In the 19th Century there were great ‘pamphlet wars’ between ministers and church leaders. At best these helped people deal with the issues, at worst they were emotive personal attacks which did not grace the Gospel.

I suspect the 21st Century equivalent of these are the ‘blog wars’.

I have no desire to get involved in these, whether to start or perpetuate them, however, in the light of the Free Church’s momentous decision to allow change in our worship practice, it seems as though we are under attack, both from within and without, and therefore I want to take the opportunity to answer some of the misunderstanding and misinformation that is being spread.

Let’s begin with the internal criticism. Of course there will be those who disagree strongly with the decision made. That is only to be expected, and that is their right, and indeed can be healthy.

However sometimes this does go a little over the top – and none more so than with the circular letter recently issued by Kenny Stewart of Dowanvale. To be fair to Kenny, and to ensure that I am not misquoting or misrepresenting him, I attach the full text of this circular. My own response to it follows:

Brethren, most of you will be aware that I have taken a month off from duties to allow me time to reflect on a suitable course of action following the decision of last Friday. It seems that the statement I read has gone around the globe but, for now, the part I wish you to consider is this

Last Friday evening, the General Assembly of the Free Church of Scotland voted to change the church’s form of worship so as to permit the singing of hymns and the use of musical instruments. (It does not help matters that the manner in which the decision was arrived at was not, in my opinion, in accordance with the law of the church and against the advice of the Assembly Clerks.)

While it appears obvious to me that all Ministers and Elders who voted for this change have not honoured their vows, I hope you will appreciate that even for those like me who dissented from the decision, the consequences are serious: as I see matters, I am now in a church which requires me to own the new position on worship, to declare that it is founded on the word of God and to assert, maintain and defend it. I must also not attempt in any way to prejudice or subvert it and must follow no divisive course from it. I cannot do any of this. And the church ought not to have required me to do it. Even the church has no right to alter the meaning of my vows without my consent.

Two things in particular need our prayerful reflection and action.

First, while we would like to make a case that we are still under the vows that we took years ago and that, in that sense, nothing has changed, it is clear that this is no longer the case. What we all swore to assert, maintain and defend was what was ‘presently authorised and practiced’ – but that has now changed. Because the Formula defines our relationship to the church all the time, it is a living, on-going document not a dead letter from yesterday. We remain under its terms all the time. We cannot freeze it in the past.

For example, if you were to take a call tomorrow, you would not have the option of vowing to what was authorised and practiced yesterday, only to what is authorised and practiced today. To cite a specific case, I understand that there was an ordination of Elders in Carloway, Lewis on Sunday. These new Elders promised to uphold the form of worship now authorised and practiced and not to prejudice or subvert it. They did not have the option of choosing to vow only for inspired materials of praise – only for the new position which legitimises hymns and musical accompaniment. If you were to take a call somewhere, you would be signing the same formula.

Again, every single office-bearer and Minister now inducted or ordained will sign with a new ‘present practice’. When your own Session ordains new elders, it is with the new understanding and you will be receiving them and welcoming them on those terms. Your next Minister will be required to sign with the new understanding, not the old one. People who agreed with the old position will be unable to take office. Can we really allow such a monstrosity to pass as a law into our church?

In other words, the church has decided, recklessly, to alter its covenant with us all. We cannot pretend that an old covenant is still in force: that one has been broken and we have been forced by a tyrant into a new one.

Second, the Assembly had no right to fly in face of the advice of the two Clerks on Friday evening. The Assembly is simply not free to decide whether a proposed innovation should go under the Barrier Act: it has to do it. It is a constitutional requirement. The amendment which carried, altering our position on worship and the terms of ministerial communion, had never been before Presbyteries but has become law. It is shocking ecclesiastical tyranny.

If the situation can at all be salvaged, steps must be taken to register protest and overturn the decision to dispense with the Barrier Act. For now, I merely wish to know whether you believe this should be done or whether you are prepared to lie under that decision and the new legislation.

With kindest regards, K Stewart

Let me begin on a personal note. Kenny Stewart is a brother, and a man with great gifts. He is an excellent teacher and preacher of God’s Word – one of the best in the Free Church.

However in this letter he seems to have lost his sense of perspective. His accusations are melodramatic, illogical and somewhat OTT. I hope that in his month of ‘reflection’ he will come to realise that. Perhaps the following answers to his accusations will help the reflection.

Accusation 1 – Those who voted for change have not honoured their vows.

Apparently the reasoning behind this is that we have all taken a vow not to change the worship, and therefore those who did, have dishonoured their vows. There are several problems with this accusation.

Firstly why did Kenny not make it during the whole consultation period? He was part of the Trustees group that drew up the report, he produced one of the papers, spoke and both the plenary conference and plenary assembly, and he endorsed the report – a report which gave us all the right to vote as we understood scripture according to our conscience.

Not only did Kenny not dissent from this decision, he spoke in favour of it. And yet, now, after the event, we are being told that even to vote a different way, was to dishonour our vows. Why did he not warn us of this beforehand? Why did he not only agree to go along with, but also speak in support of, the process?

Secondly Kenny’s position on vows is illogical and unscriptural. We have sworn vows, not just on worship, but also on the doctrine, government and discipline of the church.

If it is the case that our vows bind us never to change anything, then it means that the Free Church would be the only Reformed church in the world (excepting perhaps the Free Presbyterians) which is bound never to be Reformed.

If every office bearer has sworn never to change anything in the doctrine, worship, government and discipline of the church, then there is little point in having an Assembly at all. More astonishingly such a rigid view strikes at two doctrines which are at the very heart of what it means to be a biblical reformed church – the headship of Christ and Presbyterianism. The headship of Christ is under threat because, on Mr. Stewarts view, even if Christ told us to change, then we could not do so, because we have sworn not to do so!

The doctrine of Presbyterianism is under threat because there is the danger that the government of the church by elders is to be replaced by the government of the church by lawyers – lawyers who spend their time interpreting an infallible ‘constitution’ from past generations.

Thirdly Kenny’s position is an attack on the integrity of the men of 1905 – whose Act he was seeking to protect. If it is the case that to change a form of worship which you had sworn to uphold, is a breaking of vows, then those who in 1905 changed the church’s position on worship (a position which was in place when many of them took their initial vows), were breaking their vows.

Or perhaps Mr. Stewart means that whatever the church says, its position has to be the one he espouses, and that anyone who disagrees with his position on worship is breaking their vows?

This is not the Presbyterian view of the Church – a church which can never be reformed and a church which can never change anything. It is more akin to Papalism than Presbyterianism.

One of the more disturbing sentences in Kenny’s letter is this “Even the church has no right to alter the meaning of my vows without my consent.” But the vows have not been altered. The practice has. And it is precisely the right of the church to do so.

For Kenny to say that we cannot do it without his individual consent is not the Presbyterian doctrine of the church – but rather a somewhat strange mixture of Western individualism, tyranny of the conscience and a misplaced sense that our individual consciences are the governing force in the church.

Whatever happened to the notion that Christ governs his church, through his Word? Have we been reduced to immobility by the need to seek permission of every individual office bearer?
Accusation no.2 – The Plenary General Assembly acted as an Ecclesiastical Tyrant by not putting the decision through the Barrier Act.

At first this sounds (minus the hyperbolic language) reasonable. But not when you know what the Barrier Act is and the process by which the Plenary Assembly came to the decision. The cry of ‘unconstitutional’ goes up instantly when someone wants to stop a decision they do not like. This is usually done by people who do not know what the constitution of the Free Church is. Having a plenary General Assembly make a decision which it had been empowered to do by two other Assemblies and all presbyteries, is not ‘unconstitutional’ and to claim it is, betrays both a desperation and an ignorance of the constitution which is more than a little disturbing.

Firstly the Barrier Act of 1697. It was introduced because a minority Assembly in the previous years had passed things which did not have the general support of the wider church. In order to enable ‘innovation’ which would not be foisted upon the church without the whole church being consulted, it was enacted that anything which changed things in a significant way by a minority representative assembly should be passed down to Presbyteries so that they could then approve or disapprove. This would then be handed on to the next General Assembly.

The Barrier Act was there to enable change to be made – not as Mr. Stewart’s understanding of the vows implies – to prevent it ever happening.

Secondly the process by which the 2010 decision was made. The Trustees (of whom Mr. Stewart is one) asked the General Assembly to set up a plenary assembly to determine the question of public worship, instrumental music and of what should be sung in worship. This was not to be an advisory assembly – but one which would ‘decide the matter’. It would consist of every single presbytery being fully represented. That this was to be a decisive decision making body was evident by the fact that the Act establishing the plenary assembly had itself to be passed down through the Barrier Act.

Which it was. A majority of Presbyteries ratified it and as a result it came to the next General Assembly which also agreed. Therefore on the 18th and 19th of November 2010 we held a full plenary assembly of all the ministers and an equal number of elders from every Presbytery. It was this plenary assembly which came to the decision.

And it was this plenary assembly that was given the power to do so, by previous Assemblies and the presbyteries through the Barrier Act. Mr. Stewart himself did not dissent against this. It is no use giving a plenary assembly the right to decide on the matter and then turning round, after the result does not go the expected way, and saying ‘you can’t do what we just gave you permission to do’!

Kenny Stewart thinks that this should not have been the end of the process. he thinks that it should have gone down under the Barrier Act to all Presbyteries and then back to the 2011 Assembly (an Assembly which would consist of one third of the ministers and an equal number of elders). He does not seem to realise that to do this would be an abuse of process, absurd and contrary to the Barrier Act itself. The Barrier Act requires that the whole church be consulted. The whole church was consulted and the whole church made a decision at the plenary assembly. Yet Kenny wants to allow this to be overturned by a minority assembly.

It is difficult to see any reason for this other than the fact that Kenny did not like the decision and is basically seeking to use any means to prevent it being enacted. I will leave the reader to judge whether allowing the whole church to decide through a plenary assembly, or seeking to negate the decision of a full plenary assembly by a minority assembly, is nearer to ecclesiastical tyranny.

As a footnote to say we should again say that the report which Mr. Stewart supported stated that it was up to the plenary assembly itself to decide whether any act should go down under the Barrier Act. That is precisely what we did, and by an overwhelming majority (from where I was standing at the front it was about 80%-20%). Why should Kenny seek to overturn such an overwhelming decision?

Accusation no.3 – The decision of the plenary assembly means that those office bearers who want to assert, maintain and defend the current practice on worship, will not be able to do so, because that practice has been changed.

Again, on first reading, like many of Mr. Stewart’s more authoritative statements, this seems reasonable and worrying. And yet, once again, the reality of the situation is not the same as the appearance.

Firstly Mr. Stewart already lives with variety in public worship in the church. He does not think that women should be praying in public, he does not like the NIV and he has strong views both about baptism and communion. And yet he manages to live in a church where there are a variety of views on these subjects. Does this stop him asserting, maintaining and defending his own views on these subjects? Not at all. All that the Assembly decision does is allow the same freedom on the issue of instrumental music and what we sing.

Mr. Stewart and other brethren are perfectly welcome to defend the exclusive psalmody position. They don’t have to defend hymn singing any more than I have to defend exclusive psalmody. To allow such liberty on secondary issues is not the action of a tyrannical church, but rather one which in all humility, knows that we do not have to right to constrain anyone’s conscience, on any matter which is not clear in Scripture.

And we also point out again that according to Mr. Stewart’s interpretation of the vows, any change in worship, doctrine, government and discipline invalidates the vows.

The fact is that the 2010 Plenary Assembly specifically allows office bearers to hold different views on worship providing they fit within the terms of the Act. So for example you cannot be an office bearer in the Free Church if you object to the singing of psalms. You can be an office bearer if you think that only psalms should be sung, and you can be an office bearer if you think that psalms, hymns and spiritual songs should be sung.

Accusation no.4 – The Amendment had never been before Presbyteries.

This is just simply not true. Firstly every single presbytery was fully represented at the plenary assembly so the amendment did come before every presbytery. But perhaps Mr. Stewart is concerned that this came to the plenary assembly as a completely new thing? If that were really the case then his concern is misplaced.

The plenary assembly was called specifically to decide on the matter of public worship, instrumental music and other songs of praise. We had two years of papers and discussions at every level of the church, including presbyteries. Given the four options put forward by the Trustees, Alex MacDonald’s amendment, was in effect option four. It is difficult to believe that anyone found this a surprise. For Mr. Stewart to claim that this had never been before Presbyteries as though this was some arbitrary act imposed by stealth upon the church, is at best disingenuous.

Conclusion:
Kenny Stewart is a fine preacher and teacher of God’s Word. He should return to doing just that. He does not have to accept or to participate in what he would consider to be wrong worship. He can pastor his congregation and show the rest of us ‘the way of God more perfectly’. Or he can push the self-destruct button and cause incredible harm to the Free Church and the cause of the Gospel. Taking a month’s leave of absence to consider one’s options and then to use that month, not to consider, but to campaign against the church, is hardly a constructive use of time and energy.

One wonders why the Glasgow Presbytery granted this. Mr. Stewart is not ill, he still has a wonderful congregation to care for – to be granted a month’s leave of absence in such circumstances, and to use that period to campaign against the church, seems more than a little strange. It is difficult to believe that the Glasgow Presbytery thought this one through properly.

Let me finish by saying that I wish Kenny Stewart well. I want to be in the same church as him. He is one of the leading ministers in the church and one of our most gifted preachers. However on this issue I think he is unbalanced and out of perspective, and his actions have been more than a little disappointing.

Furthermore if one wants to pay the vows game then there is a strong case for arguing that Mr. Stewart is in breach of his ordination vows, by refusing to accept the decision made by the highest court in the church, and instead campaigning for a change in a decision he does not like, by implying illegality, stirring up trouble in other congregations and talking about ecclesiastical tyranny. This is hardly seeking the peace of the Church!

In the Free Church he can continue to argue for his position and seek to encourage others to do so. As can I for mine. I am quite happy for Kenny to not only argue for his position but to practice it, as the current situation in the Free church allows. I wish the same courtesy would be extended to those of us who do not agree. If Kenny got his way we would be banned, not only from having a contrary practice, but even from having a contrary opinion. His position would require that I and many others would be thrown out of the church, unless we agreed.

It is somewhat ironic that Kenny argues that giving people freedom is ecclesiastical tyranny, whereas restricting their freedom is ecclesiastical liberty. It is an Orwellian use of language. Instead of throwing round accusations of vow breaking, improper procedure and ecclesiastical tyranny, I would plead with him to return to what he does best – preaching the Word of God. And to let the rest of us do likewise.

“Pray for the peace of Jerusalem,
May those who love you be secure.
May there be peace within your walls,
And security within your citadels.
For the sake of my brothers and friends,
I will say,’ peace be within you’,
For the sake of the house of the Lord our God,
I will seek your prosperity”

Ps 122:6-9

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 to international students for the University of Dundee Football Club. This article first appeared on his blog, http://www.stpeters-dundee.org.uk/davidblog,and is reprinted with his permission.