By Rev. John Goldby, M.A., Chairman of the Deacons’ Court of the Aberdeen Congregation of the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland
IN 1993 we wrote to Rev. John Tallach, the minister of the Aberdeen Congregation of the Associated Presbyterian Churches (APC), seeking to arouse his conscience with regard to him and his congregation continuing to unlawfully occupy our church and manse in Aberdeen, but without success. We pointed out the harm done to the Free Presbyterian remnant when he abandoned them and deprived them of services and property in 1989. We asked him whether there were now any plans to restore our property to us.
In his reply, Mr Tallach refused to return the property and indicated that the APC claim to Free Presbyterian property is founded first, on their view that they are the true Free Presbyterian Church continuing, and secondly, upon their assertion that the Free Presbyterian Church (FPC) has ceased to honour, as Mr Tallach put it, “important aspects of the constitution of the church, as Communion of Saints and Liberty of Conscience.”
In the interests of truth the APC congregations should consider carefully two key questions which lie at the heart of the APC position on property.
1. Is the APC really the true FPC continuing?
Can APC members still honestly and sincerely before the Lord, continue to support their Church’s claim to the property on the ground that the APC is the true Free Presbyterian Church continuing? Is the APC faithfully honouring the constitution of the original FPC? Professor Cartwright of the Free Church, it appears, thinks not. Following a meeting with APC representatives in 1993 he said that his personal impression was that the APC “were not sufficiently clear as to their own identity and future to contemplate movement towards union with any other body in the immediate future” (Monthly Record, July 1993, page 138). That was a frank, considered and independent assessment.
We have heard from a reliable source recently that an APC minister (we omit his name in order to avoid giving unnecessary irritation), in introducing himself while doing door to door visitation, said that the APC was a church positioned between the Free Church and the Church of Scotland. This seems to be a fairly accurate statement of fact, and if so, how then can the APC leadership claim to be the ‘FPC continuing’? Furthermore what is the purpose of such a claim when it is common knowledge that the APC has a very different church outlook to that of the FPC? The newer members of the APC might be very surprised to learn that they are committed to maintaining the doctrine, worship and practice of the FPC of 1893.
2. Has the FPC failed to honour the doctrines of Communion of Saints and Liberty of Conscience?
Disregarding for a moment the recent past and minor differences, there are yet manifestly great differences in outlook between the APC and the FPC of former years. For example, it is a fact that the FPC was never in the habit of exchanging pulpits with Church of Scotland, Baptist or other ministers, however orthodox, loved and respected they may have been personally. By contrast, pulpit exchange with ministers of other denominations is a common practice in the APC. We all value and enjoy communion with true Christian friends in other churches but the FPC remains committed to formal and public separation in order to preserve scriptural doctrine, worship and practice.
The Lord Mackay case is the principal example cited by the APC of the FPC failing to honour the doctrine of Christian Liberty and was the chief, immediate cause of the 1989 division. Lord MacKay refused to comply with the instruction of the Southern Presbytery to cease attending ‘requiem masses’. (He was not barred from attending a funeral, as the press still continues to say). Was the Presbytery’s action contrary to the practice and constitution of the
FPC? Let the following quotations be considered. Both are by Rev.R.R.Sinclair, a former Editor of The Free Presbyterian Magazine, and who became an APC minister in 1989.
In The Free Presbyterian Magazine of October 1957 he gave a faithful statement of the FPC view of attending mass, when he wrote as follows: “It was reported on the BBC news that Mr. MacMillan, the Prime Minister, was present on 29th August at what is called requiem mass in the Roman Catholic Cathedral, London, for RC priest Ronald Knox…. It was reported that the Prime Minister was a friend of Ronald Knox for many years. The action of the Prime Minister is to be deplored, being himself a nominal Protestant, and the head of the Government of a Protestant nation. His example is bad indeed… It will not be for his honour to recognise publicly an idolatrous service.”
Twenty two years later we see a shift, not in the view of the FPC but of those who soon were to leave the FPC to form the APC. In the report about the 1989 Synod in the July issue of The Free Presbyterian Magazine, we read on page 201: “Rev.R.R.Sinclair reminded the court that Lord Mackay belonged to a group of men – judges – who have great authority from God. Though Lords Russell and Wheatley were Roman Catholics [Lord Mackay attended the requiem masses for both] yet Lord Mackay had contact with them in a civil way. He put in an appearance at these funerals to express respect and regard for his colleagues and sympathy with his relatives. Lord Mackay did what his moral conscience allowed him to do. Lord Mackay is a highly intelligent Christian and a strong Protestant…”
The reason why the Protestant churches, including the FPC, have always been so opposed to the mass is because it is a gross violation of the first two Commandments, and that in the name of Christianity. The priest in the mass claims to convert the symbols, the bread and wine, into the actual body and blood of the Lord Jesus Christ. The bread and wine are then worshipped as God and offered up as an expiatory sacrifice! This is idolatry.
The Presbytery decision was not a personal attack on Lord Mackay. Once his public appearances at requiem masses were known by the Presbytery, how could the Presbytery then allow one of its own office-bearers to do what we as a Church were condemning in others? Nevertheless, some disagreed with the Presbytery decision, which became the occasion for their leaving the FPC. This is a right that anyone in the Church is free to exercise, and a right we must all respect, but the property should remain with the body continuing, as the title deeds state, and in accordance with the constitution of the Church.
APC congregations still occupying FPC property should therefore now do all they can to put matters right. If they themselves are not prepared to return to
the Free Presbyterian fold, they should at least urge their office-bearers to do the honourable thing and return FPC property without further delay.