RESPONSE OF THE FREE CHURCH OF SCOTLAND (C) TO THESE ONE CHURCH/TWO CHURCH PROPOSED SOLUTIONS

The Report of the Legal and Property Committee of the Free Church of Scotland (Continuing) contains these words: “The Committee is requesting approval from the Assembly for a letter to be sent by the Committee in suitable terms to the other side’s General Assembly formally rejecting both of the proposals emanating from the meeting of their Commission.” The General Assembly received and adopted the Report.

The Legal Report to the General Assembly of the Free Church (Continuing) stated inter alia:

2.2 As an alternative to the proposals approved by our Commission of Assembly, the other side offered as their preferred option what they euphemistically characterised as a ‘One Church Solution.’ Amongst other things, this proposed as a potential resolution of the purported suspension of our ministers, a return to the Courts of the Church that had suspended them and, on the basis of evidence of contrition and repentance for divisive behaviour there was prospect of them being restored. There is the scent of amnesia in this proposal because it was not with divisive behaviour that the men at the Bar of the Commission on 20 January 2000 were charged but the alleged sin of contumacy. This device was of course used more than once during 1999/2000 to ensure that there was no defence available to those summoned to the Bar of Assembly. The cynicism of such a proposal is breathtaking. We can only assume, surely, that the proposal was made in the clear expectation of rejection on our part; in short, a public relations exercise in contrast to a genuine attempt to resolve the dispute in a manner becoming of brethren in Christ. Were they expecting us to abandon the principle of the right of continued protest and accept that it is constitutionally competent for men to be disciplined in the absence of due process? In this connection it must be noted that at the meetings at Carberry Tower in August 2004 both sides agreed the following which was proposed by the other side:

We both regret that no reunion can take place at the present time while the issue of the ‘Right of Continued Protest’ is in dispute between us.

They have therefore already acknowledged that the ‘right of continued protest’ is an insurmountable barrier to reunion between themselves and the Free Church (Continuing).”

The Residual Report also contains contradictions. It states:

“c) This is consistent with Lady Paton’s opinion [76]: ‘…it seems to me that some or all of the pursuers in the present case may be in breach of promises or undertakings made on joining the Free Church. Matters have still to be ruled upon by the General Assembly, but in my view there are at least prima facie grounds of failure by the pursuers (or some of them) to comply with the discipline and government of the church.’ ”

How can the suspended ministers return to the courts of the Church to have their suspensions dealt with on the basis of repentance for matters which Lady Paton says that the General Assembly has still to rule on?