Mediation

In August 2004 delegations from both sides to the dispute met at Carberry Towers, a conference centre near Edinburgh, for discussion under the auspices of a jointly agreed professional mediator. This series of meetings was helpful in reaching some understanding of the position held by the respective parties and some progress was made. Regrettably, however, the delegation from the residual Free Church were not prepared to contemplate the setting aside of the purported suspensions of our ministers ab initio. They were able only to offer to declare our men as being in good standing if we were to forego any claim to the historic witness and testimony of the Free Church of Scotland.

In a Press Release dated 14/9/04 the Free Church stated:

“The agreement, worked out over 4 days of talks at Carberry Towers, included the proposal for the two churches to recognise each other as separate Christian Churches. Consequently, the Free Church would recognise the FCC ministers as ministers in good standing in a Christian Church, and as a result their ministers would no longer be regarded as suspended ministers.”

In addition, although asserting that they wished to ensure that “none of our ministers would be without a roof over his head and that every congregation had a place of worship,” they were prepared only to lease or to sell redundant properties to us. Title to leased properties would remain in their hands in perpetuity. These proposals were not acceptable to our Commission of Assembly to whom our delegation reported on 5th October 2004.

A Statement to congregations dated 24/9/04 from the (Residual) Church’s Legal Group stated:

“It is also clear now that the FCC want only one thing: they want to be the Free Church of Scotland, but only on condition that those who disagree with them, and Principal Macleod in particular, will not be part of the new Free Church. They want to rerun all the events of the 1990’s. They are now attempting in the Civil Courts what they could achieve in neither the Church Courts nor the Sheriff Court.”

A report in the Press & Journal of 12/10/04 stated:

“They [FCC] are asking the civil court to determine whether the matter of the right of continued protest, with clearly defined limitations, is enshrined in the constitution of the Free Church. The Free Church position is that the FCCs insistence on ‘the right of continued protest’ means the right of a dissentient minority to decide which issues are unconstitutional, to go on refusing to submit to decisions of church courts, and to go on campaigning until the majority agrees with them.”