Does a good maths teacher using an engaging style, and retaining a child’s respect remain a good maths teacher when she/he teaches that the pythagorus theorem is wrong? Does a good primary teacher using an engaging style, and retaining a child’s respect remain a good teacher at the point when she/he teaches that no religion is true? Would a Christian primary teacher remain good at the point they teach that Jesus Christ is the Truth? Could an athiest teach that fact? Absolutely, but only if those that run the schools directed them to do so. Of course then you’d expect those running the schools to be Christians.And who really runs the schools?

(Sorry for the slow reply, been away all weekend.)

Misguided conservatism is a pretty powerful force though, not just some wispy nothing. Unless it’s kept in check, conservatism can easily lay the foundation for legalism, as people lose the ability to distinguish what is genuinely the Christian doctrine and practice of all times and places from the cultural mores and habits of particular times and places where Christians have happened to live. This is a real worry for not uniquely the FPs but all small and dogmatic (in the non-pejorative sense of doctrine-conscious) groups of Christians, and the smaller, more localised, and dogmatic they are, the bigger the risk becomes.

But (in a Pope is Catholic shocker) if I sometimes see the FPs maybe teetering on the edge of legalism I still see them staying more or less on the side of the angels, at least in the sense that they still know the catechism and they’re still good at preaching the free offer of the gospel, and when those who may sometimes err on the conservative side are as often not the hardline true blue figures of popular scorn but lovely dear Christian people who would be an asset in any denomination for their kindness, warmheartedness, prayerfulness and godliness. That’s why the worst I’ll concede is misguided conservativism – in the sense that (occasional nutters aside) people’s hearts are in the right place. It’s largely predictable that confessional churches will generally be conservative, but in the FPs the confessional element is still thankfully stronger than the conservative element.

I’ll second your final para.

Thanks for your response. I agree there has to be a change in attitudes across the board not just with the FP’s. This post, however, is very much concerned with how, in the discussion of union, the FP’s portray themselves and are perceived by others.

I don’t want to get drawn into this debate particularly but if I may give another comment which again I hope will be constructive. It is more of an observation than anything else.

I can say that I have some admiration for any Free Presbyterian who are willing to engage in some genuine critical assessment of the denomination and particularly at a public level. It is commendable in you and I am sure it must raise some eye brows. However, I can’t help but see some irony amidst the ‘pot calling the kettle black’ in your thinking on this discussion. I’m not being critical for the sake of being critical but hope that perhaps it might promote some “careful self examination.” (And we all need to do that.) As you have said, it is not likely that Dr Ross’ paper will bring such reflection.

Your criticisms of Dr Ross’ paper as being “like a gleeful expose of all the flaws and foibles of a hated enemy”, amongst other things, is set against your own criticisms and admissions of “unyielding censure and condemnation.” Although one can detect that you concede such with reluctance and with a lack of real significance as you seek to brush it away with a wispy view of “misguided conservatism” as if that were nothing. If that is a legitimate reason then it would be very appropriate and justifiable to state that Dr Ross’ paper too is just a consequence of “misguided conservatism” (albeit not his own). However that is not how you (want to) see it.

There seems to me to be an issue here where you are willing to concede (and I think deep down you are) that the Free Presbyterian Church displays a critical spirit, so to speak, going beyond that which is characteristic of Protestantism. And when they receive criticism of a similar nature (and let’s be honest, even in tone) then there is, as far as I can tell, a lapse in your consideration.

We are thinking about union between confessional denominations and we can agree that attitudes are of fundamental importance to that. That is why you are so disappointed with Dr Ross’ article and the possible repercussions that it may have towards a genuine spirit of reconciliation and union. Can you then see the irony in your response? It is not likely that other denominations are not going to brush Free Presbyterian criticism away like dust or with a gentle sigh saying, “Oh well, I guess that is just ‘misguided conservatism’ at worst. Ho hum.”

I know, “a crashing disappointment.”

That is not to say that it will not happen and that the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland will not be at the fore of it. But I think it will not happen and should not happen until we all have the mind of Christ. Thank God that He holds it all in his hands and let us pray that the gospel of grace will penetrate our hearts and minds so that we will see a new day.

Thanks.

It’s attitude that is fundamentally the problem here. I honestly don’t know any Free Presbyterians who have an attitude of triumphant jubilation at being separate from those who left at the time of the APC split. I find it actually very hard to imagine what it would be like to have that attitude about another body of believers. Accepting for the sake of argument the charge of “unyielding censure and condemnation”, the worst that can be said about it is that its disapproval stems from misguided conservativism, and gets tiresome. But the overall tone of Dr Ross’s paper was like a gleeful expose of all the flaws and foibles of a hated enemy. Since when were we enemies who hated each other? There is no way this piece could serve as a reality check for Free Presbyterians when it was so blatantly written in anything but a constructive manner. As you say, all it’s fit for is hyping up the opposition – punching the air etc – when actually, we miss you (those who left) and wish the split had never happened.

Hidden under the nasty rhetoric in Dr Ross’s paper, there is after all food for thought – you’re right. See the third bullet point towards the end of the original post. But winsome and warm-hearted it’s not. So it takes all the more effort to find any motivation to take these points on board. This is so disappointing because even if we completely ignore the problem of union, we as Free Presbyterians do need to do some careful self-examination. But when the invitation comes sneeringly from those who clearly view themselves as so vastly more enlightened and liberated than us, it’s only too easy to ignore. Which helps nobody.

This comment thread has so far been a bit underwhelming (sidetracked down rabbit trails and lumbered with overseas punditry). Ross, if you (or anyone else) are local and can continue to offer constructive contributions, it would be good to take the opportunity to engage.

In the meantime, there needs to be a change in attitudes on the part of more than the FPs before any progress can be made.

What Dr Ross’ paper helpfully shows us is the importance of attitude in regard to union. He is being frank and for some Free Presbyterians a little too frank. That is clear in Catherine’s response here. The tone of Dr Ross’ article, rightly or wrongly, almost has one standing with triumphant jubilation after long years of Free Presbyterian “unyielding censure and condemnation”. It is sad to say but I would imagine that many who have read Dr Ross’ article would be suppressing the urge to punch the air with great ‘whoops!’

It is also sad that it may be too much to expect that the “unremitting criticism” in this paper would bring a reality check to some Free Presbyterians on the issue of union with them. Whilst there may be a real longing to see a union of like minded confessional Christians within the Free Presbyterian Church, one gets the impression that the attitude of those who may be in a place of influence towards that continues to be cold and hard. I believe that Campbell and Vogan’s paper demonstrated something of that.

It is unfortunate that those with winsome and warm-hearted Christian faith within the denomination will also be looked upon as the ‘frozen chosen’ as they conform to the world they find themselves in. ‘A good witness’ some would say, but I fear only to the Free Presbyterian Church. Dr Ross’ paper, as well as the above discussion in the comments, highlights how divisive the traditions of man can be. The discussion, as far as I can discern, is concerned with the possibility of uniting around the Westminster Confession of Faith but such traditions demonstrate a lack of proper understanding on the outworking of the regulative principle. The Lord Himself criticised the so called religious establishment of his day. In Mark 7:6-8 speaking to the Pharisees and Scribes He says, “Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, ‘This people honours me with their lips but their heart is far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’ You leave the commandment of God and hold to the tradition of men.”

Unless there is a change in attitudes then it is very difficult to see how there can be even constructive moves towards union.