Lord Mackay and Life and Work
Lord Mackay of Clashfern has been appointed Lord High Commissioner to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland for the second year in succession. In recognition of this, Life and Work has published an article which summarises his life and achievements. Such an article could hardly pass over the events which led to his coming under the discipline of the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland and his subsequent departure from it. Since 1989 it has often been necessary to point out that the Synod did not discipline Lord Mackay for attending “a Roman Catholic funeral”, and we have now to set the record straight again. It was his attendance at mass that was the ground of censure. Being present at idolatrous, blasphemous and superstitious worship was something that the Free Presbyterian Church, following the lead of the Reformers, had condemned throughout its history and no exception was to be made in the case of this elder even if he was the Lord Chancellor.
He has this to say of the Church’s action: “What it did was open my eyes to a narrow denominationalism; so I found myself really willing to go anywhere where the gospel was preached or the sacraments administered according to what I believed to be the scriptural way. And so we tended to go in London to the Anglican Church. I was the Lord Chancellor at this time and I felt it important to support the Temple church which was the lawyers’ church and then in the evening I would go somewhere else in the city.”
The fact is that we have been very sparing in our criticism of Lord Mackay over the years although his backsliding and departure from the standards which he previously adhered to as a member and elder of this Church had become all too painfully obvious. Now that he has described his disciplining as opening his eyes and freeing him from what he describes as the “narrow denominationalism” of the Church in which he was nurtured, it will not, we hope, be taken amiss by him or anyone else if we defend ourselves from such a charge. Painful as it is, especially in view of past friendships, we feel that it is a matter of duty.
For years, James Peter Mackay, as we knew him, acted as Assistant Clerk of our Synod and was much respected among us. He was ever in the vanguard of those ready to rise up, when necessary, to defend our claim to be the true Reformation Church of Scotland. It was he who, in framing the decision of a case before the Synod, asserted most emphatically that Rev Donald Macfarlane by his 1893 separation “conserved to us inviolate the constitution of the Reformed Church of Scotland”. That is the position we still hold and which Lord Mackay now, sadly, repudiates. It is indeed difficult to determine where his ecclesiastical allegiance now lies. In embracing broad denominationalism, it would seem that he sees no inconsistency in hovering between the form of Presbyterianism practised by the APCs and the Episcopalianism of the Church of England, the imposition of which in Scotland our forefathers resisted even unto death.
From the throne gallery, the Lord High Commissioner will view an Assembly that has mutilated the Westminster Confession of Faith, its own subordinate standard – in more recent times removing altogether the section which asserts that the Lord Jesus Christ is the sole Head of the Church and declares that the Pope is “in no sense the head thereof; but is that Antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalteth himself, in the Church, against Christ and all that is called God”. Lord Mackay himself once subscribed without reservation to the whole doctrine of that Confession, but presumably he would now tell us that it was the narrow denominationalism of the Free Presbyterian Church that constrained him to do so.
Will he remember how, in 1969, the Inter-Church Relations Committee of the Church of Scotland suggested that there should be a meeting of representatives from the General Assembly and our Synod in order ‘to explore possibilities and to ask questions regarding our Churches’? The Synod’s reply made it crystal clear that it refused to consider a meeting with a view to possible union with any Church which did not hold the absolute infallibility of the Scriptures and the whole doctrine of the Confession of Faith both in profession and practice. It pointed out that the Free Presbyterian Church had taken up a separate position because of the passing of the Declaratory Act of 1892 by the General Assembly of the then Free Church of Scotland, and concludes: “When the present Church of Scotland repeals such of its present legislation as qualified its adherence to the Scriptures and Confession in the way done by that Act and similar enactments, and in practice manifests an adherence to the Scriptures and Confession, the Synod will welcome a meeting with your Church’s representatives”. Will he recall that it was he himself who drafted that reply?
Or will he remember that the Secretary of the Multilateral Church Conversations in Scotland wrote that same year inviting the Free Presbyterian Church “to take part in the work and fellowship of this Committee”. The Synod’s reply, drafted by Mr Mackay, was courteous but decisive:
“Our view is that the object of the Multilateral Church Conversations in Scotland, as described in your letter, namely, the achievement of visible organic unity amongst the Churches in Scotland, must, if it is to be God honouring, flow from, and not be a substitute for, true spiritual unity that is founded on union with the Lord Jesus Christ and union with one another in Him.
“We consider that it is fundamental to the Christian faith and all true Christian fellowship and witness that the Holy Scriptures are accepted as the inspired and infallible Word of God. We fear that the differences that obtain at the present time in Scotland between the Churches are due to the fact that the Holy Scriptures are not generally accepted in this way and for this cause the differences are fundamental.
“We notice that, in the document enclosed with your letter entitled Controlling Principles for a Basis of Union Amongst Scottish Churches, it is stated that your Committee believes ‘the differences in teaching amongst our Churches are an insufficient reason for remaining separate’, or, in other words, you are setting out to put a visible organic unity before the essential foundation of such unity, namely, unity in teaching. We strongly believe that a visible organic unity, unless there be unity in teaching, will only act as a disguise for basic differences and will lead to the situation in which the united Church will be united in name only and will have no united answer to such questions as: What man is to believe concerning God and what duty God requires of man.
“A Church which embraces all kinds of different teaching on such questions cannot stand convincingly for anything. We believe that the present situation of the Church in Scotland is not due principally to the lack of visible organic unity but to the fact that the Church cannot, by reason of the very different elements already contained within her own borders, give a united answer and guidance to the people on these fundamental questions of faith and practice.” Is this a reasoned, logical reply or the product of “narrow denominationalism”?
Presumably our adherence to the Authorised Version will be regarded as further evidence of “narrow denominationalism”. “The modern church,” Lord Mackay is quoted as saying, “needs to take every opportunity it can to spread the gospel in ways people can understand.” We take it that this means that, as President of the Scottish Bible Society, he sees nothing wrong with printing and distributing versions of the Bible that are patently not faithful translations of the original Hebrew Masoretic text and the Greek Textus Receptus? Would the illustrious Hugh Martin – whom Lord Mackay so highly regarded, and rightly so – approve of, say, dynamic equivalence? We think not, and we think it unworthy of Lord Mackay to use a not-quite-accurate quotation from Martin’s Inspiration of Scripture, out of context, to give the impression that he would regard, for instance, The Good News Bible, as acceptable on the basis that people would find it easy to understand.
Hugh Martin was defending the position of the Westminster Divines: “Because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God, who have a right unto, and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded, in the fear of God, to read and search them, therefore they are to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come, that the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship Him in an acceptable manner; and, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, may have hope”. The principle for which he so earnestly contended was that “the translated Word of God is still the Word of God when translated.”
Martin explained: “Holy men of God, as they were moved and guarded by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, wrote, each of them respectively, what God decreed they should write as their contributions to a volume which He intended to be His own – His own written Word and published works – His wondrous gift to the sons of men. The good Spirit of God is too abounding in His goodness to have written on His volume, churlishly, the formula, ‘Rights of translation reserved’.” The scholarship, faithfulness, ability and honesty of translators were taken for granted, as in the case of those who were instrumental in giving us the incomparable Authorised Version.
When, in 1961, the New English Bible appeared, our Synod condemned it as being “the product of men who were the descendants of the destructive critics of the past”, and thus untrustworthy. Mr Mackay clearly stated the Church’s duty in relation to this new translation: “It is not without significance that this new translation of the New Testament was brought out to coincide with the 350th anniversary of the Authorised Version. And, for my part, I have no doubt the reason is that the persons who are responsible for seeking to undermine the basic doctrines of Holy Scripture are very conscious of the hold the Authorised Version has on the Bible-loving section of the British people, and indeed of the English-speaking people throughout the world. . . .
“There is another aspect of it which is deserving of attention. It is very common for certain sections of the professing Christian Church in our day to talk of Christian unity and to say that the lack of unity in the Christian Church is entirely due to the diehard and completely unrealistic profession of certain sections of the Church. It seems to me the attempt to bring out a version of the Scriptures so completely different from that which has for 350 years received worldwide acceptance amongst the English-speaking people is just a demonstration of how unnecessary the desire for Church unity is. That attempt, at this juncture in the history of the Church, underlines the importance of maintaining the standard of our theological education and particularly that part of our theological course which has to do with the canon of Scripture. I am sure that this particular juncture is one which demands of the ministry of the Church that they should be prepared to defend the principles which we hold against such attacks.”
And that is what, by the grace of God, we will continue to do. JM
Creationism in Schools
From various quarters concern is being expressed at any indication, however slight, that Creationism is being taught in English schools. Some of this may well be related to the issue of “city academies”, promoted by the Government, but the politics of the matter need not concern us here.
The Archbishop of Canterbury has made his own unhelpful contribution to the debate. Asked by The Guardian if he was comfortable with the teaching of Creationism in schools, he replied: “Ah, not very”. Mr Paul Rowlands, General Secretary of the Trinitarian Bible Society and a Free Presbyterian elder, commented on BBC radio news: “Anyone who professes to be a minister of Christ should be a minister of the Word of God, accepting the Bible as the only revelation that God has given of Himself. For the Archbishop to say that he does not believe creation should be taught in schools is denying the very body he is said to be upholding. If that is what Dr Williams believes, he is unfit to lead the Church.”
In the present climate, it is somewhat surprising that OCR, one of the three main exam boards in England, recently announced that “creationist theories” were to be debated in GCSE science lessons in secondary schools in England, although, according to a spokesman for the board, “Creationism and intelligent design are not regarded by OCR as scientific theories. They are beliefs that do not lie within scientific understanding.” Clearly, non-evolutionist ideas will not be treated very seriously, but even a small move in the right direction is welcome.
More recently, The Independent has come out with a furious attack on Creationism in schools. “For too long”, thundered the newspaper in an editorial, “have the mainstream Christian churches chosen to maintain an embarrassed silence about this pernicious and retrograde belief which is gaining such ground in the US and is now being introduced in Britain at the academies set up by the millionaire car dealer Sir Peter Vardy. . . . It is a belief with no relationship to facts or proof through empirical inquiry. . . . If you wish to believe that the earth and all its creatures were literally created in six days, as the Bible has it, that is a matter for you. If you choose to consider human development as too complex and intelligent for gradual evolution to explain, that also is your right. What you should not be permitted to do is to teach this belief as a self-evident explanation of human evolution in the biology class. It is the antithesis of science.”
Obviously The Independent, like other opinion-formers in the UK will allow us to believe in six-day creation if we are stupid enough to do so. But, equally clearly, no one should be allowed to propagate in schools such a belief, or anything having the remotest connection with it. Certainly, science has been defined in some circles so as to exclude from its domain anything related to belief in God or in the revelation He has given in the Bible. And the last sentence of the Independent leader takes advantage of that. The general consensus on toleration in the Western world, while it will put up with private religion, seems increasingly intolerant of its public expression.
Yet God has spoken in the Bible, and both individuals and society are the poorer for rejecting Him. A whole generation is being educated in the largely-secular religion of most of contemporary Britain, which has possibly just one article in its creed. That one article is: It does not matter what people believe unless they take their religion too seriously. There can scarcely be a more effective way of ruining tomorrow’s Britain, morally and spiritually, than by promoting this religion.