Letter to H.R.H. The Prince of Wales
H.R.H. The Prince of Wales
Buckingham Palace
London
6 July 1981
Your Royal Highness This Committee has learned with deep regret that it is intended to have the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Westminster take part in Your Royal Highness’s marriage ceremony and desires to protest against this place being given to him.
Since the Bill of Rights expressly forbids any communion with the See of Rome on the part of the British Monarchy we believe Cardinal Hume’s presence in St Paul’s Cathedral taking part in a Divine service and in the presence of Her Majesty The Queen would be in breach of the spirit and letter of the aforementioned article of the British Constitution. It is also, we sincerely believe, highly dishonouring to the Lord Jesus Christ, the alone Head of the Church, to give countenance to this representative of the Roman Antichrist and we, humbly and respectfully, urge Your Royal Highness and Lady Diana to seriously reconsider the matter.
The Committee would also take this opportunity of expressing the view that the decision to omit from the service the promise on the part of the bride to obey her husband in all things lawful is contrary to the Word of God. We plead with you, Sir, and Lady Diana not to depart from this long-established, God-honouring practice to which other members of the Royal Family have, in the past, faithfully adhered. In this connection we would, respectfully, commend to Your Royal Highness the laudable example of Her Majesty the Queen. Desiring, as we earnestly do, the Divine blessing upon your marriage we, even at this late stage, humbly plead that the promise be included.
The Committee desires that the rich blessing of the God of Heaven would rest upon Your Royal Highness and Lady Diana in your married state.
On behalf of the Committee, etc.
John MacLeod
Secretary
Licensing of Student
At a meeting of the Skye Presbytery held in Portree on 23rd June 1981, Mr Hamish Ian MacKinnon M.A., 5 Kitson Crescent, Portree was licensed to preach the gospel.
Reception of Student
At a meeting of the Skye Presbytery held at Portree on 23rd June 1981, Mr Peter Lloyd Roberts, B.Eng. “Creosco”, Hotel Gardens, Portree was unanimously received as a student in training for the ministry of the Free Presbyterian Church.
Presbytery Meetings (D.V.)
Skye: At Broadford on 3rd August at 7 p.m. for Moderating in of Call.
Northern: At Dingwall on 11th August at 2.30 p.m.
Southern: At Glasgow on 11th August at 6 p.m.
Western: At Laide on 22nd September at 12 noon.
Theological Conference
This year’s Conference will be held in Glasgow on Tuesday 8th and Wednesday 9th September. D.V. It is expected that the following papers will be read:
Tuesday
Afternoon “Augustine” Rev A. Morrison M.A., Oban.
Evening “The Microchip Revolution” Dr Wm. Robertson, Edinburgh.
Wednesday
Morning “Christian missions in Africa” Rev D.A. Ross, Laide
Afternoon Christianity & History
Rev D.J. MacDonald, Perth
Evening “Evolution and the Word of God”
Dr Duncan MacSween, Glasgow.
The last paper will be in public.
Perth Communion
The Communion will be held at Perth again this year on the 4th Sabbath of August. D.V. The Services will be as follows:—
Thursday and Friday 7.30 p.m., Saturday 3 p.m., Sabbath 11 a.m. and 6.30 p.m., Monday 7.30 p.m. All the services will be held in the Fortevoit Hall, Perth, and it is expected that Rev Neil M. Ross, Ullapool, will assist on this occasion.
Inaccurate Reporting
The action of Revs J. Brentnall and M. Radcliff in taking their case to Press and Radio, together with their threat of seeking damages from the Church through the Court of Session, has led to inaccurate reporting. In a radio interview, I tried to correct some of these inaccuracies. The interview was never broadcast. I also wrote a letter to the Glasgow Herald which is reproduced below. This letter was not published.
The people of the Church should be well acquainted with the manoeuvres of the mass media not to be disturbed by their clumsy efforts at reporting matters they do not really understand. At the same time, constant prayer should be made that this attack on the discipline and government of the Church may be defeated.
Sir, Having just returned from preaching in England, I have been shown your issue of 12.6.81 headed “Clerk in Synod Row Speaks out” being a report by your correspondent, Stewart Lamont. I do not know where he got his information as he certainly did not interview me.
While I have no intention at the present juncture to enter into any public dispute on this matter, I do feel that certain facts need to be clarified.
The heading “Ministers banned for life” may sound quite sensational but it is not true. Neither is it true to say that Revs Brentnall and Radcliff have been deposed. The truth is that they have been suspended “sine die” from their ministerial functions. They are still ministers of the Church: their names are still on the roll of the Presbytery to which they belong: they are still subject to the jurisdiction of the Church Courts and, should the occasion arise, further disciplinary proceedings can be taken against them.
As we all know, “sine die” means “without date”. The date, therefore, when the Synod might give consideration to raising these suspensions is the date when these ministers fall in with the requirement of the Court. The length of their suspension depends entirely on their own conduct and no Court other than the Synod can raise their suspension.
By the law of the Church and the law of commonsense, a minister suspended sine die is loosed from his pastoral charge. Since he no longer has a charge, he cannot receive emoluments out of the Fund providing ministers’ salaries. Neither can he remain in a Manse since he is no longer minister of the congregation. In Rev Brentnall’s case, the Synod granted him ex gratia payment of three months’ salary. The Deacons’ Court of the Dumbarton Congregation granted him three months use of the Manse. The congregation, at a congregational meeting, agreed with this decision and made it very plain that they are harmoniously behind the Synod’s act of discipline, as is true of the Church at large.
It is also inaccurate to be making out that these suspensions have to do with events which date back 50 years. To say that these events are “still reverberating within the denomination” is a flight of the imagination worthy of a first class novelist. The real fact is that the suspension stemmed from a Synod decision in 1978, which called upon a minister to desist from propagating a view on Protest contrary to the view held by the Church. He was warned that sanctions would be applied if he did not do so. The same requirement was made with respect to the two ministers now involved and as they refused to give the undertaking, sanctions have been applied. In making these decisions the Synod had in view preserving the peace of the Church.
It may interest your readers, including Stewart Lamont, to know that in May, 1980, in the same week in which these two ministers made their Protest, which was not received, a Protest was also made in the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland. This Protest was not allowed and had to be changed into a dissent in accordance with normal Presbyterian practice.
(Rev) Donald MacLean,
10.6.81
The Royal Marriage
The Synod agreed to send a Bible to the Prince of Wales and the Lady Diana Spencer. A suitable inscription was put on the Bible and the following letter of acknowledgement has been received by the Clerk of Synod.
Buckingham Palace
From: Rear-Admiral Sir Hugh Janion, KCVO,
7th July, 1981.
Dear Mr MacLean, The Prince of Wales and the Lady Diana Spencer have asked me to send the members of the Synod of the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland their sincere thanks for the beautifully inscribed leather bound bible.
His Royal Highness and Lady Diana much appreciate your kind thought in sending this gift to them and ask me to thank you all most warmly.
Yours sincerely
Hugh Janion