The Assembly met on Thursday, 21st May, in Edinburgh.
New Moderator’s Address.
Rev. Robert C. Christie, Saltcoats, the new Moderator of Assembly, addressed the Assembly on “The Relevance of the Christian Ethic.” According to press reports he dealt with the lack of moral principles and practice in these present times. He said: “The tragedy and dilemma of this age was that both the popular and Church-going types of morality had tended to slip into disuse.” What the popular type of morality is, we are not quite sure, although the Moderator may well have made a valid observation in his own choice of words. He referred to intemperance, immorality and the rise in criminal offences, the lack of honesty and the publication of literature of doubtful moral value. The Moderator declared “In this day of confusion and uncertainty, the only relevant message was the Gospel.”
Visit to the Assembly of the Church of Scotland Moderator.
It was reported that the Church of Scotland Commission of Assembly, which of course met quite a while before the date of the Church of Scotland and Free Church Assemblies, had appointed Professor J. S. Stewart as a delegate to the Free Church Assembly, subject to an indication from the Free Church Assembly that he would be welcomed by them. This matter was no doubt in the hands of the Clerk and an appropriate Committee of the Free Church before their Assembly met. When the Assembly met, in due course, the Clerk, Professor W. J. Cameron, introduced the matter and moved that, “while expressing strong disagreement with recent findings of the Church of Scotland on Sabbath observance and disturbed by official recognition of discussions with the clergy of the Roman Catholic Church, they should as an act of courtesy, resolve to invite Professor Stewart (the Moderator of the Church of Scotland Assembly) to the Assembly and ask him to address them.” The Rev. C. Graham, Tain, seconding the motion said: “We are making it abundantly clear that there are matters of fundamental importance which separate us from the Church of Scotland, and we are not prepared to have them obscured, and we are not prepared to do anything in the name of courtesy to undermine our fidelity to our own standards.” Professor Cameron and Rev. C. Graham, of course, had nothing to say on the fact that Professor Stewart was indeed the Moderator of the Assembly of the Church of Scotland, a modernistic and backsliding Church in many more ways, in addition to loose views on Sabbath observance and a Romeward trend within her borders—that he was the highest official representative of such a Church. We presume that some Church of Scotland representatives when they enter into conference with and are lectured by Roman Catholic representatives, assert that they also are not obscuring or parting with their principles. “Courtesy” is a word much in use to-day in ecclesiastical circles. In the other direction, so to speak, it was a “courtesy visit” which the Rev. Dr. Craig, ex-Moderator of the Church of Scotland, paid to the late Pope at the Vatican, and any criticism was to be quietened down by emphasis on “Courtesy.” As we have already hinted in our notes on the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, Professor Tindal, Convener of their Inter-Church Relations Committee, referred to this visit in terms that were not confined to the “courtesy” view of it. Rev. Duncan MacLeay, Fearn, with more discernment, in our opinion, than Professor Cameron and Rev. C. Graham together, spoke against the invitation. Mr MacLeay said: “I feel it a duty to my Church to oppose this . . . We are protesting against a Church that has shown herself antagonistic to many of the doctrines which have been the very foundation of our Christian heritage in Scotland.” The matter went to the vote; and the Free Church Assembly was split exactly into two parties—36 voting for the visit and 36 against inviting Professor Stewart to attend and address the Assembly. Rev. Robert C. Christie, the Free Church Moderator, thereupon gave his casting vote in favour of inviting Professor Stewart, and the matter was thus carried. His vote was a vote for the Church of Scotland, in our opinion. This case is indicative of a deep cleavage within the Free Church of Scotland on certain matters of principle and practice. Are there after all an advanced party and a conservative party as to Church practice in the Free Church of Scotland?
Professor Stewart’s Address to Free Church Assembly.
Professor Stewart in his address revealed that he had been baptised in the Free Church, and that he was ordained in the United Free Church. He referred to expository preaching and that he had spoken to Free Church students at their College and found they had a “passion” for this. He said: “I think in Inter-Church relations, you have a great service to do to the rest of Scotland in recalling us all to this, the only kind of palpable preaching—direct from the Word of God.” His address was continuously punctuated by applause and his final note of thanks to the Assembly, according to report, was drowned in applause. The Free Church Moderator of Assembly assured Professor Stewart that his strong words had warmed their hearts. “We,” he said, “were happy to see your Church and Nation Committee and our Social Questions Committee agreeing about the effect of the Canon Law Code and the Ne Temere decree. There are other points of agreement, and I trust they will grow and that this visit you paid us will perhaps be the beginning of a closer stand together, in defence of the eternal truth of God’s Word.” What a change will have to be wrought by the mighty power of the Holy Spirit in the midst of the Church of Scotland before that Church will even return to the truth of God’s Word, not to speak of that Church engaging in the defence of God’s holy Word!
Faulty Enunciation from the Pulpit.
Criticism of faulty enunciation from the pulpit was made by Rev. J. Calvin MacKay, Inverness, who said: “I believe that in too many cases much of the message being told is lost through faulty enunciation of words or through other causes which could well be corrected.” The students were advised to apply the rules of elocution taught them. On this question we take the opportunity of stating that Rev. C. MacKay’s remarks ought to be seriously pondered by every man who enters a pulpit. The Word of God should be read in such a manner that every person present who has their hearing should comfortably hear what is read. Of course the same applies to preaching. For men to preach the gospel in such a way, that the people cannot hear him properly or follow his actual words continuously, is inadmissible in a student and especially a minister. For one to announce psalms and chapters of the Bible from the pulpit in a manner in which many cannot hear what is announced, is most unbecoming in the service of God’s sanctuary.
Religion and Morals.
Rev. Murdo A. MacLeod, London, presented the Report on Public Questions, Religion and Morals. He said it would seem imperative that the Government should take greater cognisance of moral character in the appointments to places involving the security of the realm. Mr MacLeod here put his finger upon a sordid state of affairs partly revealed by the Radcliffe Enquiry. He also referred to the State’s duty to uphold the Law of God and to enforce morals within certain limits, this having Scriptural authority. This was an unpopular conception of the State’s duty, he said. We agree fully with Mr MacLeod in his view of the obligations of the State. But we noticed recently that the well-known Rev. D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, London, in a Paper on “Puritan Perplexities,” makes it clear that he does not agree with Mr MacLeod’s point of view. Rev. Lloyd-Jones writes, inter alia: “I venture to assert that once more we are dealing with a standpoint which is based upon a fallacy, which is Old Testament thinking again rather than New Testament; and it always leads to trouble. . . . That kind of ‘enforcing’ of morals by Act of Parliament instead of by moral and spiritual suasion . . . is bound to produce a reaction against itself.” Mr MacLeod also gave a warning against the ecumenical movement as one of the evils that bodes ill for the progress of the Gospel. And let the Free Church take this warning. Rev. G. N. M. Collins—now Professor Collins—repeated regarding the Papacy, that which requires to be repeated by true Protestants, viz., that there is no change upon the Church of Rome. “It still has as its own purpose, the winning back of its former power in this country.”
Moderator’s Closing Address.
Rev. Robert C. Christie said in his closing Address, that men and women to-day were living in a moral and spiritual vacuum, and that they were looking for a lead, listening for some voice of authority, desperately seeking some firm basis for life. These words just do not make sense to some of us, in the plain, practical light of Scripture doctrine regarding man and the Fall of man and the desires of the natural man. What the aforesaid “spiritual vacuum” means, we haven’t the least idea. Maybe we are out of touch with the up-to-date way of expressing things. Maybe the Moderator was speaking of a specific class of men and women, but we just do not know from the press report of his address. Before leaving this, we would state that men and women to-day generally are desperately seeking to satisfy the lusts of the flesh and anything but a firm basis of life. The Moderator spoke of the activities of the R.C. Church and groups propagating false religions. In addition to the preaching of the gospel, he suggested the use of well-written, well-produced tracts for which there would be a market. Finally, he exhorted to personal evangelism, and suggested that young men might take up work in colportage.