The Independence Referendum: the implications for Scotland s established religion

Transcription

1 The Independence Referendum: the implications for Scotland s established religion At their ordination, Free Church ministers, elders and deacons affirm that they approve the general principles set forth in the constitutive documents of the Disruption: The Claim, Declaration and Protest of 1842, and the Protest of Both these documents major on the Spiritual Independence of the church, the distinctive principle for which the Free Church came into being. They also, however, set forth the Establishment Principle, though it is never their main burden. According to the Claim, Declaration and Protest, for example, it is the right and duty of the magistrate to take order for the preservation of purity, peace and unity in the church; and the Protest of 1842, while intimating the intention to separate from the Establishment, asserts at the same time the right and duty of the civil power to maintain and support an establishment of religion in accordance with God s word. These statements reflect the position of the Confession of Faith, Chapter 23.3, but with one significant omission: there is no reference to the magistrate s duty to suppress blasphemies and heresies. These words were proving an embarrassment to the Church, and in 1846 the Assembly made a clumsy attempt to deal with the embarrassment by including in the Act anent Questions and Formula a declaratory statement disowning intolerant or persecuting principles. In other words, the power of the sword must not be invoked against blasphemy or heresy (although the Confession clearly said that it should). The other important element in the background is the religious settlement incorporated in the Articles of Union of The key document here was the Act of Security for securing the Protestant religion and Presbyterian Church government. This Act also confirmed an earlier Act (1690) ratifying the Confession of Faith. The important point here is that the true Protestant religion is defined as that which is contained in the Confession. It is this religion that the Sovereign, on his or her Accession, swears to maintain and preserve inviolably. The 1707 settlement also laid down that these arrangements were to remain in perpetuity, without any alteration thereof for ever ; and the settlement as a whole was to be an essential and fundamental part of any treaty of union. Impact of a Yes! vote Any fears as to the possible impact of a Yes vote in the Referendum must be qualified by the fact that the 1707 arrangements have already suffered significant erosion.

2 1. The Churches (Scotland) Act, passed by Parliament in 1906, significantly undermined the position of the Confession of Faith within the Established Church, by giving the Church power to amend the terms of subscription. It did so, of course, on the request of the Church itself; and in the abstract the Free Church should not deny the principle that it is for the church herself to define her own creed. The historic form of subscription (enacted in 1711 and still in place in the Free Church) had been, I,, do hereby declare, that I do sincerely own and believe the whole doctrine contained in the Confession of Faith. Taking advantage of the new freedom offered by Parliament, the Established Church adopted (in 1910) a new formula: I believe the fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith contained therein. On the face of things this was a replica of the Declaratory Act passed by the Free Church in 1893, and like its predecessor it provided no definition or list of the fundamental doctrines. But there was a subtle difference from the Free Church Act, which had referred to the fundamental doctrines of the Reformed faith. The 1910 Act, by contrast, spoke of the fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith. One obvious effect of this was that the way was now open for unlimited theological pluralism. But the critical fact was that the Confession of Faith was now disestablished; and with it, the Protestant religion which it contained. The Church herself had initiated a violation of the settlement of The Articles Declaratory of the Constitution of the Church of Scotland in Matters Spiritual, included in the Church of Scotland Act passed by Parliament in 1921, carried this process further forward by recognising the right of the Church, while still retaining some sort of special relationship with the state, to modify the wording of its Confession of Faith and to formulate other doctrinal statements (adopt a new one?). The Articles also declare that the present Church of Scotland is in historical continuity with the Church for whose security provision is made in the Treaty of Union of However, it is hard to avoid the impression that in these articles the Church herself is being diminished. Whereas the Act of Security had spoken of the Protestant Religion (the Confession of Faith) as the religion of the people of this land, and of the rights and privileges of the Kirk as established by the Laws of this Kingdom, the Articles Declaratory refer to the Church of Scotland as merely a representative witness to the Christian faith of the Scottish people. This diminished

3 status may explain why, in the last century, the Church has done so little in the public square to defend and promote the Christian faith. 3. The Union of 1929 was secured at the price of weakening the alliance between the Church and the state. Part of the reason for this was that the United Free Church (whose negotiations were led by Principal Alexander Martin, son of the esteemed Free Church, theologian, Hugh Martin) were driven by a jealousy for the church s spiritual independence, probably because they had been stung by the House of Lords decision of They were not, in the main, out-and-out Voluntaries: the Voluntaries remained out of the 1929 Union altogether and continued the United Free Church. But they did all in their power to minimise the force of the Establishment Principle, and this is one reason why it took almost twenty years to bring the union negotiations to a conclusion; and when they were concluded, the state was very firmly put in its place. The most potent symbols of this is that since 1929 neither the Sovereign nor his/her representative (the Lord High Commissioner) is allowed into the General Assembly. He or she is a stranger in the House, admitted to a Throne above the Assembly but not allowed on to the floor of the Assembly itself (by contrast the Free Church allows the Lord High Commissioner to come right up to the Moderator s chair). This UF attitude now appears to be dominant in the Church of Scotland, few of whose ministers any longer regard her as established. This may be because they equate establishment with government interference, but the effect has been that there is less and less inclination to represent to government the Christian faith of the Scottish people. The recent collusion with the Scottish Humanist society to replace religious observance in schools with times for reflection is a blatant instance of such abdication. 4. One clear sign of the erosion of the influence of the established church is that government now clearly feels bound to give the Roman Catholic Church equal access whenever there is a need for state-church consultation. This also applies to all national occasions of a ceremonial nature, and to the composition of Education Committees. The Protestant Religion, as defined by the Confession of Faith, is given no recognition is the public domain, despite the provisions of the Act of Security.

4 And while Roman Catholic representation may be defended on demographic grounds, it sits ill with the guarantees given in the lead-up to the Union of While the main provisions of the religious settlement of 1707 remain on the statutebook they no longer offer any defence against the erosion of Scotland s Christian culture. The legislation (mainly local bye-laws) which protected Sunday as a day of rest, have been swept away. Parliament has legislated to permit same-sex marriages. Hospital chaplains are forbidden to offer to pray with a patient. Biology teachers mention creation at their peril. Job adverts for Christian organisations in receipt of state funding cannot specify Christian applicants. God is being squeezed out of the public square, and neither the 1707 Act of Security nor the advent of a devolved Parliament has been able to prevent it. Will a Yes! vote reverse the trend? There are no grounds for hoping that a Yes vote will do anything to reverse this trend. 1. The devolved Scottish government has already shown its predilection for secularising Scottish life, and this predilection covers the whole political spectrum. For example, SNP, Tory, Labour, LibDems and Greens all supported proposals for same-sex marriage. 2. In future, policy will be determined not by principle, but by demography. The singlefaith, single-culture Scotland which existed up to the 1840s no longer exists. The Christian faith is no longer the faith of the majority of the Scottish people; Scottish Christianity itself is almost equally divided between Protestants and Catholics; and Protestantism is divided into a multitude of denominations. Christianity no longer speaks with one voice, and at the same time other voices (Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Humanists) clamour to be heard. Our own Free Church principles preclude our denying these voices a place. Power, as men like Rutherford insisted, lies with the people, and the people of modern Scotland are a community of communities, struggling to live together in harmony, and each entitled to its own voice. A post- Referendum Scotland will not be able to privilege one community above another. The one balancing factor is that on many public question the People of the Book (Protestants, Catholics, Jews and Muslims) should be able to speak with one voice.

5 3. Independence would provide a separate Scottish government with an ideal opportunity to sweep away what remains of the religious settlement of The most obvious target would be the Accession Oath, though the effect of any change here would be limited so long as the Coronation Oath (in roughly similar terms) is taken by the Sovereign in England. It may also be that an independent Scotland would insist on its own separate Coronation Service (Charles I and Charles II both had Scottish coronations). In that event, there would be considerable pressure for either a multi-faith service or a purely secular one; and the growing intolerance of Christianity would probably lead to other pressures (for example, the prohibition of religious observances in schools, the extension of employment legislation in ways that would limit the churches ability to discipline ministers, tighter regulation on the teaching of creation in schools). Of course, these things might well happen even if the Union remains intact. The point is that a Yes! vote will do nothing to reduce the momentum towards secularisation. 4. The Christianity community has already largely withdrawn from the public square, sometimes due to lethargy, most often on principle. But in the absence of a Christian voice there is nothing to inhibit the emergence of an atheistic state. What should the Church be saying to government? What should the Church be saying to the Scottish Government? The same word should be spoken whether the outcome of the Referendum is Yes! or No! and irrespective of which party is in power. We must be careful not to speak simply in defence of our own (Christian) interests, conveying the impression that we look only to protect our own advantage; and we must be equally careful not to speak out only on the usual Evangelical shibboleths (abortion, euthanasia, homosexuality); or on law-and-order issues (drugs, tougher sentencing). Our calling is to remind government that it is the servant of God, that he is the Sovereign Lord of the public square, and that every politician will one day have to give an account to him; and, above all, to speak for those who cannot speak for themselves: the widow, the orphan, the immigrant, the homeless, the unemployed; and for Scotland s children. But we also have an obligation to speak in defence of government, commending it as a divine ordinance, discouraging the cynicism which currently prevails with regard to

6 politicians, and leading the nation in gratitude that, so far, we live under a constitution which respects human rights and religious freedom. Let s not be part of the chorus of derision.