Free Church Ministers and Ordination Vows
To take an oath or a vow is one of the most solemn acts in human life. The person taking the vow is citing God as a witness to the sincerity of his heart in what he is saying. It is lawful and appropriate to take vows, and to require vows, on the most solemn and important occasions in life, such as marriage, giving evidence in court, crowning a monarch or installing rulers in public office, and ordaining office-bearers in the Christian Church.
The vows taken must be suitable. The questions put at ordination in the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland date mainly from 1711, with a few additions and modifications introduced at the Disruption of 1843 and at the separation of the Free Presbyterian Church in 1893. The questions cover, among other things, the doctrinal views of the candidate, his submission to the authority of the Church, and his upholding of the position of the Church on certain issues. For instance, Free Presbyterian office-bearers are required, reasonably enough, to approve of the Deed of Separation of 1893.
Rev David Robertson of Dundee has been appointed editor of the Free Church Monthly Record, the September issue being his first. This issue has numerous unedifying features, such as a picture of a Harry Potter book on the front, a favourable review of the same book by Mr Robertson’s teenage daughter on the back, and a sermon preached at the Free Church General Assembly, entitled “The Public Teaching of our Church”, in which there is not the slightest reference to the Lord Jesus Christ.
One of the threads running through Mr Robertson’s first issue is the unhappiness that Free Church ministers feel with their denominational heritage. In his leading article, Mr Robertson resumes his attacks on Free Church worship, which he finds, generally speaking, to have “no soul, no spirit, and very little joy”. The Assembly sermon of Rev Donald Smith, Lima, referred to above, consists almost entirely of tendentious questions, the purpose of which is to undermine any attachment that Assembly members might have to distinctive Free Church principles. Rev Iain D Campbell, Back, in a lukewarm review of The Letters of Thomas Chalmers, raises the possibility that the Disruption itself was a mistake. Chalmers’ justification of the Disruption is “interesting”, but the whole subject is dismissed as “dated” and “academic”. Evidently the ground is being prepared for “closer links” with the Church of Scotland.
The fullest expression of unhappiness, however, comes from the Free Church Moderator, Rev John Ross, in his account of an induction at Badenoch, where he was interim-moderator. Speaking of the questions put at the ordination, he asks whether it is necessary on such occasions to make “a public display of the mysteries of the Claim, Declaration and Protest of 1842 or the Protest by Commissioners to the General Assembly of 1843, or a disavowal of all ‘Popish, Arian, Socinian, Arminian, Erastian and other doctrines, tenets and opinions whatsoever . . .'”. Mr Ross was embarrassed by the bemused looks and “stifled sniggers” that these questions produced in the congregation, and also by the “kindly presence” of the “local Catholic priest”. He thinks that these “arcane memories of ‘old, unhappy, far off things, and battles long ago'” might be dealt with privately by the Presbytery prior to the induction. An induction should be a “joyous” occasion, not “a public justification of the continued separate existence of the Free Church”.
It is clear from what has been said that the Free Church ordination questions, far from being irrelevant and antiquated, are unpleasantly relevant to current opinions in the Free Church. No wonder there is a reluctance to read these questions in public. At every Free Church induction the presiding minister, according to the terms of Act V, 1932, makes the following statement: “It is my duty to explain to you, and also to the congregation here present, with reference to that part of the question which will be put to you as to ‘purity of Worship as presently practised in this Church’ that, in 1910, the General Assembly re-affirmed the legislation of the Church as to uniformity in public worship going back to the year 1707 . . .”.
Contrast this with Mr Robertson’s dismissal in his leading article of “this appalling unbiblical doctrine of ‘uniformity of worship’ (at least in the way it is commonly understood)”. Mr Robertson, at his licensing and two inductions, has three times “sincerely own[ed] the purity of worship as presently practised in this Church”. But was he in fact happy, on each occasion, with the prevailing Free Church practice? It does not appear so. Is this an honest way of taking vows?
Again, at every Free Church induction the minister or probationer is asked: “Do you approve of the general principles embodied in the Protest of Ministers and Elders, Commissioners from Presbyteries to the General Assembly, read in the presence of the Royal Commissioner on 18 May 1843 . . . ?” Contrast this with Mr Campbell’s book review: “Perhaps, as was suggested at our recent General Assembly, it is a pity that the Disruption ever happened; perhaps we are still reaping its unfortunate consequences in the divided landscape of modern Presbyterian Scotland”. The Protest must have been poorly worded indeed if Mr Campbell can simultaneously “approve its general principles” and yet entertain doubts about the step of separation which was its very essence.
Again, Mr Ross at his own recent induction to Greyfriars-Stratherrick disowned all “Popish, Arian, Socinian, Arminian and Erastian” errors. But why does he make out that these errors are “arcane memories” when in fact they are current, and even common. The words “Popish”, “Arian”, “Socinian”, “Arminian”, and “Erastian” may be arcane, but the doctrines are not. The Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons are Arians (believing that Christ is essentially an angel); many Church of England and Church of Scotland ministers are Socinians (believing that Christ is a mere man); and most Evangelicals are Arminian. State interference with the Church (Erastianism) is a live issue in many countries, including Britain; while the “local Catholic priest” in Badenoch, along with every other Roman priest, has avowed doctrines which are Popish, whatever his private beliefs may be.
What the Free Church congregation in Badenoch needs is instruction in the basic principles of Christianity, so that they are no longer “bemused” at these words, and no longer “sniggering” during the taking of solemn vows which relate to the safety of their own souls. The errors of Rome on Justification, and of the Arians and Socinians on the Person of Christ, are deadly, and Christians need to be aware of these things. “In understanding”, Paul would have them to be “men” (1 Cor 14:20). But if Free Church ministers appear by their statements to be indifferent over truths such as the way of salvation, the divinity of Christ, and God’s sovereignty in salvation, who is going to warn the people? How will they avoid these snares and pitfalls? “The leaders of this people cause them to err; and they that are led of them are destroyed” (Is 9:16). DWBS
Ruling Against Sexual Orientation Regulations
The Sexual Orientation Regulations (SORs) of the British Government, rightly branded as “a gay rights charter”, came into force in Northern Ireland last January. They made it illegal to harass and discriminate on the grounds of sexual orientation in education and in the provision of goods, facilities and services. They criminalised, for example, Christians who speak against homosexual practices, decline to teach homosexuality in schools, and refuse to place children for adoption with homosexual couples.
Because the Northern Ireland SORs counteract Christian beliefs on sexual ethics and are a threat to Christian liberty, the Christian Institute and some churches applied for a judicial review of them. It was with much thankfulness that many Christians learned that the High Court in Belfast gave a judgement on September 11 which quashed at least the part of the Regulations which relates to harassment, and ruled that the Regulations do not apply to the school curriculum, nor to every action carried out by a faith group which receives some public funding.
The SORs for England, Scotland and Wales, which did not become law until April, do not have a section on harassment. However, the Government have been taking soundings on adding harassment laws to the regulations for the rest of the UK, as part of a proposed Single Equality Bill. We hope the High Court judgement will have a moderating effect on our Government as they consider this Bill. The Belfast judgement, we believe, was in answer to the prayers of many Christians. May there be continued prayer to God that He would preserve religious freedom and thwart the relentless enemies of biblical morality. “Arise, O Lord, let not man prevail” (Ps 9:19). NMR
Promotion of Physician-Assisted Suicide
The legalising of physician-assisted suicide is once more being promoted. This would allow doctors to prescribe lethal doses of drugs for patients themselves to take in order to end their lives.
At a conference organised by the Royal College of Physicians in Edinburgh, Professor Sheila McLean, who is Director of the Institute of Law and Ethics in Medicine at Glasgow University, stated that there were good arguments for legalising physician-assisted suicide in Britain. She argued that it should be permitted in cases where it was “a competent request by an autonomous person”, and even in cases where patients are not terminally ill. She also advocated establishing suicide clinics where patients could be seen by doctors willing to prescribe the necessary drugs.
In a survey conducted by The Herald at the same time as the Edinburgh conference, almost one quarter of MSPs who took part said the law should be changed to allow physician-assisted suicide. A further 20% said they had not made up their mind. The results indicate, says one report, that this parliament is more likely than the last to agree to pursue the subject. In 2005, Liberal Democrat MSP Jeremy Purvis put forward a bill to change the law but did not receive enough support. He is now thinking of making another attempt.
Many will concur with the doctor in Scotland who wrote recently to the press: “Physician-assisted suicide: what a horrible term, that surely contravenes the very nature of a doctor’s calling. It is made no more acceptable by euphemistically using the term Dying with Dignity.” Apart from legalised physician-assisted suicide being the slippery slope to involuntary euthanasia, in God’s eyes it is no less self-murder because it has been assisted by a physician. And such a physician would be an accomplice in that murder. It is God’s inalienable right to bring life to an end, just as surely as it is His to bring it into existence. He declares, “See now that I, even I, am He, and there is no god with Me: I kill, and I make alive” (Deut 32:39). NMR
Call to Lower the Time Limit for Abortions
Numerous calls to the UK government to lower the 24-week limit on “social” abortions have so far gone unheeded. The opinion submitted to the Commons science and technology committee on October 10 by “one of Britain’s most respected obstetricians”, Dr Vincent Argent, was that the limit should be reduced by eight weeks to 16 weeks. But he is not against abortion, and is in fact the former medical director of the British Pregnancy Advisory Service. However, pro-life activists are optimistic that this opinion, coming from such a source, will put significant pressure on the Government to change its mind.
While to reduce the limit would at least be a step in the right direction, it is imperative that the constant killing of unborn babies for so-called social reasons would come to a complete halt. May those who govern our nation realise that such inhumane legislation is not only barbarous but also breaks God’s law and brings His holy displeasure on the nation. “Shall I not visit for these things? saith the Lord: shall not My soul be avenged on such a nation as this?” (Jer 5:29).
NMR
The Darkness of the Brights
A recent headline on a conservative Anglican website reads: “In Europe and US, non-believers are increasingly vocal”. An indication of this fact is the growing prominence being given to the term bright as descriptive of non-believers – atheists, agnostics, skeptics, humanists and the like. Those who coined the term and founded the Brights movement in 2003 aim to change people’s negative perceptions of atheists. They hope that the term bright will do for atheism what the term gay has done for homosexuality – make it appear innocuous and acceptable.
The Brights have atheists Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett as their most prominent publicists, and the movement is therefore receiving attention in some of the world’s major newspapers. Leading members of the movement insist that they do not mean by the term “bright” that believers are less intelligent, but rather that Brights “tend to be a lot more intellectually honest”. However, as such individuals blaze abroad their unbelief, they cannot hide their contempt of Christians and some of them have also been shown to be intellectually dishonest.
“For what if some did not believe? Shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect? God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar” (Rom 3:3,4). The Brights consider themselves to be enlightened but, sadly and solemnly, they are blind. “If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness” (Matt 6:23).
NMR