Rev Donald Macdonald resignation

Rev Donald Macdonald’s resignation letter 31/8/11

Rev Malcolm Macleod
Clerk to Western Isles Presbytery

Dear Mr Macleod,

I am writing to inform the Presbytery of my decision to resign from the ministry of the Free Church of Scotland and to request that my name be removed from the Register of Retired Ministers.

This has been the hardest decision I have ever had to make and one that I never thought I would have to make - especially at this late stage in my life after 47 years in the ministry of the Free Church and all of them as a member of this Presbytery. I have not come to my decision lightly or in haste. Neither am I motivated by a petulant and defiant spirit that cannot accept defeat: this matter is far too serious for such superficial and infantile reactions. I have come to this painful decision after much soul-searching, reading, consultation, meditation and prayer. I can see no other honest and honourable course of action.

My reasons are as follows:

The decision of the 2010 Plenary Assembly to change our authorised form of worship was unscriptural. No new compelling biblical arguments have been produced in any of the debates and, as Principal Cunningham has so ably argued in his discussion on the power of the church, ‘If God has plainly enough intimated in his Word that it is His Will that rites and ceremonies should not be introduced into the worship and government of the church unless they have the positive sanction of the Scriptures, then this implies that everything which is not sanctioned by Scripture is thereby proved to be, ipso facto, contrary to Scripture, - the introduction and enforcement of it involving a direct contravention of a general principle or rule which Scripture has prescribed for the regulation of this matter; and the whole history of the church most fully establishes the wisdom of the rule which God has prescribed, by exhibiting the injurious effects of departing from it, both when the exercise of this unlawful power was opposed, and when it was submitted to.’ (see ‘Discussion on Church Principles’, p254)

The 2010 decision was also unconfessional, as any fair examination of the Westminster Confession of Faith Chapter XX1, paragraphs 1 and 5 will confirm.

This decision was, furthermore, unconstitutional. This can be substantiated on several grounds.

Firstly, being a departure from the principles set out in the Confession of Faith anent Worship, it follows that the decision is unconstitutional since the Confession of Faith is incontrovertibly part of the Constitution of the Free Church. This was the view taken and stated publicly by the Constitutionalists, whose heirs we supposedly are, when in May 1883 they opposed Dr Rainy's motion to introduce musical instruments into the public worship of God, ‘declaring that although they were taking part in the discussion they were not thereby admitting that it was competent for the Church to sanction instrumental music in public worship as that would be an abandonment of her constitution’.(Free Church Symposium on Purity of Worship June 1987, p12). It is noteworthy that, despite the fact that Dr Rainy carried his motion to the contrary, the General Assembly agreed to engross the document of Protest, which included the above declaration, in their minutes. It is further noteworthy that the March edition of the Oban Times reported that Dr Begg, who presented this document of Protest signed by 71 ministers and elders, and his party, were ‘about to take’ or had ‘already taken the opinion of Counsel on the question whether the introduction of instrumental music squares with the principles and standards of the Free Church’.

Secondly, this decision was unconstitutional because it changed the Formula which safeguards the Constitution. This is true despite the fact that the wording of the Formula and the Questions has not been changed because its meaning or reference has, as Act 48 Class 2, 2011 states: ‘Act 1 Class 2 Nov 2010 allows for a wider understanding of the Questions and Formula with regard to worship’. The supposed ‘wider understanding’ imposes an understanding on the Formula and Questions that was never envisaged by the original authors and cannot be deduced from them. This is absolutely ultra vires and contradictory to the Free Church's own case in 1900: when the Unionists claimed the right to, and the propriety of, adjusting the Questions and Formula, they responded ‘Quoad ultra denied, and explained that the said adjustment of the Questions and Formula…imported an abandonment by the Unionist members of the Free Church, of the Westminster Confession, and, therefore, an abandonment of the constitutional standard of their Church's belief’. (The Free Church Case Allan M'Neil p102)

The supposed provision for the relief of the conscience of any office-bearer who is not in agreement with the new mode of worship now allowed is either a delusion or a deception. No matter what statement is made by an office-bearer when newly ordained or subsequently, the fact of the matter is that he must either subscribe or acquiesce to ‘sincerely own the purity of worship presently authorised and practised in the Church’ and, of course, the worship presently authorised and practised in the Church is Psalms, Hymns and Musical Instruments. Furthermore, he avows that he is ‘persuaded the said worship is founded upon the Holy Scriptures and agreeable thereto" as also to "firmly and constantly adhere to ........and to the utmost of (his) power assert, maintain and defend the said worship’. This is one series of direct contradictions of the supposed conscience-relieving statement just made and amounts to a delusion and a sham.

That the Free Church for which our Fathers fought and suffered in the 1900s should come to such a sorry pass grieves me beyond words. I had hoped, along with many others, that this Presbytery would have taken a stand and hold the line but, sadly and unbelievably, this has proved to have been a vain hope. Not only has the Presbytery not withstood the onslaught, it has now headed the van in progressing the agenda for change since it was the Overture from this Presbytery that secured the approval of the Assembly for the supposed conscience-relieving clause.
A wind of change has most certainly blown through this Presbytery in the past two years to such an extent that I can scarcely believe that it is the same Presbytery. In fact, it is not. Its stance on the current dispute is a far cry from that taken by one of its illustrious former members - Rev Hector Cameron of Back. At the General Assembly in 1883, he strongly opposed Dr Rainy's motion for the introduction of instrumental music into the worship of the Free Church. His overture concludes thus: "Whereas our own Church at the time of the Reformation has been thoroughly purged from, and has since that period to the present day strongly protested against the use of instrumental music as positively unscriptural and, therefore, of the essence of 'will worship', and teaching for doctrines the commandments of men, and whereas for these and other reasons, any Church that may permit the said use of instrumental music must be guilty of dishonouring God, injuring the cause of true religion and vital godliness, as well as damaging her own harmony, peace and prosperity: It is, therefore, humbly overtured by the Free Presbytery of Lewis to the Venerable, the General Assembly, to give no countenance or encouragement to the agitation presumably going on for the introduction of instrumental music into the public worship of the Free Church of Scotland".

The late Principal-Emeritus W J Cameron, a doughty Free Churchman, and an able and authoritative Principal Clerk of the Free Church General Assembly for many years, pronounced his judgment upon this Overture in the following words: "It clearly expresses the position of the Free Church on this question today". (‘Symposium on Purity of Worship’, June 1987, p14)

Sadly, however, this is no longer true. This Presbytery, along with the rest of the Free Church, has now altered course. If history repeats itself, as it so often does, the future of the Free Church is far from encouraging. The late Rev Kenneth Macrae, in his booklet 'The Resurgence of Arminianism' - a veritable tract for the present crisis - made this perceptive and prophetic comment: ‘History indeed repeats itself. One would not need to be greatly surprised should certain brethren one day produce a new Declaratory Act showing the sense in which they take the solemn and weighty articles of the Formula and their Ordination Vows!’(p24). This has now been fully realised in the new so called conscience-relieving statement.

The situation that confronted the Puritans in the Church of England in the 17th century is apposite to our present situation and, although the elements involved in the dispute are somewhat different, the principle involved is the same: that nothing should be introduced into the worship of the Church unless it has the positive sanction of Scripture.

Principal Cunningham is an acknowledged giant on Historical Theology and a founding Father of the Disruption Free Church. His views, therefore ought to carry weight especially with his successors in the Free Church. His judgment on the Puritans' response to the introduction and imposition of rites and ceremonies into the worship of the 17th century Church of England are supremely relevant to the current worship dispute in the Free Church. He states with obvious approval that: "the Puritans had no difficulty in showing that, even independently of a denial of the right or power of the civil and ecclesiastical authorities to introduce and impose such ceremonies, they ought not to have been introduced and imposed, - first, Because of the Scriptural obligation of the general principle to which we have referred, - namely, that it is wrong to introduce into the worship of the Church rites and ceremonies which are not positively sanctioned by Scripture; and, secondly, because the manifest tendency of the introduction and imposition of these things, as established by a survey of human nature and the testimony of experience, is to injure the interests of true religion, and to disturb the peace of the Church. The establishment of these positions was, of course, amply sufficient to prove that they ought not to have been introduced and imposed, and that the parties doing so were violating their obligations and committing sin."
Cunningham then concludes: "On these grounds the Puritans proved that they were under no obligation to comply with and submit to the rites and ceremonies of the Church of England, but might lawfully - that is, without violating any duty or committing any sin - separate themselves from her communion. They did more than this, however. They proved that they were not at liberty to concede, and that they were bound to refuse compliance and submission; and they rested this conclusion on these two grounds: - First, That compliance or submission would have implied, in all fair construction, an acknowledgment of the lawfulness of the power or authority claimed and exercised in introducing and imposing them; and, secondly, That it would have made them partakers in the wrongness of the things themselves so introduced and imposed." (Church Principles, p255 & 256). The relevance of the principle involved in the foregoing analysis to the current dispute surely ought to be obvious.

In view of the action I am contemplating some may be ready to charge me with schism but on that issue I rather accept the judgment of two well-known and highly regarded Puritans whose views on the matter can be gathered from the following quotations:

Jeremiah Burroughs, in his Irenicum, (p 173, 175)
"If one's Departure proceed from his Love of God, his Love to his Saints, and his own Soul, yea, his Love to that very Church from whence he departs, as sometimes it may, witnessing in a gracious Way against the Evil in it; he is far from the Guilt of Schism. If the Cause of leaving Communion be just, then these who gave this Cause are the Schismatics, not these who withdraw upon it: Thus the Governors of the Church may be the Schismatics, and a private Member withdrawing may be free."

John Owen: ‘Inquiry into the Nature and Communion of Evangelical Churches’ Page 180.
"Where is any Church that have taught, or allowed a Mixture of Doctrines or Opinions, that are prejudicial to Gospel-holiness or Obedience? No Man that takes due Care of his Salvation, can join himself to it, when the Fundamentals of religious Worship are corrupted or overthrown, it is absolutely unlawful to join unto, or abide in any Church."

I am thoroughly convinced that the decision of the Plenary Assembly of 2010 is unscriptural, does not have the positive sanction of Scripture and is, therefore, sinful. Furthermore, the imposition of the supposed 'wider understanding' of the Questions and Formula anent worship upon office-bearers is ultra vires, illegal and oppressive and equally sinful. For any office-bearer to comply with or submit to the new mode of worship as now required by the 'wider understanding' of the Formula is, as Principal Cunningham points out ‘an acknowledgment of the lawfulness of the power or authority claimed and exercised in introducing and imposing them’ and makes them ‘partakers in the wrongness of the things themselves so introduced and imposed’. On these grounds I feel that the Church, and especially my own Presbytery, now leave me no option but to resign from its ministry, notice of which I now, with great sadness and regret, submit, and do so without any sense of ‘violating any duty or committing any sin’.

With regards and prayer
Rev Donald MacDonald