Reformed
Faith in an Independent Scotland
Having said in a previous post on the differences between the
Church of Scotland and the Free Church of Scotland that “the FCS is generally
hesitant to take stands on issues that do not clearly fall under the oversight
of the church. The CoS, on the other hand, routinely takes stands on a host of
political issues”, I now find that our forthcoming FCS Assembly will be
presented with four papers, (two on either side), on the impending referendum on
Scottish independence.
The proposed deliverance will be:
“The General Assembly note that the General Assembly of 2013 instructed
the Committee 'in consultation with appropriate bodies, to explore the
potential implications which the forthcoming independence referendum might have
in terms of 1) the Establishment Principle, and 2) the recognition and place of
Christianity, the committee to report to the 2014 Assembly'.
The
General Assembly note the four papers examining these matters and encourage all
members of the church to be much in prayer about the outcome of the referendum
later this year. The General Assembly recognise that across the Church there
are a variety of views on independence and that this is a matter for individual
consideration. The General Assembly call on the Scottish Government to
recognise the role of Christianity and Christian Churches in Scotland as it
drafts its proposed constitution and any future legislation.
The
General Assembly deplore the increasing momentum of secularisation in Scotland
and call on the government to ensure that freedom of religion, speech and
conscience are enshrined in legislation. The General Assembly call on the
Scottish Government to remember that their authority is God-given and that they
have a responsibility to speak up for those who are poor, weak and those who cannot
speak up for themselves.”
A number of issues are raised. The first is the Establishment
Principle which we discuss here. The FCS
make somewhat of a fetish on the issue of the Establishment Principle. The FCS father, Thomas Chalmers, is noted as
having declared:
“We hold
that every part and every function of a commonwealth should be leavened with Christianity,
and that every functionary, from the highest to the lowest, should, in their respective
spheres, do all that in them lies to countenance and uphold it. That is to say,
though we quit a vitiated establishment, we go out on the Establishment
principle; we quit a vitiated establishment, but would rejoice in returning to
a pure one. To express it otherwise: we are the advocates for a national recognition
and national support of religion – and we are not Voluntaries”
We should be clear that the difference between Chalmers and
the Voluntaries is not on the general issue of the obligation of the State to
recognise Christianity, but on the issue of providing financial support
to an established church. Chalmers
believed that it was the duty of the State through taxes and other means to
provide endowments for the financial support of the church.
There is an extensive literature on this issue, much of which
has been forgotten. The FCS argued primarily on pragmatic grounds, the
Voluntaries on biblical grounds. Somewhat
ironically, the FCS which was committed to the principle of Establishment
became the supreme demonstration of the power of Voluntaryism as it experienced
tremendous growth through the direct givings of its people.
Remember, the essence of the Establishment Principle is that
the State should provide financial support for the church. I have not actually discussed this with FCS
ministers, but this is “dead in the water”.
A secular state in Scotland, as currently exists, will never financially
support the Reformed church. It would be
no different in an independent Scotland.
Since “The Church of Scotland Act 1921” it is questionable if
even the Church of Scotland should be referred to as the Established Church. It is free of all State control and receives
no State subsidies. It certainly is a
vitiated establishment. It is where the
secular State turns when it is looking for something vaguely religious but not
specifically Christian, or rather vaguely Christian but not specifically
biblical.
No comments:
Post a Comment