I think one of the most distressing and unexpected things I have experienced in 25 years of ministry in Gospel ministry in an evangelical Reformed, Bible believing denomination, is the occasional tendency towards petty legalism.

By this I don’t mean what I would call Gospel legalism (an oxymoron but you know what I mean) – the kind of works righteousness that the human heart is so inclined towards, but Church legalism, where petty minded bureaucracy smothers, stifles, squashes and cripples the work of the Church.

I am not an anarchist. I believe that any society needs rules. Any community, including the church, needs guidelines within which it works. Those who ignore the rules or decry the need for them are not libertarians seeking freedom, but rather they are lazy anarchists who encourage the cult and authority of personality.

I grew up in a church which as far as I know had very few written rules, constitutions and no book of order. Yet the unwritten rules, ethos and shibboleths were even more restraining. It is precisely to avoid the cult of personality and the tyranny of the conscience that I wrote of in my second article, that we have good order, rules and regulations.

Having said that we need to realise that the purpose of rules is to enable not disable. They provide a suitable vessel to facilitate the glorious freedom of the Gospel of Christ. Rules are not there to restrict and hinder. They are there to let free and provoke unto love and good works.

Presbyterian churches tend to have a lot of rules. Why? Partly because we have stemmed from the concept of One National Unified Church. Whatever the rights and wrongs of that, the fact is that since the 19th Century that ideal has disappeared forever from Scottish church life. Yet many of our rules are based upon this notion.

We also operate a system of church government whose language is geared towards the law. We have church courts. I have no problem with the notion that we have such church courts. I have an enormous difficulty when we see them as just church courts – thus elders and ministers become merely administrators of rules. Not shepherds, not teachers of God’s word, not bishops of the flock, but lawyers and politicians. Parliament and the Law Courts are our paradigm, not the ecclesia- the called out, gathered, assembled body of Christ.

Bearing that in mind let me now reflect on how we apply that in the church. Sometimes there is a great ignorance and misuse of the rules. They are ignored and occasionally it seems as though there are different rules for different people – it creates anarchy, favouritism, jealousy and the impression that the powerful rule over the weak and powerless. It is not to be in that way in the church.

On the other hand there are those who use the rules and regulations to maintain their perceived power, their control, their comfort, and as a result end up inhibiting the Word of God. These are those who for the sake of their traditions and rules nullify the Word of God, making it of no effect. In the name of good order and decency, the Spirit is grieved, the people of God frustrated, and the name of Jesus blasphemed amongst the Gentiles. Rulers hide behind rules. They abuse power in the church, forgetting that it is not their power, it is a delegated power. Christ is the head of the church, the rest and best of us are but his servants, seeking to do his will. We dare not play at lawyers and politicians with the Word and Bride of God.

So let’s apply this to our situation today. Before we turn to the Free Church let’s have a look at what our brothers and sisters within the Church of Scotland are having to endure in this respect.

This week I heard on Church of Scotland minister describing the Church of Scotland General Assembly of 2009 as being hijacked by legal chicanery. One presbytery all on its own, ordained a man contrary to the law of the Church and the teaching of the Bible. Yet the General Assembly accepted that the Aberdeen Presbytery were correct because the correct vacancy procedures had been followed.

Yet just before Christmas when that same Presbytery refused to have a debate on its’ association with the so-called ‘Progressive Christianity Network’ – it did so on the technical grounds that such a debate would not help freedom of speech or the unity of the church. Thus evangelicals were banned from speaking in the name of freedom of speech!

Our new politicised liberals know how to use law and the language of Newspeak, to stifle and squash the Gospel. The Word of God no longer reigns – the Principal Clerk does.

But what about the Free Church? Are we in danger of that happening? Yes –we have already experienced this. Anyone who lived through the nightmare of the nineties in the Free Church will know what I am talking about. Endless motions, counter motions, threats of legal challenges, claims and counter claims about legislation. It almost killed the church. And I for one never want to go back to the scenario where the Free Church was almost destroyed by church leaders playing at being lawyers and drowning us in legalese.

Are we in danger of that? I hope not but we have to be vigilant. I am hearing lots of murmurings about ‘constitutions’, ‘my rights’ etc. There is a motion coming before the Glasgow Presbytery for example which states the following “Whereas as a consequence the finding of the Plenary Assembly is at least irregular and possibly incompetent and unconstitutional and might expose the Church to scrutiny in the civil courts;’ It sounds impressive, strikes a note of alarm and a threat at the same time. After all who wants to be ‘irregular, incompetent and unconstitutional’? Who wants to go to law?

The only trouble is that it is utter non-sense. The Plenary Assembly was called by two General Assemblies and went down through the Barrier Act. The act that called the Plenary Assembly gave it power to decide the matter of worship. There was nothing irregular nor unconstitutional or incompetent about it. Not one presbytery, not one Assembly clerk, not one speaker at the Plenary Assembly declared that this was ‘unconstitutional, incompetent or irregular’. This only happened when the issue was decided in a way which did not please some people.

In other words they are invoking the legalese language (in an Alice-in-Wonderland meaningingless kind of way) in a desperate attempt to overturn the decision of the Plenary Assembly. For no other reason than that they do not like it.

And in a further ironic twist the motion that is before the Glasgow Presbytery is itself ‘irregular, unconstitutional and incompetent’. /Why? Because of the implied threat of legal action. It would be helpful if people actually read and knew the history of the Free Church. The very reason we were formed is that we might be free of the influence and control of the State, through its courts, in matters which pertain to the Church and not the State. Our constitution actually says nothing about instrumental music, exclusive psalmody etc., but it says a great deal about the spiritual freedom of the Church to determine its own affairs including its worship.

Part of our constitution is the Claim, Declaration and Protest of 1843. All office bearers swear to uphold its principles. And key to that is that the State has no part to play in the determination of the worship and government of the Church. That is why we are the Church of Scotland, Free. For any office bearer of the Free Church to suggest that the Free Church is NOT free to determine its own worship without the sanction of the civil courts is about as unFree church (and more importantly – unbiblical) as it could be. And to use the threat of civil courts to prevent changes in worship is just simply sinful.

The more serious challenge comes from the Presbytery of Lewis which passed a motion asking the General Assembly to rescind the decision of the Plenary Assembly, not to pass the Act on worship, through the Barrier Act to the Presbyteries. I suspect that this is happening because the movers figure (probably correctly) that it is unlikely that five presbyteries will support the change.

Another example of how petty bureaucratic legalism is a danger is when people use ‘technicalities’ to get their point over. I remember that I was chastised by one now non-Free Church minister for stating that he had said that a fellow minister had committed adultery. He denied having written this on the grounds that he had not written the words ‘committed adultery’ but rather had written ‘had an affair’! This kind of technicality (whereby people make a point which is true but in an attempt to be too clever is actually meaningless and ultimately deceptive) is seen in the Lewis overture.

The overture states “Whereas the matter decided upon was not known until two days before the Assembly came to its finding”. This is really a case of disingenuous special pleading. We had over two years of discussing the matters involved. We all knew when we went into the Assembly what we were discussing and what the options were.

It is of course true that Alex MacDonald’s motion was not available until the Assembly, but his motion did not introduce new material (other than provide for safeguards for those who would not like the change), no-one asked for more time to consider it, no one challenged it’s competence, and it is a post-modern Clintonesque use of the English language to claim that the Presbyteries who gathered, were not aware of what the issues were.

The motion also states that the whole Act should have gone under the Barrier Act so that Presbyteries could be consulted. This again at first glance sounds reasonable, however it ends up defeating its own alleged purpose. All the Presbyteries were consulted because they were all present at the Plenary Assembly – that was the point.

Again it would really help if people knew their history… the Digest of Rules and Procedure of the Inferior Courts of the Free Church of Scotland by Rev Robert Forbes, on page 118 states ‘The Barrier Act was not applied to the Assemblies which convened at Edinburgh and Glasgow in May and October 1843, as they were not representative bodies, but consisted of the whole of the Presbyteries of the Church.’ If it was good enough for the Free Church of 1843, it should be good enough for the Free Church of 2010! This quote also gives the lie to the notion that ‘plenary assemblies are not part of our constitution’, or that the Barrier Act must always apply. For further information about the Barrier Act, have a look at the appendix at the end.

The Lewis overture states

“Whereas the Assembly is expected to act ministerially under Christ, and to carry out such rules as appear to harmonise with His own instructions in His Word, and that consistently with the principles of Presbyterian Government, all reasonable means ought to be taken for keeping the action of the Assembly in accordance with the general mind of the Church;”.

This is correct. And it is what happened. The Plenary Assembly DID act ministerially and did act in accordance with Christ’s word (that is after all what we were meeting to discuss), and we did act in accordance with the principles of Presbyterian Church government (every Presbytery was fully represented), and we did get the general mind of the Church. Consider what the overture is proposing. It wants the act to go to all Presbyteries – a majority of whom have to agree to it. There are eight presbyteries – two of whom are in Canada and have a handful of ministers and elders. It would only take four Presbyteries to vote against and it would be finished. Let us suppose that five presbyteries vote it through, then it would be up to a minority representative Assembly (one third the size of the Plenary Assembly) to agree or throw it out. Can the Lewis Presbytery explain why a Plenary Assembly consisting of all the Presbyteries is not the mind of the church, whereas a one third assembly is?

The other problem with the Lewis Overture is that it also is incompetent. A General Assembly cannot rescind and recall the decisions of a previous Assembly – that would lead to anarchy. I as a minister for example would be faced with a real problem….which assembly should I obey? The Plenary Assembly or the Minority Assembly? A General Assembly can recall the decisions of a commission of Assembly (which the Plenary most certainly was not), but cannot recall the decisions of a previous Assembly.

This is not to say that the decisions of any General Assembly are final in such a way that they can never be changed. There is a proper procedure to be followed. In this case those who want the Assemblies decision changed can follow the same procedure – an overture to the Assembly seeking another plenary assembly or seeking to overturn, which would then go down under the Barrier Act etc. The reason for us having rules is to prevent people making them up as we go along.

Ok – enough. This is so depressing having to write all this and deal with it all. Let’s stop kidding. We all know that the real issue is not whether the constitution or rules of the church were broken. That is not what is motivating people.

The bottom line is that those who are making the fuss just now, just do not like the decision that was made. Some do not like it but are prepared to continue to work together for the sake of the Gospel. But others have a different perspective. To them this is SO important that they are prepared to blow up the whole church rather than give up enforcing exclusive psalmody on the whole church. I will look at why this is such an emotive subject in my fourth article but suffice it to say just now that I really hope that the vast majority of people within the Free Church (whatever their opinions on worship) do not have that distorted and anti-Gospel perspective.

Those who are seeking to use technicalities and petty legalism as a weapon to put the genie back in the bottle need to realise what they are doing. If they succeed they will destroy the Free Church. Why do I use such melodramatic language? Because it is true.

A representative assembly consisting of one third of the Church does not have the right to overturn a plenary assembly consisting of the whole church. If the Assembly in 2011 tried to do that we would have anarchy in the Free Church. If the overture that is attempting to be put through the Glasgow Presbytery were to succeed in the 2011 Assembly, do the movers seriously expect that St Peters, or Smithton or the dozen other churches, who have already changed in accordance with the new 2010 Act, would revert to the old position? Not a hope.

If the Free Church through its proper procedures reverses the position then we would have to go along with it. But not if the Free Church just makes up rules as it goes along. We sought the mind of God. We debated the issue and examined it for over two years. We had a great plenary conference and an excellent plenary assembly. To reverse that by abuse of process, church politics, threats and manipulating rules to prevent change, would be a disgrace and in my view would mean the end of the Free Church as any sort of viable Gospel Reformed church.

Thankfully God is on the throne – and although we may have to fight the battles, we know that all ultimately belongs to him. I would not like to see the end of the Free Church and I am certainly not prepared to precipitate that. But as Thomas Chalmers said – who cares for the Free Church, compared with the Christian good of Scotland?

David Robertson is a minister in the Free Church of Scotland. He is currently serving as the pastor of St. Peter’s Church, Dundee (a pulpit once filled by Robert Murray M’Cheyne. He serves as editor for the Free Church of Scotland Monthly magazine, as well as being chaplain for the University of Dundee. This article first appeared on his blog, http://www.stpeters-dundee.org.uk/davidblog

, and is reprinted with his permission.

Appendix: Neil Campbell on the Barrier Act.

But what about the Barrier Act?
There is a great deal that has been said about the Barrier Act. I am grateful to a real lawyer, Neil Campbell, who is also a Free Church elder and a Trustee for the following summary of the position.

The Barrier Act
I would go so far as to say that, in the current structural set-up within our church, faced with a proposal that an issue should be finally determined by a Plenary Assembly, to insist on further procedure under the Barrier Act is bordering on an abuse of process. The practical upshot of that insistence, were it to be allowed, would be to make it possible for a tiny minority of office-bearers to veto a collective decision of the gathered church.

What is the Barrier Act for?
The purpose of the Act is not to prevent innovation per se. I see no biblical basis at all for presupposing that innovation is bad. The reason for the introduction of the Act is found within the Act itself where it states that its provisions “. . . will mightily conduce to the exact obedience of the Acts of Assemblies . . .” It was clearly recognised at the time that assemblies should not be passing purportedly binding laws that might well be ignored or disobeyed in the church at large. Accordingly, “. . . .General Assemblies . . .” are to be “ . . .very deliberate in making . . .” Acts of Assembly to ensure that they will meet with agreement “ . . .in the more general opinion of the Church . . .”. It should be noted at this point that, for the purposes of the Barrier Act, those who make up presbyteries are viewed as representing the whole church and its more general opinion.

The concern is not directly with whatever consensus may exist among a majority of all office-bearers far less with the majority view held among the total membership.

Presbyterianism is not a democracy in that sense, although our courts should always act with a measure of sensitivity and, in appropriate cases, consult widely.

The Barrier Act was passed at a time when the presbyteries that made up the church were numerous. Assemblies were of necessity relatively narrow in their representation of the wider church. The difficulties of travel, among other things, meant that it was just not feasible to gather all of the presbyteries together in one place (i.e. to have what we would now call a “Plenary Assembly”) to ascertain “the more general opinion of the Church” on important issues. No such difficulties now exist.

A Plenary Assembly can now be convened with relative ease. Such a mechanism for establishing the general opinion of the church is surely just and proper (and in accordance with Scripture – e.g. the council at Jerusalem), particularly in circumstances where our church now has only eight presbyteries and two of these presbyteries comprise a tiny number of office-bearers and lie out with Scotland. As our structure now stands, the reality is that it is quite possible, under Barrier Act procedure, for a negative response from only two of the six main Scottish presbyteries to prevent legislation being enacted.

I would suggest that the framers of the Barrier Act never imagined for one minute that their Act might be used in such a way or that it would construed as preventing General Assemblies convening a Plenary Assemblies with power to legislate finally on a particular issue brought before it for resolution.

I believe honesty also requires us to recognise that while as a presbyterian denomination we may like to refer to the presbytery as the radical court of the church, little now happens in presbytery that could be truly characterised as radical. From my limited experience, open, extensive and informed debate about substantive issues of theology and biblical interpretation is not the stuff of presbytery meetings.

For example, I find it difficult to imagine anything like the frank dialogue some of us had in Inverness last month taking place in all of our presbyteries. If others truly believe otherwise, then I may have to accept that my experience has been unfortunate and made me a cynic but I have heard a lot of other testimonies over the years about presbytery meetings and it is hard to imagine that that they all came from cynics!

Surely the worship issue is just the sort of issue where all those who make up the presbyteries should be gathered together (initially in a Plenary Conference and then in a Plenary Assembly) to focus on the same papers; to hear the same debates, and to be able to interact directly, formally and informally, with those holding differing views. I cannot envisage a better means of securing the greatest measure of consensus and unity within the church at large.

Does the Barrier Act apply at our present stage in the worship debate in any event?
I do not think so for a variety of reasons:-
1) Presbyteries have already spoken. Based on the Board’s previous report, the last General Assembly “ordained” that the matter (i.e. the worship issue) “be decided” at a Plenary Assembly in 2010. The Board’s Report had given the range of disposals in respect of the worship issue that might be decided on by a Plenary Assembly. The General Assembly in ordaining as it did also decided that for such a Plenary Assembly to be convened with such a mandate, their Act should go down under the Barrier Act. That process has been completed and six out of the eight presbyteries have voted in favour of what the last General Assembly ordained. This year’s General Assembly is not of course bound to proceed with last year’s Act now approved under the Barrier Act but equally it cannot amend last year’s Act by, for example, saying that we should have a Plenary Assembly but it will not have power to finally determine the issue. That amendment itself would require further Barrier Act procedure. Presbyteries have already said clearly that they agree that the worship issue should be finally determined by a Plenary Assembly.
2) The Barrier Act only applies to Acts “. . . which are to be binding Rules and Constitutions in the Church . . .” Any disposal of the worship issue by a Plenary Assembly will not fall within this category. It has been expressly recognised from the outset in all the deliberations of the Board and in all the deliberations and decisions of the Assembly that any legislation involving a departure from the status quo will be permissive and not mandatory, in other words, not binding or an imposition.
3) To the extent that the Barrier Act refers to “Constitutions”, some might argue that as our worship practice is one of our “distinctives”, hedged about by Acts and forms of subscription, it must be part of our “constitution”. I do not see that that is the case at all. Our church has changed its worship practice on several occasions, post-1843 and , in so far as it may be relevant, post-1900, and none of these changes was viewed as a constitutional change. Even in the post-1900 litigation, no attempt was made to identify worship practice as a constitutional issue. There is no reason to view the matter differently now especially if we continue to claim to be the true successors of the Free Church of 1843.
4) The fact that proposed legislation might involve the repeal or amendment of a Class 1 Act (i.e. some legislation that was passed under the Barrier Act) e.g. the 1910 Act, does not mean that that amendment or repeal also has to subject to Barrier Act procedure. As it was well put, informally, in a Church of Scotland case, the fact that you used a sledgehammer to crack a nut last time does not mean that you must use it again this time!
5) Subject to what is said above about Acts which are to be binding rules and constitutions, questions as to whether the Barrier Act should apply or whether any proposed Act should be categorised as a Class 1 Act, are matters for the Assembly considering the proposal alone to determine.

Neil Campbell is the Clerk of Session at the Buccleuch & Greyfriars Free Church of Scotland in Edinburgh