A Gaelic article by Rev. Ewen MacRury, M.A., of Glen Urquhart, appeared in last month’s (November, 1930) Record of the Free Church of Scotland. A paragraph of this article under the sub-heading “The Religion or Godliness of Miscalling” lies before me having been correctly translated into English. From this paragraph I have extracted four definite charges which have been levelled at certain preachers or ministers whose names and denomination are not given. The charges are these: 1. “Seeking a great name by miscalling those they do not like.” 2. “Miscalling with nothing higher in view than putting a wall between themselves and others.” 3. “Going outside the Bible for substance for a sermon on a Communion Sabbath night” (presumably to miscall others). 4. “The fear that people will go to hear the Gospel in another Church in their midst causes ministers to turn to miscalling, and that the Free Church gets a blow this way.”
Now anyone conversant with and interested in the position of the Free Presbyterian Church since 1893—regarding the Word of God and all that it enjoins upon the Church of Christ—as distinct from the position of other Churches and peculiarly the Free Church, can easily perceive that the above charges are
directed mainly, if not wholly, against certain Free Presbyterian ministers. The fact of openly stating here, who they are that are obviously charged is no admission of guilt, as there are two types of charges which may be formulated against upright men. First—a charge embracing offences against God or man, which is foundationless and cannot be justly proved. Secondly—a charge of acting or speaking in a way which may be offensive to worldly wisdom in men, but said acting and speaking in harmony with Scripture example and precept and the duty assigned to true Watchmen on the walls of Zion.
Now why did not the writer of the paragraph discover openly to his readers the targets, the ministers, at which he was firing—so that they might defend themselves as those immediately related to these charges, should they feel inclined to do so; to the end that the Church or the World would not be asked to suspect or condemn them merely on the ground of statements from the pen of one man, and without any substantial or incriminating evidence whatsoever. Questions concerning justice may be asked here. It is evident that we have here unearthed and disclosed to our view an outstanding example of the nature of “The religion of miscalling” in the conduct of the writer of the aforementioned paragraph.
Let it be noted that the bounden duty of those who have been called of God to the ministry of the Word, is that they should be as His mouth in taking forth the precious from the vile, by stating the condition, state, conduct and standing before God and His Word, of Churches as well as of individuals in their teaching and preaching among those to whom they have been sent in divine providence and to all who may come within range of their tongue or pen. Now this duty applies to F.P. ministers as fully as it did to Timothy when the Apostle in the Spirit charged him before God to—“Preach the Word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long-suffering and doctrine” II. Timothy, iv. 2. Here the Apostle does not address these words merely as an advice but gives a definite and solemn charge to Timothy because the time was to come when men would not endure sound doctrine, II. Timothy iv. 3. What would Scribes and Pharisees think of our Lord’s criticism in the Sermon on the Mount? Would they term it “The Religion of Miscalling?” Faithful preaching of
the whole counsel of God during Christ’s sojourn on earth and during the Apostolic age for the defence of true religion and the destruction of the works of the devil was received and treated as “The Religion of Miscalling” by many of all classes but specially by those who made the greatest profession of serving God. For example, consider briefly the history surrounding Stephen as recorded in the 6th and 7th chapters of the Acts. Certain of the synagogue disputed with Stephen. They were not able to resist the wisdom, and the Spirit by which he spake. They set up false witnesses against him. They charged him thus—”This man ceaseth not to speak blasphemous words against this holy place, and the law; for we have heard him say that this Jesus of Nazareth shall destroy this place, and shall change the customs which Moses delivered us” Acts vi. 13, 14). Stephen’s defence, in which is embodied further condemnatory truth of the Jews, was listened to by them up to a point, when they were cut to the heart—and so proceeded to the dastardly work of stoning the saint of God. Among varied reasons for this awful conduct there stands out prominently the fact that they considered the doctrine and preaching of Stephen “The Religion of Miscalling.” So when this remarkable history is reviewed it may be consoling to some F.P. ministers to consider their measure of likeness to Stephen—inasmuch as they have to meet the charge of “Miscalling” others because they conscientiously and faithfully point out the serious defects of faith in the affairs of God and His kingdom on earth, to inform and enlighten their own people as to the truth and nature of the backslidings of churches in the land and to warn those so engaged in departing from the “old paths.”
The four definite charges may be considered now. 1. “The seeking of a great name.”—It seems that the man who writes thus concerning others, arrogates to himself the ability of seeing and knowing what are the inward and heart motives of his fellows in the exercise of their Gospel duty. “For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him” (I. Corins. ii. 11). There is here imputed to ministers the motive of desiring the exaltation of self in the Church to which they belong by miscalling others. No proof is given to support this charge, so it must be concluded by fairminded people that Mr. MacRury himself is truly guilty of “Miscalling” others.
He has fallen into the ditch where he has endeavoured to throw others.
- “Nothing higher in view than putting a wall between themselves and others.”—This clearly means that F.P. ministers are endeavouring to keep a wall of separation between their own Church and the Free Church. This wall has been standing between the two Churches since 1893, and is not becoming lower by process of time—but is gradually being built higher and higher by the Free Church herself. What the F.P. Church is engaged in regarding this wall of separation is casting light upon it for the sake of those on both sides thereof. It is dutiful here and now, in face of the said charge, to cast light upon several “stones” which are part of this wall and have been built into it by men in the Free Church, thereby continuing to make it abundantly plain that there can be no Union between true Free Presbyterians and the present Free Church.
(1). Some months ago Rev. Professor Donald MacLean, D.D., Free Church College, Edinburgh, addressed “Ceilidh nan Gaidheal,” Glasgow—Subject “Wit and Humour of Gaelic Bards.” The Ceilidh meetings open and end with prayer—the world, the flesh and the devil dancing in between. The lecturer waited till 9 o’clock on Saturday night. He would have served the cause of Christ better by coming to Glasgow to warn young men and women from the Highlands to avoid the pathway down to Hell. Other Free Church ministers are known to have presided at local branches of “An Comunn Gaidhealaich” which is certainly a Society that will not encourage young men and women to become serious as to their outlook in view of Eternity.
(2). At the last sale of work held in Daviot Free Church the opening ceremony was performed by the Provost of Inverness, who a few weeks previously presided over a meeting held at Inverness on the occasion of Dr. Cronin’s departure to take up a professional position in Blair’s (Roman Catholic) College, Aberdeen (to teach 200 divinity students). Therefore men who walk arm in arm with the R.C. Church are asked to “honour” functions in the Free Church with their presence. The last sale of work held at Urray Free Church was opened by Mrs. Stirling of Fairburn, an Episcopalian, occupying a high social status, and thus served the purpose of gathering the crowd. Next year the same lady performed the ceremony of opening
the annual sale of work in the Free Church, Dingwall. In this the Free Church is following the example of the world—when some social function is to be well patronised—by getting some personage of high social distinction whereby success is guaranteed as far as gathering the multitude is concerned.
(3). The “Oban Times” of 1928 contains a report of the annual Christmas treat on Christmas day held in the Free High Church Hall, Oban. Surely this is what the young especially ought to be warned against by the Church of Christ and her ministers.
(4). The Boys’ Brigade has been encouraged in the Free Church. Whatever may be said in favour of that organisation in training boys it must be asked of the Free Church as well as other Churches—“What has the professing Church of Christ to do with training boys largely by methods and means which are purely military?” viz., clothing them in uniform comprised of cap, belt and haversack—and until recently a rifle for drill purposes only was issued to every boy who joined. Military drill, signalling for military purposes and ambulance are main departments of training—and all under the supervision of the Church. Of course, it is contended that the Bible Class associated with every company of the Boys’ Brigade is the chief thing to which the boys are being attracted. But it may be asked further—“What Scriptural authority has the Free Church for having her hands steeped in army methods for the moral and spiritual training of her boys?”
These points are only four “stones” in the wall separating the F.P. Church from the Free Church, and they are not by any means the most prominent as the recent controversy over certain passages of Scripture will testify to any right thinking person.
The wall of separation between the two churches is the work of the Free Church. The work of F.P. ministers therefore most certainly includes the duty of pointing out that such a wall exists, and more especially when the existence of this wall is denied from time to time.
(3). “Going outside the Bible for substance for a sermon” etc.—Whether this was done on a Communion Sabbath evening or at any other time does not remove the vague nature of this charge. Of course it is implied that the substance introduced
into the sermon was with a view to miscalling others. Mr. MacRury calls the man so charged by him a fool. Justice demands that before men are cited as fools at the bar of public opinion on the above charge—the term “substance” ought to be explained by nothing short of quotations from sermon or sermons referred to. But it does not become the Free Church to attack along these lines, as can be shown from the Monthly Record of the Free Church, March 1927, page 57; where in a sermon by “R. M. K.” on Rom. xv. 29, he in dealing with forgiveness writes as follows.—“But to such as know themselves condemned of God, the hope of forgiveness seems too good to be true. Burns, in his poem ‘To a Mouse’ aptly describes the distress of mind which, on serious reflection, he himself experienced:”—then four lines of this poem are given and all with the definite purpose of casting light upon the inward experience of a distressed sinner. This is a sample of sailing far away from the Bible for substance for a sermon and no mistake. Further comment is unnecessary.
(4). “The fear that people will go to hear the Gospel in another Church causes ministers to turn to ‘The Religion of Miscalling.’”—Such as already are members or adherents of a Church in which the preaching, worship and practice are fully in harmony with Scripture should consider it unnecessary to favour another Church which is guilty of much in her practice that is contrary to the spirit of the Gospel. Perchance there may be an individual here and there in the F.P. Church who may pass the door of their own Church for the Free Church or any other for that matter of it—then all honour to ministers who are over them in spiritual matters when they point out faithfully that there are reasons for the existence and distinctive position of the Free Presbyterian Church in Scotland to-day—and that coming and going at pleasure between the Churches only seeks to make a farce of the F.P. position; which was, and is, and which shall be, precious to a goodly number in our land and in foreign lands.
These notes may be concluded by reminding those F.P. ministers assailed by Mr. MacRury, of the words in II. Timothy i. 12 “For the which cause I also suffer these things; nevertheless I am not ashamed.”—Robert R. Sinclair.