Kenneth Stewart's plea for unity

[Solparvus]

This video made rounds on Facebook six months ago. Kenneth Stewart pleas for two denominations, which he thinks have no sufficient reason to remain separate, to become one. Didn't see this posted anywhere on PB.

It is true that a disobedient Israel cannot stand before its enemies (Josh. 7:10-12). At the same time, neither will Canaan be conquered by a divided Israel (Mk. 3:25).

Perhaps there is a certain level of care and prudence for Rev. Stewart's vision to come to fruition in his own context, but Stewart's vision here for unity is refreshing and renewing. Most especially fit for Presbyterianism, which doctrine sells itself on unity.

The Lord grant both purity and unity, so that we may storm the gates of hell.

 

[Logan]

Someone sent it to me when it came out and I agree, I found it very edifying.

 

[Hugues Pierre]

The answers of Revs Calum Smith and James Gracie were precious to have a clearer and more nuanced picture of the situation. At the moment, there are real obstacles to a union between the FCC and the RP.

 

[Solparvus]

The answers of Revs Calum Smith and James Gracie were precious to have a clearer and more nuanced picture of the situation. At the moment, there are real obstacles to a union between the FCC and the RP.

Possibly. I hope my acknowledgment came through in the OP, and I have some slight knowledge of those differences.

At the same time, when I consider the prayer of Christ is that the church be one (Jn. 17), that the world may believe that He sent the apostles, I am becoming more convinced that obstacles to union (formal and internal)--although perhaps real--are not insurmountable. I'm longing for the day in which we actually jump the hurdles.

 

[TylerRay]

What Christian could disagree with an unqualified call for church unity? The Church of Christ ought to be one, and barriers to union ought to be addressed so that they may be taken away. The FCC and the RPCS ought to be one. However, Mr. Stewart's address does not give the full picture. For a fuller understanding of the schism that exists between the RPCS and the FCC, and how that schism can be healed, I recommend the following two-part series.

 

[C4MERON]

Would that the FCS would also be in on a Union however, I also understand there is now an EP issue that is of a fairly major division, not to mention the ‘issue’ that the FCC split with over not too many years ago..

 

[Jeri Tanner]

It is a matter for the most earnest prayer- John 17! As we begin to pray like our Lord prayed then. Only God can bring it about.

 

[Jeri Tanner]

The answers of Revs Calum Smith and James Gracie were precious to have a clearer and more nuanced picture of the situation. At the moment, there are real obstacles to a union between the FCC and the RP.

I would love to hear those if you have links. I had no doubt at the time of Rev. Stewart's speech that there must be obstacles to that union, else it would have happened.

 

[Logan]

For a fuller understanding of the schism that exists between the RPCS and the FCC, and how that schism can be healed, I recommend the following two-part series.

I really appreciate seeing another perspective, but would you be able to summarize? I don't really have time to listen to over two hours of material on this point. Thanks!

 

[Hugues Pierre]

I would love to hear those if you have links. I had no doubt at the time of Rev. Stewart's speech that there must be obstacles to that union, else it would have happened.

You can probably find it on the Partick FCC Facebook page. Rev C. Smith adressed particularly the fundamental issue of Bible text. And Rev J. Gracie adressed the issue of the right of continued protest which is also a fundamental principle of the FCC.

 

[Logan]

Rev C. Smith adressed particularly the fundamental issue of Bible text.

What is "the fundamental issue of Bible text"?

 

[Hugues Pierre]

What is "the fundamental issue of Bible

The issue is concerning the Greek text of the New Testament (Received Text or Critical Text) and, consequently, the versions used in the congregations for Public Worship.

 

[Hugues Pierre]

Possibly. I hope my acknowledgment came through in the OP, and I have some slight knowledge of those differences.

At the same time, when I consider the prayer of Christ is that the church be one (Jn. 17), that the world may believe that He sent the apostles, I am becoming more convinced that obstacles to union (formal and internal)--although perhaps real--are not insurmountable. I'm longing for the day in which we actually jump the hurdles.

I agree that no obstacle is insurmontable. But the different problems should be solved rightly and biblically before any ecclesiastical union takes place. Otherwise, the union can only be a “conspiracy against truth”, as James Begg said. And finally these very same problems, if not dealt with, will weaken the united Church and destroy it inwardly.

But there is hope for the FCC and the RPCS. A union already took place in the 19th century. The Lord is good and powerful.

 

[Logan]

The issue is concerning the Greek text of the New Testament (Received Text or Critical Text) and, consequently, the versions used in the congregations for Public Worship.

That was my guess. So the FCC is TR-only and the RPCS allows for the use of either, and that's one barrier to unity? Just so I'm understanding clearly.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Being realistic, any talk of unity amongst the various Scottish Presbyterian denominations is a non-starter, largely because of the tendency of people on all sides to purity-spiral on extra-confessional issues. The parties involved will deny that they are doing any such thing and that their respective oddities justify them remaining divided, which, I believe, only goes to prove my point.

 

[Hugues Pierre]

That was my guess. So the FCC is TR-only and the RPCS allows for the use of either, and that's one barrier to unity? Just so I'm understanding clearly.

The FCC understands her constitution as requiring adhesion to the TR. So, yes, that’s an issue between the two denominations.

 

[TylerRay]

I really appreciate seeing another perspective, but would you be able to summarize? I don't really have time to listen to over two hours of material on this point. Thanks!

Hey, brother. I'm sorry, but I can't say in a few lines what it took the talented Mr. Beers more than two hours to say. I listened to them again today as I worked, to see if I could summarize them for you, but there's just no way. Really, the addresses themselves are a densely packed summary of the issue.

I think you'll find the addresses helpful, interesting, and edifying if you find time to give them a listen.

 

[Polanus1561]

Does the FCC allow the NKJV?

 

[PointyHaired Calvinist]

Does the FCC allow the NKJV?

Not that I’m aware. I believe they’re KJV-exclusive at least in public worship.

 

[Poimen]

Not that I’m aware. I believe they’re KJV-exclusive at least in public worship.

Our mission work in Smiths Falls has used the NKJV for many years and only recently were we directed by the kirk session to read and preach only from the AV. However the latter was a local decision and not handed down from the General Assembly.

 

[Logan]

Not that I’m aware. I believe they’re KJV-exclusive at least in public worship.

Someone sent me a link and I was watching a couple of the speeches yesterday here, beginning here around the 1:03:00 mark

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=999833574296188

Rev Smith said "...there can be no unity if people in the congregation are using different versions of the Bible...if we really have the will for unity amongst us, we will all make a return to what God has given us: the Authorized Version of scripture."

I don't know if that is the official denominational stand but it does seem like Smith would exclude the NKJV.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

A few months ago, I read Peter Martyr Vermigli argue in his Common Places that when a greater duty and a lesser duty seem to come into conflict, the lesser must give way to the greater or more pressing issue. Vermigli gave several examples from scripture and church history to prove his point. (I need to publish the relevant extract on my blog at some point, as his argument is excellent.) Reflection on this point helps us to navigate a lot of potential ethical problems. It might also be of some relevance to the subject of this thread.

 

[Solparvus]

A few months ago, I read Peter Martyr Vermigli argue in his Common Places that when a greater duty and a lesser duty seem to come into conflict, the lesser must give way to the greater or more pressing issue. Vermigli gave several examples from scripture and church history to prove his point. (I need to publish the relevant extract on my blog at some point, as his argument is excellent.) Reflection on this point helps us to navigate a lot of potential ethical problems. It might also be of some relevance to the subject of this thread.

Please post. I'd like to read this.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Please post. I'd like to read this.

Right, thanks for the exhortation. I will definitely try to do it soon. In fact, I will dig out the volume before I leave for the afternoon, and try to get to it when I get back tonight, Lord willing.

 

[Jake]

Not that I’m aware. I believe they’re KJV-exclusive at least in public worship.

There was an overture from the Free Southern Presbytery in 2021 arguing for exclusive use of the KJV. See acts and proceedings 2021: https://www.freechurchcontinuing.org/general-assembly-acts-proceedings/

The overture stated this:

1. Whereas the Holy Scriptures are the primary Constitutional document of the Free
Church of Scotland (Continuing);
2. Whereas the Westminster Confession of Faith, being a subordinate standard of the Free
Church of Scotland (Continuing), declares that the Old and New Testaments of the Holy
Scriptures being immediately inspired by God, and by his singular care and providence
kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical, so as in all controversies of religion, the
Church is finally to appeal to them (WCF 1.VIII);
3. Whereas the Directory for the Public Worship of God, being a subordinate standard of
the Free Church of Scotland (Continuing), speaks in its Preface of the endeavours for
uniformity in divine worship, which we have promised in our Solemn League and
Covenant;
4. Whereas the Directory for the Public Worship of God, in reference to the public
reading of the books of Old and New Testament, states that they shall be read in the
vulgar tongue, out of the best allowed translation (Of Public Reading of the Holy
Scriptures);
5. Whereas the regulation of public worship is a fundamental concern of Presbyterian
Church government and a vital means of maintaining the unity of the Church;
6. Whereas the Authorised (King James) Version of the Bible alone fulfils all the above
criteria, and is the best translation available in English;
7. It is overtured by the Free Southern Presbytery that the General Assembly take these
premises into consideration and assert that the Authorised (King James) Version of the
Bible is the only English version of the Holy Scriptures which is currently approved by
the General Assembly for use in public worship within the denomination.
Or do otherwise as in their wisdom may seem best

In the end, this was the conclusion:

The General Assembly receive the Overture from the Free Southern Presbytery anent
Scripture Versions to the extent that they appoint a Special Committee on Scripture
Translation with remit to elucidate the principles of Bible translation consistent with the
Westminster Confession of Faith and other authoritative documents, and maintain a record
of English translations that conform to the said principles, the Committee to consist of two
brethren from within the bounds of each presbytery and to seek advice, as required, from
other reformed denominations with whom the FCC maintains close ecumenical relations,
the Committee to report on their progress to the next General Assembly.

The General Assembly receive the Overture from the Free Southern Presbytery anent
Scripture Versions to the extent that the General Assembly commend the Authorised
(King James) Version of the Holy Scriptures for use in the public worship of God.
Against which finding the following entered their dissent: Rev. Greg MacDonald, Rev.
David S. Fraser


My takeaway from this is that the KJV is commended but the premise of the original overture was not to be taken such that the KJV be the only used version in the denomination for the time being. I don't know if there are any updates from the past two years.


Furthermore, I had tried to track down the official position of the FCC a few years back when I was in it. Our church switched from NKJV to KJV in the time I was there. I believe it was at the direction of the presbytery. I could not find a "TR only" position anywhere in writing, and from the days of the Disruption there were supporters and translators of the Revised Version in the Free Church of Scotland among the ministers. I heard when asking that there was more variation of Bible versions in Scottish churches but our presbytery was then conformed to only use the KJV. I know for sure some churches used the NKJV but I could not find definitively if any used other translations.

 

[Solparvus]

What Christian could disagree with an unqualified call for church unity? The Church of Christ ought to be one, and barriers to union ought to be addressed so that they may be taken away. The FCC and the RPCS ought to be one. However, Mr. Stewart's address does not give the full picture. For a fuller understanding of the schism that exists between the RPCS and the FCC, and how that schism can be healed, I recommend the following two-part series.

I finished listening to the first one. Wonderful historical overview from the times of James I to the Revolution. Probably nothing new for those who are already well-studied in the 17th century Covenanter history. I loved Rev. Beers's emphasis at the very end that the Covenanters were truly and mainly in the main thing--Jesus Christ.

I appreciate too his mournful honesty about the sad division and extremism that has taken place in covenanter history, even amongst those whom he believes were most consistent in those days.

Beers expresses blatantly what has made me marvel recently (and indirectly relates to the OP): How is it that documents which were meant to unite have become so divisive?

I trust that through such humility the Father will hear the Son's prayer.

Look forward to the next one.

 

[Solparvus]

Gave the second one a listen. Why the situation today? In the video Rev. Beers is trying to answer the question whether the FCC is a covenanter church, and the idea is to defend in the affirmative, so it's not directly the same issue as in Rev. Stewart's speech, but it is related.

My biggest omission is discussion of the terms of the revolution settlement, but you can get that in the first ten minutes of the second video. So, (this is probably too simplified) to summarize his perspective on the history:

When the Revolution Settlement came in 1690 there were some who “joined” the revolution church. Although they believed that the provisions of the settlement were considerably deficient, some believed they could safely re-enter without violation of principles or conscience so long as they made their protests known upon re-entrance. Therefore, they and 2/3 of the united societies re-entered.

What's important here is, those who re-entered the revolution church did not believe they had ever formally broke off from the church. They had simply engaged in “separate operations” during the persecution times with hopes of acting one with the body again. This was, after all, the church established under covenant. Think of children waiting for the life reformation of an evil mother. She’s still mother, but she is unfit for real family interaction. This covenanted church, according to Beers, is the original root of what is now the Free Church Continuing (explained in a digression after next paragraph). The covenanters had never formally left this church, and the FCC considers itself as part of this very same covenanted church.

However, one third of the people from the united societies refused to re-enter. These stayed outside the church. They continued as societies without ministers for a long time. They organized in 1743 as the Reformed Presbyterian Church. They had one break-off in the 19th century, as the RP church ceased to discipline members for taking oaths, voting, and participating in the political franchise. According to Beers, the united societies had formally broke off in 1690 (perhaps assumedly by refusal to re-enter), though I wonder if some RPs will argue that the united societies were the real covenanter church, continuing the “separate operation” policy of the pre-revolution church, and they’re waiting for the rest of the church to join them.

Digression: How do we get to the FCC? Again, really simplified, and going outside Beers’ lecture, there was a “separate operations” break off in 1733 (the Associate Presbytery) and another in 1843 (the Free Church of Scotland). These two merged in 1852 into today’s FCS. Some RPs (if I remember) entered the FCS in the late 19th century. In 2000 there was a reconstitution of the FCS in which another “separate operation” came about, with hopes of eventually rejoining the FCS. This separate operation is the Free Church Continuing. However, they have kept the exact same constitution as established by covenant in the 17th century.

How might this relate to Kenneth Stewart’s speech?

Beers is making the case that the FCC is true heir to the covenanters, and it was the united societies (embodied in today’s RP churches) that left the covenanted church of Scotland. It would be wrong to join with them because that amounts to saying that the constituted FCC is not the originally-constituted covenanter church. Please view the last 10 minutes of the second lecture for yourself to get the idea. I imagine though that the RP’s feel the same way about joining the FCC.

Now, I just squished a one-hour talk into a handful of paragraphs. This is as concise as I can be without losing the narrative. And I’m trying to write a bit impartially, but Rev. Beers provides more details for his conviction that the FCC is in the right on this matter. I'm glad to try this though, as I'll possibly take a church history exam in the spring.

 

[TylerRay]

Gave the second one a listen. Why the situation today? In the video Rev. Beers is trying to answer the question whether the FCC is a covenanter church, and the idea is to defend in the affirmative, so it's not directly the same issue as in Rev. Stewart's speech, but it is related.

My biggest omission is discussion of the terms of the revolution settlement, but you can get that in the first ten minutes of the second video. So, (this is probably too simplified) to summarize his perspective on the history:

When the Revolution Settlement came in 1690 there were some who “joined” the revolution church. Although they believed that the provisions of the settlement were considerably deficient, some believed they could safely re-enter without violation of principles or conscience so long as they made their protests known upon re-entrance. Therefore, they and 2/3 of the united societies re-entered.

What's important here is, those who re-entered the revolution church did not believe they had ever formally broke off from the church. They had simply engaged in “separate operations” during the persecution times with hopes of acting one with the body again. This was, after all, the church established under covenant. Think of children waiting for the life reformation of an evil mother. She’s still mother, but she is unfit for real family interaction. This covenanted church, according to Beers, is the original root of what is now the Free Church Continuing (explained in a digression after next paragraph). The covenanters had never formally left this church, and the FCC considers itself as part of this very same covenanted church.

However, one third of the people from the united societies refused to re-enter. These stayed outside the church. They continued as societies without ministers for a long time. They organized in 1743 as the Reformed Presbyterian Church. They had one break-off in the 19th century, as the RP church ceased to discipline members for taking oaths, voting, and participating in the political franchise. According to Beers, the united societies had formally broke off in 1690 (perhaps assumedly by refusal to re-enter), though I wonder if some RPs will argue that the united societies were the real covenanter church, continuing the “separate operation” policy of the pre-revolution church, and they’re waiting for the rest of the church to join them.

Digression: How do we get to the FCC? Again, really simplified, and going outside Beers’ lecture, there was a “separate operations” break off in 1733 (the Associate Presbytery) and another in 1843 (the Free Church of Scotland). These two merged in 1852 into today’s FCS. Some RPs (if I remember) entered the FCS in the late 19th century. In 2000 there was a reconstitution of the FCS in which another “separate operation” came about, with hopes of eventually rejoining the FCS. This separate operation is the Free Church Continuing. However, they have kept the exact same constitution as established by covenant in the 17th century.

How might this relate to Kenneth Stewart’s speech?

Beers is making the case that the FCC is true heir to the covenanters, and it was the united societies (embodied in today’s RP churches) that left the covenanted church of Scotland. It would be wrong to join with them because that amounts to saying that the constituted FCC is not the originally-constituted covenanter church. Please view the last 10 minutes of the second lecture for yourself to get the idea. I imagine though that the RP’s feel the same way about joining the FCC.

Now, I just squished a one-hour talk into a handful of paragraphs. This is as concise as I can be without losing the narrative. And I’m trying to write a bit impartially, but Rev. Beers provides more details for his conviction that the FCC is in the right on this matter. I'm glad to try this though, as I'll possibly take a church history exam in the spring.

Excellent summary, brother! I'm impressed.

I'll just add that Mr. Beers makes a strong and earnest appeal for union, but as Jake noted, since the FCC understands itself to be the constitutional Church of Scotland, it would have the be that the RPs reunite with the church that they have stayed separate from for more than three hundred years. To accept Mr. Stewart's proposal would be to deny our constitutional testimony. One thing I thought was strange about Mr. Stewart's address was that he said that the RP Church is older than the FCC; that's not the FCC understanding at all. We had our first GA in 1560. I have to think that Mr. Stewart, as someone who was originally ordained in the Free Church (but did not go along with the FCC when she reconstituted in 2000), would understand that.

 

[TylerRay]

I'll add that the perspective I hold on this subject is my own, and is not necessarily representative of my entire denomination. I don't doubt that there are differing views of these things within the FCC.

 

[Northern Crofter]

I wonder if some RPs will argue that the united societies were the real covenanter church

Yes.

Beers is making the case that the FCC is true heir to the covenanters, and it was the united societies (embodied in today’s RP churches) that left the covenanted church of Scotland. It would be wrong to join with them because that amounts to saying that the constituted FCC is not the originally-constituted covenanter church.

Yes, he is.

We had our first GA in 1560.

And this is the heart of the issue as I see it - both the RPCoS and the FCoS(C) claim (along with the FPCoS, the FCCoS, and the ARPoS, no doubt) to be the "true" continuation of the 1560 CoS. Why can't they all give it up and unify - humbly and in faith surrender their claims (or mutually acknowledge each other's) and unite as the faithful, united CoS by an act of covenant renewal (that is, publicly swearing the Solemn League and Covenant, "each one of us for himself, with our hands lifted up to the Most High GOD")? Get rid of the "Free"s and "Continuing"s and "Presbyterian"s (those terms should all be redundant) and call it the Covenanted Church of Scotland or National Church of Scotland or something that sounds less sectarian to the rest of the world not versed in the intricacies of Scots sharpening their iron on one another (though, admittedly, the rest of the world has often reaped the inked fruits of these theological battles).