The Anti-racist Groups, who received grants from the World Council of Churches, were given an indirect notice of approval for their work by the Assembly when the Report of the General Administration Committee came up for consideration on Wednesday. The Convener, Dr Roy Sanderson, admitted that racism was a highly controversial subject, and claimed that the Committee was merely maintaining the general ruling of previous Assemblies in approving these grants without condoning violence, but said that on the methods of giving practical aid, there was room for difference of opinion. Rev. J.H. Duncan, of Earlston who had been a missionary for 12 years in S. Africa and Rev. Ian Campbell who supported him were highly critical of the Assembly’s support of giving aid to guerrilla fighters, who employed violence to attain their aims, and stated that these freedom fighters were not only Communist-inspired but equipped with Communist guns. The Earl of Wemyss saw no cause for alarm, since he thought it very likely that if the money were put to any other than social, health and education measures, the abuse would soon be detected, and made a very doubtful appeal to the action of the Covenanters in taking up arms in defence of their faith. There are some 19 separate anti-racist groups in S. Africa who may benefit from WCC grants, and it will be very surprising if some of this money does not find its way into the purchase of arms and weapons for guerrilla warfare.
Religious Education came in for full consideration by the Assembly in view of the proposed local government reforms. The great changes proposed in the reorganisation of local government were bound to affect religious education in our schools, and the fear was expressed by Rev. A.M. Minto, Convener of the Church’s Education Committee, that the Churches were in danger under the new scheme of being denied full representation on local education committees. He said: “In the proposed reorganisation of local government there seems to be no clear provision being made for Church representation on the regional education committees of the future. If this representation is denied to us, if the voice of the Church is not to be heard at this level, then the gloomy prophecy of 100 years ago that State Schools could become secular institutions looks like moving nearer to fulfilment. In such a situation, religious education would be more open to attack by those who wished to see it removed from our day schools.” To meet this new situation, he went on to suggest that a united front should be presented on this issue by all the churches including the Roman Catholic church. He added, however, that he did not mean to suggest approval of the present segregation of children on religious grounds in our schools. Any change that might be made on this question should come from the Roman Catholic side, he argued, and not forced upon an unwilling church. In the debate that followed some ministers such as the veteran member, Rev. Wm. Baxter, ordained 59 years ago, pointed to the danger of Protestant children being taught by an R.C. teacher on such subjects as John Knox or Mary Queen of Scots, and added, “We should make it plain to the people of Scotland that education is not education at all if there is no religious education.” Others, such as Rev. Maxwell Craig, of Falkirk, one of the younger ministers, thought that it might give point and urgency to religious education that R.C. teachers should teach our children. He then moved that the Assembly “encourage the efforts being made by Roman Catholic educationists, parents and clergy to work for religious desegregation within our educational system.” This motion found little support and was defeated.
The post war measure of 1918 conferring upon the R.C. church the right to separate schools has always been jealously guarded by her clergy which even the ecumenical atmosphere, which she has so carefully cultivated, in the unity talks with the Church of Scotland has failed in any degree to change. This fact itself should be convincing evidence that Rome will never give up any of her privileges or make concessions, or change her attitude to education or church unity. It is doubtful if much hope of change can be derived from the convener’s remarks that a survey undertaken by Strathclyde University showed that a majority of Roman Catholics in Glasgow favoured desegregation. We can remember in our student days how Rev. F.E. Watson, Bellshill Church of Scotland, used to plead the strong feelings of resentment throughout the country against the provisions of section 18 of the Educational (Scotland) Act, 1918, the heavy subsidies which Protestant ratepayers were pouring into papal education, and the privileged position of Rome in Protestant Scotland, that while the National Church of Scotland had no legal safeguards for teaching of the Bible in our schools, the R.C. church has full legal rights to religious teaching in her schools. This iniquitous Act should be repealed, and the Assembly members would be doing their duty by their own schools, if they made this demand. It is useless to adopt the mild methods of persuasion, recommended in the defeated motion, where Rome is concerned. We feel confident that while Rome’s rights to religious education in her schools are preserved, she will not be unduly disturbed at not being represented on local committees, nor will she be disposed to give help to Protestants to secure places for their representatives.
In presenting his Committee’s Report on Adult Education, Rev. Wm. Johnston of Colinton spoke of the Church’s youth growing weary of listening to sermons and traditional services, which they regarded as dull and boring, and stated: “They will not sit and listen to sermons and they tell us ad nauseam that our traditional services are dull and boring. But they will walk till their feet blister for Shelter and Christian Aid, and they will demand with embarrassing bluntness why the Church seems too often to compromise with the world in accepting less than its true spirituality. There are youngsters today who are turning to Buddhism because they find it more spiritual than the Christian Church.” If this state of affairs is true to any extent in the Church of Scotland there is cause for disquiet. Could a more damaging admission of the Church’s failure in her real mission as a Church be made than is constituted by these words?
The Editor’s Dismissal from the management of the Church’s Magazine, “Life and Work” last December by the Committee of the Department of Publicity and Publication, was reversed by an overwhelming majority of the Assembly on Thursday. The case came up by petition from the Editor, Rev. Leonard Bell, and was presented by Hon. H.S. Keith, Q.C. The petition asked the Assembly to declare that the notice of termination of the appointment was not authorised by them, and was therefore ineffective; it asked the Assembly to take steps to investigate the facts regarding the conduct of the editorship and the steps leading up to the sacking and that Mr Bell should continue his duties. The Committee asked that the petition be refused, that their action in dismissing the editor be confirmed “for the avoidance of doubt,” and to terminate the appointment from June 30, 1971. There are some peculiar features about the case which are difficult to understand. The committee at the meeting which made the decision to dismiss the editor was greatly under strength for such an important meeting, only 33 attending where it is reported 48 should have been present, the decision being made by 26 to 4; Mr Bell was not called before the Committee to answer criticisms of his work; the convener gave no evidence to support the decision to dismiss the editor beyond saying that continual disagreements had arisen between the editor and the committee over Magazine policy and that in the five years as editor, Mr Bell had proved himself to be “a square peg in a round hole,” and “not the man we wanted;” the question of editorial freedom was also thought to be involved and charges of political motives were also made. By a majority of more than a thousand to twenty against, the editor was reinstated till the reasons for dismissal were investigated. The motion was that the Assembly declare that the dismissal was not authorised by the Assembly and was ineffective; that an ad hoc committee of 11 be set up to study the circumstances leading to his dismissal; assess the editorship of ‘Life and Work’ and report back to next year’s Assembly with its findings; Mr Bell to continue as editor without prejudice to the conclusions of the special committee. Rev. Wm. Macartney, the convener, immediately submitted his resignation. Whatever may be the merits of the controversy over the editorship which was discussed in a “sensational two hour debate” in the Assembly, the present editor has not raised the “Life and Work” Magazine above the social, economic and political level of previous editors. There is nothing of a scriptural or spiritual nature to satisfy the needs of precious souls thirsting for the Word of Life in the Magazine, nor can we discern any clear, determined witness against present day declension in Church or State. It is conducted like any secular magazine with the editor disclaiming any responsibility for the views expressed, which allows the utmost freedom for the strange and sensational and altogether unscriptural material in the way of articles and pictures which generally find their way into its pages. If these are among the reasons which moved the Committee to dismiss the present editor, we fear that the Committee will get little sympathy or support from the Assembly next year for their decision.
The Westminster Confession of Faith had been the subject of discussion and thought for three years by a Panel on Doctrine of the Church’s theologians and on Friday the fruits of their three years’ labours were reported to the Assembly. The Report, which will have far reaching consequences by its findings upon the life of the Church of Scotland, was approved by the narrow majority of 15 after about two and a half hours’ debate. The remit which was given to the Panel was to consider the place of the Westminster Confession of Faith, as the Subordinate Standard of the Church’s faith, and the reference to it in the Preamble and Questions which are put to ministers and office-bearers when taking office in the Church. In carrying out the remit, the Panel recommended that the words “Subordinate Standard” should be dropped altogether, which means that the age long place which the Westminster Confession has held in the historic Church of Scotland, as an authoritative statement of the Church’s faith next only to the Scriptures themselves, has now been changed and the Confession from now on will be relegated to a place along with the Nican Creed and the Scots Confession, as an interesting document of only historical importance. Rev. Kenneth M. Campbell reported that from between 70% to 80% of Presbyteries supported this proposal. He claimed, therefore, that here was no opinion formed by the Panel, but the voice of the whole Church speaking throughout her Church courts. This may be true, but the reversal of the Church of Scotland’s relation to her own Confession is the tragic outcome of many years of insidious teaching by heretical Professors in her Divinity Halls, of agitation by the Church’s leaders, and the apathy that has destroyed all interest among the people in their Church’s past history. A new statement of faith, prepared by the Panel, was also approved, but at once voices of dissatisfaction with its terms were raised denouncing the new statement. We have not yet seen this effort of the Panel and cannot pronounce any opinion upon it. Prof. Cheyne of New College described it as “wooden,” “a document that neither elucidates or inspires.” Rev. John Watt, a lecturer at Hamilton College of Education, roundly stated that the proposed statement would not do. “It speaks in the language of Canaan—not in the language of the street corner;” he said, which indicates what some members of Assembly conceive should be the nature of the Church’s Statement of Faith. The statement, he said, would give little help in the work of religious education. Finally, Prof. Cheyne moved an overture from the Presbytery of Edinburgh, calling for the setting up of a special twelve man Committee to draw up a new statement of faith, but the overture was defeated and the Panel’s proposal was adopted, that their Report, containing the new statement of faith, should be sent down again to Presbyteries for comment and criticism, by the small margin of 15 votes, there being 253 for and 238 against. The Church of Scotland has at last got rid of her own Westminster Confession, but what she may approve as a statement of her beliefs, we fear, will be a poor substitute for the clear, scriptural, unambiguous language of the noble Westminster Confession of Faith. During the debate, interruptions broke out from members of the public, with shouts of ‘No popery,’ in reference no doubt to the term ‘anti-Christ’ in the Confession, and a huge banner was waved from the public gallery. The Westminster Confession has held its place as the classic statement of belief of Presbyterianism for more than 400 years. We fear that returns from Presbyteries next year will show strong approval of the new Confession. Theological belief in this country has steadily been deteriorating till today we can see that the fears roused by the modifications introduced into the Westminster Confession by the Declaratory Act of 1892, have now been fully realised. The wise foresight of our fathers may now be appreciated. The warning that the Constitutionalists gave against all tampering with the Confession at the end of last century, can now be understood, “Confession of Faith or no Confession of Faith.”
Church Unity cropped up in different forms in the discussions in the Assembly, when the relations of the Church of Scotland with other denominations were being considered. The Assembly had already in 1969 sent down a basis and plan for union with the Congregational Union of Scotland to the Presbyteries, but failed to obtain a majority in favour, and now the Assembly gave the assurance of her readiness to resume union negotiations at any time with the Congregational Union of Scotland. Rev. Rupert Davies, president of the Methodist Conference, in an address to the Assembly, stated that although in England negotiations between the Methodists and the Episcopalians had reached the stage where agreement on some form of union was in sight, in Scotland talks between the Methodists and Episcopalians was a dead issue, and the Methodists considered that they were free to open what might prove to be fruitful talks on union with the Church of Scotland. He appealed to the Assembly not to entrust these discussions on union to Church theologians who were impracticable and lacking in realism, but, he declared, let the people through the courts decide. It may be significant that Principal Davies is the first Methodist President to address the Assembly of the Church of Scotland. The Scottish Episcopal Church in the June issue of “Scan,” the Church’s news magazine, speaks of herself as a small minority Church, representing only two per cent of the population, but busily engaged in ecumenical activities. “Scan” says: “With the Church of Scotland we have for a long time been seeking towards organic unity.” “With the Roman Catholic Church, discussions are proceeding which are designed to explore areas of doctrinal agreement. In multi-lateral conversations our Church is seeking ways to unity with the Baptists, the Congregationalists, and the Churches of Christ.”
Professor J.K.S. Reid of Aberdeen who is on the Church’s Panel conducting conversations on union with the very much smaller body, the Episcopal Church of Scotland, put forward the plan for the Episcopal Church of Scotland to be incorporated as a synod within the enlarged Church of Scotland. “There is no reason,” he said, “why bishops should not take their place in the General Assembly as fully elected commissioners of the Episcopal Synod on the same footing as commissioners elected by the presbyteries.” He rejected a suggestion by Rev. R.W. Matheson, St Mungo, Lockerbie, that the Synod proposal was a ruse by which union would ultimately be effected by rubbing out altogether the history of the Church of Scotland, which, we believe, comes nearer to the true purpose of this move. Prof. Reid, however, denied that the effort to bring these two separate Churches together would in any sense be unfaithful to the Church of Scotland. This appears to be the present form that talks on Church union are taking in the Inter-Church Relations Committee, the Convener of which, Rev. Roderick Smith spoke in approval of this idea. If full Church union cannot be foisted upon the Church, this loose form of Church connection might be feasible. The union mongers in the Church of Scotland are still evidently determined, in spite of repeated reverses, to find some way of getting a place for bishops in the Assembly, although the radically different nature of Presbyterianism and Episcopacy makes any hope of merging them into the one Church, impossible.
The Common Market in modern times has perhaps stirred the country throughout every rank and class as no other public question has done this century. The meeting of Assembly at which the move to get this country into Europe was discussed was no exception. The voting on this occasion was far more decisive than the rejection by 3 votes last October of the recommendation for entry by the Commission of Assembly, and came after a heated debate. The motion by Captain John Hay of Hayfield, Turiff, Aberdeenshire, which pointed out the serious consequences for Scotland if Britain entered the Common Market was carried by 303 votes to 230. Capt. Hay spoke of a decision to enter Europe as being irreversible and asked the question: “Why is it they dare not have a plebiscite like all the other ECC entrants? This they could have done when they had their Census instead of asking questions about our kitchen sinks.” The vast majority of the people of Scotland and England, he claimed, were opposed to entry. The motion was seconded by the Very Rev. Lord MacLeod of Fiumany, who was mainly responsible for the Commission of Assembly last October demanding that all negotiations be broken off. In a resounding speech Lord MacLeod declared: “We are witnessing the biggest surrender of British sovereignty since Charles II did France’s bidding in return for subsidies.” The Market was not functioning successfully and the present Government had no mandate, without consulting the people by referendum or General Election, on such an important question, to take this country into Europe. “The Church of Scotland at present and in the name of Scotland, says, ‘No,'” he said. Only one voice was raised in favour of Britain’s entry, when Rev. Alistair J. MacLeod, minister of the Scots Kirk in Brussels, appealed for delay till the terms of entry were announced. Rev. George Ball, Convener of the Church and Nation Committee, said that if the terms of entry were declared and rushed through Parliament before next October, members were prepared to call a special meeting of the Commission. The decisive vote of the Assembly, though taken on economic and political grounds, will strengthen opposition to entry.
Priorities of Mission was the subject of a Report entitled “Keeping Pace with Tomorrow,” which was brought before the Assembly at an early meeting but ruled out of order by the Moderator because not in proper order, and stirred great anticipation among members which in the end the Report did not justify. The Moderator spoke of the Report as making “some of the most drastic and revolutionary changes which have occurred in the history of the kirk for a very long time.” The 24 recommendations of the Report are of a far reaching order, and propose sweeping reforms of the whole framework of the Church, since the existing structure, it is suggested, may “constitute an impediment to the Gospel.” “Such reforms are advocated as group or team ministries in place of the parish ministry; union of isolated congregations into large Church units; greater say in Church work by lay members; mission work to include “industry, education, communications, mass media and politics.” These revolutionary changes, which betray an urge for change which is not confined to doctrine and a lack of confidence in the scriptural pattern of the Presbyterian Church did not commend themselves to members. Rev. Robt. S. Hill, Glenshee moved the rejection of the Report, and pointed to the extraordinary omission of any mention of evangelism. “The aim of the Commission,” he said, “seems to be to influence the structure of society without a thought of bringing people into relationship with Jesus Christ. We have been doing this long enough and it doesn’t work.” The proposals were not sufficiently considered and had missed the mark. “If we accept this, it would be an admission of spiritual bankruptcy,” he said. When seconding the motion, Rev. Robt. Carmichael was even more forthright, when he condemned the Report as failing to make one new constructive suggestion, its proposals were already familiar. “This momentous Report,” he said, “is nothing more than a hotch-potch of other people’s ideas.” In discussing the proposals for larger area churches, Rev. J.B. Duncan, Earlston, spoke of the loss of personal contact, that people were reduced to being “a cog” in the Church. The motion, however, was defeated, and the Report, which was presented by Prof. Hugh Anderson of New College, was adopted by the Assembly.
Amidst the multifarious business before the Assembly, the Veto Poll, the Colin Temple Case, Church Investments in S. Africa, etc., one pleasing incident of the proceedings stands out in relief. A petition came up from the Kirk Session of Wishaw-St Andrew, Tranent and was presented by Rev. Robin Brough, asking the Assembly to set apart a special day of repentance and prayer for the nation. The motion was lost by 83 to 71, but the concern of the Tranent congregation about the present state of our nation, which moved them to send up a request to the Assembly for a day of repentance and prayer indicates a degree of spiritual life, so lacking in the proceedings of Assembly, which, we pray, that the Lord will encourage and bless, for we wish this congregation well in the Lord’s name. The assembly rose on Wednesday, 26th May.