(1) The wisdom of the Conference organisers must be called in question in asking Professor Macleod to give the main paper of the Conference detailing Presbyterian Church polity. In April the 1986 issue of the “Free Church Monthly Record” (p 89) Professor Macleod writes:-
“So far as we are concerned polity is not a matter of any great importance. If there was a prospect of one Church in Scotland and a majority wanted Congregationalism or Episcopacy we would find it no great hardship to go along with them.” A man with such views would not seem to be the most suitable person to lecture on Biblical Presbyterianism.
(2) The lectures by Professor Macleod and Mr Nicholls reveal very clearly the present state of church discipline in the Free Church of Scotland. A number of the positions, that are contrary to the Confession of Faith, which Professor Macleod defended at this Conference, he had previously stated in a paper given to the British Evangelical Council Study Conference in 1985. This paper was subsequently printed in “Evangel” one of the organs of Rutherford House, the Church of Scotland study centre in Edinburgh (Evangel — Autumn 1985 pp 2-11). It is a sad circumstance when a church’s public teachers are sufficiently emboldened to proclaim views contrary to its subordinate standards. It is even sadder when their conduct is not subject to review in church courts.
(3) New beginnings, such as those envisaged by the Conference, are in the providence of God opportunities to sweep away the unscriptural practices that litter the English ecclesiastical scene. To embody these practices in a new denomination is to have in its bosom the seeds of its own decay. The history of the introduction of hymn singing and instrumental music in the American and Scottish Presbyterian Churches is closely allied to the history of spiritual declension in those same bodies.
(4) The aim of the Conference was not merely theoretical, the object was action, the establishment by the middle of 1987 of a new Evangelical Presbyterian Church in England.
On the basis of the Conference lectures, the answers provided to questions, along with the issued “Guidelines” an evaluation of the sort of church that is envisaged can be attempted. We submit the following
(a) The churches “main” subordinate standard will be Westminster Confession and catechisms. The meaning of “main” was not made clear. The form of subscription to the above documents will, however, need to be very weak as lectures openly disagreed with the confession.
(b) Membership of the local congregation will follow a very cursory examination and will be based on “verbal” profession only.
(c) The concept of office and office bearers was considered unscriptural. There will, however, be a threefold ministry, of the Word, of oversight, of executive compassion. How these ministries related to individuals was not made plain.
(d) Academic training for those engaged in the ministry of the word would not be considered essential.
(e) Individual Congregations would be at liberty to engage in missionary activity without reference to other congregations.
(f) The financial support of the ministry was not made clear. The guidelines seemed to indicate that outreach would be jointly financed but that each congregation would be self supporting. One of the lecturers spoke, however, of the strong congregation giving financial help to the weak.
(g) The functions accorded to the Presbytery seem to be rather less than what one would have expected. The Presbytery is not said to be responsible for vacant congregations, to moderate in calls or to review the session records of each congregation.
(h) The church will not approve of secondary separation, (i.e. those who associate with modernists/Romanists etc but claim themselves to be orthodox will be accepted into church fellowship.)
(j) There will be very wide liberty for congregations/individuals to do as they wish in the following areas:-
(i) Which version of scripture is used in public or private worship.
(ii) Whether it will sing psalms or uninspired human compositions.
(iii) The use of musical instruments, organs, guitars etc.
(iv) The use of stained glass windows and candles.
(v) Liturgies and the use of Cranmer’s prayer book.
(vi) The use of psalm/hymn tunes from heathen cultures.
(vii) One’s position on Premillennialism — Amillennialism — Postmillennialism will be an open question.
(viii) An open charismatic type worship will be permissible.
(5) It is unquestionably true that there is a great need in England for the re-establishment of a Presbyterianism that is firmly based on the Westminster Confession and truly reformed in worship, doctrine and practice. The church organisation that was portrayed at the London Presbyterian Conference was of a doctrinally lax body. The leaders of the Conference indicated they were willing to disregard the teaching of scripture on several questions regarding worship and practice. Should an English Presbyterian body emerge along the lines of pluriformity enunciated by Professor Macleod and Mr Nicholls it would in our view be a backward step in the present confused English ecclesiastical scene due to the fact that those who hold to the ‘historic reformed position’ would be forced to disassociate themselves from so lax an organisation and hence further confusion will be added to an already confused situation.
Roy Middleton, Barnoldswick.