Covenant Fellowship Plan of Action (5)

CFS see themselves as the defenders of the establishment and offer to intervene in congregational situations where the members are unhappy or the Session are considering whether they should leave:

“We would like to offer support to congregations which have been divided and damaged by this issue of same-sex relations and to those who are considering leaving the Church of Scotland. We would be happy to meet with Kirk Sessions or congregations in these circumstances and to offer support and encouragement. The message has been widely disseminated that either we stay in the Church, in which case we are tainted and share in the sinful disobedience of the Church at this point, or, we leave the Church. We would appreciate the opportunity to present a third option, namely, remaining in the Church as part of a movement which rejects the decision of the General Assembly and is committed to working for its reformation. We refuse to be compromised but we remain with integrity as those who support the stand being taken by CFS.”  (Underlining added – RMW)

In the first place they offer to work with those divided and damaged by secession.  These terms are emotive, suggesting that the majorities who have left have been divisive and motivated by something other than a concern for truth and a desire to obey the clear teaching of Scripture.  It might also be argued that at the local level those who refused to leave with their minister and the majority or totality of their eldership are the very ones who have proved to be divisive and have, by their adherence to the denomination, damaged the true church. 

In those situations where congregations have left there have sometimes been attempts by the spin doctors of the denomination to portray those remaining as committed to the broad church and its agenda.  Congregations who have remained suddenly find themselves featured on the denominational website celebrating their refusal to defect.

We see this in Stornoway, Isle of Lewis.  Suddenly a liberal former Moderator is interested in attending the installation of the new minister, to show true unity within the broad denomination. Would he have repeated before this congregation his words of invective delivered at the time of the G.A., “Ministers and elders who discriminate against women should “get out” if they are not willing to adhere to the Kirk law…”  It seems that the liberal policy of excluding biblical evangelicals who oppose woman’s ordination can be laid aside in the interest of unity in the face of the ordination of active homosexuals.  I wonder if the congregation in Stornoway would be happy to have this ex Moderator preach in their evangelical pulpit – I presume not, but I might be wrong. 

In another case where the majority of the active members left to form a new congregation the denominational HQ sent an official to “explain” at a congregational meeting of those who refused to leave the Kirk’s law that excludes active opposition to woman’s ordination. There was even a situation where Scotland’s largest evangelical congregation left but the denomination have produced a new congregation by busing in those who were happy to take over the beautiful newly furnished property.  Was there even one member from the former congregation who remained? Whom would CFS counsel in that situation?

CFS dismiss without biblical argument the claim that those who remain in “are tainted and share in the sinful disobedience of the Church at this point”.  But is it not the case that there is such a thing as guilt by association?  “Do not be hasty in the laying on of hands, nor take part in the sins of others; keep yourself pure.”  (1 Tim 5:22) Paul is saying that the recognition of those who should not be ordained is to take part in their sin – guilt by association.  Rather than recognise such false elders we are to refuse them status and thus keep ourselves pure.  Similarly, “if anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house or give him any greeting, for whoever greets him takes part in his wicked works.”  (2 John 1)  Receiving a false teacher and welcoming them, (ex-Moderators included), is to take part with them in their wicked work – guilt by association.  CFS have to show from Scripture that remaining in denominational fellowship with doctrinal and moral apostates does not involve guilt by association.  I do not believe that such a case can be made from Scripture.

CFS speaks of itself as “a movement which rejects the decision of the General Assembly and is committed to working for its reformation.”  Is it only this decision, on accepting active homosexuals in membership and ministry that they reject?  Presumably not, but the danger of this narrow focus is that it thereby appears homophobic.  How will CFS enable congregations to “work for reformation”?  Will it list other decisions of the G.A. and programs of the denomination that must also be resisted?  The fine sounding words must be backed by action and not just pietistic rhetoric.

“A church that ceases to exercise biblical discipline ceases to be a church” (R C Sproul).  I believe that Sproul means ceases to exercise biblical discipline as an agreed policy rather than the occasional failures that might exist in any denomination. A denomination that systematically and knowingly refuses to exercise biblical discipline, and passes laws that enshrine this as a principle, is engaging in sinful disobedience.  CFS have not sought to demonstrate how any congregation can fail to be tainted by a willing and voluntary decision to remain united to such a denomination, particularly in cases where their elders and minister are urging them to separate from apostasy.  I also wonder whether the offer of support and encouragement from CFS to those who refuse to follow the guidance of their local elders is not thereby enabling the very schismatic divisiveness that they claim to stand against.  

I for one would be perfectly happy to meet with those who are considering their future, even to engage in a public debate with representatives of CFS before these congregations, but I doubt that this is the kind of meeting that CFS envisage.