IN a lecture delivered in St Jude’s F.P. Church, Glasgow, last New Year’s Day, in offering some observations on the practice of the Free Church of Scotland, the following remarks appear:—”This last effort in this way” (viz., to remove excrescences of the world and the flesh—F.P. Magazine for March, pp. 411 and 412) “came from the congregation of Kilmuir, Skye. Their minister forsook them at the Assembly (as reported in the Free Church Record), and the petition was turned down.” The statement:—”Their minister forsook them,” etc., was based on the report given in the Free Church Record of the terms of the Petition, and on a sentence or two in the speech of the Rev. Kenneth Macrae, their minister.
The Petition reads:—”Your Petitioners are deeply grieved at the prevalence of congregational social meetings and sales of work within the Church, and believe that such functions are unscriptural and detrimental to true piety and gospel increase. That they consider the presence of such within the Church as a factor directly making for disquietude and disunity, and a hindrance to that spirit of brotherly love which ought to prevail. Your Petitioners, therefore, pray the Assembly to take such steps as will in their wisdom make an end of the practices complained of” (italics are mine).
“The Rev. Kenneth Macrae, Kilmuir, in moving that the Petition be received, said he drafted the Petition, but further than that he had nothing to do with its origin. It was not the case that his people had been put up to it. The fact was that his people put him up to it. He had come to realise that feeling was very deep on the matter, but he was not going to plead for legislation because he was afraid that the remedy might be worse than the evil, etc. (italics are mine). The parts both of the Petition and of the speech italicised are the ground upon which I based the statement complained of, viz.—That Rev. K. Macrae forsook his congregation at the General Assembly, etc.
I fail to see, taking these statements at their face value, how any one could come to any other conclusion. What could be worse than practices “unscriptural and detrimental to piety, and a hindrance to brotherly love?” Did not the Petitioners from “very deep feeling on the matter” pray that steps be taken and an end be made of the practices complained of? Did they expect this could be done without some form of legislation? or did Mr Macrae expect it could be done otherwise? Surely, the Petitioners did not mean, if their feelings were very deep on the matter that, “fear of the remedy being worse than the evil” should cause them not to plead for legislation to have it removed. They were sure to realise that if the things complained of were not removed, seeing that they were “unscriptural and a hindrance to piety and to brotherly love,” no greater evil could befall any church. But Mr Macrae did not ask for legislation for fear that the remedy might be worse than the evil. Let any unbiased person compare the terms of the petition with this statement of Mr Macrae, and I will be surprised if he will not come to the conclusion—that he forsook his congregation. All that he said or did after this statement availed nothing; for he had committed himself to the fact that he was not going to ask for legislation for fear of consequences. Mr Macrae immediately he saw the lecture wrote a letter to the “Inverness Citizen,” in which he describes the statements in my lecture as “utterly false.” However, I took no notice of that, but wrote him explaining the matter from my point of view, partly as stated above.
He then wrote me a letter in which he reveals facts which I knew nothing of when I delivered the lecture in which the statement complained of appeared. The facts are:—”In 1920 I spoke on the subject of congregational social meetings, etc., at the Assembly, and registered my dissent from the finding of the House. My congregation then rallied to my support, and on the suggestion of “my men,” I prepared the Petition for the 1921 Assembly, and my own name was the first upon it. It was thrown out from that Assembly upon technical grounds, but it was then stated on the floor of the House that “the congregation had been put up to it,” and I got no opportunity to reply. I took my opportunity in 1922 by saying that the congregation had put me up to it, meaning that the suggestion had come from my men.” Then comes a criticism of my letter to him, which I have removed by giving the Petition in full above. “Being convinced from experience that pleading for legislation was hopeless, and owing to the intensity of the feeling displayed by the opposition would in my judgment prove disastrous to the Church, not to myself, I intended to move in the House by way of Christian appeal to the congregations of the Church. In this view I had the approval of my Session before the second (1922) Petition was drawn up, and my words which you quote were intended to bear upon the motion which Mr Mackinnon of Gairloch was to move to that effect. How then can I have forsaken my congregation?” After I fully considered the contents of this letter, I saw that, on account of the light it casts upon the whole proceedings and especially because Mr Macrae’s Session had agreed that he would not move for legislation, it was a fact that he did not forsake his congregation. All the above was quite unknown to me till I got it from Mr Macrae’s letter. So I wrote him offering to withdraw the statement that he “forsook his congregation at the Assembly” provided that the above portion of his letter should be made public in our Magazine for the month of May. The part italicised will show that he did what he had the full consent of his Session for. Although he replied that he would go to the public press with the matter, I do herewith withdraw the comment that “he forsook his congregation.” At the same time I do not acknowledge, that having no knowledge of the case but what appeared in the Free Church Record, my statement was then wrong. He should have seen to it that what he has now made public in respect of the proceedings in the case should not have been allowed to remain in the dark till now. That would have saved not only myself but many others from forming an opinion adverse to him. For I hold that no man, who did not know that the meaning of the petition was not to seek legislation, but was “intended to move in the House (Assembly) by way of a Christian appeal to the congregations of the Church,” could have gathered any such meaning from the wording of the Petition. But as I had no desire to injure Mr Macrae or any other person, I am sending this explanation for publication in the F.P. Magazine.