Church Controversy in the “Northern Chronicle.”
Two articles, one from the pen of Rev. Andrew Sutherland and the other from Rev. P. M. Chisholm, both former Free Presbyterians but now of the Free Church, have recently appeared in the columns of the “Northern Chronicle” (Inverness), and have given rise to some controversy. Mr. Sutherland has, to his own satisfaction, most effectively disposed of all differences between the Free and Free Presbyterian Churches, and sees the way open for union. Mr. Chisholm is convinced that the question of immediate union is premature, not only with the Free Presbyterians, but also with the other two bodies with which, according to the Convener of the Free Church Union Committee, so much progress has been made towards that end. Mr. Chisholm holds that “an attitude of self-denial and tractableness must precede any union worthy of the name, and until then no argument or concession will rectify the evil of what is a pontifical attitude of superiority-complex rather than the settlement of detail, presently rampant in the Free Presbyterian Church, and possibly to some extent in the other Churches.” In regard to Mr. Sutherland’s contention, he should not forget that no number of telescopes placed to Nelson’s blind eye could make him see the signal. As to Mr. Chisholm, questions have been asked: “Was it a superiority-complex that made him leave the Free Church and join the Free Presbyterian? And was it
another attack of superiority-complex that made him cause such disturbance in the Free Presbyterian Church and then leave and wander in an ecclesiastical no-man’s land for a time. And what kind of complex was it that brought him back to the Free Church after all his witnessing for Second Reformation attainments? What kind of complex kept him from joining the Reformed Presbyterians?” These are rather pointed questions and whatever answers the new psychology might give, they seem to point in the direction that Mr. Chisholm is the last man that should speak about superiority complexes in churches or individuals. We may remind our readers that at last Synod a committee was appointed to deal with questions such as have been raised in the Press correspondence. The committee is at present at work on the task allotted to it, and will (D.V.) present its report at next Synod.