By REV. JOHN COLQUHOUN, Glendale, Skye.
IN the October issue of the Free Church Monthly Record there appears an article under the above title in which the writer, evidently, “has an axe to grind.” He harps on a matter which seems to be increasingly important with a certain section within the Free Church, that is, co-operation with other churches, and, be it noted, churches whose orthodoxy is conspicuous by its absence. If we mistake not the meaning of a recent overture before the Free Church Assembly, in which the practice of having Church of Scotland ministers occupying Free Church pulpits is condemned, is, that there is another section, who have no desire for the kind of co-operation which is evidently believed in by the writer of the article in question. This section may appear numerically small, judging by the number of its representatives in the General Assembly, but, in reality they are not an inconsiderable portion of the office-bearers, members and adherents of the Free Church, and one may presume that the article was written for the purpose of educating this section in order to bring it into line with advanced Free Church thinking on co-operation with other churches.
By way of driving home his teaching the writer brings before his readers men whom, in the quintessence of his charity, he calls “brethren,” “who, in the name of a higher purity of faith and practice, have put themselves outside the pale of the Christian fellowship and so opened the door to the pride, self-adulation and darkened understanding that belong to the works of the flesh rather than to the fruits of the Spirit, till eventually from being suspicious and afraid of their fellow-Christians outside, they have become a prey to suspicion and fear among themselves.” The “brethren” who are supposed to be in this fearful condition are not named, but it does not require much intelligence to know that his shaft is aimed at the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland. It would become him, however, to digest what appears earlier in the article: “We should be chary therefore of bandying about the charge of apostacy and arrogating to ourselves the judgment that belongs to the great Head of the Church.” The lack of harmony between his creed and his practice, in this respect, goes a long way towards nullifying any impression which he might make even on the coterie to which he himself belongs in the Free Church, far less, we believe, on those whom he takes upon himself to instruct. Further, it may be noted that the Free Presbyterian Synod has repeatedly stated its willingness, not merely to co-operate, but to unite with any denomination in Scotland which would consider union on a sound Scriptural foundation.
What, it may be asked, are the limits of the co-operation among churches which the article advocates? The unity of the body of Christ is given as the ground, or reason, why a Christian Church should recognise as brethren those who come to us in the name of Christ, and Christian co-operation between various denominations is held to be stressed by our Lord when He prayed “that they all may be one . . . that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.” That the portion of truth quoted has nothing to do with outward unity or outward co-operation has been amply proved time and again, and need not detain us here. “Separation” and “isolation,” which appear so prominently in the article, have, evidently, become such bugbears in certain quarters in the Free Church, that one would think that if a man, in endeavouring to conserve the truth, refused to co-operate with men who had forsaken it, he was guilty of a great sin. This raises the question, What, according to the Word of God, is the duty of a Church, which has adhered to that Word, towards a denomination which has opened its doors to higher criticism? Are we not counselled in the Scriptures that “if any man, that is called a brother, be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.” Is the duty of separation from disorderly persons confined to those guilty of such sins? Surely not. Heresy and other forms of declension are referred to in Scripture under such names. There is, however, no need to multiply Scripture references in order to prove that it is the duty of all who would walk in integrity to separate from men or churches whose teaching is not in accordance with the Word of God. The Apostle Paul, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, says, “Now we command you brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received from us.” Not only does the Holy Ghost require of us to withdraw from men who are walking disorderly, but we are to keep them at a distance. “If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine (of Christ) receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: for he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds (II John x, 11). How, in the face of such a Scripture, can the Free Church tolerate in its pulpits, not merely ministers who are in a Church which does not require adherence to the whole Bible, but whose own publicly expressed views are such as to prove that, whatever they may be, they are not ministers of the gospel of Jesus Christ, but bear marks of being among those of whom the Apostle told the Philippians, “even weeping, that they are the enemies of the cross of Christ.”
The reason has been advanced for indiscriminate mixing up of denominations that there are God-fearing people in denominations which are far advanced on the down-grade. It is not our purpose, neither is it according to our conviction, to assert the contrary, but it may be asked, where can anyone find ground for co-operating with a denomination because of these persons when they themselves are supporting, by their presence and means, the propagation of soul-ruining heresies, and, perhaps, without ever uttering a protest against them. We are very much of the opinion that those who are so hopeful of good, resulting from co-operation, will find little or no help from such persons.
Perhaps the writer of the article under review might tell those whom he is seeking to instruct, how much a minister of a professedly orthodox church may drop of his denominational testimony when, in his zeal for co-operation, he goes to conduct services in a denomination where the mode of worship is different from that allowed in his own denomination. To be more explicit—When a Free Church minister, or a professor in her college, goes to conduct the regular Sabbath services in a Church of Scotland congregation in the like of Glasgow or Edinburgh such questions naturally arise as the following:—Is the organ kept silent at these services? Is the medium of praise the human voice alone? Is the manual of praise on these occasions the Psalms to the exclusion of uninspired hymns? The answer to these questions would be very interesting to many both in the Free Church and out of it, and a straight-forward answer to them might help many of those whom the writer of the article under review is at such pains to instruct, to decide for themselves what are the exact limits of co-operation.