Minimum Stipend.—On Wednesday the Rev. Prof. Daniel Lamont, Edinburgh, submitted the report of the Maintenance of the Ministry Committee. He warned the Assembly that “if the steady decrease in congregational contributions be not substantially retarded, we shall not for long be in a position to provide even the £300 minimum stipend.” “Practically all the economies,” he said, “which has been effected through local unions and otherwise has been offset by the continued diminution in contributions from congregations. For the last four years they had been dropping something like £6,000 per annum under that
head.” It is scarcely necessary to explain that the £300 minimum stipend does not mean that there are a great number of ministers in the Church of Scotland who receive only £300. Such is not the case though we are not in a position at present to give the number. One wonders after all the efforts made to husband the various resources of this wealthy Church that there should be any of her ministers with a salary so low as £300. Before the union of 1900 the ecclesiastical engineers of that movement with an assurance that future facts belied spoke with unfaltering confidence of the benefits that would accrue to the united church financially. It was the same in 1929 and now five years after that event, notwithstanding the decrease of charges through unions and the various economies effected, the newspapers in black type announce: “The Minimum Salary of £300 in Danger.” There must be something wrong somewhere—the financial stringency cannot altogether account for this financial landslide in this wealthy Church. The Rev. Dr. J. Robertson Cameron, Biggar, uttered a strong protest against financial questions occupying the Assembly’s attention at the outset of their deliberations. “The Church,” he said, “is striking a wrong note in making so much of money at the very first business meeting of the Assembly. If the Church spoke less about money and ministers’ stipends it would grow in power enormously. We have allowed money to take hold of us, as if we were in business.” He suggested that the Maintenance of the Ministry Fund should in future take its own subordinate place after more important things has been dealt with.
• The Church’s Huge Income.—Mr. J. I. Herdman, convener of the General Finance Committee, in submitting his report said that 1933 was a year of more than usual anxiety, and in the month of October last the ecclesiastical financial outlook was very black indeed but the clouds had passed away and he had pleasure in reporting that the entire income for the year had been very nearly two and a half millions—the exact figure was £2,465,037.
Persecution of the Jews in Germany.—When the report of the Jewish and Women’s Jewish Mission Committee was submitted Dr. G. A. Frank Knight, Glasgow, thought the deliverance of the Committee on the persecution of the Jews in Germany did not go far enough. He thought they should emphatically condemn the spirit of “cruelty, injustice, and oppression causing untold misery among the Jews” and tell the world clearly what was their standpoint as a Church. It was decided to send a copy of Dr. Knight’s protest to the Chief Rabbi in Edinburgh. Objection was raised to this on the ground that the Chief Rabbi continually attacked the Assembly for the work it was doing among the Jews. It was further pointed out that the proper procedure was to send such a document to the Chief Rabbi in London only. This was agreed to.
Foreign Missions.—On Thursday the report of the Committee on Foreign Missions was submitted by the convener, Rev. Dr. C. W. G. Taylor, Edinburgh. The year 1933 he said had been the most critical for the Committee since the union of the Churches. It had also been the most memorable. There had been a remarkable response to their appeal and the year ended with a debt of £21,000 as compared with £22,000 last year. The Foreign Missions Committee planned to carry on the work for the present year on its existing scale. It was emphasised, however, that the danger of serious curtailment was not yet passed.
Organ for the Assembly Hall.—On the same day the Committee on General Administration incorporated in their report the decision to proceed with the installation of an organ in the Assembly Hall. £3,000 it was explained was lying at the credit of the Church of Scotland, being the accumulated savings of the Praise Committee of the United Free Church and accepted by the Assembly Arrangements Committee of that Church before the union of 1929 for the purpose of providing the Assembly Hall with an organ. The deliverance asked the General Assembly while maintaining the ancient tradition of unaccompanied singing in the meetings of the Assembly itself, to empower the Committee
on General Administration, in consultation with the Committee on Public Worship and Aids to Devotion, to consider the whole question, and, if the amount at the disposal of the Church be adequate, and if so advised, to arrange for the erection of a pipe organ in the hall, due regard being had to the necessity of maintaining the largest possible accommodation for the meetings of the General Assembly.
The Rev. Dr. James Harvey, joint senior clerk, said that while it was not intended to disturb the practice of unaccompanied praise at the meetings of the Assembly, it was definitely felt that the addition of an organ to the hall would be an asset to the Church, which derived a considerable income from the letting of the hall. An amendment was submitted by the Rev. A. R. Taylor to the effect that the Committee be requested to consider the whole question and report to next Assembly. On a vote the amendment was defeated by a large majority. This is the thin end of the wedge for the introduction of instrumental music into the Assembly services of praise and thus setting aside the immemorial custom of the General Assembly from 1560.
Local Unions.—The Rev. Duncan Ross, Dumfries, in submitting the report of the Committee on Union of Congregations and Readjustment of Agencies said they had dealt with 147 cases—46 of these cases were still under consideration and the other 101 have been determined. In 33 cases the Committee found that readjustment was either undesirable or meantime impracticable. In 32 cases they had secured union and in 10 cases union was pending. Two cases were referred to the Assembly for decision. There had now been 271 local unions since 1929. “That,” said Mr. Ross, “was surely a golden harvest for four and a half years and the way of securing economy without sacrificing efficiency in their Church.” Nothing was said, however, of the unseemly squabbings and unchristian bickerings connected with many of these attempts to bring about the union of congregations which figure so largely in the press. If the Committee would say all that they felt probably they would make it clearer
than they did that it is very hard work to unite cold pieces of iron and as for the economies effected these did not seem to allay the anxieties of the Maintenance of the Ministry Committee.
Religious Instruction in Primary and Secondary Schools.—On Monday (28th May) the Rev. Dr. Alexander Andrew, Baillieston, presented the report of the Committee on Education. In many of the Secondary schools in Scotland, he said, the place of religious teaching was regarded as vital, but in a good many others there was less achieved than ought to be. There were, however, signs of amendment and improvement with regard to the place and influence of religious instruction. Dr. Andrew further added that the Educational Institute had expressed a desire for a joint committee of the Church and the Institute to examine anew the religious syllabus formerly agreed to for the purposes of improvement. It is to be hoped if this materialises that the proposed Committee will draw up a better and sounder syllabus than the last one. The Rev. J. B. Jamieson, Motherwell, said that less time was devoted to religious instruction in secondary schools than in primary schools. For every subject other than religious instruction there was a special teacher. In secondary schools nowadays many teachers owed their positions not merely to their ability in their subjects but to their skill in football, cricket, hockey, or tennis, and were able to give coaching to the pupils in these games, while the religious instruction was left to teachers who were ready to give it, and who had no special qualification to do so compared with their qualifications in other subjects. That must affect the value of religion in the eyes of the pupil. He looked forward to the day when there would be in every secondary school a teacher with special qualifications for giving religious instruction as apart from any other subject. Unfortunately what Mr. Jamieson said is too true. Religious instruction gets too little attention in our secondary schools. We are faced here with a difficult problem; for, while recognizing the importance of religious instruction, we are confronted with the danger, which is not
imaginary, of that instruction being given by those who have little interest in or, which is worse, by those whose views are directly opposed to the teaching of the Bible.
Conference with the Anglican Church.—The report of the Conferences with representatives of the Anglican communion was submitted by Dr. John White. There was, he said, much closer agreement on fundamentals than many had supposed. He stated nine points on which they were in agreement. The Committee made the following recommendations:—(1) Mutual admission to pulpits: in both Churches it was recognised that those so admitted must be persons duly ordained—the qualification or ordination to the preaching of the Word was essential. (2) A welcome to communicant members of either communion at home or abroad—out of reach of their own accustomed ordinances—to the table of the Lord “as members of the Catholic Church of Christ.” The qualification was membership of the Catholic Church of Christ. (3) Delegations. (4) Joint-pronouncements. (5) A joint-advisory council for the preliminary consideration of practical matters affecting the local relations of the conferring Churches at home and abroad. (6) The promotion of better understanding of the history and genius of each other’s communion, etc. Following from this the General Assembly were asked to appoint a committee to report to the Assembly on the methods to be adopted to carry into effect these six recommendations. They had accomplished all that could be done meantime by conference. The grave differences of polity, and of doctrine as associated with polity which divided their Churches, would have to be faced by the Churches and faced soon. The Churches would have no option, and though the conferences were being suspended this problem still faced the Church. A first step had been taken, after centuries of apartness, towards fostering a closer fellowship. Even to confer on the question was to admit that it was possible for these two Churches, despite widely different ecclesiastical traditions, to hold a true Catholic unity and communion with one another. The
world situation revealed the urgency of Christian unity. He moved the deliverance. Principal W. M. Macgregor, Glasgow, said he might have proposed an addendum to the deliverance, but he thought it would be generally in the mind of the Assembly that it seemed a desirable thing that they should without division agree upon the deliverance. After all, those who had never liked this conference could be pacified by the golden words at the end, that the Committee be discharged. In order to get the Committee discharged they were willing to swallow almost anything. What struck him most in the report was in the first place that, in spite of all Dr. John White had said, there was nothing that was new in it. Nothing substantial was being attained that was not conceded in the previous conversations with the Free Churches of England. Beyond that he was conscious right through the report of a rather disturbing element of ambiguity. That ambiguity appeared often in the use of terms. They had references to their being members of the Reformed Church. Most members of the House were aware that a great many of the influential and vocal members of the Anglican Church would decline to associate their Church with the group of the Reformed Churches. There was also an extremely ambiguous use of those two great terms, catholic and evangelical. Dr. White objected to the thought that it was a geographical conception of Holy Communion that was contained in the report. What else was it? If they were members of the Catholic Church of Jesus Christ why might they not receive Communion at any time? Why must it only be if there was no Presbyterian Church within ten, or twenty, or thirty miles of them? This was an entire dishonouring conception of the Holy Sacrament of the body and blood of Jesus Christ.
It is evident that the Church of Scotland or, at least, many in its communion hope for the larger union. The present halt is made with the purpose of moving forward at a later date. The recommendations of the Committee are a long step towards the realization of the dreams of the Anglo-minded in the Church of Scotland and a decided move from the old moorings.
The Church’s Attitude to War.—A motion calling on the General Assembly to counsel all members of the Church to renounce all active and willing participation in war was brought forward by the Rev. A. C. Craig, Glasgow, when the report of the Committee on Church and Nation was under consideration on the same day. The deliverance approved by the Assembly recognized the principle of the lawful employment of force on just occasion, sympathised profoundly with the Christian abhorrence of modern war, and declared that war as a method of international policy was contrary to the spirit, teaching, purpose, and method of Jesus Christ.
Rise of Roman Catholicism in Scotland.—When the report of the Committee on Church Interests was presented on Wednesday (31st May) by Prof. Curtis attention was called to the rise of Roman Catholicism in Scotland during last century, coincident with the emigration of two million of the best Highland and Lowland Scottish stock. He said there had not been found any evidence of widespread defection of Scottish people to the Roman faith. In the past 100 years the Roman Catholic community in Scotland had increased six-fold. It was now close on 700,000, and of these, one in five was a native of Ireland. In referring to the Education Act of 1918, Prof. Curtis said “it rankled in the minds of the Scottish people that no such composition had ever been paid to the Church of Scotland (and he might have added the Free Church of 1872 also) when its schools were similarly taken over at an earlier date.” Prof. Burleigh in speaking to the motion leaves the impression on our mind that a policy of toleration to the enemy within our gates is commendable and ought to be followed as far as possible. In his reference to the Education Act he said, “that the Roman Church was able to make its own terms when the voluntary schools were transferred. It sold its schools to the State for £771,000, was relieved of all financial responsibility for them, had them modernised at a cost of £1,335,000, and in all other
respects, including salaries of teachers, brought up to the standard of the State schools.” We regret that Prof. Burleigh thinks that to all this we could take no exception as the nation gained by her citizens having equal educational advantages. He further added: “Here let me point out that the increase so noticeable in the matter of Roman Catholic chapels and agencies is the direct effect of the 1918 Act. What we ask for our Church Extension Scheme is £180,000. What the Roman Church received for hers was £771,000.” This sum let it be noted came mainly out of the pockets of the Protestant ratepayers and is still being augmented in the payment of the educational rate.
The Rev. F. E. Watson, Bellshill, who is waging so strenuously the fight against Romanism, moved an addendum that in view of the widespread misgiving and resentment regarding socially unjust provisions of Section 18 of the Educational (Scotland) Act, 1918, revealed by the parochial returns, the General Assembly decide to approach the Government without delay to secure its repeal. Mr. Watson said that it was humiliating to Scottish people that they were actually educating a body of people within their midst who were largely alien in origin, who in season and out of season were seeking to undermine what was most precious to them. He thought it was not generally recognised that there was an irreconcilable difference between Papal ideas on education and the education principle of every modern State. The only Church in Protestant Scotland to-day that had its teaching legally safe-guarded in the public schools in the country was the Roman Catholic Church. They of the great Church of Scotland had no legal safeguard or guarantee that even the Bible should be taught in the public schools of Scotland to-day. Mr. Watson suggested that unless Scotland secured the repeal of Section 18 of the 1918 Act before many days had passed they would discover that the Roman Catholic Church would make more demands in England and Wales. The only thing which was preventing England and Wales to-day from making the same demands there was the fact that Section
18 might be upset in Scotland. The time was coming for action, and thousands of Scottish people were looking to the General Assembly to see what lead they would give on that question.
The Rev. J. G. Grant Fleming, Lasswade, submitted an addendum that in view of the widespread misgivings and resentment in regard to the provisions of Section 18 of the Education Act, the General Assembly instruct the Committee to institute a careful and dispassionate survey of the whole position with a view to ascertaining whether the Act of 1918 was a permanent settlement, and if not in what direction an amendment should be stated. Following further discussion, Mr. Watson agreed to withdraw his addendum in favour of that submitted by Mr. Fleming. The General Assembly approved of Mr. Fleming’s addendum and also instructed the Committee to consult with the Educational Committees on the matter, and present a full report at next Assembly. It is a pity that Mr. Watson withdrew his motion for the motion accepted by the Assembly is only delaying the action that is required if the present extraordinary situation is to be brought to an end. The seriousness of this situation has continued for sixteen years during which Protestant ratepayers have been pouring money into the exchequers of Rome in Scotland by which she is building magnificent chapels and schools and all that we have done is simply to protest against clause 18 of the Education Act in church courts.
Place of Women in the Church.—In reporting what the Committee had done Prof. Main said in 1933, the committee asked that the mind of the Church in its presbyteries should be taken. There was wonderful interest—yea, even enthusiasm—and even the synods did not forbear to enter the fray. The presbyteries did their duty, and the committee had tabulated the returns. Three questions were asked—Do you approve of women being elected to the deacons’ court? Do you approve of women being eligible for the eldership? Do you approve of having corresponding membership of certain women appointed
by the Woman’s Guild? To the first question 58 Presbyteries replied favourably and seven were against the proposal, while one expressed no opinion; as regards the eldership, 16 voted in favour and 50 against; and 20 presbyteries favoured the admission of corresponding members, 45 being against, and one giving no opinion. There spoke the voice of the Church, the convener said. So far the committee had done its job fairly well, but some one might ask—What about the third crave of the women, that for eligibility to the holy ministry? That deliberately was not sent down to the presbyteries. One reason was that the committee felt it would not be fair to mix up the question by the introduction of the question of eligibility for the holy ministry. It would not have been fair to advocates of women elders that they should have had that matter mixed up with another and which some would call a more important matter. Another reason why that question was not sent to the presbyteries was because a good number of the members of the committee treated the questions referred to the Presbyteries as a test case. If there was a large majority of presbyteries which did not believe that women should be made eligible for the eldership, then they felt they could not go on with the matter of eligibility for the holy ministry. As Prof. Main was not a member of the Assembly the Committee’s deliverance was moved by Mr. Arthur H. C. Hope, Edinburgh, and seconded by Rev. Dr. Harvey, senior clerk of the Assembly. An amendment was moved but defeated by a large majority.
Women to be Licensed to Preach.—An addendum to the deliverance of the Life and Work Committee, suggesting consideration of the advisability of Presbyteries being authorised to take on trial for licences and to license to preach such members of the Order of Deaconesses as should have had University training and be otherwise qualified, was submitted by the Rev. W. W. D. Gardiner, Edinburgh. Mr. Gardiner said he thought it was desirable that that searching for extension of women’s work should be directed towards a place where an
opening might be found, and that was within the Deaconess Order. He hoped members would notice that he had put in his motion that the members of the Deaconess Order should be University training and be qualified to preach the gospel. It seemed to him that the future of the Order of Deaconesses might be of the utmost value to the Church if it could be developed along these lines. Their women were anxious to be trained for the work. They were willing to take courses of training for it, and it was only for the Church to open the way for them to do work when they had had such training. They should be appointed as assistants in the congregations in order that they might be given a definite authentication by the people of the Church and the individual sense of vocation to preach the Word. It seemed to him, Mr. Gardiner said, that the effort to secure a larger place for women in the Church had unwittingly tried to find an opening where there was the greatest obstacle in its way, namely, in the eldership, in the place of government in the Church. The matter of preaching—of declaring the Word—was an entirely different thing. The Rev. John M. Munro, Falkirk, who seconded, described the motion as a very logical one. There was no reason why a church sister who conducted services in a hall should not take them in the church. Dr. Norman McLean, convener of the committee, accepted the motion for the consideration of the authorities. The deliverance was approved.
Restatement of the Church’s Faith.—Rev. Professor H. R. Mackintosh, Edinburgh, in presenting the report of the Committee on the Re-statement of the Church’s Faith, said that on every section of the brief statement contained in the report the most reiterative thought had been given. They had not attempted anything that was ambitious. The document was not to be a constitutional document. It was going to presbyteries, but not under the Barrier Act. They had tried to frame a testimony which the Church proclaimed, and a document which might usefully serve as a basis for the teaching of young communicants.
The Rev. Oswald B. Milligan, Edinburgh, said that the statement gave them at last something definite as to what they meant by the sum and substance of the Reformed faith to which they subscribed. He ventured to think that although there might be no intention whatever to substitute the statement for the Confession of Faith it would more and more be regarded a definitive statement of what the Church regarded as fundamental in its belief. He believed that the greatest need of the Church to-day is a revival in the pulpit of the teaching function of the Church. It seemed to him there was a danger of preaching sermons which were merely hortatory or topical. Mr. Milligan, we believe notwithstanding the effort to throw dust in the eyes of the simple was speaking not only for himself but for many in the Church of Scotland when he said that he ventured to think that although there might be no intention whatever to substitute the Statement for the Confession of Faith it would more and more be regarded a definitive statement of what the Church regarded as fundamental in its belief. This Statement is sent down to Presbyteries and when its fate will be made known at next Assembly it will be necessary to point out its serious defects.
From certain of the Assembly’s proceedings it is becoming more and more evident that the Church of Scotland is fast drifting from her moorings on a quickly ebbing tide and is making for an open sea, a sea, unknown and uncharted. Who could believe forty years ago that there would be such a change and that the huge endowments belonging to the historic Church of Scotland, the name of which the present Church bears though she is not the true heir to the heritage, should be permitted by law to be hers?