The Synod of the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland, being met this 21st day of May 1970, resolve as follows :
There is evidence that the ‘permissiveness’ of the age has influenced the Church, In particular this is the case in the dress of the women, and in the hair-styles of both men and women.
The Word of God demands of women that they be dressed in modest apparel, and the Synod urge the women of the Church to give heed to this counsel. Not only does it require modesty of dress but also distinction in dress between the sexes. The practice of men and women wearing clothes which obliterates this distinction is quite contrary to God’s Word and expressly declared to be an abomination to Him. “The women shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the Lord thy God.” Deut. 22:5.
The Word of God clearly teaches that the hair of women should be long and the hair of men (and boys) short. Long and short are relatives. To argue from hence that the matter cannot be determined, is to cast the most serious and solemn aspersion upon the Divine wisdom. “Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair it is a shame unto him? But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.” 1 Cor. 11: 14-15. The Church must therefore condemn these practices as contrary to God’s Word and direct her people to seek the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ to enable them to live unspotted in the world.
Multilateral Church Conversations in Scotland*
Dear Mr Sinclair,
I have been asked to write to you, in your capacity within the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland, to invite your Church to take part in the work and fellowship of this Committee.
The Multilateral Church Conversations were formed over two years ago, with the object of working and praying together for the achievement of visible organic unity. In the course of the past two years we have comprehensively discussed the nature of the unity we are seeking, appointed a number of Working Parties, and produced, as our most important effort, a document: ‘Controlling Principles for a Basis of Unity among Scottish Churches,’ which I enclose for your information. This document has been sent to all our constituent Churches with a request for further authorisation.
The Committee felt that this was an appropriate time for us to extend an invitation to yourselves, as well as to the Reformed Presbyterian Church, and the Free Church of Scotland; to join with us as constituent members of this Committee, an offer which we warmly extend to you in the hope that you may find it possible to accept.
If you wish for more information about the work of the Committee, I shall of course be very happy to help.
With every good wish,
Yours sincerely,
DAVID G. ROBINSON
* Participating Churches: The Churches of Christ, The Church of Scotland, The Congregational Union of Scotland, The Episcopal Church in Scotland, The Methodist Church in Scotland, The United Free Church of Scotland.
Controlling Principles for a basis of union among Scottish Churches
- The primary need is for a clear and united conception of the task facing the Church in Scotland. It is for Mission that we need one Church renewed.
The Churches face a common responsibility for serving Christ’s Kingdom in the distinctive situation in Scotland today. To be effective in this mission we must act together, sharing our resources and, above all, manifesting the reconciling grace and power of Christ in our life together as Christians.
Since the task of the Church is worldwide, we seek a united Church so re-formed as to be a better instrument of God in Scotland, and at the same time to manifest more clearly our participation in the one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church.
- We recognise that “unity cannot mean the absorption by one Church, which remains basically unchanged, of all the others” (A. M. Hollis, The Significance of South India. p. 21), but involves restructuring the common life of Scottish Christians for more effective witness, service, and fellowship.
We are aware that God has given much to each of our separate Churches and we are deeply thankful. We are no less aware, however, of our common failure to practice as separated Churches the gospel of reconciliation which we preach. We realise that the acceptance of the need for change will bear heavily on all participating Churches both large and small.
- We desire “to recognise the overwhelming importance of that in the Christian faith which unites us, and to act upon it,” (Nottingham Conference, 1964).
We believe the differences in teaching amongst our Churches are an insufficient reason for remaining separate, and we expect that both the resolution of old differences and the formulation of new expressions of our faith will be achieved more readily within a united Church. It may be found necessary before union, however, to work out a joint statement of our common faith and to relate our present confessional documents to it.
- We do not merely need each other’s co-operation; we need each other. We therefore seek a union comprehensive enough for all the conversing Churches, and if possible other Churches also, to enter.
The distinctive gifts we perceive in each denomination have been given by the one Holy Spirit for the building up of us all. We must therefore seek a form of Church life in which we can all share, into which we can each bring our separate inheritance, and in which we can all grow together, a united Christian community that will be richer in experience, more effective in action than has been possible in denominational separation.
-
There should be no attempt to impose uniformity of worship.
-
None of our Churches can rest content with its present ways of corporate worship or private devotion, much less seek to impose them on others. We look forward to learning from each other, and developing new methods, within a united Church whose worship will have a greater variety than is found in any of our separated Churches.
- The unification of our existing Churches in Scotland should be by way of mutual acceptance of each other’s members and ministries. The incorporation of our existing ministries within the ministry of the united Church should be achieved by way of mutual acceptance, and not by any form of laying on of hands. Forms of ministry and methods of ordination would be determined by agreement among the uniting Churches prior to union.
- Our separate Churches should committ themselves wholeheartedly to the search for unity. We are persuaded that “it is useless to look for unity and, at the same time, to try to keep open a way back . . . The uniting Churches must, from the beginning, be seeking God’s way to their disappearance as separate entities entirely and forever, or they will never find true unity” (A. M. Hollis, The Significance of South India p. 23).
In the light of these controlling principles this Committee asks the constituent Churches to authorise it to proceed to the preparation of a draft basis and plan of union.
Reply to above letter
Dear Mr Robinson,
Thank you for your letter of 10th September, 1969, which I placed before the appropriate Committee of our Church.
Our view is that the object of the Multilateral Church Conversations in Scotland, as described in your letter, namely, the achievement of visible organic unity amongst the Churches in Scotland, must, if it is to be God-honouring, flow from and not be a substitute for true spiritual unity that is founded on union with the Lord Jesus Christ and union with one another in Him.
We consider that it is fundamental to the Christian faith and all true Christian fellowship and witness that the Holy Scriptures are accepted as the inspired and infallible Word of God. We fear that the differences that obtain at the present time in Scotland between the Churches is due to the fact that the Holy Scriptures are not generally accepted in this way and for this cause the differences are fundamental.
We notice that in the document enclosed with your letter en-
titled “Controlling Principles for a basis of Union amongst Scottish Churches” it is stated that your Committee believes “the differences in teaching amongst our Churches are an insufficient reason for remaining separate . . .” or in other words, you are setting out to put a visible organic unity before the essential foundation of such unity, namely, unity in teaching. We strongly believe that a visible organic unity, unless there be unity in teaching, will only act as a disguise for basic differences and will lead to the situation in which the united Church will be united in name only and will have no united answer to such questions as — “What man is to believe concerning God and what duty God requires of man?”
A Church which embraces all kinds of different teaching on such questions cannot stand convincingly for anything. We believe that the present situation of the Church in Scotland is not due principally to the lack of visible organic unity but to the fact that the Church cannot by reason of the very different elements already contained within her own borders give a united answer and guidance to the people on these fundamental questions of faith and practice.
We therefore consider that at this present time there is need for prayer that the Holy Spirit would bring the Churches and people of Scotland to a humble, full and unreserved acceptance of and belief in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments as the Word of God and the only rule of faith and practice. If in His mercy such a Divine blessing be vouchsafed to us, a genuine spiritual unity would follow and the present obstacles to a visible organic unity would to a large extent be removed.
Accordingly, while thanking you for your letter, we cannot see our way to accepting your Committee’s invitation.
With kind regards,
Yours sincerely,
(Sgd.) ROBERT R. SINCLAIR
Clerk of Synod.
Book Reviews
New Testament : Judean and Authorised Version (1970), Judean Publishing House, Jerusalem, Israel
The publishers of this New Testament describe it as “The New Judaean Testament Without Antisemitism,” and as a rapprochement between Christendom and Jewry. While in the main it follows the Authorised Version it claims to have “eliminated as far as truth will
allow, those unfortunate renderings which tend to sow enmity between Jews and Christians.” It makes the further claim that all the changes can be established from the sources.
The question must first be asked whether in fact the New Testament is antisemitic? It is true that the Jewish people make this claim and deeply resent the fact that the New Testament makes them largely responsible for the crucifixion of the Lord of Glory. It is also true that certain sections of the Christian Church, and the Roman Catholic Church in particular, have until recently accused the Jews of deciding and have used this charge as a pretext for the persecution and murder of millions of Jews. But this is not to say that the New Testament is antisemitic. On the contrary it is very pro-Jewish. The New Testament writers (and all but one were Jews who deeply loved their own people) do not hesitate to expose the gravity and the awfulness of the Jewish sin in the crucifixion of Christ but they also declare that they did it through ignorance (Acts 3: 17), and that all this happened according to “the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God.” (Acts 2:23). In all the Apostolic preaching it was declared that the purpose of Christ’s death was the salvation of the sinner. This was the ground on which they called on them to repent and believe the Gospel in order that their sins might be blotted out.
The claim of the publishers that all changes can be established from the sources cannot be substantiated. These changes are a violation of the truth and are often ridiculous. Among the worst is the rendering of Matthew 27:25, where the cry of the multitude “His blood be on us and on our children” has been changed to “His blood be upon him.” Thus the Judaean Version puts the blame of Christ’s death upon Himself. Blasphemy! The Judaean Version is therefore a falsification of the unchanging and infallible Word of God, and another attempt by the enemies of the Truth to preach another gospel which is no gospel. It is only fair to add that no attempt has been made to alter any of the verses that declare the deity of Christ.
The reviewer as a Jewish Christian has never found the New Testament antisemitic. On the other hand, he has always been humbled when he considers his own blindness in former days, and his heart mourns for his brethren according to the flesh who with him are guilty of crucifying the Prince of Life. His prayer is that they might read the infallible and unaltered Word of God and by grace be enabled to look on Him whom they have pierced and mourn for Him as one mourneth for an only son. M. R.
Selected to Live by J. R. Dobschiner. Pickering and Inglis.
Price 21/-
Miss Dobschiner has done us a service in narrating from her own personal experience the sufferings and deprivations of the Jewish
people at the hand of Hitler and his henchmen both in Germany and in the occupied countries of Europe. Although these events happened over 25 years ago, they must not be hidden or forgotten. There is a lesson and warning in it of the depths to which a nation that rejects God will descend. Here too we see the promise of God fulfilled: “No weapon that is formed against thee shall prosper.” Hitler like others had sought to destroy the Jewish people, but was himself destroyed.
On the other hand, however, as a testimony of how a Jew found Christ the book is sadly disappointing, and in the reviewer’s opinion is singularly lacking in the evidences one would expect to find in a true evangelical conversion. It is quite clear that Miss Dobschiner was convinced intellectually of the claims of Jesus of Nazareth that He is the Messiah of Israel. However, it does not appear, from what she expresses in this book, that she was convicted by the power of the Holy Spirit of the sinfulness of sin and of the vileness of her own heart. She does indeed say that she mourned for Him when she read of His death on the cross, but she does not say that she mourned that she had pierced Him. Her sorrow appears to have been simply sorrow that this Good Man was crucified. How different to what the prophet says in Zechariah 12:10! This is further emphasised by the superficiality of her further ‘spiritual experience.’
One feels very disappointed that books of this kind are imposed upon the Christian public in the name of evangelical literature, and it only bears witness to the low ebb of the truth in our land. When the Lord will pour out His Spirit of grace and supplication upon the Jews then they will look upon Him whom they have pierced and mourn for Him as one mourneth for one’s only son.
M. R.
Induction Sermon by the late Rev. James Macleod, Greenock.
Westminster Standard, P.O. Box 740, Gisborne, New Zealand.
This sermon by the late Rev. James Macleod, Greenock, on the text “Turn, O backsliding children, saith the Lord; for I am married unto you: and I will take you one of a city, and two of a family, and I will bring you to Zion: and I will give you pastors according to mine heart, which shall feed you with knowledge and understanding” (Jer. 3:14, 15), was preached in St Jude’s Church, Glasgow on Wednesday, 7th November, 1962, at the induction of the Rev. William Maclean to the Gisborne congregation, New Zealand. It is in the late Mr Macleod’s well-known vigorous and trenchant style. Copies of the sermon in pamphlet form may be obtained from the above address or from the Church Bookroom.
The New English Bible, 1970. Reviewed by the Rev. Terence H. Brown, Secretary of the Trinitarian Bible Society.
This review, which was largely quoted in the May issue of the Magazine, has been reprinted from the English Churchman of March 20, 1970. Copies are obtainable from the Trinitarian Bible Society, 217 Kingston Road, London, S.W.19.
Reformation Translation Fellowship Report
by Rev. Charles Chao, Chinese Executive Secretary
We are thankful to God for His marvellous guidance over the past year. In October, we experienced for the first time in our lives, the severe Typhoon Flossie and the following flood. It reminded us of the dreadful situation in the days of Noah. The water rose higher and higher until it entered our home; the living room, the bedrooms and everywhere else. The situation as a result is beyond description; we moved the books from the shelves, and raised the furniture up to a higher level. We thank God that a couple of Christian Reformed Church missionaries, the Rev. and Mrs Mike Vanderpol, who used to live above us, kindly invited our family of four to move into their apartment. We stayed there for 2 days and 2 nights until the flood was over. The cleaning job was very strenuous!
The damage was comparatively light as far as property is concerned. Part of the stock of Mrs Li’s book and a few other R.T.F. publications were soaked. One trunk load of our bedding materials were damaged by the flood water.
The major publication (3,000) of this year was “His Grace is Sufficient” — an autobiography of our beloved co-worker Mrs Jeanette Li who was taken suddenly to be with the Lord in May 1968. I was asked by Dr M. C. Li to edit his mother’s book. By the grace of God, this book — the only publication of its nature published by the R.T.F. — has been warm-heartedly welcomed by Chinese Christians both in Taiwan and overseas. Rev. Stephen Chiu of Needham, Massachusetts wrote to the Editors of the “Reformed Faith and Life” quarterly as follows:
“Mrs Li’s “His Grace is Sufficient” is definitely a very good testimony, making us realise the Lord’s faithfulness and love. We wish to give our thanks to God that this testimony was made available before the departure of Mrs Li.
“The contents of the “Faith and Life” quarterly has become richer gradually. It is very profitable to the Chinese preachers and
the intelligentsia of the Church. I will do my best to widen its circulation.”
It was my pleasure to translate the booklet, “Tests of Eternal Life,” written by the Rev. Herbert W. Butt, one of the directors of the Board of the Reformation Translation Fellowship, U.S.A. The publication of this booklet was financed by Mr Butt himself. Mr Butt indicated that proceeds from the sale of this booklet will be given to the work of the R.T.F. here in Taiwan. Copies have been sent out to various parts of the world.
The revised Chinese edition of Dr Loraine Boettner’s “The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination” is in the process of printing. Orders have been received from several bookstores for this volume. It is our prayer that this book might continue to serve as an interpretation of Calvinism among Chinese Christians. We are printing 1,000 copies and it runs to 390 pages.
We have been publishing our theological journal, the “Reformed Faith and Life” as usual. We included a few special articles in the first issue (No. 77) of 1969 to commemorate the 20th anniversary of the magazine and the establishment of the Reformation Translation Fellowship.
The command of Christ to Peter, ‘Feed my sheep,’ is still the command to us. The primary task of the R.T.F. has been transmitting the Reformed truths through the printed page to the needy Chinese Christian workers. The writer has been often cheered by the remarks of his friend, Dr Boettner, that as editor of a magazine, he has audiences of thousands in the various parts of the world. Subscriptions and orders of the books came from the Chinese University Students in the States, Canada and Great Britain.
The Board of Trustees of the United Calvin Theological Seminary of the Reformed and Presbyterian Missions Council invited me once again to teach Systematic Theology for one semester. Special lectures on Contemporary Theology were given to Chinese pastors at the Biblical Research Fellowship here in Taipei. The audiences totalled about 40 people for five days consecutively.
We would like to show our warmest thanks to our British R.T.F. brethren who have been supporting the publishing work of the R.T.F. during the past year.