Just before Vatican Council II began, the moderator of the Church of Scotland general assembly made history by calling on John XXIII. I commented in this journal that he who had crossed the continent to Rome might now consider crossing the street (literally) to the Free Kirk general assembly where another job of reconciliation had still to be done. With true liberal intolerance a religious weekly called my remark “mischievous.” Ecumenicity is a splendid practice so long as one follows the guidelines laid down by those who know about such things.
Of course it takes two for rapproachment. In 1965 the big Kirk’s moderator did go across the road. A substantial number of the Wee Frees had earlier opposed the visit (some of them walked out when he appeared), and it was decided he should not be allowed to speak. The visitor cunningly directed to his fellow moderator some words loud enough to be heard by the assembly he was banned from addressing.
Since then the Edinburgh street has remained uncrossed. During this year’s assembly meetings our new moderator, the Right Reverend John R. Gray, decided to look in on the Free Kirk assembly. This was entirely a personal initiative; he was prepared merely to sit in the gallery and listen to the deliberations. A bit of admirably quixotic behavior, as the Free Kirk had previously indicated lack of enthusiasm for any formal visit. The whole project fell flat. Mr. Gray had left it too late; the Free Kirkers had packed up. He did manage a ten-minute chat in his counterpart’s office, but the host insisted no conclusions were to be drawn.
The current issue of the Monthly Record of the Free Church of Scotland carries a most comprehensive editorial, reflecting that body’s attitude to other denominations and to its own “unfortunate public image.” Written by newly-appointed editor the Reverend Donald Macleod who titles it “Peculiar People,” the piece begins by outlining distinctives of the church that originated in the Disruption of 1843. Through unions in 1901 and 1929 the majority of the original Free Kirk’s descendants returned to the national church. The present Free Church numbers perhaps 20,000 members and adherents. But to return to the editorial. Every minister, elder, and deacon of the Free Kirk, it points out, is bound to the Westminster Confession without reservation (the Church of Scotland recognizes “liberty of opinion on such points of doctrine as do not enter into the substance of the Faith”). The Free Kirk does not sing hymns, but only metrical psalms without instrumental accompaniment. And it believes in discipline, holding that membership of the church is only for believers, and that “members of the visible church must at least have the appearance of being Christians.” It would indeed be mischievous were I to comment on the latter point!
Turning to relations with other churches, the magazine has a rare good word for Roman Catholicism, and cites agreement on major points of doctrine. These include the Virgin Birth, propitiatory atonement, a literal resurrection, and a physical second coming. Admittedly much of this seems calculated only to make out a case, not in favor of Rome but against Anglicans, Methodists, and other Presbyterians (there is a purpose of marriage at present between the Big Kirk and Scottish Methodists).
The editorial wisely concedes exceptions. “We have many true brethren in the Church of Scotland and gladly acknowledge that many of the ablest expositors of the doctrines we love are within its borders.” But it sees leading representatives of the denominations named as having their roots in the Enlightenment rather than in the Reformation. “Schleiermacher is their common father and Wellhausen, Barth and Bultmann their mentors.” This is a not unfair statement for Presbyterians and Methodists, but it might have been worded differently for the Church of England in which there is currently a resurgence of evangelical scholarship.
There is an even more unhappy attempted contrast: “In the Free Church a man would be deposed from the ministry for denying the doctrine of Hell. In the Church of Scotland, he would run a far greater risk by proclaiming it.” That second sentence reflects a dismally imprecise use of language that would tend to mislead those unacquainted with the Church of Scotland, which is neither notable for disciplinary measures nor bereft of those who preach the doctrine of hell.
“We are a different breed,” says Mr. Macleod, “we cannot agree to sink our differences and concentrate on the great things we have in common. It is precisely the great things that we do not have in common.” I’d be wary of conclusions drawn from contrasting the best in one church with the worst in another. But there is a valid point. The average Free Kirk member could tell you the reason for the hope that is in him, in terms identifiable with historic Christianity. The average Church of Scotland member couldn’t.
Referring later to the press, the editorial makes no distinction between secular and religious traders in words. We are evidently all the same: “interested in news, not in truth.” We see Free Kirkers as “ogres from the past,” sporadically engaged in “bigoted and Pharisaical denunciation of ordinary human beings.” The editor calls for self-questioning to find if there is truth in the caricature; he does not call for Free Kirk reappraisal of its attitude to the media and to public relations generally. Such a move might do something to remedy also what Mr. Macleod calls “the curious combination of complacency and fatalism which threaten to destroy us.” The Free Kirk, be it said, is not best known in modern Scotland for evangelical outreach, though its missionary history is a remarkable one. The point is perhaps covered by implication when the editorial points the need for denominational repentance. “We shall not answer for the sins of either the Church of Rome or the Church of Scotland. But we shall answer for our own.”
An odd omission is any reference to cooperation with other evangelicals where there is a large measure of doctrinal agreement. Such cooperation does exist, if sometimes frowned upon. I have many friends in the Free Kirk despite my dubious links with “the establishment.”
A postscript. Some years ago, after a session of the Free Kirk assembly, I accompanied two of its ministers to a coffee shop. Both were smoking, which act brought a lengthy public rebuke from an irate little lady of unknown antecedents. They looked abashed, so I intervened.
Not without sinful pride at finding myself on the side of the angels, a conservative Church of Scotland minister pleading for liberal Free Kirk delinquents, I said I didn’t smoke, but that surely she should allow my colleagues liberty of conscience on things not of the substance of the faith. She would have none of it. “There’s mair hairm din in the name of liberty of conscience than anything else,” she said darkly.
Now I don’t know just what to take out of all that, except for an uncomfortable feeling that holy wobbling had once more proved to be my undoing.
