On Saturday November 15th 1986, a one day Conference, organised by a committee of largely London Ministers, was held in Cole Abbey Presbyterian Church, the place of worship of the London Congregation of the Free Church of Scotland.
The purpose of the Conference was stated to be:-
- To give clear biblical instruction on what Presbyterianism is and what it has to offer to England.
- To establish contact between concerned churches, groups and individuals who share the same vision.
- To be a definite first step towards an Evangelical Presbyterian Church of England.
The Conference was almost entirely taken up by three papers that were conceived of as conveying a progressive theme. The day’s proceedings began with opening devotions led by a member of the organising committee, the Rev. D. N. Jones, Minister of Grove Chapel, Camberwell.
Several comments are demanded on this part of the Conference before we pass on to review the papers.
(a) It was with some surprise that the present writer witnessed a hymn being sung, with organ accompaniment, in a Free church building, with a Free church Professor and Minister both singing the uninspired song.
(b) Most of the public prayers offered during the day addressed the Most High as “you” whilst the Conference remained seated throughout the public prayers.
These features of the worship were very bad examples to set before Crypto — English Presbyterians with respect to the purity of worship that has adorned the Reformed Church in its best days.
Biblical Presbyterianism?
The first paper bore the title, “What is Biblical Presbyterianism?” and was delivered by Professor Donald Macleod of the Free Church College, Edinburgh.
The topic assigned to Professor Macleod was one of central importance and it provided him with an opportunity before a large gathering to expound the Biblical basis of historic Presbyterianism. A paper, highlighting the themes covered so capably by Thomas Witherow in his book on the “Apostolic Church” and so carefully expounded in the classic Presbyterian treatises of Bannerman, Cunningham, Thornwell and Hodge, and applying them to the current situation and unquestionably the need of the hour, and it would have been a most valuable contribution. This opportunity was sadly wasted as the lecturer spent a considerable part of his paper expounding his own peculiar notions and criticisms of the historic Presbyterian position particularly as it has come to expression in the Scottish Presbyterian church.
We were told by Professor Macleod that
(a) Church Membership rests on a simple profession of faith. The examinations for church membership in the New Testament was cursory and minute investigation results in great mischief.
Professor Macleod’s stress was entirely on bare verbal profession of faith. Whereas the position of the Reformed Church has been “a confession of faith in accordance with the word of God and the standards of the church, a life and conversation becoming the Gospel in so far as that can be outwardly seen and a competent knowledge of religious truth and of the nature of the meaning of Christian ordinances.” Professor Macleod’s insistence was on profession of faith only, not faith plus. He even told his English audience, reflecting his position in a current controversy in the Free Church, that it was not faith plus opposition to Free Masonry.
(b) The ministry of the laity was essential. He expressed opposition to the “one man plus a handful of elders” concept and stressed what the Americans call “body ministry”. In the New Testament, he said every single member was engaged in ministry, everyone preached and everyone baptised. The ministry was not confined to a class of ordained people. Priscilla certainly was not ordained, said Macleod, but she taught Apollos. When asked in a question following his paper whether all believers have a right to administer the sacraments, he replied that the concept of dispensing the sacraments is extra-Biblical. The view that held only ministers could dispense the sacraments was to give the ministry a witch doctor or magical status. He added, “I tell my students to stress lay involvement in the sacraments. The Minister or Elder is not to serve the tables rather the members should pass the bread to one another.”
How these views on the ministry and its relationship to the sacraments can be held at the same time as a professed allegiance to the Westminster standards was not made plain. The Westminster Confession 27.4 states “There be only two sacraments ordained by Christ our Lord in the Gospel, that is to say, Baptism, and the supper of the Lord; neither of which may be dispensed by any but by a minister of the word, lawfully ordained.”
(c) In both his lecture and the questions following it, Professor Macleod expressed opposition to the concept of Ordination. “I suspect” he said, “the whole idea of office. Ordination is a dubious concept from a Biblical point of view” — “Where is it found in the New Testament?” We were further told, “there is no ministry that is not done by every member of the congregation”. “I hope” he said “we all share an instinctive abhorrence of a radical lay — clergy divide.” “There is a threefold ministry of the word, of oversight, of executive compassion, but not a threefold office, I cannot function with the concept of office.” “All members must exercise these ministries.”
To posit such views is to contradict the subordinate standards of the church of which the lecturer is a minister. (Of Westminster Confession of Faith 27: 4, 28: 2, Larger Catechism Q158, see also the section on Ordination in “The Form of Presbyterian Church Government, pp 409-416 in Free Presbyterian edition of Westminster Standards.)
(d) The New Testament church had a healthy pluriformity. The New Testament churches were not “clones of Jerusalem”, that every local church had its distinct ideology. “We have suffered too long,” said the lecturer, “from the Reformation emphasis on common order.”
The local church he asserted has to develop in its own way. To illustrate this concept of pluriformity examples were provided on how one congregation would express its London-ness and another its Lewis-ness and another its American-ness. It was asserted each congregation should be able to decide for itself which version of the Bible it will use and what will be the manner in which it engages in the praise of God.
The Mission of the Church
The second lecture given by Edmund P. Clowney, for many years Professor of Practical Theology and President of Westminster Theological Seminary, Philadelphia U.S.A., was on the topic of the Presbyterian vision for the mission of Christ’s Church. Professor Clowney’s paper had three major sub-divisions (1) The glory of God is the goal of mission. (2) the grace of God is the source of mission. (3) The Word of God is the message of mission. This paper was of a far higher quality and more orthodox in its theology than either Professor Macleod’s or the one that followed it. The paper was a cogent presentation of the urgency of the task that devolves on the Church of God in the world. It was, however, marred by several anecdotes and stories quite out of keeping with the subject matter with which he was dealing and by the fact he omitted to detail how Presbyterian polity is an encouragement to mission.
Holy Moderation or Unholy Laxity
The last paper delivered by the Rev. John Nicholls, Minister of the Free Church of Scotland in London, was on the topic of “Holy Moderation — towards a Presbyterian mind.” The paper was divided into two sections — “Aspects of Holy Moderation” and “The Roots of Holy Moderation.”
As Mr Nicholls proceeded it became plain that the thesis he was propounding was not the balance and Biblical equipoise that ought to be the hallmark of a church in submission to the Word of God, but rather the concept of pluriformity enunciated in Professor Macleod’s paper. A concept which he considered a vital element of presbyterian moderation. Mr Nicholls told us:-
(a) Presbyterians did not approve of what he called “secondary picketing” or what is more usually called, secondary separation. That is, Presbyterians do not separate from men who themselves profess to be orthodox but who associate with deniers of the truth. Such secondary separation Mr Nicholls considered to be over-reacting to error.
(b) Holy Moderation did not get obsessed with details and lose sight of the kingdom vision. Examples of getting obsessed with details were zeal over Baptism and opposition to organs and stained glass windows. Thomas Chalmers, we were told, could not get excited over organs and that in so doing he kept the true kingdom goal before his eye.
(c) Holy Moderation, said Mr Nicholls, did not press all believers into the same mould. This was illustrated by several examples:-
(i) Scottish Presbyterians were accused of demanding that people become Scottish before they can become Presbyterians.
The present writer believes that he is in as good a position as Mr Nicholls to assess the accuracy of the allegation and he would state that, as far as his experience in the Free Presbyterian church is concerned, it is quite simply untrue.
(ii) Presbyterians according to Mr Nicholls have a tendency to insist that converts adapt the lifestyle of the middle class and that men wear suits and what he called these funny appendages round our necks, pointing to his tie.
(iii) The principle was enunciated that there is to be unity where the Bible has declared itself and variety on other matters. He then went on to enlarge on those areas where variety was permissible, presumably because he deemed them areas where the Bible is silent. With respect to organs, we are to have an enlightened forbearance. To insist on psalms only, Mr Nicholls asserted, was sad and brings inevitable division. Is it not possible, asked Mr Nicholls, to stay within a denomination where one congregation sings hymns and another sings psalms?
(d) Mr Nicholls concluded his paper with a Martin Luther King type statement. “I have a dream”, he said, “I have a vision”. Mr Nicholls vision was of an English Evangelical Presbyterian Church with congregations in the deprived and ethnic areas of London, and with congregations in all the University towns and cities. “In one of these congregations,” said Mr Nicholls, “They will use Cranmer’s prayer book, because they are ex-Anglicans. In another they will sing Psalms. In another they will neither sit on pews nor stand, but rather sit on the floor because they are converted Muslims. They will chant the praise of God in the tunes of their own culture. In yet another congregation there will be open worship with musical instruments and in prayer they will raise their arms above their heads as they engage in prayer from the body of the congregation.
Such was Mr Nicholl’s dream of a new English Presbyterian Church. To those of us committed to historic Westminster Presbyterianism his dream was a nightmare.