4/20/07
A number of
conservatives formerly in the Free Church of Scotland (FCS) in the past decade formed
the Free Church (of Scotland) Continuing (FCC), while some left the FCS and
joined with the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland (FPCS). The FCC professes to be the true
continuation of the FCS. The FCC has
much in common with the FPCS, and it is understandable why people would
seriously weigh joining with the FCC.
Here are some questions I would recommend people investigate and inquire
about in weighing the FCC:
1. What do they think
of the matter discussed at http://www.puritans.net/bookreviewseconddisruption.htm
, noting the original point of separation of the FPCS and the FCS?
Do they think they were right to stay in the old Free Church after it passed
the Declaratory Act?
2. I have seen a
prominent FCC minister sing uninspired hymnody in a Dutch Reformed church
service where he was speaking as a visiting minister. Does the FCC
officially tolerate its elders and communicant members to sing uninspired
hymnody when visiting non-FCC churches, or is what I have seen an aberration?
3. I have
reason to fear that the FCC tolerates watching of movies and stage-plays by its
communicant members, despite the impropriety of such as discussed at http://www.puritans.net/movie%20reviews/moviereviews.html
. Does the FCC tolerate watching of movies and stage-plays by its
communicant members?
4.
Some individual cannot necessarily re-locate to an area where there is a
FCC congregation. I have reason to fear that the FCC does not accommodate
such an individual by allowing the person a route to membership, but instead
essentially leaves such to "the best congregation where they reside",
if there are not enough people to form a FCC congregation in their place of
residence, contrary to http://www.puritans.net/news/thoughtexperiment121306.htm
. What is the FCC policy in such cases?
5. One poster to
the Covenanted Reformation Club yahoo list wrote this:
|
"Subject: |
|
||
|
From: |
"Whit R" <covie_pres.1646@verizon.net> |
||
|
Date: |
Thu, Apr 19, 2007
5:49 pm
|
Their Terms of Communion is Session-controlled
Communion. I was asked 2 questions in my Communion examination: (1) Do you love
Jesus Christ? and (2) What is the Gospel? From that examination and further
dialogue with the minister, they admit any Christian that believes the true Gospel
nevermind the Standards and Covenants."
6. Whenever I
posed the question to a FCC seminarian here in Grand Rapids going to Puritan
Reformed Theological Seminary why he did not join with the FPCS, he told me
that he disagreed with the FPCS position regarding Sabbath public
transport. This relates to the case described at http://www.puritans.net/news/sabbathpublictransport042605.htm
. Do their elders likewise disagree with the FPCS on this? 7. Would they
have remained in the FCS save for the Rev Donald Macleod case? For
example, the FCS apparently allowed freemasons as communicant members- what
about the FCC? 8. The historic
Church of Scotland took a position prohibiting jewelry in general, including
earrings, for the reasons described at http://www.puritans.net/news/attire040604.htm
. Would the FCC have separated from the historic Church of Scotland due
to this issue? How do they address the arguments from scripture posed by
the Reformers on this matter, and how do they address other related issues of
attire like make-up, tattoos, and distinctions between male and female dress? 9. What other
reasons did they choose not to join with the FPCS? Or did they try
individually? What were the specific reasons in each case they were
not let in? 10. I have concerns about the way the FCC has
taken certain disputes with the FCS to the government law courts. It seems to contrast with the way the FPCS
handled such situations in its disputes with the old Free Church and more
recently with the break away APC congregations. What is the FCC view regarding I Corinthians 6? 11. I have concerns with their view of continued
right to protest in a synod. What is
their view regarding the right of continued protest in a synod? 12. I agree with the decision to leave the FCS,
but I have concerns about the stated rationale of the FCC to depart over the
Rev Donald Macleod case and form the FCC.
Was the FCC reason for separating from the FCS a valid reason for
separation from a denomination, and what are its implications? Based on the light I
have to this point, here is my current take on denominational affiliation,
explained at http://www.puritans.net/news/biblicalrealism021207.htm : "So long as there is full subscription to the Biblical standards
outlined in the original Westminster Standards and a reasonably good faith
effort on the part of the church assembly to implement those standards, we
should seek to be united to such a denominational church. On the other hand, we ought not to join
ourselves with churches that do not fully subscribe to the Biblical doctrines
outlined in the original Westminster Standards. And we ought not to join with denominations schismatically
formed, when there was already a denomination which fully subscribed to the
Biblical standards outlined in the original Westminster Standards and there was
a reasonably good faith effort on the part of the church assembly to implement
those standards. We ought not to aid
and abet schism in the visible church of Christ in our church membership. If a church meets the scripturally bottom
line conditions, then we ought not to leave it on the fanciful prospect of some
“better” church that could possibly be created." I
think this principle weighs against joining with the FCC, and weighs in favor
of the FPCS.