The Wrong Approach and the Wrong Reasons
Matthew Vogan
In a climate of bewildering social and technological change, the rapid decline in church attendance and increasing Sabbath desecration present a colossal challenge to the values held by the Church. The situation facing the Church in Victorian Scotland compared with today was not as different as might be assumed. Not surprisingly perhaps, some began to think that a union of Presbyterian Churches would provide increased strength to meet the advancing tide. Actual achievement of that union was not, however, to be the beguilingly simple and attractive task that it appeared. There is much that we can learn from the serious mistakes made in such endeavours.
Union Controversy of 1863-73.
In the Union Controversy of 1863-73 involving the Free Church and the United Presbyterian Church, there were significant differences in relation to the establishment principle and the nature and extent of the atonement. George Smeaton of the Free Church entered the debate in 1871 with a pamphlet entitled National Christianity and Scriptural Union. While the bulk of the pamphlet deals with a defence of the establishment principle as central to the constitution of the Free Church, it also considers issues relating to the proposed union between the two denominations. Smeaton introduces the key questions at the heart of the controversy: “How far is it incumbent on Churches situated in the same country, possessing corporate unity, and having much in common in everything relating to doctrine, discipline, worship and government, to enter into ecclesiastical union with one organisation? And, next, whether diverging views on minor points may not be left as open questions?” These questions have an abiding relevance.
The Wrong Approach.
There were two phases in the negotiations for union. First, the parties drew up certain articles which were intended to define the amount of common agreement between the negotiating Churches and to minimise any differences. Smeaton recalled various historical examples of the devastating failure of pursuing this principle and commented: “Nothing satisfactory could be expected to come out of this device, when we reflect that it proceeded on the principle of throwing every thing into the crucible”.
When this failed, a second phase was projected in which it “was proposed to unite on the Standards” (that is, the Westminster Confession of Faith). This appeared more hopeful but, in reality, the Churches did not adhere to the Confession with the same understanding and to the same degree. Smeaton protested that “this is not Union on the Standards”; rather it would mean one party “surrendering to the other” by relaxing the strength of adherence to the Confession in any united body. The Free Church were all too ready to make such compromises in return for union. Such dangers frequently present themselves in such discussions for union; truth may be sacrificed to clever and powerful arguments and negotiation tactics.
This would compromise certain “distinctive points of the Free Church as compared with other Churches, without which, indeed, she could only be viewed as an impertinence [that is, irrelevance] in the world. Without these she was but a sect or schism, and the sooner she hid her diminished head and passed out of sight the better.” This is a vital point. Where a denomination has lost its confidence in its own distinctives, the honourable thing is to abandon its separate position and unite with those who share the same testimony. Anything else is undoubted schism.
Smeaton refers to two main false approaches taken to ecclesiastical union:
-
One approach is to reduce the extent of a Church’s confession of faith by removing articles or to declare, “that certain truths shall no longer be terms of communion, that is, terms of office. This is a convenient device, by which any one Church may unite with any other; but whether it is worthy of men who are held by truth, and loyal to it, is a different inquiry.” The union that formed the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church in America in 1786 was constructed upon this principle by expressly laying aside or stating “in ambiguous terms, every thing about which the parties could not agree”.
-
Another approach is to distinguish between essential and non-essential truths. This had been the basis of the union of Burgher and Antiburgher Churches in Scotland, at the beginning of the nineteenth century. Yet Scripture gives no basis for making such a distinction. Thomas M’Crie (the elder) in a previous generation exposed the error of this point. While there are truths highlighted by Scripture as foundational, their “priority or posteriority in point of order, in conception or instruction, does not determine the relative importance of doctrines, or their necessity in order to salvation, far less does it determine the propriety of their being made to enter into the religious profession of Christians and Christian churches”. Smeaton comments on the establishment principle: “It will not do to allege that this is but a non-essential point, on which no man’s salvation can be said to depend; for we are intrusted with a sacred deposit, and dare not abandon it, as we would be found faithful at the appearing of Jesus Christ”.
The Wrong Reasons.
Why were men willing to go so far and compromise so much in order to secure union? Smeaton identified two great errors: (1) the duty and advantages of union had been greatly exaggerated, so that no cost now seemed too great; (2) distinctive principles had not been “estimated at their proper value, or duly conserved”.
The first great error is of greatest interest. It must be remembered that all such “humanly concerted schemes of external unification . . . have their dangers as well as their advantages”. At the conclusion of the pamphlet, Smeaton refers to the wrong motivations behind the union movement: “With some, union is a sentiment; with others, a doctrinaire theory; with a third, a determined purpose, well-nigh fanatical, to have liberty from what they are pleased to view as old traditions. A fourth class, after changing their position, say that there is no difference; or, if there be, that it may be left over till the millennium. Under these prepossessions, they will not allow their minds calmly to ponder the Scripture evidence.” Unless a union movement is to be pursued for the truth’s sake and without sacrifice of truth, it is no more than a scheme of carnal reasoning and wisdom. Others were simply looking to manage resources such as finances and property more efficiently by bringing about a union. Smeaton asked: “And, for ends like these, will they compliment away great Scripture truth?”
The Right Basis.
Smeaton helpfully states his convictions as to the conditions of true scriptural union. He stresses that it is founded upon the truth. “Ecclesiastical union has its limits marked out by harmony of Confession. That can be no true union which requires either party to recede by a hair’s breadth from the acknowledged truth of God, or induces either side to hold any article, or doctrine of religion, of small account. That can be no lawful union which lays all stress on mere external unification, and little on the scriptural terms which enable the contracting parties to unite, or which magnifies love and concord at the expense of truth. True union can be based only on the fact that full exercise is secured for the expression of every conscientious conviction.” Here he seems to allude, perhaps unconsciously, to a memorable saying of Samuel Rutherford: “Give not an hair-breadth of truth away; for it is not yours, but God’s”.
To allege that divine truth can be abandoned for any ulterior object, however desirable, is in the last degree presumptuous. Divine truth is not ours; and when it has been publicly confessed, it cannot be dropped at the demand of any body of men, however distinguished. There is nothing in Scripture to lend the slightest countenance to the idea that we may recede from any single truth. We have to act the part of faithful stewards.
Smeaton’s principle on this point could be summarised pithily as follows: “so long as there is not unity of the spirit in doctrine and confession – so long there is a warrantable separation”. It was on this same basis that Rev Neil Cameron and others sorrowfully resisted agitations for union by others that refused to remove evident obstacles but rather required compromise on matters of principle and truth. Indeed, in the booklet written to counter a pamphlet published by Rev J R Mackay in 1918, he quoted from Smeaton’s tract.
Conclusion.
Smeaton states his “firm conviction” that the negotiations between the Free Church and United Presbyterians could not “constitutionally be carried out” and, if forced through, would be “a great sin”, especially if it rode roughshod over the consciences of the minority who opposed union. It would be schismatic to change the constitution in this way. This is frequently the irony of unions that sacrifice truth; they only increase and enact schism by not achieving union on scriptural grounds. The protracted negotiations of the 1860s were already fomenting extreme division within the Free Church – another sad result of adopting such methods in this process. We can conclude with Smeaton’s closing solemn warning of the collateral damage from union agitations:
“The highest interests of the Church must of necessity suffer. Men’s minds are chafed. Godly ministers, conscientiously taking opposite sides, already view each other with suspicion. Happy would it be if the Church, liberated from these distracting disputes, were set free to do her proper work in the land. By a prolongation of a harassing internal warfare, the disputants may bring down the frown of the great Shepherd and Bishop of souls, and grieve His Spirit from the Church.”
While schism is a great evil and scriptural uncompromised union is greatly to be desired, Smeaton’s alarm still needs to be heard today because, wherever there is movement towards union, the temptation to pursue it in the wrong way and for the wrong reasons is very strong indeed. The temptation needs to be recognised in order to be resisted.