A. This has encouraged the dissident elements; while at the same time it has alarmed the loyal Protestant majority. Some positive action by our Government is necessary to reassure the Protestant majority that it is indeed their intention to maintain the constitutional position of Northern Ireland, and preserve the dearly bought civil and religious liberties of the people there.

We would remind the Government of the part which the R.C. Church has played in the history of past generations as a formenter of trouble and an enemy of true liberty. We believe that she bears this character still. We would ask the Government not to receive at face value the platitudinous statements issued by the Vatican and the Northern Ireland Roman Catholic hierarchy on the trouble in that land. We do not believe that the R.C. Church occupies a neutral position in the present struggle. Her ultimate aim is the re-unification of Ireland as an R.C. State. The present attack on lawfully constituted authority in Northern Ireland could not have been mounted without the tacit support of the R.C. Church. Nor are we of the view that the power of the Papacy has so diminished or the ardent devotion of Irish Roman Catholics so declined that papal intervention would fail to curb if not to bring to an end the present bloodshed.

We would urge our people to pray earnestly for the re-establishment of peace, righteousness and the truth in Northern Ireland and for the liberation of Roman Catholics throughout the whole of Ireland from the galling yoke of Popery.

(Copies of this resolution were sent to:— Mr. Whitelaw, Minister for Northern Ireland; Mr. Faulkner, Former Prime Minister of Northern Ireland; and Rev Ian Paisley, M.P.)

Population Limitation

In recent times great prominence has been given to the subject of population limitation. Prophets of doom declare that we cannot sustain a continuing rise in population. We are in danger of pollution. “To act irresponsibly . . . in overpopulating the globe with our own species, is as sinful a form of human selfishness as one can imagine” it is said. “Unless some present trends are halted life on earth might eventually come to an end” — “Until mankind begins to show the self-control, which his power and dominance require, the future for all life on earth is still in the balance” — “If current trends continued then continued demand will irreversibly disrupt the vital life-supporting natural resources, possibly by the end of the century but certainly within the life time of our children” — are other statements designed to highlight the dangers of over-population. The need of stabilising the population is again and again emphasised.

The question we have to face is whether these warnings are justified and if so whether the means suggested for combating these dangers are legitimate.

1. Are the warnings justified?

That the population of the world is rapidly expanding cannot be denied. An estimate by a U.N. Group suggests that the world population will have doubled to 6,500 million people by the year 2000. This represents a fantastic increase in a short period of time. However, does even this large number justify the alarm which is felt in some quarters that the world will not be able to bear such a population? If we believe in an atheistic or humanistic philosophy which makes man the guide of his own destiny then we have reason indeed for alarm. If, however, we believe in the over-ruling power of God operative in the universe, then there is no cause for alarm. The God of eternity, the providential Governor of the universe has not let go His control of the world nor His superintendence of its affairs. “The Lord reigns; let the earth be glad.” Psalm 97: 1. The outlook which lays such stress today on population limitation is blind to a number of important factors e.g. that the world has potential capacity for increased food production able to meet the needs of a greatly increased human population — that the world has hidden natural resources which still lie undiscovered — that God has power as providential Ruler to meet the needs of all His creatures.

2. What are we to say about the means for combating the danger of over-population? Are they legitimate if the circumstances are as pressing as the prophets of doom aver?

Let us ask what are these means? They include contraception, abortion, sterilisation — to extend no doubt eventually to euthanasia. This is the ‘civilisation’ to which the twentieth century has brought us! — a society so lacking in human compassion — or so full of compassion in their own estimation — that they regard as legitimate practices which a past generation regarded with revulsion. “The tender mercies of the wicked are cruel”. Prov. 12:10. If this is the ‘new’ society, then surely it is a Godless society and one under God’s wrath.

We would urge our people to give no heed to the virulent propaganda which is spread abroad at the present time suggesting that the greatest service which fathers and mothers can show society is to cease to have children. We would remind them that one of the main ends of marriage is the bringing forth a seed for the Church of God. Let us give heed only to the voice of God in His Word. “Lo, children are an heritage of the Lord: and the fruit of the womb is His reward.” Psalm 127:3.

Freemasonry

The Synod of the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland met this 24th day of May, 1972, resolve as follows:

The Church restates its opposition to Free Masonry. It regards this Craft as a work of darkness which has no part in, but is contrary, to the light of the Christian Faith. In Masonry there is no place for the Lord Jesus Christ as the One Way to God the Father and as the co-equal with the Father. Masonry would place Jesus Christ alongside the mythical Egyptian Osiris, the Grecian Bacchus or Hiram Abiff. The Craft cannot be harmonized with Christianity.

Mention is made of God among them and the Bible is prominently displayed in their ritual. But whom do they mean by the term “God”? Is it intended to be a compound of Jehovah the God of the Bible with Baal the false god of the heathen and On (Osiris) of Egypt? Is this the secret name of God — JAOBULON?

The brotherhood which it professes to foster is quite alienated from the brotherhood which the gospel sets before us.

Whatever “feelings of holiness” some may have imagined in connection with their ritual these are not the feelings flowing from the presence of the Triune God through the Lord Jesus Christ, by the Holy Spirit.

The Church declares that it is in the understanding that Free Masonry is completely renounced, along with all the other works of darkness, that the ordinances of baptism and the Lord’s Supper are given to any within its pale.

Review of Moral and Religious Education Report

* The Secretary of State for Scotland set up a Committee to enquire into Moral and Religious Education in Scottish Schools. The Committee recently published its findings.

We welcome the thorough investigation which the Scottish Secretary of State’s Committee made into the actual practice at present obtaining in Scottish schools with regard to Moral and Religious education. This investigation confirms what has long been suspected — the utter inadequacy of the present set-up in the teaching of Moral and Religious education. So far as moral education is concerned the investigation has elicited the information that this is only given in a general way and that very little explicit moral teaching is given in schools. The Committee also confirm what was generally thought to be the case — that there are a considerable number of teachers, particularly of younger teachers in secondary departments, who would prefer not to teach religious education. This was only to be expected in view of the small percentage of church goers in the community. We are glad to see that the Committee have found the charge of indoctrination so often levelled at schools in connection with the teaching of religious education, to be false. A sad aspect of the Committee’s findings during its investigation of matters as they stand at present is that few children read the Bible in home or in school. The conclusion the Committee arrives at in view of its findings is that religious education must change in some fundamental ways if it is to reach young people effectively, particularly in view of their alienation from Christian beliefs. We wholeheartedly agree that a radical improvement in the teaching of religious education is called for. The question is whether the Committee’s recommendations will produce this improvement. It is our view that they will not do so.

With a number of the Committee’s recommendations we can agree. For instance on the need to regulate the content of R.E. teaching according to the capacity of the child and also on the need for objectivity in the presentation of religious belief etc. The Report however appears to require a posture of neutrality of the schools with regard to Christianity. This is not merely neutral with regard to the differing interpretations of the Christian faith but neutral as to whether or not the Christian faith is true. The Committee stress the open-ended nature of the type of religious education which they are aiming at. From their point of view, the school in the field of R.E. is not concerned to advocate Christian religious beliefs as the ones to be accepted. Perhaps a quotation from the section on Chaplains will make clear where this outlook leads the Committee:—

Chaplains

R.E.’s concern is to increase awareness and understanding in the field of ethics and religion without the weight of authority being thrown behind any one set of beliefs with the implication that that is the one that is normally to be accepted. It could therefore be regarded as something of an anomaly to have someone coming into the School and accorded a special position there whose whole function is to represent and recommend the Christian faith. If the Chaplain takes up an authoritarian attitude this could destroy completely any attempt in the school to show religion as an open attempt to study issues and test various kinds of approach. But quite apart from that the very fact that a Christian minister — and necessarily of one denomination or another — is given a special position in the school implies that officially the school is committed to supporting and commending the Christian religion.” (The Committee are trying to avoid any suggestion that the school should be committed to supporting and commending the Christian religion.) “Nevertheless” the Committee goes on to say, “we do think that there can be an important role for the Chaplain in the school but it will vary in different situations and the traditional role of the Chaplain may often not be possible or desirable.”

The Committee are attempting to establish R.E. in such a way that no pupil and perhaps no teacher would wish to opt out of it. They do not think that teachers should be forced to take part in religious activities if they object to them. The question is raised — What if too many teachers opt out while at the same time the Education Authorities are legally obliged to provide R.E.? The Committee’s answer to that drastic situation is — that the obligations on the Education Authorities to provide it should be revised. The reasons they give for recommending abolition of R.E. in schools in such a situation are as follows:—

“Not only is freedom of conscience important (for the teachers, they mean) but R.E. is unlikely to be given in the imaginative and openminded way that we recommend if it is taken by teachers who do it only because they must.” Our view, of course, is that if ordinary teachers opt out then let persons be found who will teach it.

We do not accept the view that R.E. is no longer aimed at producing assent to any particular set of propositions or commitment to one particular faith. We advocate with others that it is the Christian faith that should be positively taught. We welcome the reservation of Mr Ronald Macdonald, Director of Education for Inverness-shire and a signatory to the Report.

We express our deep disappointment with the general trend of the recommendations. If these are adopted religious education will no longer be synonymous with Christian education. This will result in the schools becoming more positively secular than ever, which can only be regarded as a retrograde step in the history of education in Scotland.