The Church of Scotland General Assembly held its debate on the controversial Report of the Inter-Church Relations Committee, on Tuesday, the 28th May, 1957. As we indicated in our last issue the above Report on its publication at the end of April caused a great deal of discussion and tension inside and outside the Church of Scotland prior to the debate in the Assembly; inasmuch as it referred especially to the suggestion of the introduction of “Bishops in Presbytery” into the Church of Scotland, as a step to unity with the Church of England and the Episcopal Church of Scotland.
Some Church of Scotland people thought the Report would cause a heated debate, would meet with much opposition, and be rejected and thrown out at the Assembly. Thus there was intense public interest in this debate; and ministers and elders, members of Assembly, remained in Edinburgh beyond the first week of their Assembly’s meeting to a man, which is not ordinarily the case. Indeed, the Report was described by one speaker as an historic document. And so it was, and is, but not an honourable one, in our view.
When the debate began, the Assembly Hall was crowded to capacity with Assembly members, and all the seating of the public galleries was fully taken up.
As most of our readers will have read in the press, the Rev. Dr. A. C. Craig, Glasgow University, Convener of the Committee and leader of the Church of Scotland representatives in the conversations, presented this controversial Report to his Assembly, in a most thoroughly prepared and able address, which has been very fully reported in the press. We cannot possibly deal here with the hundred and one clever, yet subtle statements uttered by Dr. Craig in his address. It is obvious that one of his main arguments was that the Church of Scotland was committed to what he called, “The cause of Christian unity.” and he reminded the Assembly that since 1932, the Church of Scotland had been seeking to discharge that obligation across frontiers which separated them from the Church of England. And so we see that this movement to join hands with Episcopacy did not begin yesterday, among the professed Presbyterians of the Church of Scotland. At this point we would recall a pertinent question put by a member of the Assembly to Dr. Craig. It was this: “Is the principal thing unity in spiritual matters or in government, and does spiritual unity depend on unity in government?” We cannot find Dr. Craig’s answer to this all embracing question. We do not think he gave one, at least not one that would satisfactorily support the imposition of Episcopal forms upon Presbyterians with the design of attaining the professed spiritual unity of believers. We pause to state that the true spiritual unity of living, godfearing believers upon Christ, is a blessed fact now, as by virtue of their union to Christ, they are members one of another, not requiring the installation of “Bishops in Presbytery,” in the Scottish Church, to bring this about in this part of the world.
The Rev. Dr. states in his address that one of the essentials of the basis of the recent conversations was: “The recognition that modifications in the two Church systems might be regarded in the long run to be requisite.” And here we observe without much fear of contradiction in coming events, that there will be no modifications at all worth calling modifications in the Church of England system, at least anything near comparison with Bishops in the Church of Scotland. The fact is, as we have already stated elsewhere, the dignitaries of the Church of England are at this present time engaged in seeking to impose upon their own Church new Canons that smell strongly of popery. Are these the men to welcome a degree of Presbyterianism into their ecclesiastical system? Never! And do the Church of Scotland leaders know this? The people of their Church, in general, are completely in the dark as to the state of matters in the Church of England, and the determined and tenacious adherence, to Apostolic Succession, etc., which obtains among the Church of England men.
Principal Sir Thomas Taylor, of Aberdeen University, as the main speaker after the Rev. Dr. Craig and in support of sending the Report down to Presbyteries and congregations, said in a plausible speech, among other things, that the Report ” . . . commits us to nothing; we surrender nothing, and it lets our people consider the document for themselves.” But he also said with some emphasis that it would be “intolerable to reject the Report.” Here was a Church leader at the beginning of the debate stigmatising before hand, members of the Assembly as insufferable, who would have such regard for the Reformation in Scotland, and the courage to argue and move that this Report permeated through and through with Episcopacy, should be rejected there and then. There is no doubt in our minds, but that Principal Taylor’s remarks had their baneful and subduing influence upon many members of this Assembly,* who at any rate were not deeply concerned as to the final issue of the Report, being prepared to follow their Church leaders, and majority action.
* After penning these observations, we were interested to read the following large headlines in a daily paper: “Sir T. M. Taylor sways vote.” —Editor.
A feature of the debate, after the two principle speakers had finished, was the light-hearted contribution made by the Rev. Dr. W. J. Baxter, Downhill, Glasgow, especially considered in the light of the fact that he is the President of the Scottish Reformation Society. These are the observations of the President addressed to the Assembly: He hoped that the whole Church would not be denied the opportunity of studying the Report. Much of the difficulty was about the word “bishop.” Apparently the moment it was mentioned in Scotland the bristles came up, he said, adding that he was not prepared to argue that in Scotland they had not had in the past good reason for that but they should not be scared by the word now—the manner and mood in which Dr. Baxter delivered himself and his remark about “the bristles,” caused a great deal of laughter throughout the Assembly. It looked as if this effect was what he intended. And yet here was the President of the Scottish Reformation Society, which issues The Bulwark, a monthly Journal on behalf of Reformation Principles, from its headquarters in Edinburgh. What a lack of sense of duty characterised Dr. Baxter! What a unique, although deplorable, occasion presented itself to him, to deliver a faithful, stirring, informative and warning address to an audience of thousands of men and women from all over Scotland, in that great Assembly Hall. Yet the President of the Scottish Reformation Society had nothing at all to say on behalf of Presbyterianism and the Reformation, and little as to bishops, and the little he said was not really against the idea, but in support of considering the suggestion of “bishops in Presbytery” as set forth in the Report then being debated. As to the Scottish Reformation Society itself, why had they not Dr. Baxter briefed for this serious debate, or some other Church of Scotland minister or layman belonging to the Society who was a member of the Church of Scotland General Assembly, that a real outspoken lead would have been given against the inroads of Episcopacy. We are of the mind, more so since Dr. Baxter’s brief, amusing appearance in the said debate, that there is really no Scottish Reformation Society worth the name. Just one more word regarding Dr. Baxter. He said that much of the criticism came from people who had not read the Report. His inference being that those who had read the Report would have little or no criticism to make. It was truly obvious that the few leaders of the Church of Scotland who took part in the debate, were all for and certainly not against the Report. Most of the well-known leaders such as Professors John Baillie and J. Pitt-Watson, and the ministers of St. Giles and Glasgow Cathedral, and other prominent ecclesiastics were most conspicuous by their silence. The whole burden of handling and answering questions at the close of the main speeches was carried by Rev. Dr. A. C. Craig. But silent members knew how to vote for the Report when the time came for that.
A number of amendments and addendums were on the Order Paper and were dealt with. Rev. J. S. Malloch, missionary from Ghana, who made a stir on the first day of the Assembly, by objecting to Dr. George MacLeod’s nomination as Moderator, put forward an amendment. And Rev. Thomas M. Donn, who has been for years writing against the inroads of seeming Anglican forms in the order of worship in the Church of Scotland, put forward an addendum. And Rev. Alan G. Hasson, submitted an amendment. These ministers were conspicuous in their criticism of and opposition to much in the Report. The main part of Mr. Malloch’s amendment was: “Ask our representatives to take back the Report for further discussions with the representatives of the other Churches on the ground that the conception of Apostolic Succession as acknowledged by Anglicans is not acceptable to the General Assembly.” His speech in support was more sharply defined than the terms of his amendment, but in the opening part of his brief speech he went out of his way to relate the high opinion he had of Anglicans in Ghana, with whom he had fellowship, and of the preaching gifts of the bishop out there. To us this seemed to undermine the force of his amendment, although not his arguments against Apostolic Succession in particular. But in the “man from Ghana,” there was not an out and out witness. His amendment was defeated by an overwhelming majority. Only round about twenty members out of hundreds supported him. This was the first unmistakable evidence that the Assembly almost to a man, was prepared to give time and consideration to a Report full of Episcopalian suggestions and requirements. Mr. Donn’s addendum reads: “The General Assembly affirm that the Church of Scotland will not enter into any negotiations, directed towards union with another Church unless that Church (a) recognises the Church of Scotland to be a true branch of the universal Church of Christ; (b) Recognises the ministerial orders and sacraments of the Church of Scotland to be fully valid and in nothing defective spiritually.” After his speech in support, which was not very enlivening considering the issues, Mr. Donn’s addendum was heavily defeated, only a handful of members rising to vote for him. And so the intentions of the Assembly were made clearer still. The Report was not to be tampered with, nor rejected. Then Mr. Hasson’s amendment was dealt with, which substantially was as follows: ” . . . The modifications of Church Politics are not acceptable to the General Assembly. The General Assembly believe that acceptance of these proposals would lead to serious division within the Church and the destruction of those distinctive Christian principles recovered by the Church at the Reformation.” We understand that Mr. Hasson waged war against the Report from the time of its publication to the day of debate in the Assembly. But his short and pointed speech fell upon disinterested ears and as he walked back to his seat from the rostrum, the Moderator was almost already declaring his amendment defeated by an overwhelming majority. We suspect that the same few members also supported him. Since the close of the Assembly, Rev. A. G. Hasson, of Bonhill South, Alexandria, has said that before the bishops plan had been discussed by the General Assembly students in New College, Edinburgh, had already had lectures dealing favourably with the proposals. Yet he complained that when he tried to raise the Report at Glasgow Presbytery he was ruled out of order. Mr. Hasson is also reported to have said that he and other ministers went to the Assembly ready to debate the plan and fight it. Instead, he said, the whole thing was a flop. There was an air of sweet reasonableness.” And we are of the opinion that Mr. Hasson got caught up in the “air of sweet reasonableness,” without realising what was happening till the debate was over.
However sincere these three ministers were in their critical attitude to the Report, they certainly did not put up a big or vigorous fight in the Assembly, at least in the view of a spectator. Of course, each had but a limited time to speak. But there was no leader, no concerted action, no joint amendment, and no final formal dissent with detailed reasons signed by a number of those opposed to the Report. It is true that Rev. T. S. Malloch asked that his simple dissent be recorded. But a formal dissent, with clearly stated and amplified reasons, against the subject matter of the Report, against its being received, and against the decision to send it down to Presbyteries and Kirk Sessions and congregations, and signed by even ten or twenty members of Assembly, could readily be a rallying point for others between now and the next Assembly. But there was no such concerted action. Rev. Alan G. Hasson feels so strongly on matters since the “quiet” debate on such a controversial Report, that he has declared that he would leave the Church of Scotland and join the Free Church of Scotland if the bishops plan were adopted. And this brings us back to an item in the proceedings during the debate. A minister asked Rev. Dr. Craig whether there had been any approach to the Free Church of Scotland or other Presbyterian Churches in Scotland with a view to union. Dr. Craig replied: “Last year the Inter-Church Relations Committee spent a whole morning on the subject of an approach to the Free Church of Scotland, and we have certain steps in hand in that direction, although I do not think this is the appropriate time to describe them.” Certainly the Free Church of Scotland have given cause to the Church of Scotland to contemplate such action, if inter-change of pulpits still continues between some Free Church ministers and Church of Scotland ministers.
Rev. W. Roy Sanderson’s motion which required the General Assembly to commend the Report to the careful study of members of the Church at every level, was finally carried. And if the temper and feeling of the 1957 Assembly is any rule to go by, then the Report will come back next year to the General Assembly with the support of a large body of Church of Scotland opinion, although there may be in cases of Presbyteries and Sessions supporting some qualifications. If there be even a small majority in favour, and a strong opposing minority; the fact of any majority at all, will be the basis upon which the present Church of Scotland leaders will continue their activities to the betrayal of Presbyterianism in Scotland. Men who are modernistic in doctrine, and regulate not their religion by the inspired Word of God, can have little or no compunction in embracing new forms and functions in worship and government within their Church. Divisions within their own Church after all the propaganda for unity, seem not to affect them with anxiety at this present juncture. This is strange, but true.
As far as we know, no mention was made by any party in the debate as to the Oath taken at Accession to the throne by every Sovereign to maintain the Presbyterian form of government of the Church of Scotland. As we pointed out in the June issue, Mr. J. H. Mackie, Conservative M.P. for Galloway, took this matter up in the House of Commons. But there seemed to be none in the Church of Scotland Assembly prepared or willing to bring this vital issue into the debate.
Of course what is needed in Scotland is a day of power from God, that by His Holy Spirit the people of the land would be turned to the Bible and be brought to accept all the truths and doctrines of it, and the whole Bible as the inspired and infallible Word of God; that sinners would be regenerated through the Word and by the power of the Holy Spirit and enabled to believe upon the divine Saviour, the Lord Jesus, and by His Grace to live in the fear of God. And those who fear the Lord today and have an intelligent understanding of even the outlines of the history of the Church of Christ in Scotland, know full well that the Scottish Reformers were deeply pious and greatly taught of the Holy Spirit, and in addition were learned and able men. They left to generations coming after them, the Bible, pure doctrine, New Testament worship, and a form of Church government solidly based upon the New Testament teaching, viz., the Presbyterian form, etc. They sought and obtained, under God, the deliverance of the Church from Episcopacy and the evils thereof, in this land. And now where there is but a formal religion, an intellectual religion and devoid of the fear of God, spread throughout Scotland, then men at the head of Church affairs with such a religion, are completely lacking in spiritual discernment and appreciation of what the Reformers and Covenanters handed down to us. The true fear of God and spiritual discernment must be given to the people of Scotland by the Most High in His mercy and grace, if there is to be a cleaving to the Word of God, and a gracious, faithful witness against error and evil in Church and State, raised and maintained in our land. We cannot surely depend on unconverted professors, ministers, elders and members to stand faithfully and firmly in a Cause related to vital spiritual issues. No!
Then, let God arise and have mercy upon Zion in our beloved land.