Regarding Donald Macleod and Other Like Pastors: To Our Friends in Scotland and Locally

In a closed society where everybody’s guilty, the only crime is getting caught. Hunter S Thompson


Donald Macleod

I had planned to write on the Donald Macleod travesty last fall. Due to my stepfather’s terminal illness, I put things on hold. He passed away on February 21. I am now in a position to concentrate on this situation.

Due to our wee blog’s recent launch into the public eye with the Jules Woodson story, I have been inundated with emails. I made the difficult decision to start fresh. (How does one answer 2,000+ emails?) I am afraid I may have inadvertently deleted some emails with information on Macleod and other pastors in Scotland so I am asking anyone who sent me information on them to send those emails again.

I would like to post on this matter by the end of March. I believe this story is extremely important. I contend that the victims in this situation were unfairly characterized as liars and I will say why. I also have some information on the actions of the now disgraced and deceased Iain D Campbell in regards to this situation.

It is time that the effects of the #metoo and #churchtoo movement be felt by the Free Church of Scotland.

#Istandwithmacleodvictims

Comments

Regarding Donald Macleod and Other Like Pastors: To Our Friends in Scotland and Locally — 211 Comments

  1. Kia Ora (‘hello’ in Maori) to the wonderful people behind the Warburg Watch,

    I am happy to be a fellow ‘Parsons’ – and I wanted to send you an email and say how much I admire your courage and fortitude. I read the Wartburg Watch weekly (oh alright, almost daily!) and am encouraged to see the generous doses of disinfecting sunlight you liberally apply to the powerful and the petulant ! Keep up the good work!

    I am particularly interested, as a psychologist, on the effect of power on the brain – which we see expressed in the behaviour of leaders like the late Iain D Campbell:

    https://thepsychologist.bps.org.uk/volume-26/edition-3/how-power-affects-brain

    “ One’s place in social dominance hierarchies is one of the strongest, and yet underestimated, shapers of the structure and function of the human brain. When power is unconstrained by democratic controls or good systems of governance, then power-holders may show undesirable distortions in judgment, cognition and behaviour as a results of its drug-like effects on the brain.”

    You are wonderful brave people – keep doing what you are doing!

    God Bless You

    Chris Parsons
    Psychologist

    Aotearoa / New Zealand

  2. @ Chris Parsons:
    Hi, Chris. Welcome!

    I did not know the origin of that phrase. I only knew it as the name of a soft drink produced for the UK market by Coca-Cola.

  3. @ Chris Parsons:
    “The powerful and the petulant.” Love it! Interesting perspective of the impact of power on the brain. It appears to me that power may make brains increasingly tiny over time but that it not official research. 😉

  4. Chris Parsons wrote:

    powerful and the petulant

    Ooohhhhh, I’ll have to remember that …… nice, sophisticated phrase for selfish, spoiled brats!

  5. @ dee:
    Because they wrote “I would be very interested in any related material concerning David Robertson given his most recent blog article.” I assume if you want to know something about a Christian brother or sister you ask them first and that you are not just fishing for dirt and gossip…

  6. @ David:

    As you know, *gossip* is a code word meaning “don’t talk” and you employ it in a typical pattern. Since I assume that you are now commenting on my previous post, I understand. When you write things like I documented in

    http://thewartburgwatch.com/2018/03/05/how-sovereign-grace-churches-and-highpoint-church-demonstrate-the-abusive-cant-talk-rule/

    it is quite easy to see why people might not come to you. Communication is a two way street and you have set up the parameters by listing your views, totally undocumented, of those of us who seek justice for victims.

    When I make a charge I document the behavior that led up to it. To say that any advocate “gets a kick out of being in the know” is ridiculous. In fact, you should have come to me and ask me for some information about why we do what we do. That would be the Christian thing to do. You, too, have made yourself judge and jury on us by your off the cuff remarks.

    There is much in the Don (I know he goes by Donald) Macleod situation that, in light of recent understanding, demands review and I intend to review it thoroughly. In today’s climate, Macleod would not have gotten off so lightly. I have been doing some readings and I believe the victims in this instance just like I believe the victims of Tom Chantry.

    So, if you would like to speak to me on why I am involved in victim advocacy or you just want to delve into my heart a bit on why I don’t “get a kick out of* revealing abuse, I would be happy to speak with you. I, too, am a *wee* blogger. You can ask my why I refer to Donald as Don and if I get any more emails warning me off, I shall start calling him “Bonnie Donnie.”

  7. dee wrote:

    David Robertson wrote:
    You could always contact me and ask for any info you want. That would be the Christian thing to do! @ Forrest:
    Why?

    Here is the sort of response one might expect from Pastor Robertson on the Campbell topic: (from the comments section of “Tragedy in Lewis– A Pastoral Response” The Wee Flea is Pastor Robertson)
    ——-
    mrandmrswhite
    JANUARY 6, 2018 AT 2:21 PM
    I have left a comment on your post about Ravi Zacharias on Premier Christianity. I hope you will read it. Your post about Zacharias and your post on your own blog about Iain D Campbell are similar and liberal and non-judgemental. It is because of men like Campbell and Zacharias that atheists have no interest in Christianity and they think that Christians are hypocrites. I am a Bible-believing Christian and I am weary of Christians who will not roundly condemn men like Zacharias and the adulterous “Pastor” Iain D Campbell and his scarlet women. Those wicked adulteresses should have been put out of the Church in disgrace. Instead they got a slap on the wrist. I am judgemental because the Bible is judgemental and I can judge as long as I am not guilty of the sin I condemn in others. Quit you like men you softly-softly, non-judgemental Ministers and condemn the wicked hypocrites among us who live double lives, that others may fear and watch their conduct accordingly.
    REPLY
    theweeflea
    JANUARY 7, 2018 AT 10:10 AM
    It is not because of men like Campbell and Zacharias that atheists have no interest in Christianity. I have never met an atheist yet for whom that is the case. They have no interest in Christianity because they are dead in sins and trespasses and they are enemies of God! If you are a bible believing Christian then you should act like one and believe what the bible says about not entertaining an accusation against an elder without two or three real witnesses – and the process for church discipline that Christ puts forth in Matthew 18. You seem to think that you have the right to act as judge and jury on the basis of gossip. That is hardly the action of a bible believing Christian. I would suggest that you should take the beam out of your own eye before you take the speck out of others. I have no qualms in being a judgemental minister and telling you that in my judgement it is you who sounds like the wicked hypocrite!
    ——
    Since he’s reading here, let me ask for any info I want.
    Do you still hold to the opinion you expressed in the “Tragedy” article: “I don’t know what happened and I don’t want to know.”?

  8. https://theweeflea.com/about/

    “My name is David Robertson and I am the minister of St Peters Free Church in Dundee Scotland. (the church is famous for being the original church of Robert Murray McCheyne) I am also the associate director of the Solas Centre for Public Christianity”

    He explains he adopted his identity “The Wee Flea” after being banned from posting at a website: “I promptly started reposting under the name ‘the wee flea’…until I was outed and banned again! Anyway I kind of liked the name”

  9. dee wrote:

    behavior

    Yes. Where the rubber meets the road. Evidence and reality, which may contrast with words said.

    Watch what people do, regardless of what they profess or say. This is particularly appropriate in Christian circles where the Gospel is often a spoken word message, but words can be cheap.

    So the “Christian thing to do” is look at behavior, and not just listen to words. TWW is particularly good at this, and provides an opportunity for the community to bring to the fore evidence of behavior, even when elsewhere this is shut down or blocked.

  10. @ Dee Parsons:
    On the MacLeod topic, allow me to repost my comment of a year ago: The lengthy document linked by Esther is most informative, though perhaps biased in favor of the Free Church of Scotland (Continuing).
    It (or my summary) may contain inaccuracies as to Rev Robertson’s role, which he’s free to correct.
    If you can get ahold of Rev Roberts, I imagine he’d be an excellent source.
    ——–
    Dave A A UNITED STATES on Mon Mar 13, 2017 at 11:21 AM said:
    Esther wrote:
    “I would ask you to read if you have time the book “When justice failed in church and State”. There is pdf document of it on this site http://www.freechurchcontinuing.org/images/books/pdf/when-justice-failed.pdf.
    It outlines what took place in 2000 in the Free Church of Scotland: how women who came forward with serious allegations were treated and what happened to the men with integrity in the church, who defended them.”
    Help DEEBS! Although this book is very wordy and about a prior scandal going back over 30 years, it has great application to current scandal. For some reason I cannot copy/paste excerpts as they get translated into computer code. the The concluding remarks on page 67 might just as well be an excellent response to Robertson’s “Pastoral Response”. I’ll try to summarize the involvement of Campbell and Robertson in 1999. (around page 50 in the book)
    In February, the minister of Stornoway’s large central church, Rev Stewart, invited the alleged perp-fessor Macleod in as a guest preacher. At that time Campbell was minister in Back, 8 miles up the coast. (18 years later, Macleod would write Campbell’s obituary, as linked in the OP. ) Some congregants petitioned the session to withdraw the invitation, due to allegations made against and by Macleod having never been resolved. When this was rejected, they began meeting separately and were soon threatened with church discipline. In May, the separatists were discussed in the General Assembly. Campbell, speaking on behalf of the Lewis Presbytery (who are now to be trusted to investigate his death) insisted the issue was not the alleged perp-fessor but separation from the means of grace, which was a “gross scandal” akin to “incest, adultery, trilapses into fornication, murder, atheism, idolatry, witchcraft.”
    Later that morning, Robertson alleged that Rev Roberts, a leader of the anti-perp-fessor association FCDA might be planning to sue. Roberts answered that they were not, but wouldn’t promise not to in the future depending upon the situation. The “divisive” Roberts eventually mentioned that the assembly had been faced with “gross and irremediable wickedness”. Knowing he was referring to the alleged perp-fessor, Robertson twisted Roberts’ words into meaning that the assembly was itself irremediably wicked, which (unlike sexual assault) could not be tolerated. Roberts refused to recant, was not allowed to call witnesses to defend the truthfulness of his accusation, and was eventually defrocked. A gag order was made to silence his friends, who disobeyed and were charged with “contumacy”. By year’s end about 3 dozen churches were on their way out the door, ready to become the Free Church of Scotland (Continuing).
    Know this was lengthy, but it sure beats 70 pages.
    ———-

  11. @ David Robertson:
    Hello David.
    I am genuinely interested in your blog post. Also impressive is your invitation to ask questions. It’s not something I am used too.

    I am sensing a coming Evangelical shift regarding women, porn and sex workers. It does not appear this shift is tied to any one locality.

    Can I ask what prompted your post, and the timeframe leading up to your decision to write?

  12. Jerome wrote:

    https://theweeflea.com/about/
    “My name is David Robertson and I am the minister of St Peters Free Church in Dundee Scotland. (the church is famous for being the original church of Robert Murray McCheyne) I am also the associate director of the Solas Centre for Public Christianity”
    He explains he adopted his identity “The Wee Flea” after being banned from posting at a website: “I promptly started reposting under the name ‘the wee flea’…until I was outed and banned again! Anyway I kind of liked the name”

    Does that mean we are supposed to bow? Seems like some of these pastors see themselves as so high and lofty.

  13. David Robertson wrote:

    You could always contact me and ask for any info you want. That would be the Christian thing to do! @ Forrest:

    For now I am more interested in the views of those who have had dealings with you, David. Good and bad. That may raise questions that I would be happy to put to you at a later date.

  14. @ Forrest:
    Oh, and suggesting that ‘that would be the Christian thing to do’ is a huge red flag. I would counsel against using it too frequently. It comes across as prideful.

  15. Chris Parsons wrote:

    Kia Ora (‘hello’ in Maori) to the wonderful people behind the Warburg Watch,

    I am happy to be a fellow ‘Parsons’ – and I wanted to send you an email and say how much I admire your courage and fortitude. I read the Wartburg Watch weekly (oh alright, almost daily!) and am encouraged to see the generous doses of disinfecting sunlight you liberally apply to the powerful and the petulant ! Keep up the good work!

    I am particularly interested, as a psychologist, on the effect of power on the brain – which we see expressed in the behaviour of leaders like the late Iain D Campbell:

    https://thepsychologist.bps.org.uk/volume-26/edition-3/how-power-affects-brain

    “ One’s place in social dominance hierarchies is one of the strongest, and yet underestimated, shapers of the structure and function of the human brain. When power is unconstrained by democratic controls or good systems of governance, then power-holders may show undesirable distortions in judgment, cognition and behaviour as a results of its drug-like effects on the brain.”

    You are wonderful brave people – keep doing what you are doing!

    God Bless You

    Chris Parsons
    Psychologist

    Aotearoa / New Zealand

    Chris Powers, I am personally familiar with that kind of drunken power, having once been a loyal member of a very toxic cult. A type of euphoria can cloud cold members’thinking. It is very much like being high on a drug when people follow a charismatic leader who abuses their position.

  16. Mercy wrote:

    Does that mean we are supposed to bow? Seems like some of these pastors see themselves as so high and lofty.

    NO DOUBT but ye are the People—your throne is above the King’s.
    Whoso speaks in your presence must say acceptable things:
    Bowing the head in worship, bending the knee in fear—
    Bringing the word well smoothen—such as a King should hear.
    — Rudyard Kipling, “The Islanders”, 1902

  17. Forrest wrote:

    @ Forrest:
    Oh, and suggesting that ‘that would be the Christian thing to do’ is a huge red flag. I would counsel against using it too frequently. It comes across as prideful.

    It’s a One-Upmanship Putdown:
    “I’m So Christian AND YOU’RE NOT!”

  18. Dave A A wrote:

    If you are a bible believing Christian then you should act like one and believe what the bible says about not entertaining an accusation against an elder without two or three real witnesses –

    “real” witnesses? And two or three of them at that.

    Clearly, any evil done in private is totally cool. Do these people ever think??

  19. Forrest wrote:

    @ Forrest:
    Oh, and suggesting that ‘that would be the Christian thing to do’ is a huge red flag. I would counsel against using it too frequently. It comes across as prideful.

    And judgmental – the kind that presumes °they° can perceive your motives and intent by one comment on a blog.

  20. I would say in looking at abuse churches and personalities, a red flag is the overwhelming number of qualifications put on who can speak about any specific problem, and when, and to whom.

    Secrecy is where these things hide.

  21. Forrest wrote:

    @ Forrest:
    Oh, and suggesting that ‘that would be the Christian thing to do’ is a huge red flag. I would counsel against using it too frequently. It comes across as prideful.

    “When someone admonishes you with ‘What Would JESUS Do?’, remind them that flipping out and turning over tables is a viable option.”

  22. Lea wrote:

    “real” witnesses? And two or three of them at that.
    Clearly, any evil done in private is totally cool.

    Feature, not Bug.

  23. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    Lea wrote:

    “real” witnesses? And two or three of them at that.
    Clearly, any evil done in private is totally cool.

    Feature, not Bug.

    And what do you say to a child who comes to you and speaks about the abuse they have suffered at the hands of an adult? I suppose some religious types wouldn’t bother reporting it even if they were mandated reporters, because the child doesn’t have two or three witnesses to bring with them. Sigh…

  24. David Robertson said we could ask him questions. Here’s one:

    Was it gossip when Nathan the Prophet publicly went to King David and said, “You are the man?”

  25. @ Forrest:
    I think my series on Iain Campbell speaks loudly what Christian people would do and should have done. Instead of worrying about ferry schedules on Sundays, I think the Free Church needs to concentrate on the behavior of those in the pulpit.

    Warning to TWW readers-my looking into this situation is going to ruffle some seriously stuffed shirts. They tried the letter last summer which blew up in their faces. What next? I am such a boring wee blogger who has lived a relatively boring life.

    The real concern by the Free big boys is that the libel laws in the USA allow me to post more than can be posted in Scotland. That freedom also allows my posts to be acknowledged by the press in Scotland and Europe. Ouch!

  26. dee

    The real concern by the Free big boys is that the libel laws in the USA allow me to post more than can be posted in Scotland. That freedom also allows my posts to be acknowledged by the press in Scotland and Europe. Ouch!

    Hooray for the Free Press and First Amendment!

  27. Dave A A wrote:

    It is not because of men like Campbell and Zacharias that atheists have no interest in Christianity. I have never met an atheist yet for whom that is the case. They have no interest in Christianity because they are dead in sins and trespasses and they are enemies of God!

    Oh. Ok, I get it now. That’s why the battery in my car died last week….I’m “dead in sins” and an “enemy of God!”. I was on the end of a “smiting”. It was a bit of the “old testament in action” as it were….I’m so glad this has been cleared up.

  28. Jack wrote:

    Dave A A wrote:

    It is not because of men like Campbell and Zacharias that atheists have no interest in Christianity. I have never met an atheist yet for whom that is the case. They have no interest in Christianity because they are dead in sins and trespasses and they are enemies of God!

    Actually, this view relieves them of all personal responsibility. It is also a staunchly Reformed way of looking at things.

  29. Darlene wrote:

    Actually, this view relieves them of all personal responsibility. It is also a staunchly Reformed way of looking at things.

    It also dehumanizes those who don’t think like them. This is why abuse is rife in so many of these churches. I look forward to reading more about this denomination.

  30. @ Jack:
    A few years back when my kids figured out the whole Calvin a stick they had quite a bit of fun with it. ‘But Mom, God planned for me to leave my backpack in the hall’ and so on. Every stumble, broken ankle or mosquito bite was ordained. I am glad they moved on but it was cathartic after being exposed to too much Piper. Lots of smiting going on. 🙂

  31. dee wrote:

    I think the Free Church needs to concentrate on the behavior of those in the pulpit.

    Wise advice for all of us. Line up behavior with words, or maybe they don’t line up. Walk away and in no way financially support hypocrisy or disconnect. Funding a behavior is participation.

  32. @ David Robertson:
    I’m sorry you chose not to hang around and answer the questions that others have put to you.

    @ Dave A A:
    “Since he’s reading here, let me ask for any info I want.
    Do you still hold to the opinion you expressed in the “Tragedy” article: “I don’t know what happened and I don’t want to know.”?”
    Nathan Priddis wrote:

    @ David Robertson:
    Hello David.
    I am genuinely interested in your blog post. Also impressive is your invitation to ask questions. It’s not something I am used too.

    I am sensing a coming Evangelical shift regarding women, porn and sex workers. It does not appear this shift is tied to any one locality.

    Can I ask what prompted your post, and the timeframe leading up to your decision to write?

    Avid Reader wrote:

    David Robertson said we could ask him questions. Here’s one:

    Was it gossip when Nathan the Prophet publicly went to King David and said, “You are the man?”

  33. Comment 1 of 2: “To Our Friends in Scotland”

    Hey – that could be me. I’m in Scotland.

    Hello, everyone.

  34. Comment 2 of 2: Reasons Why Folk Are Atheists

    There has been some discussion on this thread about whether people become atheists because Christians put them off the whole god business, or because they are sinners and enemies of God who hate him anyway.

    Well, it’s not either/or, of course. But religions – atheism included – are a very powerful way of making it feel, viscerally, that is is either/or, and moreover, that everything is part of the same either/or. Everyone is either exactly in agreement with [generic] you, or else they are the polar opposite – they are enemies of everything that you stand for, of all that is good and true, and it is your duty to despise them without compromise. This process does not happen instantaneously, but it happens continually and it is inexorable.

    Richard Dawkins certainly made a fundamentalist religion out of atheism. So a christian who engages in concerted fashion with him and his congregants is highly likely to get drawn into a vicious cycle in which their attempts to convert or push back at one another become more pronounced and their mutual respect tends to zero. This is especially the case if your sales pitch may reasonably be interpreted as: God hates you for being born, and the truth is he’s right to do so because you are worthless scum. But if you join my group, by accepting my claim that you are worthless scum, then God will stop hating you even though – if we are anything to go by – you’ll be exactly the same underneath.

    This may not be what christian sales staff (or “evangelists” as they are known internally) think they are selling. That’s the irony.

  35. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    Comment 1 of 2: “To Our Friends in Scotland”
    Hey – that could be me. I’m in Scotland.
    Hello, everyone.

    I am going to be zooming through Edinburgh on a bus tour in early June. Are you up for a meet up?

  36. Oh no! In the news today:

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/free-church-minister-rev-david-macdonald-is-suspended-kbrbghkjs

    “allegations against the Rev David Macdonald said to be ‘of a most serious nature'”

    “A Free Church of Scotland minister has been suspended after allegations of misconduct. The Rev David Macdonald, 25, was appointed as assistant minister at Back Free church on the Isle of Lewis last year. He was relieved of his duties after leaders of the Presbyterian church became aware of serious claims relating to his conduct.”

    “The church, which advocates modest living and strict observation of the Sabbath, declined to comment on Rev Macdonald’s suspension. It referred calls to Weber Shandwick, a PR firm that specialises in crisis management.”

  37. This David MacDonald was one of several ministers in training that appeared in the reality television series filmed at the denomination’s seminary:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p05w4w55

    Balaich a’ Bhiobaill/Bible Boys – Episode 5 – The boys go from students to full-time ministry in the Free Church of Scotland. “The Western Isles Presbytery…young entrants are being licensed this evening…Innes, David, and Paul”

    https://freechurch.org/news/free-church-ministry-students-to-star-in-bbc-documentary

  38. Lydia wrote:

    @ Dave A A:
    This is church. Sigh.

    Change a few names and the location from Edinbrah to Ground Zero and you could no doubt write a couple similar histories.

  39. @ Forrest:
    I was going to refrain from adding my tuppence worth but some of the remarks made do need to be addressed. Forrest has kindly collected them into a compact comment, which I think is meant to prove something?
    To Dave AA – reading the article in its entirety, it is clear that the answer would remain the same. Context is everything.
    To Nathan Priddis – the article makes clear that it was written in response to the latest manifestation of “something bad has happened, let’s change things so they don’t happen again.” The article sets out a better way that takes into account human nature.
    To Avid Reader – Why would you – or anyone – think that it was gossip? It was a rebuke from God because he “had despised the commandment of the Lord, to do evil in His sight” (1Sam 12:9).
    To Forrest – you should have taken up David’s offer of dialogue. You might have learned something worthwhile.

  40. Jerome wrote:

    “The church, which advocates modest living and strict observation of the Sabbath, declined to comment on Rev Macdonald’s suspension. It referred calls to Weber Shandwick, a PR firm that specialises in crisis management.”

    Hmm. It was not clear from Weber Shandwick’s website that they’re not indulging in separation from the means of grace, which would be – apparently – a “gross scandal” akin to “incest, adultery, trilapses into fornication, murder, atheism, idolatry, witchcraft.”

  41. Lowlandseer wrote:

    To Forrest – you should have taken up David’s offer of dialogue. You might have learned something worthwhile.

    Why do you assume he will deal kindly with Forrest? David has already shown he is willing to make all sorts of claims against bloggers without one jot of evidence .

  42. I wonder if in the context of #MeToo the accusers/victims would be willing to publicly share their full stories?

  43. Jerome wrote:

    Oh no! In the news today:
    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/free-church-minister-rev-david-macdonald-is-suspended-kbrbghkjs
    “allegations against the Rev David Macdonald said to be ‘of a most serious nature’”
    “A Free Church of Scotland minister has been suspended after allegations of misconduct. The Rev David Macdonald, 25, was appointed as assistant minister at Back Free church on the Isle of Lewis last year. He was relieved of his duties after leaders of the Presbyterian church became aware of serious claims relating to his conduct.”
    “The church, which advocates modest living and strict observation of the Sabbath, declined to comment on Rev Macdonald’s suspension. It referred calls to Weber Shandwick, a PR firm that specialises in crisis management.”

    There have ben several of these incidents in the Free Church recently . I wonder-do you think Jesus and the Apostles would have done better with a crisis management team? Now we know they are hiding something. Was it problems with women or men this time?

  44. Samuel wrote:

    I wonder if in the context of #MeToo the accusers/victims would be willing to publicly share their full stories?

    I am attempting to contact them. I believe tat they were treated shamefully and I believe their accounts.

  45. Lowlandseer wrote:

    To Nathan Priddis – the article makes clear that it was written in response to the latest manifestation of “something bad has happened, let’s change things so they don’t happen again.” The article sets out a better way that takes into account human nature.

    Hmmm-I don’t see it that way. I think there is concern that these little problems are being noticed by increasingly sophisticated and aware folks who want this nonsense to stop. The only way to get it to stop is to drag it into the open.

  46. Dave A A wrote:

    Jerome wrote:
    Back Free church on the Isle of Lewis
    Oh no! Campbell’s old stomping ground.

    Yep. I have heard from a number of sources that this one is getting much attention. Hence there is a new gospel initiative in the Free Church called *the crisis management team.* I wonder how they deal with bloggers in the US?….

  47. dee wrote:

    I am going to be zooming through Edinburgh on a bus tour in early June. Are you up for a meet up?

    Like, totally!

    Er – you’ll need to get off the bus, though.

  48. dee wrote:

    Dave A A wrote:

    Jerome wrote:
    Back Free church on the Isle of Lewis
    Oh no! Campbell’s old stomping ground.

    Yep. I have heard from a number of sources that this one is getting much attention. Hence there is a new gospel initiative in the Free Church called *the crisis management team.* I wonder how they deal with bloggers in the US?….

    It would be better for them to fess up and come clean. In the long run it would save them a lot of money and headaches.

  49. @ Dee Parsons:

    To be scrupulously fair, Weber Shandwick don’t – as far as I can see – specialise in crisis management. According to their website, they have 28 specialisms. One of them is “food and drink” – it may be that the denomination has simply called them in to advise on fasting for Lent.

    That would certainly make sense.

  50. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    dee wrote:

    I am going to be zooming through Edinburgh on a bus tour in early June. Are you up for a meet up?

    Like, totally!

    Er – you’ll need to get off the bus, though.

    “Like, totally”.
    Somebody sounds like a teenage girl from California. 🙂

  51. Darlene wrote:

    Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    dee wrote:

    I am going to be zooming through Edinburgh on a bus tour in early June. Are you up for a meet up?

    Like, totally!

    Er – you’ll need to get off the bus, though.

    “Like, totally”.
    Somebody sounds like a teenage girl from California.

    No, yeah, for sure!

  52. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    @ Dee Parsons:

    To be scrupulously fair, Weber Shandwick don’t – as far as I can see – specialise in crisis management. According to their website, they have 28 specialisms. One of them is “food and drink” – it may be that the denomination has simply called them in to advise on fasting for Lent.

    That would certainly make sense.

    How about damage control? What about happened to be one of their specialties? Because it seems as though this Free Church just might need this kind of service. That is, if they’re looking to bury this thing as quickly as possible and come out looking squeaky clean.

  53. Darlene wrote:

    That is, if they’re looking to bury this thing as quickly as possible and come out looking squeaky clean.

    So, they want advice on partial fasting to relieve constipation. I still think my theory makes sense.

  54. Forrest wrote:

    @ Lowlandseer:
    Sounds like you hold him in high regard.

    I find it interesting that somebody who is a former moderator of a church that was established due to its insistence on the separation of church and state uses his position in his church to make so many political statements.

  55. Forrest wrote:

    Forrest wrote:
    @ Lowlandseer:
    Sounds like you hold him in high regard.
    I find it interesting that somebody who is a former moderator of a church that was established due to its insistence on the separation of church and state uses his position in his church to make so many political statements.

    If you read his blog you will see that we have “fallen out” over a number of things. Do your research.

  56. dee wrote:

    Lowlandseer wrote:
    To Nathan Priddis – the article makes clear that it was written in response to the latest manifestation of “something bad has happened, let’s change things so they don’t happen again.” The article sets out a better way that takes into account human nature.
    Hmmm-I don’t see it that way. I think there is concern that these little problems are being noticed by increasingly sophisticated and aware folks who want this nonsense to stop. The only way to get it to stop is to drag it into the open.
    We will agree to disagree

  57. Dee Parsons wrote:

    Lowlandseer wrote:
    To Forrest – you should have taken up David’s offer of dialogue. You might have learned something worthwhile.
    Why do you assume he will deal kindly with Forrest? David has already shown he is willing to make all sorts of claims against bloggers without one jot of evidence .

    Because he makes a genuine offer. And it is the right thing to do. Why do you assume he will not deal kindly without one jot of evidence to the contrary?

  58. @ Lowlandseer:
    Why don’t you go back a couple of posts and read his under the sovereign Grace churches, don’t talk rule. I have a hard time believing that he would be genuine

  59. Lowlandseer wrote:

    Anyway the last ferry before the Sabbath has sailed. See you on Monday.

    LoL! Make sure not to drive that car either. Or make dinner. Or watch TV. Or play a board game. Or……

  60. Jerome wrote:

    “allegations against the Rev David Macdonald said to be ‘of a most serious nature’”

    I should point out that in the various Free Churches in Scotland that could simply mean he went to the funeral service of a Catholic or something of that ilk.

  61. Erp wrote:

    Jerome wrote:

    “allegations against the Rev David Macdonald said to be ‘of a most serious nature’”

    I should point out that in the various Free Churches in Scotland that could simply mean he went to the funeral service of a Catholic or something of that ilk.

    Yes, I believe there was indeed a huge problem some time back when one of their members did just that.

    Lowlandseer wrote:

    Anyway the last ferry before the Sabbath has sailed. See you on Monday.

    This reminds me of the stories that hit the press during and after the major split in the Free Church. The ferry sailings on the *Sabbath* kept getting a mention.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2000/jan/22/religion.uk

  62. Erp wrote:

    Jerome wrote:

    “allegations against the Rev David Macdonald said to be ‘of a most serious nature’”

    I should point out that in the various Free Churches in Scotland that could simply mean he went to the funeral service of a Catholic or something of that ilk.

    C’mon…are you kidding?

  63. 0dee wrote:

    In fact, you should have come to me and ask me for some information about why we do what we do.

    I’m asking.

  64. Darlene wrote:

    Erp wrote:

    Jerome wrote:

    “allegations against the Rev David Macdonald said to be ‘of a most serious nature’”

    I should point out that in the various Free Churches in Scotland that could simply mean he went to the funeral service of a Catholic or something of that ilk.

    C’mon…are you kidding?

    No kidding. To be fair, there are different views within the Free Church, with the more extreme tending to arise within the Highlands and Islands (West rather than North).

    I would also point out that David Robertson has challenged those holding to the more extreme views, such as the the time last year when he went up against Professor McLeod (Lowlandseer may remember that one as he supported McLeod’s views in his comments on that article).

    I am familiar with David Robertson’s blog having been an occasional reader of (but not a commenter on) it for quite some time. He has some views that I would support and others that I do not.

  65. ION: Music

    Listening to my daughter practicing violin. It sounds really good – she’s playing Leonard Bernstein’s “America”.

    Later on this afternoon, I need to practice Rachmaninov’s C major prelude. The finished article, as performed by the great Sviatoslav Richter, sounds like this, and at the moment I can play up to 0:22. It may not sound it, but the next few bars are a lot harder than the opening.

    I don’t sound like Richter yet.

    IHTIH

  66. Erp wrote:

    Jerome wrote:

    “allegations against the Rev David Macdonald said to be ‘of a most serious nature’”

    I should point out that in the various Free Churches in Scotland that could simply mean he went to the funeral service of a Catholic or something of that ilk.

    For those who may find this difficult to believe, the following extract from the wikipedia article on Lord Mackay may help provide some background and useful context to the subject matter of this thread.

    “Mackay was raised a member of the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland; as an adult he was an elder of the church.[1] The church forbids its members to attend Roman Catholic religious services; nevertheless Mackay attended two Catholic funeral masses for members of the judiciary (for Charles Ritchie Russell in 1986,[3] and again for John Wheatley in 1988).[1] Following the second mass Mackay was called before a church synod where he denied that he had broken the church’s prohibition of showing “support for the doctrine of Roman Catholicism”, saying “I went there purely with the purpose of paying my respects to my dead colleagues.”[5] The church suspended Mackay as an elder and withdrew his right to take Holy Communion.[1] The synod met again in Glasgow in 1989 to review the decision; the fractious meeting asked Mackay to undertake not to attend further Catholic services, but he announced “I have no intention of giving any such undertaking as that for which the synod has asked”,[6] and later withdrew from the church. The dispute precipitated a schism, leading to the formation of the Associated Presbyterian Church. Mackay did not, however, initially join the new communion, but now worships with their Inverness congregation.[3]

    As a Presbyterian, Mackay was a firm believer in moderation. At a gathering for the Faculty of Advocates, Mackay had laid on a spread of tea and toast, complete with a tiny pot of honey. One of the lawyers in attendance contemplated the pot and remarked, “I see your Lordship keeps a bee.”[7] Mackay is also the Honorary President of the Scottish Bible Society.[8] He supported the society’s programme to send a bible to every court in Scotland[8] and wrote in support of “The Bible in Scots Law”, a pamphlet it distributed to Scottish lawyers which described the Bible as a “foundational source book for Scotland’s legal system”.[9] He is a strict sabbatarian, refusing to work or travel on a Sunday, or even to give an interview if there is a chance it could be rebroadcast on the sabbath.[3]”

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Mackay,_Baron_Mackay_of_Clashfern

  67. Darlene wrote:

    Erp wrote:

    Jerome wrote:

    “allegations against the Rev David Macdonald said to be ‘of a most serious nature’”

    I should point out that in the various Free Churches in Scotland that could simply mean he went to the funeral service of a Catholic or something of that ilk.

    C’mon…are you kidding?

    No, James MacKay, then Lord Chancellor, was suspended from being an elder and prohibited from taking communion for attending two funerals of Catholic colleagues back in 1989 (this did eventually cause the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland to split). Admittedly the Free Presbyterian Church is more extreme than the Free Church of Scotland which is church involved in the initial post.

  68. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    Well, it’s not either/or, of course. But religions – atheism included – are a very powerful way of making it feel, viscerally, that is is either/or, and moreover, that everything is part of the same either/or. Everyone is either exactly in agreement with [generic] you, or else they are the polar opposite – they are enemies of everything that you stand for, of all that is good and true, and it is your duty to despise them without compromise. This process does not happen instantaneously, but it happens continually and it is inexorable

    There is uncompromising atheism like Dawkins – where it’s all or nothing and then there’s unbelief which is a state of being.
    Like all religions, christianity makes fantastic claims. When one looks at those claims and measures it against what is observed, you don’t really see it.
    So in the old testament, do I believe the first people lived a thousand years or a donkey spoke or a guy killed 600 philistines with an ox goad? Well, no, if I’m honest with myself.
    In the new testament the miracles are more low key but still fantastic with the dead being raised & even people flying around.
    Is this likely? For me,no.
    But that’s the nature of faith. You know without seeing.
    Many here use that good vs evil to guide their actions. But there are also groups that over emphasize gods will. Like we see in some of the churches discussed on this blog. A child is abused for God’s glory. Don’t worry. God will take care of it in the end.
    I don’t think he/she/it will. That makes what we do here and now more relevant. The justice of this world is pretty much the only justice there is and if we don’t do, no one else will.

  69. Forrest wrote:

    I find it interesting that somebody who is a former moderator of a church that was established due to its insistence on the separation of church and state uses his position in his church to make so many political statements.

    These days, “Separation of Church and State” means “MY Church pulling the strings of its faithful enforcer the State.”

  70. Lowlandseer wrote:

    To Dave AA – reading the article in its entirety, it is clear that the answer would remain the same. Context is everything.

    I’m not sure I understand. Do you refer to David’s article of last year and think that he still does not care to know why his friend died?
    Or one of the 2 recent articles mentioned?

  71. @ Jack:
    I don’t “have” to believe such things in the OT because I take into consideration the literary genres of ancient storytelling to make a larger point. We do it, too, in our own ways even after the Enlightenment.. When our team scores big we might say, we mopped the floor with them! And so on.

    On the other hand, miracles are called such because they are rare.

  72. @ Jack:
    My favorite are those, like Piper, who claim God has a secret will. Does he not realize what he is saying about himself? 🙂

  73. @ Lowlandseer:
    Why does what has become public need to be tightly controlled? David called it gossip publicly. He can explain why that is so, publicly. It’s a manipulation tactic. Some of us have seen it too many times. I am curious why he comes off as credible to you in the way he communicates?

    I can promise you before I would talk to any of these “man of God” types, I would have an observer.

  74. Jack wrote:

    The justice of this world is pretty much the only justice there is and if we don’t do, no one else will.

    Quite a nihilistic outlook.
    Presumably you’re not a great fan of the Bible judging by this post?

  75. Forrest wrote:

    I would be very interested in any related material concerning David Robertson given his most recent blog article.

    Why?

  76. Leavesonthebough wrote:

    Presumably you’re not a great fan of the Bible judging by this post?

    A google site: search hints that you’re not a regular commenter. You may not be aware, therefore, that Jack is an atheist and accordingly, is not a fan of the Bible.

    He is, nonetheless, a regular Wartburger (with or without fries), and a supporter of the cause of the poor, the downtrodden and the oppressed. I certainly appreciate Jack’s perspective.

  77. Jack wrote:

    The justice of this world is pretty much the only justice there is and if we don’t do, no one else will.

    Two sides of a square here – i.e. two different routes to reach the same end – but even if God is going to make everything right in the end, ISTM that we remain responsible for addressing injustice in this world when we encounter it. Even the OT description of God preferred justice for the poor over being worshipped.

  78. Lydia wrote:

    Church disciplined or even questioned for attending the funeral of a Catholic colleague. I realize that may be the normal for some, sadly.

    Yes, it is.

  79. Lydia wrote:

    @ Leavesonthebough:
    Church disciplined or even questioned for attending the funeral of a Catholic colleague.

    The Treaty of Westphalis ended the Reformation Wars in 1648.

    It is now 2018 and some STILL haven’t gotten the word.

  80. Erp wrote:

    Jerome wrote:

    “allegations against the Rev David Macdonald said to be ‘of a most serious nature’”

    I should point out that in the various Free Churches in Scotland that could simply mean he went to the funeral service of a Catholic or something of that ilk.

    Folks are referring here to the ‘Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland’ -which had a widely publicised split over this issue 30 years ago- this is a completely unrelated denomination to the ‘Free Church of Scotland’. I know its hard because there’s a dozen scottish denominations with very similar names, but it doesn’t help to confuse them. Attending a requiem mass would still get you in serious trouble in the FP’s, but would be a complete non-issue in even the most conservative of Free Churches.

    Sadly, the charges David Macdonald has admitted to are genuinely very serious.

  81. @ Samuel:
    I think most of us who live in Scotland are aware that they are different, Samuel. However, some of the mindsets can be very similar. I can recognise some of the more legalistic views in many brethren groups also. It’s messy.

  82. Dee Parsons wrote:

    Why do you assume he will deal kindly with Forrest? David has already shown he is willing to make all sorts of claims against bloggers without one jot of evidence .

    Interesting that David stopped in and did not appear to be open to any interaction and displayed little humility. If anything he was yet another example of the imperious type that disdains conversing with us commoners. His terse and reactionary response was entirely human and is yet another example why “atheists have no interest in Christianity.”

  83. Leavesonthebough wrote:

    Lydia wrote:

    Why not?

    Waiting for @Forrest to answer.
    Thanks though.

    Firstly, I don’t think I owe you an explanation.

    That said, I have an interest in power differentials in a church setting. David is somebody with considerable power so it is useful to find out how others have been affected by that.

    I have been aware of his blog and his public interactions for quite some time. I also spent 16 years living and working in Dundee, so you could say that this was home turf for me at one point.

  84. I noticed in a previous post you were uncertain if it was Donald Mcleod who wrote the obituary for Iain D Campbell – it was.

    Your post & query-“Blindsided: The True Story of the Circumstances Surrounding the Death of Iain Campbell
    I believe the obituary that I quoted from in my original post, which appeared in We Love Stornoway (link no longer active), may have been written by Don MacLeod. Since the link has been removed, I cannot be sure and I am willing to be corrected. ”

    This is an abbreviated version of the obituary. The link to the full obituary on their site doesn’t lead anywhere.

    http://www.welovestornoway.com/index.php/churchservices-barra/88-welcome/5872-obituary-of-iain-d-campbell

    The first bit of it says:
    “Following the sad news on Saturday, an obituary for the Reverend Dr. Iain D. Campbell by Professor Donald Macleod is published today on this website.

    “The tragic death of the Reverend Iain D. Campbell has cast a gloom over the island of Lewis such as it has never known in my lifetime; and the gloom is not confined to Lewis.  Iain was a well-known figure in Evangelical circles throughout Britain, and beyond, and tributes have already come in from the USA and elsewhere. ”
    a bit more is on the site.

    A full copy, although not on ‘We Love Stornoway’, appears to be here-
    http://web.archive.org/web/20170503095505/http://www.welovestornoway.com/index.php/obituaries/5871-the-reverend-dr-iain-d-campbell

    I hope I’ve posted this in the correct way & I’m sorry if this info has already been posted.

  85. I would suggest that the post by Dave A A on 9th March this year where he reposted his post of 13th March 2017 does well to recommend the reading of the booklet “When Justice failed in the Church and State” which is available in PDF form. This booklet highlights much of the aftermath of the Civil Trial of Prof McLeod in respect of alleged assault by him on a number of women who went to the Police because the Free Church of Scotland refused to deal with their complaints. There was no trial by the Free Church of Scotland despite the gravity of the Complaints against the Professor, nor was any help or counselling offered to the complainants. In other words no pastoral help was offered by the Free Church of Scotland

    However I must point out that some 15/20 years before these complaints were made by these particular women there were allegations of an adulterous relationship between Professor McLeod and a woman in a congregation in Sydney where the Professor preached while that Congregation was without a Minister. This women was questioned by her married sister who suspected this adulterous relationship, and later by the newly inducted Minister of the Congregation. The Session duly received a report from the new Minister which is enshrined in the approved Minutes of a Session meeting. This report is still enshrined in the Minutes of the Congregation and were not removed in spite of the Session being told to expunge these minutes by a superior Court of the Church. Legal advice to the Session at the time stated that no superior Court has the power to expunge such Minutes which have been signed off as being a true record

    The allegations of adultery arrived in the Post in Scotland together with the evidence of Adultery

    Three men were quietly appointed by “senior men” in the Free Church of Scotland to provide Counsel and Pastoral care seeking repentance from Professor McLeod in respect of this alleged adultery. One of these men was Rev M Roberts.

    After the Civil Trial of Prof McLead the then Minister of the FCoS in Stornoway on the Isle of Lewis (Rev K Stewart) invited Professor McLeod to preach in his Congregation after being cleared of assault made by a number of women. Members of this Congregation petitioned the Session to withdraw this Invitation. In spite of this Petition the Session did not withdraw the Invitation to preach. There was clearly concerns amongst the Congregation as to the presence of the Professor in their pulpit.

    At the 1999 General Assembly of the FCoS these protesters on the Isle of Lewis were defined as separatists and described by Rev I D Campbell as a people “who had separated from the means of Grace which was a Gross scandal akin to incest, adultery, trilapses into formication, murder, atheism, idolatry and witchcraft.” In recent years, after the suicide of I D Campbell, it could be said that his words were a self description of his own decadent sinful life. How could others in Ministry within the FCoS fail to see the Devil in their midst?

    I suggest that having witnessed and heard Rev I D Campbell’s vicious attack on those not wanting Prof McLeod preaching in the Stornoway Congregation that Rev M Roberts was understandably concerned about the situation of gross and irremediable wickednesss which he had observed in the Assembly that day. This was a speech drawn up by the Devil………..it was clearly not of Christ

    Rev D Robertson (the Minister of St Peters in Dundee and the Associate director for the Solas Centre for Public Christianity) was at the centre of serious escalation during the 1999 General Assembly when he questioned Rev Roberts about ‘a “news piece” broadcast earlier on Scotland’s Gaelic Radio. From the floor of the Assembly he alleged that Rev Roberts’s answer to the question was “a threat from a Free Church officer” who had pledged not to follow divisive courses.’ Rev M Roberts responded that “in the Assembly he had been faced with a situation of gross and irremediable wickedness……….” which “if we are facing………we have certain reasons for objecting to it.” Rev M Roberts when on to say “How can I withdraw what I believe in my heart”

    Rev D Robertson called Rev M Robert’s words “breath taking’ and proposed a course of action which would see the end of Rev Robert’s ministry in the Free Church of Scotland in a process contrary to the legal processes of the Church which saw many Ministers and Congregations leaving this portion of the Body of Christ. There should have been a trial. Witnesses should have called and heard. Evidence should have been presented. These things did not happen.

    Some months later Professor Donald McLeod in an article in The Observer Newspaper repeated Rev D Robertson’s perverse assertion made on the floor of the 1999 Assembly that “Maurice Roberts repudiated the authority of the Free Church Assembly and called it ‘irredeemably wicked.’”

    It should be noted that no discussion was allowed on the floor of the General Assembly as to whether Rev M Roberts words were true or not as this would have meant that to give Maurice Roberts the right to call witnesses in his defence would be to put someone else on trial. In other words it was deemed right to crucify Rev Roberts and therefore those who left the FCoS with him in order to safeguard the reputation of another man

    It is interesting to note that in the last few years ago Rev K Stewart left the FCoS because it had been decided that the exclusive singing of the Psalms in the Denomination was optional and that Hymns could be used in Worship if so desired. It seems strange to me that he should resign over this matter when he did not resign over the Church’s refusal to formally investigate the various allegations of adultery and assault made over the years against Professor McLeod. He might have resigned when I D Campbell thus described Members of his Congregation at the 1999 General Assembly……….surely any Minister of the Gospel with a Congregation described thus would not feel content with that situation.

    In looking back over the last thirty five years or so the Free Church of Scotland has clearly been focusing on the protection of man’s so called reputation and standing and has clearly turned its back on the reputation of Jesus Christ. It is no wonder that the FCoS continues to be rocked by Charges of immorality

  86. Forrest wrote:

    Firstly, I don’t think I owe you an explanation.

    Perhaps not, but just as Mr Robertson’s *lack* of engagement was being bemoaned by another poster, I assumed this entirely reasonable request would be reciprocated favourably.

    As it happens, you did explain, so thank you.

  87. Leavesonthebough wrote:

    Quite a nihilistic outlook.
    Presumably you’re not a great fan of the Bible judging by this post?

    Nihilism implies that there is no hope. I believe that ultimately it is up to us and that some religions place so much emphasis on the “will of ” that they forget how much change we can enact using our own free will.
    As a mythology/history study of the bible is interesting. No one can deny its influence on the course of human history. I don’t believe it is the inerrant word of God nor do I believe it was divinely inspired.

  88. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    Two sides of a square here – i.e. two different routes to reach the same end – but even if God is going to make everything right in the end, ISTM that we remain responsible for addressing injustice in this world when we encounter it. Even the OT description of God preferred justice for the poor over being worshipped.

    This is why I believe the world is more complex than our religions make it out to be. Many Christians I know (including the Christian I’m married to) are called to action as part of their faith to make the world better. I think of the parable of the coins in this regard, that someday the master will return and there will be an accounting of the gifts you were given. But there’s a dichotomy too. The Lord that loves all, wiped everything out in a flood – including newborns and children who didn’t do anything wrong. God exhorted the Israelites to wipe out the inhabitants of Canaan to the last man, woman, child and farm animal. This reflects the reality of the bronze age – we often forget that how strong tribal relations were, how for most of human history death is close companion and that’s how war was waged.
    Some religions see it all as binary – and as a result come to some pretty off conclusion like sin leveling where child abuse is seen on equal footing as jay walking.
    It’s just not that simple.

  89. Lydia wrote:

    I don’t “have” to believe such things in the OT because I take into consideration the literary genres of ancient storytelling to make a larger point. We do it, too, in our own ways even after the Enlightenment.. When our team scores big we might say, we mopped the floor with them! And so on.

    On the other hand, miracles are called such because they are rare.

    We all come to our peace with our faith, non-faith or whatever you have in between. The bible was written by humans so reflects the panoply of human behaviour.
    But if the OT is exaggerated storytelling, why is the NT not?
    I have issues with miracles. While science can’t explain everything, I don’t think they’re happening now and if they happened in the first century then God is playing some sort of game where some are worthy of help and some aren’t. You can say that it all evens out in the end but death isn’t the point. Getting there is. What is the point of children dying slow, horrible deaths while a house wife in my wife’s church is “miraculously” healed of her cancer (never mind why such a healing didn’t make the news – her doctor should have been calling CNN).
    Back when I went to church, a missionary came through with miraculous stories of bones being healed in India. The dead being raised (13 confirmed resurrections! count’em, 13!)
    This was when my son was in the NICU after being born. He turned out ok, and I’m thankful but we had walk past rows of little ones in all manner of distress – and see their families. Plus if he can raise the dead in India (which somehow the media of India completely missed) then why are so many others in India grinding to slow deaths of the many diseases brought on by poverty? The Calvinists tell us it’s for God’s glory which actually starts to make sense if you believe God is a preening megalomaniac.
    Whatever the explanation for why we’re here, it’s more complex than Christianity, Islam, Buddhism or Judaism (or any other ism for that matter).

  90. Samuel wrote:

    Folks are referring here to the ‘Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland’ -which had a widely publicised split over this issue 30 years ago- this is a completely unrelated denomination to the ‘Free Church of Scotland’.

    Sounds like the completely-unrelated Judean People’s Front and People’s Front of Judea.

  91. @ Jack:
    I think we missed the point of creation and subsequently Jesus’ conquering death new creation opportunity. 🙂

    Us humans, like Adam, spend more time creating chaos or blaming God than seriously seeking solutions to the problems.

    At least that’s my take. 🙂

    Btw, I buy into miraculous healings about as much as I do ‘Jesus got me a pony for my birthday’. Like you, I’m always wondering why the innocent baby dying of cancer down at the Kosair Hospital isn’t healed.

  92. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    Listening to my daughter practicing violin. It sounds really good – she’s playing Leonard Bernstein’s “America”.

    You always make me smile.

  93. Erp wrote:

    No, James MacKay, then Lord Chancellor, was suspended from being an elder and prohibited from taking communion for attending two funerals of Catholic colleagues back in 1989 (this did eventually cause the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland to split). Admittedly the Free Presbyterian Church is more extreme than the Free Church of Scotland which is church involved in the initial post.

    Thank you fro reminding me of this distinction. I am apt to make such a mistake.

  94. @ Jack:
    Thank you for your comment. For me, I am grateful for knowing a God that will not let Hitler, Pol Pot, and others get away with it just because they died. In spite of my battle for justice, I barely make a dent. It gives me great peace knowing that the rest who escape only escape in this world.

    I always recommend reading the Bible in its entirety as opposed to concentrating on a few verses. At least for me, such an approach helps me to see why the Bible is the book that best represents the world I see around me. We will never eradicate the pervasiveness of sin. Even in my own life, I must struggle with my own failings and I find great peace in knowing the reason for Jesus even when contemplating my own life.

    So, my lie is spent in tension-on the cusp between saint and sinner- a foot in both- forgiven while repentant.

    When I look at this universe and contemplate multiple galaxies and even multiple universes, I have no trouble whatsoever believing in a God who breaks the natural laws for HIs purposes. I also have no problem in a God who is beyond full understanding who has given us a glimpse into Him. Even in heaven, I think we will still not fully understand.

    However, I get why you are where you are at,. My stepfather who just died did not believe in God. As a young jewish boy he hid from the Jews when they invaded Paris. I loved him very much.

    The Bible, even in the Old Testament, discusses justice quite a bit. The difficulty that Christians have is incorporating justice into confession, repentance, restoration and grace. Sadly, those who emphasize grace often do so without incorporating justice into the mix thereby leaving a loophole that allows men like Andy Savage to blow off the sin part.

    One of the things that I like about my Lutheran church (I have been a Lutheran now for 3 years) if the confession prior to communion. I feel like I sense live out the entirety of my Christian walk during the service.

    Well this was sure a rambling series of thoughts. Please forgive me. Usually I do a bit better than this.

  95. dee wrote:

    Well this was sure a rambling series of thoughts. Please forgive me. Usually I do a bit better than this.

    I appreciate the forum to have a frank discussion. There are not many places where you can have such civilized discourse about disparate beliefs.

    I think there are many roads to the truth and you have a very balanced way of fitting faith with the world as you have experienced it.

    I’m sorry for the loss of your stepfather. I do believe that a persons “goodness” can transcend their life. If this pluralistic world is really overseen by a just God then heaven may be more crowded than we think.

  96. I suggest that anyone interested to learn more about I D Campbell can get a taste of the nature of the man should read a critique of an article published in the Monthly Record the magazine of the Free Church of Scotland written as matters in the Free Church where coming to a head. the critique was written by Rev D Blunt
    Please note that that those under threat came together as the Free Church Defence Association
    This article can be read in full on
    myweb.tiscali.co.uk/theword/foundations/response2.html

    I paste in below part of this article;
    “Mr. Campbell has accused us of belligerence but we think that his attitude toward us is far more severe than the one we have adopted. He says with reference to the FCDA: “It is time to cast out the bondwoman and her sons.” The allusion of course is to Galatians chapter 4. He pictures the ministers who support the FCDA as being of the same character as wild Ishmael, “born after the flesh,” while he and others like-minded are “as Isaac was, the children of promise,” being “born after the Spirit” (vv.28-29). We are the persecutors and we have no right to be “heirs” with Mr. Campbell and his friends. It appears that we are not even to be accounted as regenerate in his eyes. This is unspeakably sad. We thought that a regard for facts and a love for truth and righteousness were marks of conversion.
    We leave aside Mr. Campbell’s attempts to read our hearts and to know our innermost thoughts and motives. History will judge who are the rightful “heirs” of the historic Free Church and its testimony. We earnestly desire reconciliation with our brethren ­ but we desire a principled one. The peace the Free Church needs will never be secured except on the basis of truth and justice. For these things we will continue to campaign, the Lord willing, until we are put out of the church if needs be. A church abandoning such fundamental virtues would hardly be worthy any more of that honourable title, the Free Church of Scotland.”

  97. @ Highlander:
    That’s quite an interesting read. I wonder if Campbell was already doing the same sort of things himself as Prof MacLeod was back then. A few years ago I asked some folks from the Free Church of Scotland (Continuing) about the name, and they explained there’d been a split from the FCoS. Little did I know I’d now have many details about said split and how they’d formerly been Stornoway Relief Free Church.
    The article reminds me that last year I read something in a FCoS publication about I D Campbell. The author strongly implied he’d gone to hell, but didn’t explain whether he thought it was due to the manner of Campbell’s life, or of his death, or due to fore-ordination. My impression was that the thought of his former colleague (maybe friend) suffering damnation was a matter of little concern, as was the question of how they could have been so fooled for so long by such a wolf.

  98. It should be noted that Rev D Robertson the Moderator of the 2015 General Assembly of the Free Church of Scotland in his Moderatorial Address (which received a standing ovation) said “it was good to hear Dr Andrew MacGowan of Covenant Fellowship urging Presbyteries to disobey their General Assembly. Let me assure Covenant Fellowship that we will stand all the way with you in your covenant disobedience.”

    In other words he was encouraging Officers of the CoS who also had pledged not to follow divisive courses, to ignore the rulings of their Superior Court, offering the full support of the FCoS in this act of disobedience

    Some fifteen years earlier Rev D Robertson set in train a series of actions by the General Assembly of the FCoS levelling the accusation that Rev M Roberts had uttered such words that “were a threat from a Free Church Officer who had pledged not to follow divisive courses” which resulted ultimately in the split of the FCoS

    It seems to me that Rev D Robertson displays double standards showing such wanton inconsistency in that he encourages disobedience having highlighted and condemned and it could be said punished such alleged action by Rev M Roberts. Surely he is bringing shame upon the Gospel Ministry. It is no wonder that the world laughs and throws scorn upon those who profess to love and serve the Lord Jesus Christ

  99. Summary
    1995 General Assembly
    In 1995 the General Assembly of the Free Church terminated the investigations into allegations against Peofessor Donald Macleod .It can be shown that the 1995 Finding was unsafe for the following reasons, inter alia,

    1)The General Assembly came to its decision having been misled regarding what constituted admissible evidence in a formal process:
    The Moorov Doctrine
    The Moorov Doctrine was referred to within the Report to the !995 Assembly. The Report claimed that: “…this doctrine has never been recognised by the Free Church of Scotland as a just principle in the use of…”. If this statement is correct, it would effectively mean that the Church could not proceed with any charge of immorality or sexual assault which had been denied unless there were corroborating witnesses, which is not normally the case with such allegations. However, this assertion is, in fact, incorrect. The principle of cumulative evidence as endorsed by the Moorov Doctrine i.e. several individual complaints unwitnessed by third parties, had previously been accepted in the disciplinary case of Rev. Alexander Cant Kay in the Free Church Assembly of 1880.
    2)The General Assembly came to its decision despite the fact that Professor Macleod had not been interviewed with regard to three of the allegations. The Assembly was never made aware of this fact.
    3) The General Assembly was not informed of the existence of evidence from de recenti witnesses,( i.e witnesses to whom the complainants had spoken at or near the time of the alleged incident)which was fundamental to the credibility of the complainants.
    4) The General Assembly came to its decision on the basis of a report which was biased and misleading.
    5)The General Assembly came to its decision without knowing the precise nature or detail of the charges, and without examining any of the evidence. Commissioners were unaware, for example, of the details of an alleged affair in Australia and the serious deficiencies surrounding its investigation e.g. key witnesses were never questioned.
    6)The General Assembly was unaware that three of the allegations had not been before the Church’s Law Agent, whereas the Report and the Finding implied that they had been. And the three original allegations, having been strengthened according to the Law Agent’s advice, were not then resubmitted to him for his further scrutiny.
    7)The Assembly Finding made reference to a ‘long enquiry’. However half the allegations were disposed of within three weeks.
    8) The whole Assembly failed on this occasion in its obligation to investigate the allegations that there were those within the Free Church who were involved in a campaign against Donald Macleod.
    9)The General Assembly finding left no further means of reviewing the decision except by private libel, although the subscribers to the minority report were willing themselves to bring a libel against Professor Macleod at their own hand.
    10) Members of the General Assembly were intimidated by the Opinion from Donald Macleod’s Advocate i. e. that action for defamation would be taken against any member of the Assembly who repeated allegations against Donald Macleod.
    11)The General Assembly received a Memorial in support of Professor Macleod signed by a number of individuals. It is obvious from this that the members of Assembly were under some duress to come to a decision in favour of the majority Training Committee report.

    June 1999 Commission of Assembly
    In June 1999 the Commission of Assembly of the Free Church instructed all office bearers and members to abide by the 1995 finding, and not to pursue the matter now or henceforth in any form whatsoever.
    This meant that if any office-bearer or member of the Free Church was to say that the 1995 Assembly was unsafe for any of the above reasons they were to be disciplined.
    In other words they had to ‘suppress the truth’ and’ remain silent in a just cause’.. The answer to Question 145 in the Larger Catechism states:.

    Q. What are the sins forbidden in the ninth commandment?
    A. …concealing the truth, undue silence in a just cause, and holding our peace when iniquity calleth for either a reproof from ourselves, or complaint to others.’
    The solemn truth is that to be a member of the Free Church of Scotland one must violate the ninth commandment; this has become a term of communion in the Free Church of Scotland

    The 1996 Sheriff Court Trial of Donald Macleod
    According to reports in the media, statements were made in the Sheriff Court regarding named individuals, who, it was alleged, had been involved in the conspiracy against Donald Macleod. This was, in fact, the basis of the Defence. Some of these statements were untrue and others were mere half-truths. However, the Prosecution was unable to rebut most of the untruths and counter the half-truths largely because inter alia:
    1) It was severely handicapped because it had not obtained the Training of the Ministry Committee documents relating to the investigations into the allegations against Professor Macleod, whereas Donald Macleod’s defence team had obtained the documents by court order in January 1996. Only a few of the Training of the Ministry documents obtained by Donald Macleod’s Defence were produced in court. This meant, for example, that the Prosecution was not in possession of inter alia;
    a)the interviews of the complainants by the Church;
    b)the interviews of Donald Macleod by the Church;
    c).the statements of the de recenti witnesses.
    ‘If the prosecution had reviewed all of these papers they would have found plenty of evidence to contradict what was presented in court’ W J F C S p.3
    2)It failed to bring before the court any de recenti witnesses themselves to support the testimony of the complainants;
    3)It failed to call any of the alleged conspirators.

    If the Prosecution had addressed the above failures we question whether the defence in the Donald Macleod case would have been one of conspiracy.

    We give just one example of misinformation which was presented in the Sheriff Court.
    The testimony of one of the witnesses was represented as being seriously factually erroneous ( This was also stated in the Report to the 1995 Assembly of the Free Church.)
    In her evidence one of the complainants stated that the alleged assault took place in Donald Macleod’s study. She gave a description of the location of the alleged assault which was an accurate description of the sitting room of Donald Macleod`s house.
    In her submission to the Church the complainant had stated that Donald Macleod had invited her to join him in his study and that she followed him through to his study. As they were in the kitchen and the study was up a narrow stair, the room in which the alleged assault took place was obviously on the same level as the kitchen.
    A de recenti witness for the Complainant stated in a letter to the Church that the complainant had told her very shortly after the alleged assault in 1985 that the alleged assault took place in the sitting room of Donald Macleod`s house.
    The Defence was in possession of the de recenti statement , the Prosecution was not. It was not referred to in the Sheriff Court.

  100. Contradictions
    a) In his letter to Rev. John MacCallum 19th August 1987 Donald Macleod wrote inter alia;“The truth is that I was seriously back-slidden…”.( See ‘When Justice Failed in Church & State’ p. 26) In the interview two years later, James Fraser, the then Convener of the Training of the Ministry Committee, asked Professor Macleod to what he was referring when he used these words. Professor Macleod told Mr. Fraser that he was ashamed of being “…’sucked into’….what is known in Lewis as ‘spiritual love’.” However, Professor Macleod himself knew that the serious allegation being made in Australia concerning his relationship with Witness A was not an allegation of ‘spiritual love’ but the very serious allegation of adultery. It was therefore in the context of adultery that he confessed to being back-slidden, and not in the context of ‘spiritual love’; indeed, he made no reference to ‘spiritual love’ in his letter to John MacCallum.

    In a letter to Allan Harman 3rd September 1987, Douglas MacMillan wrote: “These measures were taken, not as an admission of guilt but because there had been ‘sinful’ behaviour which he [Donald Macleod] did not want to have to defend in the Church Courts.”Thus, the ‘sinful’ behaviour which had taken place, and which significantly Donald Macleod did not want to have to defend in Church Courts, could not have been mere ‘spiritual love’ but must have been behaviour that was censurable.

    b)In her letter to Donald Macleod ( see ‘When Justice Failed in Church & State’ p. 76 note 1 ),Witness A said that she did not know what she was supposed to have said which had implicated Donald Macleod in a charge of immorality. Yet Donald Macleod had already claimed in the Interview in September 1989 that she had telephoned him in 1984 to inform him that she had made an allegation of adultery against him. If Donald Macleod was telling the truth then Witness A knew exactly what she had said which had implicated him in a charge of immorality.

  101. Some Other Relevant Facts

    1) On 9/9/89 James Fraser asked Donald MacLeod

    17 WHEN JOHN AND ELIZABETH DAVIS CONFRONTED YOU WITH THE ALLEGATION OF ADULTERY IN 1984 IT IS SAID THAT YOU RESPONDED BY BY DENYING THE IMPROPRIETY OF THE RELATIONSHIP, BY STATING THAT IT WAS NONE OF THEIR OF THEIR BUSINESS, AND THAT EVEN IF THE RELATIONSHIP WERE IMPROPER IT WAS NOT FOR CHRISTIANS TO INTRUDE, AND THAT YOU HAD KNOWN OF ADULTEROUS RELATIONSHIPS OF COLLEAGUES BUT HAD NEVER ATTEMPTED TO INTERFERE. IS THIS TRUE?

    Donald MacLeod said that he could not recollect the conversation but would not have said the things about adulterous colleagues or the suugestion that Christians could not intrude in such matters.
    It should be noted however that in 1984 there were two witnesses to Donald Macleod’s comments.

    2)At the same meeting of the Sub-committee on 19th October 1994 a paper was submitted by Rev. Alex MacDonald which sought to undermine the credibility of the women and spoke of a campaign against Professor Macleod. However, it should be noted that at this point the Sub-committee were not yet in receipt of all the relevant evidence in that the statements of the de recenti witnesses were not before the Sub-committee. Indeed, the Sub-committee were awaiting such statements.

    3) In court, Mr. Hardie accused Complainant A of embellishing her evidence. He pointed out that several of the things she had said in court were absent from the statement she had given to the Free Church in January 1993; for example, there was no mention made of her being asked to move away from the window of Professor Macleod’s room in the College, where the first assault was alleged to have taken place. However, in a written response to questions on her statement dated 14th April 1993, Complainant A had stated: “When I stood looking out of the window towards Princes Street, he pulled me away, with some remark to the effect either that I was too visible, or that he did not want people to see me.” The defence had a copy of Complainant A’s response but did not produce it in Court.The Prosecution had no knowledge of this statement.

    4) One of the complainants claimed that John Macleod , Professor Macleod’s son, had been at the family home on the day of the alleged assault. John MacLeod claimed he was not in Edinburgh from the 1st to the 20th July 1985 but that he was in the Outer Hebrides on a long cycle tour.It should be noted that there was no independent witness in court to verify that John M. Macleod was not in Edinburgh during the week identified by Mrs. MacKenzie ( an aunt of the complainant and a lawyer); this, despite the fact that in court he was able to give precise details of times and places, and stated that he had a very good memory.
    John. MacLeod’s bank book was produced in court showing withdrawals in the Western Isles up to 19th July 1985. He said that he had searched for his passbook but couldn’t find it. After making a further search nearer the date of the trial, he found it and consequently it wasn’t listed as a Defence production but was produced in court by Mr. Macleod. The handwriting in the passbook relating to dates of withdrawal appeared to be smudged and due to the late production of the passbook it couldn’t be forensically examined by the Prosecution to establish that the dates in question had not been altered. In her letter to Rev. Gordon Mair 23rd January 2001 Mrs. Mackenzie wrote:
    ‘As far as the cash withdrawal on the 19th is concerned, I understood at the time of the trial that Sergeant Robb asked the Sheriff if he could take the pass book to check whether it had been tampered with..The Sheriff refused..’

    The teller from the Stornoway branch of the Bank of Scotland was called as a witness for the Defence and verified in court that it was her signature on John Macleod’s passbook for the withdrawal dates in question. However the dates of the withdrawals should have been confirmed from the bank’s record of the transaction not from the pass-book. This was not done.

  102. Thank you Malcom for the details of proceedings in the Free Church of Scotland in 1995 and 1999.
    It is staggering that the 1995 General Assembly did not know anything of allegations of adultery by Professor MacLeod, but then it is not surprising because no one connected to these allegations was ever interviewed or investigated. WHY?
    In an earlier posting I highlighted the fact that the woman in Sydney had confessed to her Sister and brother in law and Minister. Why were these Confessions ignored in Scotland?
    Clearly matters were brushed under the carpet
    Those that love Christ will honour him and bring glory to his holy name. They will ensure that he is exalted in all things. Where is the glory of a holy Saviour in the proceedings described above?
    I wonder who were the “key” players in these tragic events. Was I D Campbell one of them?

  103. Malcom is sharing much and I thank you for this. It is about time that these things were outed and put in the public domain. Thanks again. I pray that we shall yet see a repentant and reformed Free Church of Scotland

  104. How the Free Church Failed to Fulfil Her Duties With Regard to the Fama Against Her Office-bearers and Members.
    Sheriff Horsburgh accepted that there had been a conspiracy against Donald Macleod. The wicked elements of the purported conspiracy against Donald Macleod included not only malice but also the allegation that this malice expressed itself in the procuring of others to make false allegations against him; firstly, to the Church and, secondly, when this failed, in persuading them to make the same allegations to the police and, finally, in persuading them to commit perjury by repeating them in court.

    The Form of Process states regarding a fama clamosa; “That the fama clamosa of the scandal be so great, as that the presbytery, for their own vindication, see themselves necessitate to begin the process, without any particular accuser; but the presbytery in this case should be careful, first to inquire into the rise, occasion, broachers, and grounds of this fama clamosa.” This the Church refused to do.

    The Practice states regarding rumour or fama “…The investigation of rumour (or fama as it is called) is notoriously difficult because though rumour may be rife people may be unable or unwilling to bear relevant testimony. But the undoubted difficulty does not absolve the Church court from endeavouring to arrive at the truth.” The Free Church was therefore not absolved from endeavouring to ascertain the veracity or otherwise of the Sheriff’s allegations.

    David Robertson (Dundee) appeared to have been in no doubt as to the guilt of the alleged conspirators. He claimed to have been involved in discussions about whether some of the men involved should have been disciplined; his own view was that “we should have done so”, but he accepted the majority view that the matter was over and that they should now seek to have peace and let everyone get on with the work of the gospel. This attitude demonstrates a pragmatic view of church discipline. Mr. Robertson appears to condemn the ‘guilty’ without due process, and on the other hand appears to exonerate them by allowing them to ‘get on with the work of the Gospel’.

    At the 2 October 1996 Commission of Assembly Rev. Willie Macleod proposed the following deliverance of the Minority Report of the Finance Law & Advisory Committee;

    The Commission of Assembly appoint a Special Committee to investigate the allegations of conspiracy or lying referred to in, or arising from, the recent trial of Professor Donald Macleod in Edinburgh Sheriff Court.
    This Committee will have access to all Free Church papers bearing on this case.
    This Committee will have powers to cite witness including all who have made allegations of a conspiracy.
    This Committee will have power to prosecute in the Church Courts any against whom there is evidence of conspiracy or lying.
    This Committee will report back to the Commission of Assembly to investigate the allegations of conspiracy

    The Commission rejected Mr MacLeod’s proposal.

    In October 1996 Rev Iain Murray published ‘ Professor Donald Macleod & His ‘ Opponemts’, Copies of this booklet were sent to the Training of the Ministry Committee At its meeting on 5th March 1997 the Training Committee refused to receive and examine the booklet. The booklet, therefore, was never before the Committee. By not receiving the said booklet, the Committee refused to carry out its responsibility as laid upon it by Act IX 1861 with regard to a legitimate item of correspondence brought to its attention.

    Rev. Angus Smith
    On 23 February, the Rev. Angus Smith (Cross) tabled a Petition at the Presbytery of Lewis in which he called on the Presbytery to deal with a fama against him. He stated that he had been under a fama since the criminal trial in 1996. He wanted his name to be cleared and ,to that end, he asked to be libelled. A report in The Scotsman quoted Rev. Smith as saying: “Either there was a conspiracy against Prof. Macleod by us or there wasn’t. If Macleod is right then I am a liar. If I am right then he is a liar. If the presbytery finds there was no conspiracy, then it must clear my name.” The Presbytery agreed to set up a Committee to examine the Petition .

    The report of the Committee claimed “…that the only grounds on which the Presbytery could proceed to libel [Rev. Angus Smith] would be if there was a widespread rumour (fama clamosa) which cast unfavourable aspersion upon the presbytery itself”. This was indeed a remarkable statement as it completely contradicted the very Practice from which they it quoted. Chapter VII of The Practice (page 191) makes the following points:

    Processes against a minister starts at the Presbytery “to which he belongeth” (point 1);
    If the fama clamosa against a minister is so great, the presbytery, must act “for their own vindication” (point 4);
    They are to do so “without any particular accuser” (point 4).

    In this instance, the fama clamosa against Rev. Angus Smith of the Lewis Presbytery could hardly have been greater. To suggest that this had nothing to do with the Lewis Presbytery was an absolute absurdity.

    At the Presbytery, after considerable debate, the Committee’s report was adopted, the Petition was not received, and the Presbytery did not proceed to libel Rev. Angus Smith as he had requested. The motion was moved by Rev. Kenneth Macleod (Barvas). During the debate, Rev. A. Smith pertinently asked “Why are you dodging the issue?”

    The attitude of the Presbytery of Lewis in the case of Rev. Angus Smith can be contrasted with the statement of Rev. James MacIver (who was a member of the Committee appointed to produce a report on Rev. Angus Smith’s petition) regarding a fama involving the late Rev. I. D. Campbell (who was also a member of the Committee to produce a report on Rev. Angus Smith’s petition), “There are certain processes underway….We’re obliged as a church not to cover things up.”

  105. Investigation of the Australian Allegations

    Mr. Fraser , the Convener of the Training of the Ministry Committee, recognised the necessity of dealing with the problem in a correct and thorough manner. He recognised that the allegations were sufficiently grave and sufficiently widely believed that the honour of the Free Church of Scotland and its credibility as a Christian organisation were at stake.

    James Fraser’s assessment of the situation was certainly in line with the requirements of the Constitution of the Church. For example, Paul cautions the young minister Timothy that a bishop (i.e. a minister) “must be blameless” (1 Timothy 3:2) and must be of “good report of them that are without” (3:7). He tells the Church at Corinth that they are to give, “no offence in anything that the ministry be not blamed” (2 Corinthians 6:3). The Form of Process goes so far as to say that the success of the Gospel depends on the blamelessness of the ministry, and reflects the biblical view when it states: “The credit and success of the Gospel (in the way of an ordinary mean) much depending on the entire credit and reputation of ministers, their sound doctrine, and holy conversation, no stain thereof ought lightly to be received, nor when it comes before a judicature ought it to be negligently inquired into, or when found evident, ought it to be slightly censured.” (Chapter V11.2). The principles set out here lie at the heart of what eventually led to the sad division of the Free Church of Scotland in the year 2000.

    On 6th January 1990, Mr. Fraser wrote to the Clerk of the Central Presbytery of the Presbyterian Church of Eastern Australia asking that the Central Presbytery use its authority to cite Witness A to sign an affidavit.

    The Central Presbytery agreed to write to Mr. Fraser,requesting further and specific information as to his responsibility and the specific questions to be directed to Witness A. Mr. Fraser responded to the Central Presbytery stating inter alia, “I believe that some malicious person has suggested that I was acting on my own authority without the approval of the Committee. This is an idle tale with no substance in fact and I can only speculate as to the probable motivation for its appearance.” Mr. Fraser specified the questions to be put to Witness A and asked the Central Presbytery to do “…everything in their power to ensure that the appropriate Kirk Session did its duty…” Mr. Fraser went on, “…Men of integrity in Australia have risked their reputations to bring the matter forcibly before my committee and for their sake as much as for the sake of my own Church I urge you to proceed with as much rapidity as possible.”

    . Mr. Fraser’s request was ‘addressed’ by the Synod of Eastern Australia. It had before it a Report of Examiners of Central Presbytery compiled by Rev. Rowland Ward and Rev. Peter Gadsby. Their Report stated inter alia.

    It is our further recommendation that the Central Presbytery be directed to advise the enquirer forthwith as follows:
    the discipline matter was never formally before the Session or Presbytery so as to enable competent proof to be provided – the alleged offender’s admissions being settled privately by the alleged offender’s minister.
    Since the only evidence available in the circumstances of the alleged confession by the alleged offender is hearsay or testimony unsubstantiated by witness to the alleged confession, the P C E A courts have no jurisdiction, while a person cited as a witness cannot be required to incriminate themselves. The time elapsed since the alleged offence/s is also relevant.
    Accordingly the P C E A church courts can only advise that the persons making the allegation and the alleged offender be approached by the enquirer to provide such evidence as they are disposed to give, and that the inquirer will have to assess the competency of such testimony as an element of proof on its own responsibility.

    The subsequent Report of the Special Interviews Sub-committeestated with regard to the finding of the Presbyterian Church of Eastern Australia Synod, “Whatever this obscurely worded piece means exactly, it is clearly an emphatic ‘no’ to the Free Church’s request for answers to specified questions to be put to [Witness A].”

    During the debate at the Synod, Mr. Ward made reference to legal advice which he had obtained, but the Synod was not presented with any written legal advice;( It should also be remembered that ten years later in the year 2000 Mr. Ward admitted that there were documents relating to the Australian allegations that he had not seen) The Synod of the P.C.E.A., without having had sight of Mr. Fraser’s correspondence, or having been informed of the evidence for the allegation, accepted the recommendation of the Report of Examiners of Central Presbytery of the P.C.E.A.

    The Report of Examiners of Central Presbytery also recommended that the Central Presbytery be directed to expunge part of their minutes of the meeting of 13 March 1990, which was also accepted by the Synod. A number of dissents, some with reasons, were recorded against these Findings.

    The reasons which the Presbyterian Church of Eastern Australia gave for not acceding to Mr. Fraser’s request were, in fact, invalid. In a statement on the Orthodox Presbyterian Church Message Board Rev. Roland Ward stated: “…there was no evidence capable of proof before a church court as required by the Word of God so we [the Presbyterian Church of Eastern Australia] had no jurisdiction.”

    We regard this as an incredible statement, and for the following reasons.
    Mr. Ward appears to be unaware of the requirements of the Practice of the Free Church of Scotland (which was the same as that of the Presbyterian Church of Eastern Australia ) which requires a careful preliminary examination of proposed witnesses by the party prosecuting in order that a charge incapable of proof may not be proceeded with’
    Whether the discipline matter was never formally before the Session or Presbytery was irrelevant.
    Even if the available evidence was hearsay , this, according to the Scriptures as set out in Deuteronomy chapter 19 would have still warranted an investigation.
    However,The evidence available was not hearsay.
    The Free Church of Scotland was seeking to fulfil its obligations as the party prosecuting and was asking the P.C.E.A to assist a sister Church to perform to her duty. In obtaining a statement from Witness A, the P.C.E.A. would enable the Training of the Ministry Committee itself to assess whether or not there was sufficient evidence for the Committee to initiate disciplinary procedure.
    Although no witness is bound to incriminate himself, it is competent to ask the witness questions having incriminatory tendency, he being warned by the Court that he is not bound to answer. If the witness declines to answer, the circumstance, of course, can be taken as an element of proof (The Practice, 1995 Edition, page 205).
    So far as the time lapse was concerned, it was solely the responsibility of the Free Church of Scotland to determine this and not the PCEA.

    For a sister Church to refuse this request, to which it was perfectly competent for it to accede to, said little for the reciprocal relationship that purportedly existed between the two bodies. And it can be legitimately argued that this refusal by the Presbyterian Church of Eastern Australia had a direct bearing on the eventual split which took place in the Free Church of Scotland some ten years later.

    Iain Murray wrote of the role of the P.C.E.A. in this matter: “The P.C.E.A. is a sister Church of the Free Church of Scotland and many of its ministers trained in Edinburgh. The Rev Ken Macleod was linked with the group in Edinburgh who wanted the whole issue suppressed. His influence contributed to a later decision of the P C E A to block investigation” ‘When Justice Failed in Church & State’ p. 82

    While much of what James Fraser (as the Convener of the Committee) and the rest of the Committee did ‒ and attempted to do ‒ was highly commendable, yet with specific requirements of the Practice not having been fulfilled and contradictions and inconsistencies not having been addressed the Finding was inevitably flawed with the result that, far from being extinguished, the fama continued to spread.

  106. I grieve for the women who were abused and then accused of being liars and conspirators. Does anyone know how they are?

  107. The Rise of the Australian Fama Clamosa Not Carefully Enquired Into
    What was the ‘root cause’ of the allegations in Australia? Why did men make ‘false’ allegations against Donald Macleod? Donald Macleod himself supplied his own answer to this question. In the same interview on 9th September 1989, when asked as to why the Australian men were making the allegations if he was innocent, Donald Macleod said that he believed that the origin was malicious. However, in a letter from Australia to Maurice Roberts Douglas MacMillan wrote: “None of the men here, I feel sure, is doing anything out of malice to D.[Donald Macleod]”. When he was then questioned as to what motives each of the Australian men would have for malice Professor Macleod said that he had been offered the head post in the Theological College in Sydney. In this circumstance, Dr. John Davies, who was employed in the College, would have been overlooked for the post. This was proffered by Donald Macleod as the reason why John Davies ‘coerced’ Witness A into making a false confession which implicated Donald Macleod in an accusation of adultery.

    The above allegation having been made, it was incumbent on the Committee to fulfil the requirements of the Form of Process, which demand that it should carefully, and in the first instance, “…inquire into the rise, occasion, broachers, and grounds of this fama clamosa.” The Committee failed to do this. It did not ascertain from the Theological College of the Presbyterian Church of Australia in Sydney whether Professor Macleod had, in fact, been offered the Principalship of the College. This is crucial information, for if Donald Macleod had not been offered the Principalship of the Theological College, then Dr. Davies would have had no motive for malice against him and therefore no motive to coerce Witness A into making false allegations of adultery against Donald Macleod.This point was raised at the consultation at Carberry Tower, outside Edinburgh, in 2004 between representatives of the Free Church (Continuing) and the residual Free Church.

    MOD: Some inadvertent text removed per request of poster. GBTC

  108. Some Further Contradictions
    Donald Macleod said ( in 1989) that Witness A had telephoned him in 1984 and that she had said that she had been coerced into making such an allegation “to protect her father” who was an elder in St. George’s congregation. It should also be noted that this was the first time Donald Macleod had stated that Witness A had told him, some five years previously, that she had been coerced into making an allegation of adultery against him. It appears remarkable that it took five years for Donald Macleod to refer to such a vital piece of ‘evidence’.
    Douglas MacMillan himself had been asking Donald Macleod, even as late as February 1988, if she had been telling lies about him. The only answer given by Donald Macleod to Mr. MacMillan was that he was not willing to call Witness A a liar unless she put it in an affidavit that he had committed adultery with her. Why did Donald Macleod not tell Douglas MacMillan what he told James Fraser a year and a half later that she had been ‘coerced’ into making the allegation of adultery against Donald Macleod.
    It should also be noted that in a letter to Donald Macleod Witness A had apparently claimed that there was nothing in her relationship with him of which she was ashamed. If that was indeed the case, the question must be asked as to why would she be afraid to go to the Kirk Session to clear her own name and that of Donald Macleod? If there was no basis for the alleged coercion, why submit to what was essentially blackmail?

  109. Rev Kenneth MacLeod
    During a debate at the June 1999 Commission of the Free Church of Scotland, Rev. James Gracie asked Rev. Alex MacDonald (who had been presenting an Overture from the Presbytery of Edinburgh & Perth) if it was the case that there was evidence which the Free Church had sought but never heard from the woman who made the allegation in Australia. Rev. Kenneth Macleod, the Moderator, intervened and said: “A point of information. I want to state clearly here that there is no woman in Australia who made allegations.” This intervention should also be seen in the light of a letter to Rev. Kenneth MacLeod dated 27th February 1999 from the late Mrs. Agnes MacKenzie. She wrote: “You will know that as you were also in Australia and knew about Professor Macleod’s relationship with [Witness A] and you also knew that the ministers there were trying to help him, and were certainly not trying to bring about his downfall as he claimed in court, I trust that as Moderator you will have the courage to stand by that truth when you are confronted by questions about it from members of the various congregations of the church and others.”

    Mr. Macleod knew that Witness A was regarded by the Free Church as a principal witness and that he himself, along with others, had thwarted the Church, of which he was now the Moderator, in her attempts to question her.
    At a public meeting in North Uist later that year , Rev. Kenneth Macleod said that when he had telephoned Witness A earlier that year and had spoken to her about her alleged confession to Rev. John MacCallum, she had said: “These are sheer lies. I never made such an allegation.”However, as already stated, twelve years earlier John MacCallum had been asking why Donald Macleod had not telephoned Witness A to find out what she had been playing at, and the following year (1988) Douglas MacMillan had been asking why Donald Macleod had not been willing to call her a liar. Yet, in 1999 Kenneth Macleod claimed that he had simply picked up the telephone and talked to Witness A about the allegations.

    It should also be asked, however, why Kenneth Macleod waited twelve years before asking Witness A about the serious issue of her alleged confession to John MacCallum? Mr. Macleod had known about this alleged confession since 1987. It astounds us that it was only in 1999, twelve years later, that he had decided to pick up the telephone and ask her about it. Are we to imagine that Mr. Macleod, to whom Witness A related well, had never spoken to her in all that time about this serious matter? We also find it remarkable, indeed incredible, that if Witness A had indeed said to Donald Macleod that she had been coerced into making a false allegation against him by John Davies, she didn’t relate this fact to Mr. MacCallum when he spoke to her on 29th July 1987.

  110. Rev Davis Robertson and Australia
    In a posting on the Free Church of Scotland Message Board,David Robertson stated: “One thing I will say is that the Australian Church investigated the matter and found there was no case to answer..”, and in another posting on the same message board two days later Mr.Robertson stated, “These [St George’s Kirk Session minutes] were expunged on Friday April 20th 1990 and although an attempt was made the following year to get them restored this did not carry.”

    And at a public meeting in Bayhead, North Uist on 14th December 1999 Rev. Kenneth Macleod stated that St. George’s Session had been ordered to expunge their minutes. However, in failing to inform the meeting that the Kirk Session did not expunge the minutes he inevitably he left a false impression.

    In a posting on the Free Church of Scotland Message Message Board Rev. John M. Cromarty and Rev. John A. MacCallum (both ministers of the Presbyterian Church of Eastern Australia) made it plain that St George’s Session records were never expunged, that no Australian Church court had ever interviewed any primary witnesses concerning the matter, and that any information to the contrary was inaccurate.

    Despite this correction, in a posting on the Free Church of Scotland Message Message Board date Mr. Robertson accused Mr. MacCallum and Mr. Cromarty of being ‘economical with the truth’ and bringing the ‘whole Church into disrepute’ for not mentioning that part of Central Presbytery minutes relating to this matter were expunged!

    Further, in an email exchange with Mr. Angus MacMillan,when asked specific questions regarding the Australian ‘investigations’, Mr. Robertson made no response.

    Rev David Robertson and the Complainants
    In a posting on refnet Rev David Robertson wrote “There are other aspects which I would like to mention, as I was on the T o M at the time but to be honest I am bound by confidentiality not to. Suffice it to say that of the three cases I looked at there was severe doubt and discrepancy as to their testimony’s [sic] and how they were acquired. Doubt which was confirmed by the Church’s own lawyers.” It should be noted that regarding Complainants A and B the Church’s Law Agent expressed NO doubt about, and found NO discrepancy in their testimonies; and he did NOT cast ANY doubt as to how they were acquired.

    Rev David Robertson and Rev Iain Murray
    A later example of vilification of Rev. Iain Murray was contained in a posting on the Internet 5/5/2001 by Rev. David Robertson. He wrote: “I have no wish to go back to the late 1990’s when Mr. Murray created havoc in the Free Church (even though he would not rejoin it), ruined many people’s lives and destroyed churches. He meant it for evil ‒ thankfully God meant it for good and as a result the Free Church today is healthier and more alive than it has been for decades.”

    Rev David Robertson and Rev Maurice Roberts Roberts
    Firstly, there are very serious questions over the competence of the matter being raised in this form in the first place.i. e.regarding a radio report. Mr. Robertson’s question should have been ruled out of order by the Rev. Kenneth Macleod, Moderator, or by the Principal Clerk as it was based on hearsay. It should also be noted that stronger ‘evidence’ had previously been objected to. For example, only two days earlier, before the very same Assembly during the debate on the libels appeals, David Robertson himself had objected to “unsubstantiated quotes from a Sunday newspaper being used in arguments” about the matter. Further, only five weeks later, at the June Commission of Assembly, the Rev. Kenneth Macleod said that it was quite improper that references to the web site, whether it was David Robertson or Graeme Craig, ought not to be used. And only four months after the Assembly the Presbytery of Lewis (of which Kenneth Macleod was a member) wrote in response to the Western Isles Branch of the F.C.D.A, “…newspaper cuttings are not an acceptable basis of forming opinions.”

    Secondly, it is surely significant that David Robertson did not display the same concern regarding the 1995 Assembly when it was under a ‘cloud’ because of legal threats by Donald Macleod.

    Thirdly, Mr. Robertson proceeded to question Mr. Murray asking him if it was true that the FCDA had said that if Assembly decisions did not go their way they would publish the libels, supporters would stop giving money to the Free Church and would instead put money into a legal fund to fight for Free Church property. He went on to ask if Mr. Murray and others of the FCDA would repudiate the threat and deny it.

    David Robertson’s unwarranted intervention shows a gross lack of understanding of the historic position taken by Dr. Begg and other F.C.D.A men in the late 1800s. At the time of the first Union controversy (1867-73) these men obtained Counsel’s Opinion on the legal issues likely to confront the opponents of Union in the event of a division in the Church. A last-minute change of direction by the Unionists meant it was not necessary to act on the advice received, but Dr. Begg is on record as saying: “Many are apt to exclaim, But would you in any case appeal to the Civil Courts to decide such a question as, Which is the true Free Church? The answer is, Of course we would, in self-defence, if actually driven to it, but only for the one purpose of deciding the matter of property.” And this is exactly what happened in the historic decision achieved by the Free Church in 1905.

    Rev. Murdo Angus Macleod (Leverburgh) was later to write the following in a statement to his congregation, note date “We would expect Mr. Roberts at this stage to have been challenged to testify as to which aspects of the proceedings were worthy of such a description. In other words ask the man to explain himself. There surely was the possibility that what he said was true, to deny this is to assume that no deficiencies are to be found in our ranks or in our proceedings. If it was true it called the for the Assembly and the whole Church to seek repentance. If it could not be shown to be true then Mr Roberts would have to be censured. There is nothing complex about that procedure, it seems fair and logical.”

    Even Dr. Ian MacDonald (Aberdeen), in an article in the October 1988 Monthly Record on Rev. Jonathan Rankin Anderson who had accused Free Church brethren, wrote, “The church, argued Dr Candlish, owed it to the ministers who had been assailed, and to the elders who had been maligned, as well as to the cause of truth and righteousness, to elicit either a proper explanation or a withdrawal of the injurious statements.” Mr. MacDonald was now unwilling to adopt the same attitude as Dr. Candlish. Indeed, he was pressing for the libelling of Maurice Roberts.

    The Moderator, rather than following the procedure in Murdo Angus Macleod’s statement or that of Dr. Candlish, raised with Mr. Roberts a Point of Order: “For this Assembly to hear of ‘wickedness’ is totally unacceptable and I think that you ought to withdraw that statement.” Rev. Kenneth Macleod was obviously unaware of the teaching of the Westminster Confession of Faith to which he had subscribed, which states,“The purest Churches under heaven are subject both to mixture and error; and some have so degenerated, as to become no Churches of Christ, but synagogues of Satan…”. Mr. Roberts refused to withdraw his statement: “how can I withdraw what I believe in my heart? I have witnessed today in these courts…hypocrisy and evil.” He was later to give examples of this.

    [It should be remembered that the General Assembly had just accused Maurice Roberts’ son-in-law (one of the four men associated with the Stornoway Reformed Fellowship) of being a schismatic, and likened his behaviour to that of “incest, adultery, murder, atheism, idolatry and witchcraft”].

  111. More Contradictions in Court
    1)Donald Macleod claimed in court that Complainant A’s story “…had changed several times before being formally given to a church investigating committee.” However, the following should be noted:
    During his interviews on 13th April 1993 and again on 23rd April 1993, Donald Macleod never made any claim that Complainant A had changed her story;
    The TOM investigating committee of 1993 knew she had not changed her story;
    In his Opinion of 29th July 1994, when commenting on the credibility of Complainant A, Mr. John Millermade no reference to her story having been changed.

    2)Donald Macleod also said in court that it was not uncommon for him to have women being clingy: “It was a problem I have always had to cope with.” In an interview before the Training Committee three years earlier, on 13th April 1993, Donald Macleod made a similar statement:“The reason I wear a wedding ring is that I have enormous difficulty with women…I was in a church not so long ago when a woman came up to me and said ‘You’ve got a very sexy voice’”. However, in an interview only ten days later, and before the same Committee, one question referred to the fact that “…some woman said you’d a sexy voice – being aware of that, was there not a very special obligation on you to be careful?…”, he responded, “I wasn’t aware of that then”. In one statement he claimed that clingy women had always been a problem, whereas in the next he was apparently unaware that it was a problem for him to have been alone with Complainant A for ‘some hours’ in 1986.

    3) Donald Macleod claimed that Complainant A “is in the fortunate position of knowing my entire defence. The latest statements are tailored to suit.” However, three years earlier, in 1993, Donald Macleod had been questioned twice about Complainant A’s allegations by the Church. His Defence was in possession of the transcripts of these interviews. As stated before, Complainant A (or the Prosecution) had never seen these transcripts and therefore she could not have known his ‘entire defence’ and she could not therefore have ‘tailored’ her statements accordingly as alleged.

    4)While Mr. Hardie attempted to cast doubt on Complainant A’s account due to her ‘apparent’ failure to mention details in her Statement (details which she had clearly implied or later amplified), it can be demonstrated that Donald Macleod himself had presented arguments in the court which he had never raised previously. For example, Donald Macleod had claimed that, “…[Complainant A] had pestered him with ‘intellectual’ correspondence but he did not want the correspondence to continue and had given her the brush off in a fairly curt way. That had happened some time before she had first mentioned these alleged incidents.” This issue of her pestering him with correspondence was never raised as a motive when he had been twice questioned before by the Church. On the contrary, when interviewed he stated that when she said she was going to Liverpool he had recommended her to go to Erroll Hulse’s church, but she ended up going elsewhere and, crucially, he stated, “My only other contact with that woman was a letter she wrote to the Monthly Record in 1988”and in the interview on 23rd April 1993 Donald Macleod stated, “In the interval she wrote a perfectly normal letter to the Monthly Record.” [It should be noted that Complainant A’s letter, which was published in the April edition of the Monthly Record, was critical of Donald Macleod’s Editorial in the January 1988 Monthly Record.] However, in his summing up Sheriff Horsburgh made it clear that he accepted as a motive that Complainant A had been “put out” because Donald Macleod had “…neglected her”

    5)In court, Complainant C was asked by Andrew Hardie Q.C whether the timing of her statement was strange, in that Mr. Murray was at that time under investigation by the Church for allegedly spreading information about internal inquiries into Donald Macleod.However Andrew Hardie’s question itself contains a crucial inaccuracy in that when Complainant C wrote her statement, Mr. Murray was not under investigation by the Church for allegedly spreading information about internal inquiries into Donald Macleod.

    6)A report in the Press and Journal stated: “The court also heard from Edinburgh minister the Rev Alex MacDonald, 47, who was a member of one of the committees which investigated allegations against Macleod. One woman who claimed Macleod tried to kiss her in his office in 1986 had said she was doing it because she thought it would help her minister, the Rev John Murray, with his church.” This is false. Complainant C, who claimed Donald Macleod tried to kiss her in his office in 1986, never told the committee that she was doing it because she thought it would help Rev. John Murray. Once again, the Defence had Complainant A’s statement and the transcript of her interview with the committee, whereas the Prosecution did not.

    7) In his summing up Sheriff Horsburgh stated that Complainant C was cagey about the fare and the Dorcas Fund.W J C S p. 8
    However ,Complainant C stated in court that she was told that the Crown Office would not pay her expenses. By the time she was told by Detective Sergeant Robb that they would probably pay, friends had already been paying for her ticket. Detective Sergeant Robb corroborated this in court but in his summing up Sheriff Horsburgh appeared to have either forgotten or ignored this.

    8) Donald Macleod stated in court that Iain Murray had accused him of having an affair in Australia. Donald Macleod said that he had heard the same rumour and that Iain Murray had heard it too, had believed it instantly, and had given it worldwide circulation. For Donald Macleod to suggest that he had heard of this allegation as a ‘rumour’ is simply contradicting the facts. In the interview of the 9th September 1989, Professor Macleod had stated that Witness A had “telephoned” him in 1984 and said that she had been coerced into making an allegation of adultery against him by Dr. John Davies. Thus, it wasn’t a ‘rumour’ that Professor Macleod had heard about the allegation; according to his own testimony he had heard it, as it were, from the ‘horse’s mouth’.

  112. Dee asked for some information………..I would suggest that amount of information posted on this site on the subject of Prof Donald McLeod has been immense! I thank Malcolm for all that he has posted. I praise God for all that has been written and which now is in the public domain………..it seems to me that His hand is in all of this

    The statement by the General Assembly of the FCoS that the “Donald McLeod matter is closed” and that anyone reopening it is liable to be thrown out of the Church is living in a cloud cuckoo land of sin and wickedness if they truly believe that statement.

    My prayer is that those who desired to honour and exalt our Lord and Saviour throughout these sad events will be exonerated and that we will see repentance from the FCoS for the evil seen in its midst

  113. I am so grateful for all of this information. I plan to do some reading over the next few days and will write about this within the next two weeks. I believe the victims and I believe that justice was not served. I want the victims to know that they are not forgotten.

    All of your emails, anonymous comments, etc. will be held in strict confidence. So all of the stuffed shirts in the Free Church need to understand that I will under NO circumstance release any identifies for the information that I will post. It is useless so don’t try.

  114. Thank you, Malcolm and Highlander, for what you have posted here.

    I came across Pastor David Robertson’s blog recently and I had been impressed by his talent, zeal and eloquence. However, I did feel his response to the death of IDC was somewhat “out of character”. Now reading what you have posted here helps me to understand why I felt that way. I would be surprised if Pastor Robertson has not read what you have posted here, and so, his failure to address this issue properly continues to be a disappointment. I join Highlander in praying “that we shall yet see a repentant and reformed Free Church of Scotland”.

  115. Migrant describes himself as having been “impressed by the talent, zeal and eloquence of Pastor David Robertson.” Many around the world said much the same in respect of I D Campbell.
    We should always seek to see the characteristics of Christ in those who seek to serve Him. We are to love one another as He loved us. Christ is gentle and consistent in all that He proclaimed. He is Holy. There were no double standards in His words and actions.
    We need to examine ourselves and if we fail to see something of Christ in word in thought and in action we should be alarmed………….and concerned as to our walk with Christ

  116. Some Further Comments
    A ) Alleged Conspirators
    Rev John Murray
    Donald Macleod stated in court that John Murray was one of the men who insisted on “reopening the inquiry into allegations for a third time”.This is, however, a complete distortion of the facts. In 1993, John Murray informed the Training Committee of Complainant B’s complaint which he had received and which had never been before the Committee. This was his duty as Complainant B’s minister. The Committee had a constitutional obligation to investigate this complaint. It was not therefore Mr. Murray who re-opened the case, but the Training of the Ministry Committee.

    Rev Angus Smith
    In court it was alleged that Rev Angus Smith had persuaded Complainat E to ‘ tailor’ her allegation to the Church and then to the Police. However in 1985, Complainant E told her friend about an incident which she alleged had happened a few days before. Angus Smith knew nothing about this allegation until eight years later in 1993 and so it was simply impossible for him to have persuaded Complainant E to ‘tailor’ her statement to her friend. Once again, the production of the statement of Complainant E’s friend in the court would itself have been sufficient to show that the allegation against Mr Smith was a wicked fabrication.

    In 1998 and 1999 Rev.Angus Smith’s requested the Free Church to clear his name of the accusation of conspracy Despite this in a posting on the Free Church Message Board Rev. Gordon Matheson (Sleat, Isle of Skye), in a dismissive response to a contributor sympathetic to the alleged conspirators, stated “You really don’t know what you are talking about, so bow out, please….if the aggrieved ministers did think there was a prevalent widespread rumour of their guilt in some matter, why was it that at the time they didn’t really use the church courts to seek to clear their name?”

    Two days after the Lewis Presbytery received Rev. Smith’s Petition, the Press and Journal quoted Professor Macleod as describing the Petition as “a piece of nonsense” and saying that it was “yet another part of the campaign against him”. Rev. David Robertson also publicly commented in response to ‘Cymru’, “You seriously think that the demand to have their ’name cleared’ would result in peace?! If the Free Church had prosecuted those who ran the campaign against Donald Macleod what do you think would have happened?…It was that pre-judgement and refusal to go along with the Church’s procedures and discipline which resulted in them being suspended and leaving the Church…” Mr. Robertson’s response here demonstrated the problem. He was willing yet again to openly and publicly accuse brethren of “running a campaign against Donald Macleod” yet at the same time he refused to prove these allegations by due process. It was not, therefore, a refusal on the part of these men “to go along with the Church’s procedures and discipline” that caused the problem, but rather a refusal on the part of the Church to fulfill its own obligations to investigate the fama against these men “…for its own vindication” [The Practice. Part IV. 2.9 (3). Page 106].

    Dr Murdoch Murchison
    In the Sheriff Court, Rev. Alex MacDonald stated that Dr. Murchison was against Donald Macleod. Dr. Murchison raised this matter with Mr. MacDonald in writing but only received an acknowledgement of his letter. Donald Macleod made specific reference to Dr. Murchison being a brother–in–law of Allan Harman who was ‘at the center of the affair rumours.’.Andrew Hardie Q.C. put it this way: “Dr Murchison, Vice–Convener, is brother–in–law to Prof Allan Harman – they all interweave – it is incredible how these people interweave.” He went on, “The limits of this campaign were wide – additionally in Australia we had Harman and Tuck, which is the background of the Australian saga and the germ from which the campaign grew.”
    Professor Allan Harman was the Principal of the College in Melbourne and had invited Donald Macleod to give lectures in 1984. When he heard of the allegations of adultery he withdrew a similar invitation to Donald Macleod for 1985. It should be pointed out that Allan Harman was not the ‘germ’ of any Australian allegations, but had heard of them second hand from Dr. John Davies; and Mr. Tuck played no role whatsoever in the Australian allegations. His name does not appear in any of the numerous documents relating to the Australian allegations which were in the possession of the Training of the Ministry Committee

    Rev John Macleod
    In a submission to the Special Commission Rev. John MacLeod , Clerk to the Training of the Ministry Committee, wrote: “The Rev. A J MacDonald alleged ( in the Sheriff Court) that I deliberately, improperly and with ulterior motive delayed the circulation of the opinion of the Church’s law Agent. Mr. MacDonald had already made that allegation to the Committee which had refuted it. The reality is that the decision as to the date of circulation was not mine. On receipt of the opinion I had immediately consulted the Convener who (in my view rightly) took the decision that this was only one of the items for which the Committee was waiting and the Committee had already set a timetable for circulating the documents which it had requested and nothing was going to be gained by circulating the opinion at a time other than that agreed by the Committee, especially in view of the fact that the opinion was contingent upon other, readily obtainable, information being obtained, which information he himself immediately took steps to obtain. Mr. MacDonald, knowing those facts from their having been clearly explained at the Committee meeting at which he had earlier made his allegations then repeated his allegations in court. In the circumstances I believe them to have been malicious lies.”

    Rev Gordon Mair
    Dr.Eric Mackay stated in court that Rev. Gordon Mair concealed from the Training Committee that the Australian allegation had been dealt with in Australia. Andrew Hardie Q.C. in his summing up referred to this alleged concealment, stating that Mr. Mair never told the committee that the Australian Synod had dealt with the Australian case. Sheriff Horsburgh accepted this accusation. [It should be noted that Dr. Mackay’s brother, Rev. William Mackay, was a member of the Synod of the Presbyterian Church of Eastern Australia in April 1990 and supported the finding of that Synod not to co-operate with the Free Church of Scotland. Rev. William Mackay was Moderator of the Free Church in 2001].

    Dr. Eric Mackay did not confine his remarks to the alleged actions of Rev. Gordon Mair, but also made serious criticisms about the alleged actions of others on the Committee. The Scotsman reported Dr. Eric Mackay’as stating: “Yet a minority of the committee later sought the General Assembly’s permission to ask lawyers what sort of allegations could lead to a Church trial”. However, the instruction given to the Law agent was to give an opinion as to whether or not the report containing the allegations against Professor Macleod, ‘warrants judicial investigation’ not ‘to ask lawyers what sort of allegations could lead to a Church trial’. The Scotsman also reported that he testified: “A faction of the committee were ‘bent on condemnation’ and some attempted to solicit complaints about Macleod, he said. ‘People went through all members of staff at the Free Church offices asking them if they had been harassed… This is hunting for evidence.’” This again was uncorroborated testimony. At no point did Dr. Eric Mackay, any female member of staff at the Free Church offices or anyone else, raise this as a matter of concern with the Training of the Ministry Committee. Three female members of staff at the Free Church offices appeared in court as witnesses for the Defence. None of them was asked whether they had been harassed by members of the Training of the Ministry Committee.

    [David Robertson – in a posting on the Free Church of Scotland Message Board– claimed that in the pamphlet When Justice Failed In Church and State, Rev. Iain Murray had “…chosen to deliberately mislead” by inaccurately attributing the comments regarding Rev Gordon Mair rubbing his hands and saying “ I think we’ve got him[ Donald Macleod] now” to the Committee meeting where the three new cases had been considered; “…the remarks he heard made were NOT made at the meeting Iain Murray refers to.”

    Was Rev. Iain Murray seeking to deliberately mislead?
    Iain Murray was not in court to hear what was said, and neither was David Robertson. However, we would supply the following independent testimony of what was said in court:
    The report in The Scotsman stated: “The trial heard that when the last three women complained, the Chairman of the supposedly impartial committee rubbed his hands and said, ‘I think we’ve got him now.’”
    The Daily Mail report of the same date states: “At the time of the fresh allegations, Gordon Mair, the Church Committee chairman, was seen to rub his hands together and declare: ‘I think we’ve got him now.’”
    John M. Macleod, Donald Macleod’s son, in a report in The Herald,stated: “…it was Mair who, on the evidence given in Edinburgh Sheriff Court by Dr Eric Mackay ‘rubbed his hands in glee’, as further women made accusations against my father ‘Like rabbits hopping out of a hat’.”
    The occasion of this incident was therefore clearly identified in court. If, as David Robertson claimed, Iain Murray had, “…chosen to deliberately mislead” had The Scotsman, The Daily Mail and John M. Macleod all done the same?

    It was not therefore Iain Murray who was misleading others. He was simply reporting what two competent journalists had independently reported in two separate newspapers (It should be noted that John Macleod embellished the statement, as his father had done, by adding the words ‘…in glee”). David Robertson should therefore make an apology to Iain Murray for alleging that he was seeking to mislead his readers. But of even more importance, surely, is the Christian obligation placed upon Dr. Mackay to clarify the situation by indicating exactly
    when and where he had heard and seen what he has alleged.This he has refused to do publicly

    B) Credibility of Complainants
    Complainant A
    With regard to the alleged incident in Donald Macleod’s office, specific statements of Complainant A to James Fraser in 1988 showed consistency with statements which she made in her Deposition to the Training of the Ministry Committee five years later on 4th January 1993 and, almost verbatim, with statements in her answers to questions on her Deposition of 14th April 1993. For example, she said that Donald Macleod had said that it was acceptable to behave in such a manner so long as the chemistry was right. She also claimed that Donald Macleod had said that nobody would believe her as it would be her word against his. And she further stated that Donald Macleod had said that his wife was more concerned with the lawyer she worked for than for himself.

    Complainant E
    The Supplementary Report to The 1995 General Assembly stated:
    As to the statements themselves, Complainant E’s statement made reference to someone else’s alleged experience with Donald Macleod. This was subsequently deleted on the grounds that while she maintained the accuracy of the reference she had not cleared it with the person identified. However, the Report did not record the reason for the deletion but was written in such a way as to imply that Complainant E’s misgivings were about the accuracy of her account and that she had somehow changed her story.

    In a letter to Rev. David Robertson, Mrs. MacKenzie wrote: “In 1986, ten years before the Trial, Complainant E, my niece, was staying with us for a weekend in Edinburgh, as she was then a student in Dundee. I suggested phoning her aunt, Mrs Macleod, with a view to visiting her. Complainant E became very quiet and then said she would never be going there again, because of her experience there the previous year. She told us then exactly what she told the Court ten years later. She did not want to do anything about it, because she did not want to cause any distress to her aunt and her cousins, John, Murdo and Angus.’ The ‘us’ referred to in this letter were Mrs MacKenzie and her husband.

    Complainant D
    The Supplementary Report claimed that it was also represented to the Committee that serious doubts could be entertained concerning the reliability of Complainant D i.e. if she had ‘experienced any unusual behaviour from Professor Macleod that it would have been out of character for her not to have immediately dramatised the event to the full’. However, in contrast to this characterisation, her statement was restrained and unembellished, and she had in fact only told one person about her alleged experience at the time (some two years earlier). It should also be noted that in her letter the de recenti witness stated that Complainant D did not initially name Donald Macleod, but that that information slipped out later in their conversation. We do not believe that this was consistent with a deliberate intention on the part of Complainant D to implicate Donald Macleod in a false allegation of sexual assault. Once again this was not made known to the General Assembly.

    Some Other Contradictions
    1) In an article in The Observer entitled Our Church is Stronger for the Rift dated Sunday 23rd January 2000 Donald Macleod wrote: “These charges [of sexual assault] were promoted by men who had earlier sought to embroil me in accusations of what is euphemistically called ‘Immorality’. The sexual assault charges would never have been brought if the earlier campaign had succeeded…” This statement is, however, incorrect. So far as Complainant A’s allegation of sexual assault was concerned, it was reported to the Training Committee at the same time as the accusation of ‘immorality’ was being investigated and not subsequent to it.

    2) In an article in the Sunday Mail 30/10/94,when referring to the church probes into the allegations against him, Professor Macleod stated, “I won’t say by whom the investigations were conducted. I have co-operated with them.” However, can such an assertion be sustained in the light of the following ?In October1994 Donald Macleod communicated by a lawyer’s letter his refusal to respond to the Sub-committee when invited so to do. The December 1990 Report of the Training Committee included comments that throughout the affair it had been difficult to deal with Professor Macleod, and that he had displayed a resistance to the Committee’s efforts to advance the enquiry that bordered on the contumacious and indeed was only persuaded to meet the delegation when threatened with reference to Presbytery. In a letter to the Convener of the Training of the Ministry Committee, which Professor Macleod had asked to be incorporated into the Training of the Ministry minutes, he stated, In the light of all this, I want to make it categorically clear that I will not submit to any further interrogation, investigation or enquiry on this matter, by any court of the Church.” And when asked to leave the Training Committee meeting in October 1994 he did not co-operate by refusing to leave.

    3) It should be noted that in his Report to the Training of the Ministry Committee dated 27th April 1993, Mr. Alistair Macdonald , member of the Training of the Ministry Committee, wrote: “DM( Donald Macleod) had been scheduled to address a meeting held under Mr Sheehan’s auspices and he (DM) had therefore cancelled the engagement..” However, in a letter to the Training of the Ministry Committee dated 1st March 1993, Mr. Sheehan contradicts this account. He wrote: “However, serious allegations against Professor Macleod were brought to my attention and I felt I had no option other than to cancel these meetings so as not to involve churches in the south in any possible scandal.”

    We give another example of Rev David Robertson contradictory statements. In one press report 10th October 1996 he,stated,“I would understand why Donald Macleod would leave if the commission didn’t back him. The rest of us would not leave. We would just not accept the commission’s findings…”. Three years later,3rd June 1999 on F C Message Board however, when writing with reference to the very same Commission, David Robertson wrote, “…if the Free Church had endorsed that decision of the commission (2nd October 1996) then we would have had to accept it or leave. What we could not do is continue to defy the church and yet claim to be upholding our ordination vows…What you are not free to do is ignore and continue to subvert the assembly.”In the latter statement, not accepting the Commission’s decision was not an option.

    Some Other Points

    1)Just ten days prior to the 1998 General Assembly, on 8th May, in an address to the Western Isles Branch of the Free Church Defence Association in Stornoway, Rev. Hugh Ferrier (retired Free North, Inverness) stated inter alia: “For a number of years there has been a spreading fama and that spreading fama centres upon the alleged impropriety of behaviour on the part of one of our Professors while he was in Australia in the early 1980’s…This matter hasn’t been properly addressed by the supreme court of the Free Church, and until it is addressed by that court the fama remains.”

    2)In a submission to the Special Commission dated 23rd June 1998, Mrs. Betsy MacKay stated; ‘In March 1994 a young woman came into my home, then in Westhill, Aberdeen, and she described to me her experiences at the hands of Prof Donald Macleod. This young woman did not testify against him at his later trial. In March 1994 I brought this matter to the attention of Dr Ian MacDonald, Session Clerk, Aberdeen, with reference to the Aberdeen call to Prof Macleod. He did not take any action and the call was allowed to proceed but he did however tell me that he knew of other similar allegations and that he had ignored them.” In the submission she also referred to a further three two women to whom she had spoken who had alleged that they had been assaulted by Professor MacLeod, two of whom but had not testified against him at his trial. She continued, “There is no doubt in my mind about the veracity of the experiences related to me by all three women’’
    In a letter to Mrs, Betsy MacKay dated 27th November 1998 the Rev. D. K. Macleod, Chairman of Special Commission , wrote:
    ‘If any directly- involved party wishes to proceed with allegations of misconduct against a Professor at the Free Church College, the correct procedure to follow is to inform the Training of them Ministry Committee of these allegations and provide them with the evidence to substantiate them’
    However as has already been pointed out this procedure is not always necessary . The procedure in the Form of Process outlined above Chap V1l .3 lays the onus on the court ( with regard to Professors the T O M ) for initiating an action and not on ‘ particular accusers.’
    The Form of Process also states:
    2. The credit and success of the gospel (in the way of an ordinary mean) much depending on the entire credit and reputation of ministers, their sound doctrine, and holy conversation, no stain thereof ought lightly to be received, nor when it comes before a judicature ought it to be negligently inquired into, or when found evident, ought it to be slightly censured.

    3)The Special Commission report to the June 1999 Commission of Assembly contained the following:
    (2) The Special Commission would be failing in its duty to the Church if it did not take cognisance of the fact that there are still statements being made and publicly repeated regarding Professor Donald Macleod’s conduct in Australia, accompanied by allegations that the Church’s investigation into these matters has been deficient in that there exist primary witnesses whose evidence has never been sought or heard by a Church court. In the light of this the Special Commission would ask the General Assembly to recall the decision of the 1995 General Assembly as being procedurally unsafe and contributing to the present unrest in the Church in that there exist grave doubts as to the thoroughness of the underlying precognition previously undertaken by the Training of the Ministry Committee, and that the Training Committee be directed to re-examine matters in regard to Professor Macleod’s behaviour in Australia. (Special Commission Report. Para. 4.a.[2]. Reports to General Assembly 1999. p.202)

    David Robertson moved that this section of the Report be removed because it contravened the instructions issued by the 1998 Assembly regarding the remit of the Special Commission which reminded Presbyteries of the “embargo imposed by the Deliverance of the 1995 Assembly.”. The Assembly agreed to remove this section of the Report

    A Protest was lodged against the findings of the Commission stating over thirty reasons for dissent. Reason 1.6 stated :It is incompetent in that there are serious allegations that the ToM did not thoroughly examine all the available evidence and no primary witnesses were called re Australia. (Special Commission Report 1999, 4.2).

    While the reasons for dissent were being read to the Commission, the Rev. David Robertson interrupted the proceedings claiming that the giving of so many reasons was “a mockery……wasting time…..and ridiculous.” The reasons for dissent, he argued, could be forwarded to a committee to give answers. To this the Commission agreed. However, the committee, of which Mr. Robertson was himself the convener, never answered the reasons for dissent. It described the tabling of these reasons as unnecessary and time wasting..

    The June finding was the basis of the proposed libel against the Editors of Free Church Foundations in October 1999.The Special June Commission of Assembly Issue of Free Church Foundations included the following comment; “The General Assembly should recall the decision of the 1995 Assembly as being procedurally unsafe.’
    The Presbytery of Edinburgh and Perth brought an Overture to the October 1999 Commission asking the Commission to initiate disciplinary proceedings against Rev. William Macleod and Rev. David Murray, editors of the F.C.D.A. publication Free Church Foundations on the grounds inter alia that: ‘. The finding of the Commission stated inter alia :
    ‘The Commission of Assembly in June instructed “all office bearers and members to abide by the 1995 finding, and furthermore not to pursue this matter now or henceforth in any form whatsoever” whereas Free Church Foundations states: “ “The General Assembly should recall the decision of the 1995 Assembly as being procedurally unsafe.’” and other such comments.’.

    4) Reason 5.5 which was tabled at the June 1999 Commission of Assembly stated:
    It is incompetent to find the Free Church Defence Association guilty of misconduct without trial and therefore without trying the office bearers for following a divisive course from the discipline and government of the Church. If it be established that canvassing these matters outwith the courts of the Church is against the constitution of the Church, and if the Free Church Defence Association is suspected of guilt therein, then the remedy is to try the office-bearers of the Free Church Defence Association in terms of the Form of Process.

    However I October 1999 the Commission of the Assembly of the Free Church accepted, without formal process , the crave of Overture b) of the Presbytery of Lewis which stated, :
    1 They declare that the FCDA is pursuing a divisive course from the government and discipline of the Free Church of Scotland;
    2. They declare that the office-bearers of the FCDA have adopted a position that is in violation of their position as office-bearers of the Free Church of Scotland ;

    In moving that the Commission do not grant the crave of Overture b) of the Presbytery of Lewis Rev. John Macleod,Tarbat, stated that the Lewis Overture seemed to him to be still ‘fatally flawed’ in that it was attempting to find the FCDA guilty of misconduct without it ever having been established by the trial of its office-bearers that they had actually been guilty of misconduct.

    The Commission adopted the very procedure that they had been warned against in June 1999.
    “Doth our law judge any man, before it hear him, and know what he doeth.”John 7:5

  117. With regard to the credibility of Complainant B the following can be said:

    Mr. John K. Miller (Law Agent for the Church) stated in his Opinion that:‘The charge can be proved by the evidence of [Complainant B] and the evidence of the admissions by D M( Donald Macleod ) of the actual circumstances, although he denies any impropriety.”

    A draft Report to the Training of the Ministry Committee by Mr. Alistair Macdonald (Elder, Buccleugh) dated 27th April 1993 by the Ad Hoc Committee set up by the Training of the Ministry Committee to examine depositions and other correspondence related to the fama involving Rev. Professor Donald Macleod reporting on the interview with Complainant B on 13rd April 1993, stated: “[Complainant B] is in our view, a highly principled, sensitive young woman and we do not believe that she has framed the allegations out of malice towards D M.”In the Sheriff Court the Defence was in possession of these documents, the prosecution was not.
    When Donald Macleod was asked in court if Complainant B had come forward to help her minister he said: “I’m not sure if it’s the whole reason, but it’s part of it.” By the end of the trial, Sheriff Horsburgh had been convinced of a conspiracy involving John Murray as a chief conspirator. Yet, the idea of Complainant B making her allegations in order to protect her minister can be refuted by the following three facts:

    Complainant B said in court that she had not known of a church investigation into her minister at the time;
    When Complainant B told her minister about the alleged assault there was no church investigation regarding him underway at the time;
    In his interview on 13th March 1993, when asked why Complainant B was making the allegations if they were false, Donald Macleod made no reference to it helping her minister. Those who interviewed Donald Macleod would have known that there was no investigation of Complainant B’s minister when made her complaint.

    Complainant B said in court that she told a close friend the night of the alleged offence. Mr. Hardie said that if such a thing had happened the Crown would have produced such a witness.
    This challenge to the prosecution was, of course, obvious. Where was this de recenti witness and why was she never called? Two very serious points can be made regarding this:

    The Defence had in its possession a copy of a statement from the de recenti witness of Complainant B( which corroborated Complainant B’s account.)
    The Prosecution did not have a copy of this statement.

  118. Forrest kicked off this blog nearly three weeks ago as he wished to know something about Rev D Robertson
    I would hope that he now has some better understanding of the man and his ministry over the last thirty years or so

  119. First of all we owe a debt of gratitude to “Malcolm” for his tireless work, not only in collating all the information that he has posted on this site, but also for taking the time to post it in comprehensive form.

    I too have extensive knowledge of the case and am persuaded, on the basis of evidence, that Donald Macleod is guilty as charged, both of the offences against the women who went to Court, and of serial adultery with GM in Australia who made detailed admissions to a Minister and others in Australia. We must not forget Professor Macleod’s other victims. Those that testified against him in Court have been abandoned by the church. and in the case of some their lives have been ruined. Men in general, and the Elders of the Church in particular, are responsible to maintain the moral and physical safety of women and children. The men who had the oversight of Professor Macleod abandoned his victims, and have been, and continue to be, derelict in their duty to the victims.

    The way that the Presbyterian Church of Eastern Australia (PCEA) and the Free Church of Scotland handled the case of Professor Donald Macleod is reprehensible and amounts to a gross dereliction of duty. The men at the heart of the cover up in Australia and Scotland, such as Rev Dr Rowland Ward and Rev Peter Gadsby, (who both instigated Expunging of the PCEA Central Presbytery Records in connection with Professor Macleod’s Case, and all those who voted in favour – all but six of the men sitting in the 1990 PCEA Synod). These same men successfully resisted attempts by Rev James Fraser to have specific questions addressed to the woman Professor Macleod committed adultery with. There was no thorough investigation of the matter by the PCEA, and if it had acted when and as it should have at least some of the women in Court would not have been Macleod’s victims.

    Rev Kenneth Macleod (ex PCEA, who lied to the Free Church General Assembly from the Moderator’s Chair), Rev I D Campbell (deceased – who harried the men trying to deal with the matter, and who was heavily involved in the cover up in Scotland), Rev David Robertson, (who laboured to bury the matter), Rev Alec MacDonald, and all those on the Church Courts of the Free Church who stood in the way of the men who attempted to bring Professor Macleod to account, ought to be ashamed of themselves and repent of their wickedness and even now seek to have the matter re-opened and properly dealt with. The men who worked to protect Professor Macleod abandoned their responsibility to his victims (it is alleged that there are many more than the five who testified in Court), and have brought reproach upon the name of Christ.

    Furthermore “Malcolm” has shown us that Professor Macleod’s Lawyers’ testified in court contrary to statements in documents in their possession – in other words they lied to the Court about the testimony of the “Women”. Professor Macleod knew that his Lawyers were misleading the Court and said nothing.

    At the end of the Trial the “Women” were left with the stigma of having, by implication, perjured themselves, yet they were never charged with perjury or any other offence. To date they have not been afforded opportunity to clear their names.

    It is important to note the following;

    1. “Malcolm” has clearly demonstrated that there is overwhelming evidence against Professor Macleod;
    2. “Malcolm” has clearly demonstrated that there was a deliberate perversion of the course of justice by Ministers and Elders of the Churches that had responsibility to deal with the matter;
    3. That Church Discipline has broken down in both the PCEA and the Free Church;
    4. That the Course of Justice was perverted in the Court by Macleod and his Lawyers;
    5. That the women who testified have been abandoned by the Church that should have supported them, and have been left with the stigma of perjury hanging over them, with no opportunity for recourse;
    6. That the men in Australia (Ward, Gadsby et al) who were at the heart of the initial cover up have particular responsibility for subsequent events;
    7. That it behoves us men to fulfil our responsibilities, protecting and defending women and children from sexual and other abuse at the hands of predators like Professor Macleod, and when it is discovered, dealing Biblically with both the abusers by bringing them to account, and with their victims by affording them the help and comfort that they need;
    8. That we must unite in calling the PCEA and the Free Church to repentance;
    9. That we must pray for the victims in this case that the Lord would yet vindicate them, and uphold them;

  120. Donald Macleod was made Principal of their College in Edinburgh, where pastors are trained and later given an Honorary Doctorate by Westminster Theological Seminary! The women, who must surely have had great courage to come forward in such a church, were written off as ‘sluts’ and ‘groupies’.

  121. At the May 1999 General Assembly Rev. Angus. MacRae ( now minister of Dingwall Free Church and the Moderator- Designate of the 2018 Free Church Assembly) moved that Prof. Donald MacLeod be appointed as Principal of the College because of his seniority and manifest and pastoral fitness for the post. He said that anyone could see that he was eminently qualified for the post he held and also qualified to lead the senatus.
    Dr Ian MacDonald , Elder at Aberdeen said “This is where Donald MacLeod belongs. This is where he wants to be. This is where we want to see him. I have pleasure in seconding the nomination”.
    Rev James Gracie was not allowed to dissent against this appointment.

  122. “Macleod Receives Honorary Doctorate
    MAY 21, 2008

    At Westminster’s 79th Annual Commencement Ceremony, Rev. Donald Macleod was awarded the honorary degree, Doctor of Divinity. We were pleased to give him this award for all of the work that he had done for God’s glory over the years.

    Donald Macleod was born on the Isle of Lewis, off the north-west coast of Scotland, in November 1940. He was educated at the University of Glasgow (Master of Arts, 1961) and the Free Church College, Edinburgh (1961-1964). He was ordained on 5 November 1964 to his first charge, Kilmallie Free Church, where he served for six years.

    In 1970, Donald Macleod was called to Partick Highland Free Church, a bi-lingual congregation in Glasgow, Scotland, where he preached five times a week, including two services conducted in Scottish Gaelic. He conducted a hugely influential ministry and began to preach beyond Scotland, regularly visiting in England, Wales and the United States.

    The General Assembly of the Free Church of Scotland recognised Donald Macleod’s theological gifts when they appointed him to the chair of Systematic Theology at the Free Church College, Edinburgh, in 1978. He was appointed Principal of the College in 1999 and in that role he has spearheaded the Free Church College’s relationship with the University of Glasgow (where he is a visiting professor) leading to the validation of the College’s degree of Bachelor of Theology.

    Professor Macleod’s main theological interest centres on the link between theology and preaching. Over five decades he has sought to emphasise the primacy of the intellect in religious experience and the primacy of doctrine in preaching. In recent years Donald Macleod has focused on the theme of objective particular atonement through the cross; and he continues to explore such topics as divine impassibility and Calvinistic libertarianism. As a historical theologian, Professor Macleod was described by the late Professor David Wright as, “one who knows the story of Scottish theology more profoundly than any of his contemporaries.”

    Donald Macleod is known to many around the world for his writings. From 1978 to 1991, he was editor of The Monthly Record of the Free Church of Scotland. His opening theological essay was widely anticipated every month, and some of these have been collected and published in A Faith to Live By (1998) and Priorities for the Church (2003). As a systematic theologian, Donald Macleod is particularly known for his work on Christology (The Person of Christ, 1998, and Jesus is Lord, 2000) and Pneumatology (Shared Life, 1987/94 and The Spirit of Promise, 1992). He also writes comment pieces in the secular press, including a weekly column in The West Highland Free Press, and on the London Observer newspaper, where he contributes to its weekly comment panel.

    Preaching remains Donald Macleod’s first love. He is interim pastor of Livingston Free Church near Edinburgh (where he is a regular in the pulpit) and he continues to preach in different denominations throughout the United Kingdom and beyond.

    Donald Macleod is married to Mary and they have three adult sons.”

  123. A Festschrift ‘The People’s Theologian: Writings in Honour of Donald Macleod’ edited by Rev. I. D . Campbell and Malcolm Maclean, Greyfriars, Inverness, and Stratherrick Free Church, was published in 2011. It included contributions from Richard Gaffin Jr and Carl Trueman (both of Westminster Theological Seminary, Philadelphia) and Derek Thomas (Reformed Theological Seminary Jackson, Mississippi)
    note.In 2009 Rev. I. D. Campbell was appointed Adjunct Professor of Church History by Westminster Seminary.

  124. An article on the Free Church website dated 6th November 2014, stated inter alia: “Rev David Meredith, a former Free Church of Scotland Moderator [2010] and minister of Smithton-Culloden Free Church in Inverness, added: ‘There is no doubt that Donald [Macleod] was the most influential figure in the post-1900 Free Church…’. Professor Macleod served as Principal of the Free Church College from 1999 to 2010; and in 2008 was honoured as a Doctor of Divinity (DD) by Westminster Theological Seminary, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania – the first Free Church of Scotland minister to be made a DD in many years.”
    In an article in the Scottish Daily Mail 3 Oct 2015 Kevin McKenna wrote:‘Mr( David) Robertson is not just changing perceptions and leading a renaissance of faith within his own congregation, he is fast becoming the most important Christian leader in Scotland.’

  125. According to Dr. Duncan Rankin,a minister of the Presbyterian Church of America and the then Associate Professor of Systematic Theology in Reformed Theological Seminary, Jackson, Mississippi, U S A the recent split in the Free Kirk Church was not just a dispute over terms of evidence in a discipline case: it was a clash of two world- and -life views with two different models of spiritually’ The Monthly Record August 2000

  126. Rev D Meredith surely must be right in his analysis on 6th November that “Donald McLeod was the most influential figure figure in the post 1900 Free Church.”
    It seems to me that reading this particular blog over recent days that this so called influence is clearly not of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ who hates sin and wickedness and double standards.
    It seems to me that no one has ever defied and manipulated and influenced Various Courts of various Churches to ensure that he wiould not face Trial in any Church. That clearly is huge influence. A trial may have proved his innocence! So why not ask for a trial?
    There will be a trial one day when the Judge will not be influenced………..

  127. More Comments
    a)Witness A in Melbourne
    In a letter to Rev Allan Harman, Douglas MacMillan wrote: “D M does not deny meeting her [Witness A] there [At a motel at Seymour, a small town 61 miles north of Melbourne]; he does deny that he stayed with her there or that adultery took place. While extremely unwise to meet her in such conditions, it is just possible that he can prove (he says he can!) that he did not stay there or sleep with her.’

    However, some eight months later, in a letter to Rev. Murdo Alex Macleod, Convener of the Training of the Ministry Committee, Rev. Iain Murray could still say that the men in Australia simply did not know why Donald Macleod had not been pressed to explain among other things his whereabouts at the time it was alleged he stayed a weekend with Witness A.

    Rev. Murdo Alex Macleod,who had undertaken preliminary investigations into the allegations against Donald Macleod and had sought advice from Principal Clement Graham, gave no answer to Mr. Murray’s question. This raises the very pertinent question as to why those who had been seeking to elicit the truth from Donald Macleod regarding the Australian allegations had not pressed him on this important point.

    In the Interview on 9/8/ 89 James Fraser asked Donald Macleod:

    .10 DID YOU SPEND TIME TOGETHER IN A IN MELBOURNE IN 1984?

    DM indicated that G Macpherson had come one weekend to Melbourne. He thought she had arrived on a Sunday and left on Monday to join a ski-ing trip. She had not spent the night with him during that weekend.

    It should also be noted that James Fraser did not press Donald Macleod on this important point

    b)The Training of the Ministry Committee not Informed
    On 22 July 1988 Rev. Iain Murray sent a letter to the then Convener of the Training of the Ministry Committee, Rev. Murdo Alex Macleod, enclosing a copy of ‘A Sequence of Events’. Rev. Murdo Alex Macleod obviously contacted Professor Macleod, and was later to write,“Professor Macleod denies the truthfulness of the accusation or allegation confessed to you by Witness A.”
    However, Mr. Macleod failed to bring the information before the Committee. By the end of 1988, Mr. Macleod indicated that in the light of a letter submitted by the woman involved in which she apparently withdrew the allegations, he saw no justification for bringing the matter to the Committee; this despite the gravity of the allegations and the fact that James Fraser subsequently described the ‘so-called’ letter of withdrawal as superficial and ‘inadequate’. And this despite the fact that Mr. Macleod himself acknowledged in a conversation in London with Rev. Iain Murray and Rev. John Nicholls, that he was “not in possession of all the evidence”.

    From about September 1987 the Principal Clerk to the General Assembly, Professor Clement Graham, was advising those ministers of the Free Church of Scotland who had been informed of the Australian allegations. The Report on the Enquiry by the Training of the Ministry Committee referred to above stated that, “Prior to July 1989 the matter was handled by the previous Convener with the assistance of the Assembly Clerk and Professor MacMillan. This meant that before the Committee launched its enquiry Professor Macleod had already been subjected to questioning and probing and a considerable volume of letters ensued between Scotland and Australia. It is perhaps easy to criticise with hindsight but it is undeniable that the Practice of the Church intended that such matters be dealt with by the Committee and the attempt to steer it clear of the Committee was fatefully flawed and completely misguided.”

    Contradictions In Court
    1)In Court, a Defence Witness, Rev Ken Larter, Free Church Minister at Dunblane in 1986, testified that he had asked Donald Macleod to give Complainant A a lift from Dunblane to Edinburgh. In the interview on 13th March 1993, when Donald Macleod was asked whether Complainant A was in his car, he indicated she had been but that it was at her specific request. And in a subsequent Statement,Donald Macleod solemnly swore: “…when I gave her a lift from Dunblane to Edinburgh I did so only because she specifically requested it.” However, Complainant A said to the Church and in the Court that in the Manse after the evening service in Dunblane she had stated that she had to get a train back to Edinburgh. When Ken Larter had pointed out that Donald Macleod was driving back to Edinburgh, and after he had asked him in front of everyone to give her a lift, she said that she could only have refused by saying what had happened previously in the College. Thus, Complainant A’s version of events was in full harmony with the version given by Ken Larter. Again, Miss. Graham did not have the relevant documents containing Donald Macleod’s statements.

    2)A report on the trial stated: “Macleod had taken issue in print and in sermons with aspects of the beliefs of Dr Martyn Lloyd-Jones, who was the doyen of English evangelical theologians from the Forties until his death in 1981…” Donald Macleod went on to claim that Iain Murray’s motive for malice and hostility against him was because he had written an unfavourable review of Volume One of his biography of Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones.
    In the interview in September 1989 Donald MacLeod was asked why, if he was innocent, the Australian men were making the allegations against him. Donald Macleod said that he believed that the origin was malicious. When asked what motives each would have, Donald Macleod said that Iain Murray liked to play the role of “ Bishop of the Reformed movement” and that he was not the first person to have been pursued in that fashion by Iain Murray. He said that Iain Murray was the ‘instigator’. It should be noted that these ‘motives’ in themselves were not motives for malice on the part of Iain Murray. However, more significantly, Donald Macleod made no reference whatsoever to Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones far less to his ‘unfavourable’ review of Iain Murray’s biography of Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones

    3)Rev. Angus Smith typed out the statement of Complainant E. Mr. Smith gave the reason for this in a letter to the Finance Law and Advisory Committee: “The letter she gave me was made up of a number of very small pages and signed…There being so many small pages I knew it could not be photocopied in that form, so I typed it out for committee convenience, the original letter and its typewritten copy being both given to the convener”.
    The Supplementary Report to the 1995 General Assembly stated: “One complaint came to the Committee by the hand of a member having been typed by him and having no signature attached to it.” This was, of course, only a half truth. Crucially, it failed to mention that the signed letter of Complainant E had also been given to the Convener. Rev. Angus Smith attempted to correct this misrepresentation, including on the floor of the General Assembly. Despite this, Rev. Alex MacDonald repeated this half-truth in the court. Angus Smith referred to this repeated half-truth, commenting that Sheriff Horsburgh had been ‘misled

    Other Contradictions
    1) In a letter to Professor Allan Harman, a former Professor at the Free Church College in Edinburgh, Douglas MacMillan, wrote: “It also appears that, from the beginning, terms were never clearly defined. When one of the four brethren involved in dealing with D. put the question, in my presence, ‘Did sexual intercourse take place?’ D. [Donald Macleod] indicated that this was the first time that question had been asked. When one considers all that has been alleged, that seems to be a deplorable situation!”

    In his letter to Professor Allan Harman, prompted by the response by Donald Macleod, Mr MacMillan asked the following question, “Did any of those making the allegations JD [i.e. John Davies] or yourself ever actually ask D., explicitly, if the relationship had ever been an active sexual affair?” The answer was given in a letter from John Davies to Allan Harman in which he confirmed that he had in fact explicitly asked Donald Macleod at his meeting with him in September 1984 whether the relationship had ever been an actively sexual affair. Once again it should be noted that Witness B was present when John Davies spoke to Donald Macleod.

    2) In 1983 and in 1984, Donald Macleod received calls to St George’s, Sydney. He refused both calls, claiming later that the reason for his refusal was that he recognised the danger of his emotional attachment to Witness A. However, the record contradicted this account. At the Free Presbytery of Edinburgh on 26th April 1983, Donald Macleod indicated that he was undecided how he should react should the call to St George’s be placed in his hands, and would prefer the matter to be referred to the General Assembly. This is precisely what happened, so it was in fact the General Assembly that decided that it was not expedient for him to go to Sydney. In the light of this, he had no option but to turn down the call the following year.The Report also noted that Donald Macleod intended to continue with his commitment to Melbourne in 1985. The Melbourne engagement was cancelled by Rev. Principal Allan Harman, not by Donald Macleod.

    3)A report in the Herald on 24 May 1995 quoted Professor Macleod as saying “I haven’t got the foggiest idea what the report to the police is.” However, a report in the Daily Telegraph on 24 January 1996 later contradicted this when it quoted the assistant Procurator Fiscal, Michael Bell, who claimed that the allegations, which were in the form of charges, had been known to Professor Macleod before he was interviewed by police in May 1995.

    4) With regard to Complainant A, Donald Macleod said in May 1995: ‘She is closely involved with people who are part of a wider conspiracy.’ It should be noted that at that time D.S. Robb was yet to forward his report to the Fiscal. However, in an interview with Donald Macleod in The Sunday Times over a year later, Jean West ‒ in referring to Donald Macleod’s claim that the Fiscal recommended that the case be dismissed on grounds of insufficient evidence, but was overruled by the Crown Office ‒ records Donald Macleod as saying:“The reason behind the Fiscal’s decision…was not influenced at all by the possibility of there being a conspiracy, which emerged later.” Thus, prior to D.S. Robb even forwarding his report to the Fiscal Donald Macleod had stated that Complainant A was part of a ‘wider conspiracy’, whereas he later claimed that the possibility of such a conspiracy never emerged until after the Fiscal had made his decision to prosecute.

  128. The 21st C. Free Church of Scotland
    Some of your correspondents are hoping for a “repentant and reformed” Free Church of Scotland. Well, with God all things are possible. However, let me give you a little background information that I have gleaned on the present style of Presbyterianism of this once sincerely respected reformed Church. There is seldom more damaging tactic in Church establishments than the denial of transparency and fairness in Church court procedures as no doubt your own website can testify to, and I wonder if that is perhaps the key to the gradual spiritual demise of the Free Church of Scotland.

    A reliable source some time ago disclosed that a Free Church of Scotland Presbytery had recently carried out what, from the description given, I could only perceive to be a “kangaroo style inquiry conducted by a hand-picked few from that Presbytery” to deal with a long-standing, hard-working Mission worker of a congregation whose new Minister “couldn’t get on with him” and who even allegedly refused to attempt reconciliation with him over the personality clash issue; the main point that concerns me is that, if my source is correct, it was apparently almost 2 months before the official Presbytery members were made aware of this “behind-closed-doors Presbytery Group activity”, so I would imagine that, if that is true and that is how their form of Presbyterianism functions, then we are a long way away from humanly seeing a “repentant and reformed” Free Church of Scotland.

    Opportunely, or dare I say providentially, Rev John Keddie of the more conservative Free Church of Scotland Continuing denomination has just recently published a book – “A Divided Church”, available from the publishers, Lulu Publications. I haven’t read it yet but, from its description, it will no doubt have pertinent content on similar aberrations in Free Church practice and procedures, as Keddie is a generally reliable researcher and author of other Christian publications.

    “A Divided Church” is advertised as “an account of the division that took place in the Free Church of Scotland in the year 2000. The story is told of events that led to the division and the perceived inadequacies of procedures in church and state which impacted upon events leading up to the division. The book is written from the perspective of the Free Church of Scotland (Continuing), the smaller part of the divided Church. It is a story that requires to be told and it is written with care and conciseness by the lecturer in Church History and Church Principles at the Seminary of the Free Church of Scotland (Continuing).”

    Sadly, but understandably, Mr Keddie’s new book will not cover events of more recent years, eg, where it appears the Free Church, obviously conscious of the approaching turmoil over the “gay issues” within the evangelical wing of my own national Church, The Church of Scotland, conveniently arranged a special Assembly to transform its form of worship to incorporate hymns and musical accompaniment, presumably in order to better appeal to those Church of Scotland Ministers and parts of their congregations who might consider moving to the Free Church but who would be most unlikely to do so under the ongoing acapella-Psalms-only tradition of the Reformation and founding Free Church fathers at the 1843 Disruption. At that special (Plenary?) Assembly about 8 years ago, a very close vote was recorded in favour of change but, intriguingly, the Minister whose predominantly pragmatic comments evidently influenced the outcome of that vote, was none other than the late Rev Iain D Campbell.

    Normally, such a major change within a Presbyterian Church has to be passed down to all of their Presbyteries for consideration over the following year, under the terms of an ancient but essential piece of legislation, The Barrier Act 1697. In the ecclesiastical law of the Free Church of Scotland (and of the national Church of Scotland), the Barrier Act is a measure which compels the General Assembly to consult the wider Church before innovating in the areas of worship, doctrine, discipline or church government. It is a provision which prevents the General Assembly from making core innovations which might profoundly affect the polity of the church without first referring these to the presbyteries.

    Apparently, one of the first to his feet to oppose this matter being passed down to Presbyteries was no less a person than Rev David Robertson. From what I understand, the Assembly Moderator, Rev Meredith (a member of the Inverness Highland Presbytery which, apparently, at one of its earlier regular meetings, decided against discussing the issue of change in worship at that particular sitting, on the pretext that they would later be obliged to repeat such discussion when it was passed down to Presbyteries under the Barrier Act, in the event of an Assembly vote for change of worship!) allowed the issue to go to a vote, where the Assembly Commissioners were asked to vote on whether it should be passed down to Presbyteries under the Barrier Act (such consideration was a procedural invention totally contrary to the whole purpose of that Act which is a safeguard statute restricting Assemblies from hasty innovation). No one, I’m sure, was surprised at the outcome of that second vote as it would have been taken by the very same voters; and so, here again in a professing Presbyterian Church, the principal Church Courts – local “Presbyteries” – are disregarded on occasions, probably where they may be feared likely to reach a different outcome from the one pursued! No doubt the strategists within the Free Church would proffer the excuse that the particular Assembly was a “plenary” Assembly and so every Presbytery was well represented but that is irrelevant, as a “plenary” Assembly or whatever other name one may wish to call it, is nonetheless in Church law an Assembly and as such is subject to the Barrier Act and other procedures of Assemblies. Interestingly, the only previous “plenary” assembly was held around the time of the institution of the Free Church as a denomination in 1843 and was then necessary because Presbyteries had not yet been established throughout Scotland at that embryonic stage of the Free Church establishment.

    Having read other posts on this site, I do find it interesting to note how the same names seem to crop up in divisive issues within the Free Church over the years? Regarding Mr Robertson’s church in Dundee, the church he reminds us was that of the late great “Church of Scotland” Minister, Robert M M’Cheyne, it does in fact seem to be prospering numerically but the fact that Mr Robertson’s church managed to secure a vast loan of around ¾ million pounds from the Free Church resources, no doubt enhanced the building infrastructure and made it much more attractive for worshippers. Friends in the Free Church tell me, however, that it is very difficult to establish whether that loan has yet been paid back by the thriving Dundee congregation as in recent years only very small loans seem to be available for smaller rural Free Church congregations to apply for?

    While I am not privy to “many matters Free Church of Scotland”, I do have contacts who keep me informed of what is going on in different parts of Scotland and I don’t think everything is so rosy in that denomination as one might be steered to believe from their website and monthly magazine. For examples, there are reports of recent problems in the central belt where a former Church of Scotland Minister inherited a thriving Free Church congregation, and where several former members of that Free Church congregation and long standing senior office bearer have recently left; and, again, the Minister and part of a congregation in the Highland Presbytery came into the Free Church as one of their so called “church plants”, in doing so severing a long-established evangelical congregation of the National church. I’m now told that the recent “plant” has just been disbanded – the Minister has resigned and the members are left to find new spiritual homes. Information has it that the Minister, who took a large salary drop to come into the Free Church, may find a welcoming spiritual home in the Reformed Presbyterian Church of Scotland and if that is so, we would wish the Lord’s servant well there. To their credit, I am also told that the Church of Scotland congregation from which the group left to join the Free Church have shown great compassion for their Christian brothers and sisters and have been praying for them and their former Minister.

    So, let’s keep praying for Christian brothers and sisters in the Free Church of Scotland that their denomination would indeed “repent and reform” of any deviations from procedures and practices. But let us remember, too, that none of us is perfect – we have all sinned and fall short of the Glory of God and it took the only begotten Son of God to redeem us by the shedding of His precious blood. The words of the late Dr Billy Graham are also so apt, “If you are looking for the perfect Church on Earth and you think you’ve found it, please don’t join it for it will no longer be perfect”.

  129. This weekend is going to be dedicated to this situation. Thank you all for these comments. I may be including some of them verbatim in my posts.

    So, questions to all of you/ May I use the name with which you commented?

  130. Rev David Robertson on Worship and the Church of Scotland
    As early as 7/9/99 Rev.. David Robertson posted the following on the Free Church Message Board
    “Let us suppose that the C of S moves towards accepting homosexual ‘marriages’ and someone (at last) in the evangelical wing of the Church says ‘enough is enough, my congregation and I are leaving’. What if they applied to join the Free Church? They accept the Presbyterian government (which is why they are not going independent) and they wholeheartedly endorse the Confession of Faith. But they want to keep their hymns and their organ. What should we say? I believe it would be sinful of us to reject them on that basis. We could allow some kind of associate membership (or even presbytery) whereby such people could join with us. Not to do so would be a betrayal of our heritage and even worse of our Lord in that his prayer for unity amongst his people would be being ignored. It would also be a betrayal of the people of Scotland. The Free Church as it is at the moment is not going to bring the gospel to all the people of Scotland. We need help. We need to grow and we need to change.”

    In an article entitled ‘The Church of Scotland’ published in the March 2004 Monthly Record David Robertson wrote:
    ‘The first is that the evangelicals will realise the game is up and leave the Church of Scotland to form a new denomination together with the Free Church. We would have to give up our insistence that they should sing unaccompnied scripture only, but that would be a small price to pay for unity.’

    In a letter published in the September 2004 Monthly Record Mr.Robertson wrote:
    ‘In terms of psalm singing, David Wright is of course correct that it is a secondary issue- the Free Church has no problem working with and worshipping with churches which do not share our distinctive on this issue. My own view is that it would be sinful of the Free Church to remain outwith the Church of Scotland if it were only on the question of form of worship.’

    In the July 2009 Monthly Record David Robertson wrote:
    We need to provide a home for those who cannot stay{ in the Church of Scotland ]. If this means for the sake of Christian unity that we have to allow them to worship God in the way they are used to- then so be it. It is surely not a coincidence [ Jonah and the boat]that the year before the Special Commission is due to report, the Free Church will be debating and deciding on whether to amend what forms of worship will be allowed within our bounds.’

    In the November 2010 The Record David Robertson wrote:
    ‘The current official position is intolerable – when more than one third of office-bearers have already indicated that they do not agree with the current position, it becomes impossible to ignore that , and equally impossible to seek to discipline them.’
    The hypocrisy in Mr. Robertson’s statement is breathtaking.. This is precisely what David Robertson strenuously argued for regarding the F C D A in 1999 .He had absolutely no compunction in diseiplining twenty two ministers. It is also contrary to what he had argued with regard to the F C D A- if they could not conscientiously remain in the Church, they should leave. With regard to worship, however, this was what Mr. Robertson was unprepared to do..

    In an article entitled Why is the Free Church being sued? on the Free Church of Scotland website dated 19th December 2001 David Robertson wrote: ‘How has this sad situation come about? It is a mirror of something that happened in British politics in the 1970’s and 1980’s. The Labour party was infiltrated by a well organised and motivated Trotskyite group known as Militant. They argued that they were the true constitutionalists of the Party, they tithed, they published their own magazines, they used the parties disciplinary procedures when it suited them and ignored them when it suited them. To those of us involved in the Free Church in the 1990’s this all sounds horrible familiar. We too were infiltrated by a group of men, many of them young, who argued that they were the true constitutionalists, published their own magazine, tried to use the church’s disciplinary procedures and then completely ignored. Their loyalty was not to the Free Church but only to their own small group.’

    The absurdity of the ’ entryist’ argument is easily shown by the events leading up to the year 2010 when the Free Church of Scotland changed its formal worship. The crowning irony in all this is that one of the most prominent revisionists , Rev.David Robertson, was himself an incomer to the Free Church, an ideal candidate for an ‘entryist’.

    You may use the name with which I commented

  131. HELP!

    When my computer crashed in January, I lost a few saved files. I read the entire pdf of the Donald Macleod situation. However, my copy of the pdf is now missing in some deleted files. Does anyone have a copy of it they could send me. If not, I have a bunchy of info to go with anyway. Planning to post either Wednesday or Friday.

  132. A) Chronology
    On his first visit to Australia in September 1976, Rev. Donald Macleod, a thirtyfive year old minister of the Free Church of Scotland and a native of the Island of Lewis in the Outer Hebrides of Scotland, met a young unmarried woman (whom we will call Witness A)while he was preaching for some weeks in St. George’s, a congregation of the Presbyterian Church of Eastern Australia, in Sydney, New South Wales. Witness A visited the United Kingdom towards the end of 1977 and remained in Scotland for most of 1978. In 1984, Donald Macleod ‒ by then Professor of Systematic Theology at the Free Church College in Edinburgh ‒ was accused of having a long-term affair with Witness A.
    This arose when, in July 1984, a sister of Witness A (whom we will call Witness B) told her brother-in-law, Rev. Dr. John Davies, a minister of the Presbyterian Church of Australia and a member of the the New South Wales Presbyterian Theological Faculty in Sydney, that she had seen an intimate letter written by Donald Macleod to her sister. Dr. Davies spoke to the young woman concerned and he claimed that she had admitted to him that she had been having an adulterous relationship with Donald Macleod, who was married with a family, while he was visiting Australia to preach and to teach in the early 1980s.It should be noted that Dr. Davies later wrote a briefer account of these events in the document entitled, ‘A Sequence of Events’ written in September 1987 Dr Davies also wrote a detailed account of these events in an affidavit dated 18th December

    In early September 1984, John Davies and Witness B went to see Donald Macleod who had come to Sydney after finishing his lectures in Melbourne and confronted him with the allegations.
    In a letter to Kenneth Macleod, Dr. Davies wrote: “He [Donald Macleod] said that he cannot understand what could possibly have prompted [Witness A] to acknowledge that the relationship was an improper one. His main drift was to attack our motivation and integrity.”

    On 29th July 1987 Rev John MacCallum, a native of Scotland and Minister of St George’s Presbyterian Church of Eastern Australia in Sydney since 1985 , in whose congregation Witness A was a member, spoke with Witness A and he alleged that she confessed to him that she had been involved in an adulterous relationship with Professor Macleod when he had been visiting Australia in 1982, 1983 and 1984. Mr. MacCallum was now the second minister to allege that Witness A made such a confession/admission involving Donald Macleod.

    In the Autumn of 1988, a woman (Complainant A) told a friend that in 1986 when she was in her mid-twenties she had been sexually assaulted by Donald Macleod in his office in the Free Church College , Edinburgh.

    On 4th November 1989 the Training of the Ministry Committee , convened by Mr James Fraser, instigated an official investigation into the Australian allegations. Is should be noted that the allegation from Complainant A was also considered

    On 13th December 1990 the Training Committee reached its Finding that ‘this inquiry is terminated’ on the grounds that there was insufficient evidence to support the allegations.

    In November 1991, a young woman (whom we will call Complainant B) and a member of the Free Church, phoned a close friend and told her of an incident which she alleged had taken place in Professor Donald Macleod’s Office in the Free Church College.
    Complainant A had never been interviewed by the Committee, and had never been asked to supply a written statement. After putting their complaints in writing , the statements of Complainant A and Complainant B were sent to the Training Committee in January 1993
    At its meeting on 13th December 1993 the Training of the Ministry Committee decided to completely terminate the enquiry into the allegations.

    When the Training Committee met on the 4th October 1994 a further three communications from three new complainants (whom we shall call Complainants C, D and E) were presented to it. Donald Macleod was not questioned regarding these complaints and on 26th October 1994 the Committee decided to completely terminate what it described as a ‘long’ and ‘intensive’ enquiry into the allegations against Donald Macleod

    B More Inconsistencies
    1)The Report of the Special-Interviews Sub-committee 6.6.4 quoted a letter from Donald Macleod dated 26th August 1987 to Rev. Iain H. Murray in which he claimed that the relationship was over and had been dead for some time. However, the same paragraph referred to a continuing clandestine correspondence between him and Witness A which had continued right in to 1987. Indeed, there was one further piece of correspondence as late as October 1990. The Report went on, “If the relationship was only one of emotional dependence, then it certainly wasn’t over and dead while a clandestine correspondence was being conducted. The only way in which it could have been over and dead was if there had been a physical side which had not been continued. This latter view fits in with what was put by Rev John MacCallum to Rev Professor Donald Macleod in his letter (31/7/87) quoted above alleging a relationship whose physical aspect had finished.”

    It should also be noted that in a letter to James Fraser dated July 11th 1990 Rev. Iain Murray wrote: “2 In August 1987 Donald told John MacCallum that he had not been in touch with Witness A for some time but John had already been told by Witness A that it was only some three weeks since they were last in touch…”

    2) Professor Macleod indicated that he had not spent much time alone with Witness A. However, the Training of the Ministry Committee in December 1990 obviously did not accept his statement as the Committee gave as one of the principal arguments for accepting the truth of the allegations the fact that Professor Macleod did spend considerable time alone with the person concerned.
    A Sequence of Events stated: “…D [Donald Macleod] would frequently be driven back to the manse by [Witness A] after services, where they would be alone and she not return, at times, until the early hours of the morning.”

  133. Are you looking for the book “When justice Failed in Church and State” which is available in PDF? I think it is available on the Free Church of Scotland Continuing web site or perhaps just Google it. I would suggest that the postings on this site will give you far more information, but the above book is a good place too start.

    I have seen much information on this site that has never been in the public domain before. It seems to me that you have a wealth of information to wade through!

    If the above booklet is not that which you have “lost” contact me via email and I will try to help you

  134. First: While I am very thankful for “Malcolm” and Dee’s work in bringing all the information in this thread into the public domain, I fear that the end result will be some wringing of hands and not much more. I have formed the opinion that if Macleod had been dealt with when and how he should have been it is likely that Rev I D Campbell would still be alive today because his victims may have had the courage to speak out, and he would have called to account by the Church Courts. It is to be noted that it is alleged that Macleod said that he “would take – other men with him” if he was found guilty. Maybe some of these “other men” were some of the men who covered for him.

    May I urge those men who are members of the Church Courts that have jurisdiction in this matter to take whatever steps are necessary to bring Macleod and those who covered up for him to justice without hiding behind “Procedure” and “Practice”, but rather fulfilling their Scriptural duty as Elders in Christ’s Church.

    Second: “Flora” asked ” does anyone know how the women are?”. In a word the women have been abandoned to the four winds. While I have a measure of respect for the Free Church (Continuing) (FCC) there has never been by it, as far as I know, a public defence of the women who had the grace and courage to come forward make known their complaints against Professor Donald Macleod. They were effectively accused of perjuring themselves – yet never charged and therefore have never had the opportunity to clear their names. From what I know about the case (I have extensive knowledge of the case both in Scotland and in Australia) there is it seems as far as public testimony is concerned a general disbelief of their testimony. I have personal knowledge that the case has had a devastating effect on at least one of the women who appeared in court, she was ostracised, abandoned by the Free Church (FC) and by the FCC, and has spent the last two decades living in virtual exile largely cut off from those she once had fellowship with. Why? Because she had the grace to stand up against a man who seemed to view his victims as mere objects for the gratification of his lusts. The other women will have had very similar experiences. Surely there should be public support for them, and gracious pastoral care extended to them, and serious attempts to bring the offender to justice.

    Thirdly: Nothing has been said about the Investigative Journalist who produced a Documentary on the Macleod Case for the BBC. The Documentary contained damning evidence, had been cleared for broadcast by the BBC’s lawyers, but was pulled at the last minute and the journalist dismissed. Why???

    Fourthly: Men: do not draw back from our duty to protect the ladies from predators, and to ensure their moral and physical safety at all times.

    Fifthly: Thank you Dee for publishing all the material in this thread, and yes you can use my “nom de plume” in your comments.

  135. Free Church Foundations myweb.tiscali.co.uk/theword/foundations/ , the magazine of the Free Church Defence Association (which essentially became the Free Church of Scotland Continuing in 2000) carried many articles supportive of the women who complained about Donald Macleod.

    It should be noted that in September 2004 the Free Church of Scotland in a statement to congregations implicated the Free Church of Scotland (Continuing) in the allegations. The statement said, inter alia:

    “It is also clear now that the FCC want only one thing: they want to be the Free Church of Scotland, but only on condition that those who disagree with them, and Principal Macleod in particular, will not be part of the new Free Church. They want to rerun all the events of the 1990s. They are now attempting in the Civil Courts what they could achieve in neither the Church Courts nor the Sheriff Court.”

  136. Thank you Malcom for your continued postings. They are so informative. I am interested to know who scripted the statement quoted in the above statement.

  137. The statement was issued by the Free Church Legal Group whose membership included , from memory, Rev Alex MacDonald , Minister of Buccleuch Free Church, Edinburgh, and Rev James MacIver of Knock Free Church, Isle of Lewis.

  138. Some Comments on the Trial of Donald Macleod
    At the Commission of Assembly in June 1999, Rev. Alex MacDonald stated: “Some people do not like the reference to conspirators and all that they could say was, ‘If you go to law or encourage others you must endure the judgements of the law.”

    Rev. Rowland Ward , Minister of the Presbyterian Church of Eastern Australia in Melbourne ‒ wrote in an email:“Did the women lie? I didn’t hear the evidence, nor am I trained in assessment of court testimony. The judge thought so and it certainly looks so…In some respect I would have thought a more competent tribunal than the ecclesiastical has spoken on their claims.”

    Dr. Neil A. MacDonald, Aberdeen, wrote in a letter published in the September 1996 Monthly Record:
    ‘Prof, Macleod is an innocent man who has been hounded unjustly and mercilessly over a period of years by other members of the Church… Those who have persecuted Prof. Macleod must acknowledge the enormity of their actions and give evidence of repentance.’

    John M. Macleod (Donald Macleod’s son) ‒ wrote in a posting on the Internet:“Like my father, such wrath as I have is largely reserved not for the plotters, nor those wicked young women, but for the legion of fence sitters and neutral parties.” In a separate posting on the Free Church Unofficial Forum he wrote: “Suffice to say that late in October 1994 these allegations ‒ fantastic in scope and incredible in detail ‒ were dismissed by the Training of the Ministry Committee of the Free Church of Scotland. Within weeks all but one of the women had been persuaded and enabled to complain to the police”. In an interview with Catherine Deveney on STV’s ‘In Confidence’ programme in 2000 he described the allegations in court as ‘too hilarious’ to be embarrassing, and the mass of the allegations in court as ‘trivial’

    Mrs. Mary Ferguson ‒ a member of Stornoway Free Church, wrote in a letter published in the Stornoway Gazette dated 19th September 1996: ‘The facts are indisputable.There was a criminal trial. Professor Macleod was proved innocent and completely vindicated; evidence revealed that men within the church were involved in plotting to discredit him and have him removed. Their noisy postulations since the verdict only serve to confirm the accuracy of the sheriff’s judgement and prove the reality of the continuing campaign against Professor Macleod.

  139. Rev Kenneth Macleod
    Kenneth Macleod, a native of the Island of Lewis in Scotland, had been a minister of the Lismore, New South Wales congregation of the Presbyterian Church of Eastern Australia from 1969 to 1973. It was at this time that he became friendly with Witness A’s family. In 1974 he then became minister of the Free Church congregation of Tain, Ross–shire in Scotland, and returned to Australia in 1982 to and becaome minister of the Maclean, New South Wales, congregation of the Presbyterian Church of Eastern Australia. Mr. MacLeod became minister of Barvas Free Church of Scotland in Lewis in 1996 and was Moderator of the General Assembly of the Free Church in 1999.Mr. MacLeod demitted his charge in 2000 and thereafter returned to Australia

    Rev. John Davies and Rev. Kenneth Macleod
    On Monday, 6th August 1984 Dr. Davies, with the permission of Witness B and on his way north on holiday to Brisbane, Queensland, stopped off to visit Rev. Kenneth Macleod (to whom Witness A related well). Kenneth Macleod was minister of the Maclean, New South Wales, congregation of the Presbyterian Church of Eastern Australia.Mr. Davies had gone to see Kenneth Macleod to ask him to exercise a pastoral role in relation to the young woman whose congregation was vacant at that time and to ask him to speak to Donald Macleod (who was at that time lecturing in Melbourne, Victoria) whom Kenneth Macleod knew well.

    Rev. Kenneth Macleod agreed to speak to the woman, but said he could not speak to Donald Macleod and instead suggested that John Davies and Witness B should speak to him. However, Mr. Davies subsequently discovered that the very night of his visit Kenneth Macleod had telephoned Donald Macleod and informed him of his visit and of the substance of their conversation. Indeed, the document entitled ‘A Sequence of Events’ agreed on September 15th 1987 by John Davies and others stated, inter alia: “John Davies now believes that Ken already knew of the matter from D [Donald Macleod] or [Witness A] or both.”

    On the way back to Sydney from Brisbane, John Davies again called in to visit Kenneth Macleod. In the interval, Kenneth Macleod had apparently seen Witness A and, to the surprise of John Davies, Mr. MacLeod said that she had assured him that there was nothing improper in her relationship with Donald Macleod. Kenneth Macleod said that he did not want to discuss the matter any further or to become involved in any way. It should be noted that Kenneth Macleod made no mention of the conversation he had had with Donald Macleod on 6th August. In a letterto Rev. Maurice Roberts,Rev. Douglas MacMillanwrote “I would like to talk with…Rev. Kenneth Macleod, against whom, it seems to me, fairly serious allegations are being hinted.”

    Two months later, in another letter to Rev. Maurice Roberts,Rev. Douglas MacMillan wrote: “He [Kenneth MacLeod ] says that D [Donald Macleod] denied the worst to him as well and did it quite strongly.” This raises the obvious question as to why Rev. Kenneth Macleod did not say this to Rev. John Davies in August 1984?

  140. Chronology
    In mid 1985, Donald Macleod met Witness A in Sydney en route home from New Zealand and continued to conduct an ongoing correspondence with her in writing until 1987 when it became known to his wife. In 1986 Witness A again visited Scotland

    ‘Spiritual Love’
    We believe that a letter from Rev. Geoffrey Thomas ( who had been the minister of Alfred Place Baptist Church in Aberystwyth, Wales, since 1965) to Rev. Douglas MacMillan, is also relevant in this connection. Mr. Thomas wrote, “…after having talked with Donald and having spent some time with him, I am in some position to pass some judgement on what happened and what should happen now. What took place in Australia between Donald and this lady was a sinful relationship…though falling short of adultery.”
    The Report of the Special Interviews Sub-committee,in commenting on Mr. Thomas’ letter, stated: “We cannot say what ‘though falling short of adultery’ means, but it is certainly consistent with the view that Rev. Professor Donald Macleod confessed to a sinful relationship involving physical contact of a sexual kind.”

    Misreporting
    There has been misreporting of what took place in Australia. One notable example is to be found in an email from Rev. Rowland Ward, to the late Rev. G. I. Williamson, a minister of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church of America, et al,dated 23rd February 2000. Mr. Ward wrote:
    “A number of people expressed appreciation for the earlier comments but asked for a bit more clarification. I offer the following…‘The FIRST matter [the Australian matter] came to the attention of the woman’s sister and her husband who opened correspondence addressed to her. This was in 1987…Despite being the Convener of Law & Advisory Committee of the P C E A 1986–96, no one came to me with queries.”

    There were three clear mistakes within the twenty four words of the purported ‘clarification’ as follows:

    The woman’s sister to whom he refers did NOT open correspondence addressed to Witness A.
    The woman’s sister’s husband to whom he refers did NOT open correspondence addressed to Witness A.
    The year was NOT 1987 but was, in fact, 1984.

  141. It is no wonder then that Rev R Ward never received any queries as Convener of the PCEA Law and advisory Committee!!
    What importance is three years when one is diligently involved in cover up and the expunging of Church minutes!!

  142. I came across these questions, posted by Nick Bulbeck on TWW almost exactly one year ago, and I find them deeply thought-provoking.

    “What is it with prominent and widely-cited christian leaders when the power of their preaching ministry has no effect on their own lives? Why can these physicians not heal themselves? And if it isn’t (in the right sense) affecting them, is it really affecting others?”

  143. Once again Malcolm I would thank you for your flow of information. I have sadly learnt much as to the state of the Free Church of Scotland and the cancerous leadership of prominent men who in my life time seem to have utterly deserted Christ and that which is Holy and Good and Pure
    Malcolm, I would urge you to continue to post more into this public domain as long as it is still open to new postings

  144. In an e-mail dated 6th August 2014 to members of an inter-church group called the ‘Forum’, which included Rev. Ian Hamilton , now of Smithton Free Church, Inverness, Rev. Malcolm Maclean of Greyfriars and Stratherrick Free Church , Inverness ( and also the late Rev. I D Campbell) Rev. James Gracie of the Edinburgh congregation of the Free Church ( Continuing) wrote:
    In the year 2000, the majority within the Free Church exercised purported discipline contrary to biblical standards and contrary to the recognised procedures of the Church. In 1999, they gave an instruction to ministers of the Gospel which, if carried out, would have forced these ministers to break the ninth Commandment. Further, they DECLARED men guilty of a very serious sin without any trial and without affording them any opportunity to defend themselves. This is contrary to John 7:51: “Doth our law judge any man, before it hear him, and know what he doeth?” Libels were then framed in terms of the Greater Excommunication on the basis of this declaration. At the same time, the majority were content to have several ministers of the denomination publicly DECLARED guilty of evilly conspiring against another minister, and refused to follow the required church procedures to quieten the resultant fama clamosa. Further, they effectively DECLARED a man innocent of a very serious charge of immorality without the principal witness in the allegation being examined, and effectively DECLARED the same man innocent of other serious charges of immoral conduct without the man himself even being questioned about three of the allegations. At the same time, they reassured the Church that “each and every allegation” against the person concerned had been “thoroughly investigated”.

  145. Re my earlier post about Minister “wanting rid” of one of his elders whom he refused to reconcile with, I learn that it is the likely consequence of that Minister wanting to dispense with the Elder and his family’s 30 years commitment to an impoverished area in his parish and his desire to hand it over to some “Twenties” group and start a so called “church” plant. Perhaps the leader of the proposed Church plant should remember the Apostle Paul’s words in his letter to the Romans: “and thus I make it my ambition to preach the gospel, not where Christ has already been named, lest I build on someone else’s foundation.” More on this if I get more confirmed info.

  146. On another note Gillian Macpherson, in her admissions to her minister, included details of the contraceptive methods that she used to avoid pregnancy during her affair with Professor Macleod. This being the case there must have been sexual intercourse.

    It is also important to note that the Minutes of the St George’s Session (PCEA Sydney) were never expunged, and therefore all the information relating to their dealings in the case will be intact in those records.

  147. The June 1999 Commission of Assembly granted an application from the Finance Law and Advisory Committee for right of access to any Church records in order that a statement be prepared to counter inaccurate information in current circulation in connection with issues relating to Professor Donald Macleod The Commission directed the Finance Law and Advisory Committee to issue a statement to congregations as soon as possible. the Finance Law and Advisory Committee to produce a Statement regarding the Church’s dealing with allegations made against Donald Macleod.This statement was to be circulated throughout the Church and notified from every pulpit. On 28th June 1998 the Finance Law and Advisory Committee published a Statement signed by the Convener , Mr. James Fraser.

    We quote from the F L A Statement:
    a)”This committee [i.e. the TOM] is a committee of the supreme Court of the Church, the General Assembly, and all its decisions are subject to the Assembly’s review and scrutiny.”
    Response:
    The Committee’s decision of December 1990 was not reported to the General Assembly and so could not be subject to the Assembly¹s review and scrutiny as all its decisions should be.

    b) “The Committee on receipt of these allegations instituted a detailed and exhaustive investigation which included seeking evidence from Australia, and examining all available documentary evidence.”
    Response|:
    We have akready commented on how ‘detailed’ and ‘exhaustive’ an investigation had been carried out by the Free Church.
    However we would make another point.This statement is also inconsistent with a letter from Professor Macleod’s lawyer (6/5/94), which stated that a letter from Witness A to Professor Macleod was presented by Professor Macleod to the Committee chaired by Mr. James Fraser at Professor Macleod’s final interview with the Committee (22/11/90) but, according to Professor Macleod’s lawyer, ‘no one then seemed to think that there was any need for it’.
    Mr Fraser later wrote that he had never seen the said letter

    c)‘This decision [of 1995] was in full accord with the advice of the Church’s Law Agents.’.
    Response:
    The advice of the Church’s Law Agent was sought and obtained by the ToM Committee in the Summer of 1994 after the first three complaints against Professor Macleod had been examined by them. The Law Agent’s advice was not sought again after the three further complaints were brought in October 1994: if it had been his advice to the Committee might have been different

    d)Consequently Professor Macleod should be accorded all the rights and privileges of an innocent man in relation to these allegations.
    Response:
    In a letter published in the Press and Journal dated 6th July 1999 Mrs. Agnes Mackenzie referred to this statement and wrote
    : ‘.Consider the possibility that a member of the Free Church might know otherwise. Must they pretend they know nothing and live a lie,in order to comply with the said instruction, or risk being expelled?’.

  148. Malcolm, was there any response from any of the named persons in respect of Rev Gracie’s email dated 6th August 2014, and assuming they each replied, are you able to share these with us?

  149. James Fraser and Complainant A
    In a letter to Rev. Gordon Mair, Mr. James Fraser referred to the encounter he had when he confronted Donald Macleod in 1988 with Complainant A’s allegation of the College incident. Mr. Fraser states: “…his response failed to allay my fears that there was some truth in the allegations”.
    In seeking to discredit Complainant A, Donald Macleod had not only attributed a vulgar reference about her to James Fraser, but had also stated that James Fraser had said that she had made similar allegations of sexual impropriety about other people. James Fraser denied that he had ever used the vulgar reference quoted by Donald Macleod, and further denied that he had said she had made such allegations before. In a letter to the clerk of the Committee, he wrote: “Not only did I never say any such thing to Donald Macleod, I have never encountered any evidence that [Complainant A] did similar things nor are some of her closest friends aware of any similar actions by [Complainant A] before the issue with Donald Macleod. As far as I am aware the only person against whom she has ever made allegations of sexual impropriety is Donald Macleod…The statement has all the hallmarks of another attempt by Donald Macleod to smear those people who are making allegations against him. In this respect I am joining the growing list of people who, if Donald Macleod is telling the truth, must be telling lies. I know that the contents of this letter are true and I leave you to draw your own conclusions as to who is misleading you!” In a letter the following year, again to the clerk of the Training Committee, in which Mr. Fraser questioned the accuracy of a statement contained in a letter by Donald Macleod’s lawyer, he again referred to the previous misrepresentations. He wrote:“I am dismayed to find yet again that Professor Macleod is making a statement which is quite at variance with the facts of the matter. You may recall that I had to write recently to the Clerk of your Committee denying the truth of a rather vulgar observation which Professor Macleod alleged I had made about [Complainant A]

  150. Folk may be interested in a new book written by John Keddie – “A Divided Church: An account of the Division of the Free Church of Scotland in 2000”, pbk, 104pages, obtainable from Amazon for £5.00. It gives a brief, clear and balanced account of the events surrounding the split in the Free Church by one who was intimately involved and is now lecturer in Church History and Principal in the Seminary of the Free Church (Continuing). It obviously gives the story from the perspective of those who were unhappy with the failure of the Church to follow proper disciplinary procedures.

  151. @ Antipodean: “I have personal knowledge that the case has had a devastating effect on at least one of the women who appeared in court, she was ostracised, abandoned by the Free Church (FC) and by the FCC, and has spent the last two decades living in virtual exile largely cut off from those she once had fellowship with.”
    I felt very sad to read this comment. If Antipodean would let us know who she is and how to contact her my wife and I who have spent our lives in the Free Church ministry and then the Free Church (Continuing) will try to rectify the situation. I know there are many like us who would feel great sympathy for those who have suffered in this sad episode. Obviously get in touch with us privately. You can get our email from the FCC Yearbook.

  152. William Macleod wrote:

    If Antipodean would let us know who she is and how to contact her my wife and I who have spent our lives in the Free Church ministry and then the Free Church (Continuing) will try to rectify the situation. I know there are many like us who would feel great sympathy for those who have suffered in this sad episode. Obviously get in touch with us privately. You can get our email from the FCC Yearbook.

    Thank you for the offer – I will get in touch privately. Antipodean

  153. Concern for Justice
    Concern for Justice was set up in the aftermath of the Sheriff court trial in 1996. It was a secular organisation intended to continue the quest for justice in the aftermath of the Sheriff’s excursory remarks condemning named persons of conspiracy, lying and of perverting the course of justice; remarks that continue to be widely publicised to the present day. As has already been stated, some of those named were not even present in court and were unable to defend themselves. Concern for Justice sought to clear their names.

    However, not every member of the Free Church was sympathetic to the objectives of Concern for Justice. In a letter published in The Herald 21/3/98 Mrs. Mary Ferguson of Stornoway Free Church wrote: “It [ Rev Iain Murray’s ‘Professor Donald Macleod and his ‘ Opponents’’]is certainly a convincing document. It convinces one of the accuracy of the sheriff’s judgement: that there was a campaign against the professor, the object of which was to rid the Free Church of its ‘turbulent priest’.Its most bizarre manifestation to date is Concern for Justice, an organisation with a liberal feminist agenda, but supported by the most anti-feminist elements in the Free Church!”’

  154. Concern for Justice brought a petition before the Justice Committee of the Scottish Parliament
    A report in the West Highland Free Press dated 19th May 2000 ‘ Free Church Anti- Macleod faction dealt blow by Scots parliament’.stated inter alia: ‘Glasgow M S P Pauline MacNeill was more dismissive of the petition.
    “ I raised my concerns when I first saw it, without even knowing the background to it,” she said.
    “ We should send a message to people who think they can use the parliament’s committees as a way of having a trial reheard. There is a danger that the petitioners are trying to draw us into a tit-for-tat exchange on a theological discussion and I want no part of it. We should end this petition today and dismiss it.”

    Minister Barred from Officiating at Daughter’s Wedding
    Miss Christina Maclean , the daughter of Rev. Malcolm Maclean , who had been the minister of North Tolsta Free Church , had arranged that she would to be married in the Tolsta Free Church by her father. In 2000 Mr. Maclean was one of the ministers suspended by the Commission of the Free Church On 4th April 2000 Rev.W. J. Campbell , Free Church minister of North Tolsta, and Session Clerk wrote to Christina Miss Maclean informing her that because of legal obligations her father could not marry her in North Tolsta Free Church building because he had been suspended and that the Courts of North Tolsta congregation did not wish to get involved in any matter that would leave them open to be censured..
    On 24th April Miss Maclean replied to Mr. Campbell’s letter stating inter alia :’I approached the Parish Church in Stornoway, to enquire if we could use their building, but I understand that ‘ someone from the Free Church was in contact with them asking them not to allow us, or anyone else in the same situation, to do so. What do you think of that?’
    Sadly,we are reminded of Acts 17 v 13:But when the Jews of Thessalonica had knowledge that the word of God was preached of Paul at Berea, they came thither also, and stirred up the people.

    After the division of the Free Church in 2000 the deacons from the Knock and Point Free Church congregations had the locks of the Knock Mission House, a building used by the community and by the Free Church for midweek services, changed Despite the fact that the Mission House was unused on the Lord’s Day the Free Church key holders refused the Free Church ( Continuing) congregation the use of the building.
    The Free Church Continuing congregation in Point were never again allowed access to Knock Meeting House which has since fallen into disrepair

  155. Brian Wilson Member of Parliament.was a long- term journalistic and political friend and colleague of Professor Macleod , both in the West Highland Free Press and in the Labour party.
    Brian Wilson in his Editorial in the West Highland Free Press after the Sheriff Court trial of Donald Macleod denounced the ‘conspirators’ in blistering rhetoric. He wrote: “Sheriff Horsburgh’s summing-up must rank as one of the most damning indictments of witnesses ever heard from the Scottish bench…No array of reprobates, clumsily perjuring themselves to protect gangsters from the prison cell, could have been more scornfully dismissed for their mendacity”. He went on, “The ordeal which they [Donald Macleod and his family] have been through is almost beyond human comprehension and they have borne it with great dignity. The architects of that ordeal, in contrast, are left to wallow in their shame…”.
    While Mr. Wilson’s reference to Sheriff Horsburgh’s summing-up as being one of the most damning indictments of ‘witnesses’ is expressed in very eloquent language, his assertion is sadly fundamentally false. The men being referred to were not ‘witnesses’ who appeared before the Scottish Bench because they were never called to appear as witnesses before Sheriff Horsburgh. This is a fact of which Mr. Wilson was only too well aware as he penned his editorial
    Unbelievably, in ‘The Scotsman’ of 13 March 1999, Andrew Hardie, Donald Macleod’s Defence Counsel in 1996 , said concerning another case that it was a breach of natural justice for a judge to abuse his position on the bench by criticising people without giving them an opportunity to put their side of the case.

  156. Mr. Donald Morrison , a member of Free Church ( Continuing ) posted a message ‘Grimsay- The Facts’ on Free Church Message Board.on 29th January 2000.He wrote inter alia:
    At approximately 11.30 am..( On the first Sunday after the division in the Free Church in January 2000 ) three men arrived in a lorry and attempted to open the front door. This door was obviously locked. By the time we got out of the building, they had gone up to the lorry and returned with battering ram , sledge hammer and crow bar which were all placed at the church door….
    I was then accosted by Hector Stewart who said; “ Get in there ( pointing into the church ) or get out.”
    I replied; “ I am fine where I am” to which he replied.
    “ If you don’t get out of this church, I’ll have someone physically man- handle you out out”
    .This threat was uttered in the presence of four others. One of these was Alasdair Macleod ( Laxay) who I believe to be on the F/L/A/ Committee. He made no attempt to diffuse the situation.’
    Rev James Gracie , a member of the F C D A, was the Free Church minister in Grimsay, North Uist in the Outer Hebrides

  157. Broadford legal Action
    In a letter to the Stornoway Gazette dated 20th September 2007 Rev. James MacIver, Minister of Knock, Isle of Lewis, wrote: ‘My colleagues and I made it clear at the International Council of Reformed Churches meeting in Pretoria [October 2005 ]that ..if the Free Church Continuing dropped their court action ,the Free Church of Scotland would not take action centrally and would make every effort to persuade local trustees to agree to the same.’
    The Legal Report to the 2007 General Assembly of the Free Church stated . ‘Having sought advice from the Legal Group as to how they should proceed, the Trustees decided to take steps to recover the property[ In Broadford, Isle of Skye]
    On examination of the title deeds for the property, it became apparent that any action to be taken to recover the property would need to be taken in the names of the Moderator and Principal Clerk of the General Assembly[ Rev James MacIver, Knock, Isle of Lewis]. Given the time constraints involved, and at the request of the Legal Group [ of which Mr MacIver was Convener], both consented to their names being associated with an action to be taken in the Court of Session on the understanding that this would then be reported to the Commission of Assembly and the Commission of Assembly’s endorsement of the action would be sought.
    In March 2007 the Free Church of Scotland Commission of Assembly approved the legal action in Broadford[ Isle of Skye] taken by their Principal Clerk [ Rev James MacIver] and a former Moderator of the Free Church

    In the light of the above report the following questions must be asked:
    1) What advice did Mr. Maciver give to the Legal Group regarding their advice to the Broadford Trustees?
    2) What effort did he make to persuade local trustees not to take legal action against the F C C?
    3) But, more pointedly , what advice did Mr. MacIver give himself; the Broadford action could not have gone ahead unless Mr. MacIver was in agreement.

    We can only conclude that Mr MacIver’s ‘ assurance ‘ given to the I C R C at Pretoria in 2005 to persuade local trustees not to take legal action against the Free Church Continuing. was meaningless.

  158. In 2000 the General Assembly of the Free Church of Scotland (Continuing) set up a Committee to Investigate Allegations of Conspiracy which were made in Edinburgh Sheriff Court during the trial of Donald Macleod. .Professor Macleod was invited to personal interview by the Committee or to receive a questionnaire; he refused both. Rev. Alex MacDonald, Minister of Buccleuch & Greyfriars Free Church, was also invited by the Clerk of the Committee to personal interview or to receive a questionnaire. In his response,Mr. MacDonald stated, “As you are aware, you have been suspended from the ministry of the Free Church of Scotland. I cannot therefore recognise the legitimacy of you or your suspended colleagues setting up a committee to investigate anything to do with the Free Church of Scotland.”

    An edition of the Island Post, a news-sheet then available in Lewis and Harris in the Outer Hebrides, published a number of whole documents relating to the Australian allegations (including ‘A Sequence of Events). Donald Macleod was notified that the documents were to be published and he was asked that either he or his lawyers contact the paper before publication if he had any comment to make but there was no response;

  159. The Free Church of Scotland ( Continuing) raised an action in the Court of Session against the Free Church on the grounds that the Free Church had denied a fundamental principle of the Free Church i.e. the Right of Continued Protest.In March 2005 Lady Paton
    stated:
    a) I have been unable to identify a right of continued protest as a fundamental constitutional principle of the Free Church. [ 57] Protest was a means to that end. Protest was not in itself a fundamental constitutional principle [ 58]Protest is a means of achieving an end.

    Comment:
    We do not believe that there is a necessary distinction between a fundamental right and a fundamental principle.
    We believe that the right of protest is fundamental to natural justice and doesn’t just apply to the constitution of the Free Church

    Lady Paton stated:
    b) Similarly, if protest were directed against a decision of the General Assembly that the commandment “Thou shalt not commit adultery” should no longer be observed (in other words, a decision that there should be toleration of immorality similar to the “abuses in the administration of the church’s discipline and government” referred to in the preamble of the 1851 Act), such a ruling would be a blatant departure from the fundamental principles of the Free Church, and attempts to stifle any protest against the ruling might properly be deemed to be an aspect of that departure.
    [63] But such a situation has not arisen here. There has been no ruling that immorality is to be tolerated.

    Comment:
    1)The June 1999 Commission of Assembly came to the following finding:
    They instruct all office bearers and members to abide by the 1995 finding, and furthermore not to pursue this matter now or henceforth in any form whatsoever.
    This meant that it became a term of communion in the Free Church.for office-bearers and members to conceal the truth regarding the flaws in the 1995 finding and remain silent in a just cause, both of which are violations of the ninth commandment. It seems to us that this is as serious as the situation referred to by Lady Paton i.e. the Church denying the seventh commandment .
    2) Equally serious was the finding of the October Commissions of Assembly in 1999 which declared office-bearers of the Church to be guilty of sin without due process
    Neither of the above were argued before Lady Paton

    The 2005 Free Church ( Continuing) Assembly approved the lodging of a Reclaiming Motion ( anAppeal ) in the Court of Session. However the Assembly also believed that it would be morally wrong for the Church to place members of the Church under liability if an appeal against Lady Paton’s judgement failed and decided that the necessary funds must be in place before the appeal could proceed. In the event sufficient funds were not forthcoming and the Church therefore fell from the appeal against Lady Paton’s Finding at the March 2006 Commission.

    It should be remembered ,however , that Lady Paton’s finding is an opinion; it is not law

  160. In 2007 the Free Church raised an action in the Court of Session seeking to establish ownership of the church and manse at Broadford in the Isle of Skye. Lord Uist found in favour of the Free Church. The Free Church ( Continuing ) lodged an appeal against the finding. In August 2011 the three judges of the Inner House of the Court of Session upheld Lord Uist’s finding on the grounds that the Free Church ( Continuing) had left the Free Church and were therefore not entitled to any Free Church property . This finding became law but it should be noted that the court did not determine the fundamental principles of the Free Church. In other words the Law of Scotland has not determined that the Free Church has not departed form fundamental principles of the historic Free Church of Scotland

  161. Sunday Herald 22nd May 2013
    So the Church of Scotland has voted for gay clergy.
    Fear not, it will use a conscience clause to keep everybody happy. The words “conscience clause” sound familiar to a Free Church minister; they are what was used by the denomination on another issue in 2010.
    What exactly is a conscience clause? It is a device that can be used to fudge an issue so that at the end of the day people can take exactly the same vows but the meaning can be complete opposites.
    It is sad to see the Church of Scotland take a page out of the Free Church of Scotland’s book to deal with the matter in this way.
    Unfortunately they are not the only ones copying the Free Church. Many politicians in Scotland today are driving ahead with the redefinition of marriage vows. The Scottish Government received a resounding “no” to any change on this matter in its consultative process but it has somehow managed to turn that all on its head and make it a “yes”. Exactly what the Free Church did on the issue of worship; the broadest consultation gave a resounding “no” to change but it was full steam ahead with the new agenda irrespective.
    What is it that the Scottish Government is about? Put simply, it is changing the meaning of vows. Again, that’s exactly what the Free Church has done. If a person takes a vow and then realises they ought not to, surely the honest thing to do is seek release from that vow and move on. Surely there is far more wholesomeness in that than trying to change the meaning of the vow?
    I long for the day when the Free Church gets back to a position of integrity. And, come to think of it, I long for the day when the Church of Scotland gets back to a position of integrity as well.
    Rev Farquhar Renwick,
    Free Church Manse,
    North Kessock,
    Inverness.

  162. Integrity in the Free Church of Scotland is a forgotten word. Their current Leaders and Shakers such as Rev D Robertson, I D Campbell Rev Meredith and the like appear appear to have forgotten and abandoned Christ. They have forgotten that their Church is part of the Body of Christ. Christ does not have double standards. Christ Is perfectly Holy. He is clearly not of this wicked perverse generation where any thing and everything goes.
    We understand that Rev D Robertson is having a three month break to consider his ministry going forward. Perhaps he and his colleagues should be examining their walk with Christ over the last thirty years or so during a period when wanton sin has been ignored within their midst while women are nothing more than objects of desire to be treated with contempt.
    This blog has highlighted the utterly bankrupt state of this Church over recent years. We pray for repentance in the Free Church of Scotland and a return to Christ

  163. Again, I take the opportunity to thank TWW and Dee in particular that these matters have been fully aired. I trust that the discussion will continue!

  164. Presbyterianism of the 21C “Free Church of Scotland”

    Just viewed an excerpt from the Free Church Highland Presbytery Minutes of some date in Summer 2017, regarding the mission elder who was effectively forced to resign (see my previous messages).

    Compared to the love and compassion expressed in recent messages on this site by William Macleod of the Scottish Free Church Continuing denomination, the Minute excerpt below contrasts rather sadly.

    The lead up apparently is that one compassionate member of the Presbytery on hearing that the elder had chosen to resign (presumably rather than his being further interrogated by a somewhat prejudiced Presbytery) requested that the Minute for that evening should incorporate Presbytery’s regret over the sad outcome – this was immediately rejected by the Chair as is clear from what I believe is a truly verbatim excerpt:-

    “Discussion followed as to whether the Presbytery should express regret and record alleged mistakes made in the execution of the process which had taken place. The Moderator ruled that given the high probability of no agreement being reached on these matters, Presbytery, having resolved to sist (halt) the process, should pass onto other business.”

    No compassion, no record of mistakes to be made, and no further discussion allowed on the blunders made by the Presbytery in the execution of the process – just a quick closure verdict by the Moderator, obviously a seer of some sort as he foresaw that there would be a “high probability of no agreement being reached on this matter!” There surely must either be an obvious 50/50 split between compassionate members on the one hand and uncaring members on the other hand if no majority agreement was the HIGHLY PROBABLE OUTCOME or, alternatively, perhaps the Moderator believed that a more than likely majority vote FOR incorporating words of regret at the elder’s resignation might not have pleased some of those present – who knows?

    Well, even in the secular world there are words of wisdom on the subject: Henry Ford said, “The only real mistake is the one from which we learn nothing.” It certainly looks like here were men who might have learned something by discussing the blunders and mistakes they made in their procedures – perhaps someone from the “compassionate 50%” side might even have raised the likely adverse effects there could be on the elder’s family in light of their inquest into nebulous grievances, but such possibility was quickly vetoed by the Moderator.

    I’m hoping to uncover more details of what is involved in this matter and particularly the manner in which it was initially investigated and presented to the full Presbytery (after almost 2 months of most of Presbytery not knowing it was going on, I believe) but, bearing similar resolve as this website, I will not compromise source trust and I therefore have a lot more contacts to make.

    I do apologise that my comments do not contribute directly to the main subject of this blog, of which I had little factual knowledge prior to my being directed to check out your site, but I trust that they do confirm that procedures in today’s 21st century Free Church of Scotland Courts are not always what one would expect from a professing Reformed Christian denomination. Perhaps the same goes on in our own national denomination and in other denominations in the land, although in fairness, The Church of Scotland General Assembly, for all its faults, always passes down important matters of possible change for discussion by Presbyteries, via the Barrier Act process (mentioned in previous messages).

  165. Highlander wrote:

    Again, I take the opportunity to thank TWW and Dee in particular that these matters have been fully aired. I trust that the discussion will continue!

    I am doing my reading and want to post this week if some of these S mega pastors can keep it on the down low for a few weeks! Good night!

    I am going to stand with the women in this account. I believe a terrible injustice occurred here and I will explain why. That, of course, means that I believe that Donald Macleod should have been held accountable for what occurred.

    I trust a bomb will go off when I post. Thankfully, I can fully express my opinions on the matter here in the US. I have heard from some other folks who are hoping I will write about this. I think there has been a hole left in the hearts of women who were pushed to the side instead of being loved and supported. I want them to know, after all these years, I believe them.

    I am starting a new hashtag. How do you think it will be received?

    #metoo #churchtoo #FreeChurchtoo

  166. One other comment
    In the 1996 trial of Professor Donald Macleod, his Defence claimed that allegations made against him in Australia were fundamental to the alleged conspiracy which lay behind the allegations dealt with in the civil court: “Australia” claimed Professor Macleod, “is the root cause of the subsequent campaign. Without that I would not be here today.” Donald Macleod claimed that his opponents had spread ‘false rumours’ of him having committed adultery in Australia, and then manipulated witnesses against him to justify themselves.

  167. dee wrote:

    I am going to stand with the women in this account. I believe a terrible injustice occurred here and I will explain why. That, of course, means that I believe that Donald Macleod should have been held accountable for what occurred.

    Dee I completely agree with your statement above. Not only should Donald Macleod be held to account but so should all the other men who stood against dealing with him.

    We should remember that ten women went to the Training of Ministry Committee with complaints, and when the TOM would not take action against Macleod, five of the women went to the Police. The other five did not withdraw their complaints, but did not go to the Police (in at least one case the woman’s husband forbad her). My view is that these ten women are but the “tip of the Iceberg”.

    The men who were at the heart of the cover-up in the UK and Australia have been named in the material submitted by various contributors – it would be helpful to list them. There are others who are culpable who have not been named (such as the brother of “Witness C” who is a minister in the Free Church and who sided with the Free Church). May I suggest that you include a list of names in your comments.

    Praying that we all might learn the lessons from this whole wicked, tragic, episode in the life of the church, and that the women, and those who stood up against the cover-up, might yet be publicly vindicated, and that Macleod and his supporters would be brought to repentance.

    Antipodean

  168. Five women complained to the Training of the Ministry Committee( Complainants A-E)and when the Committee terminated the investigation the five women went to the Police.

  169. There is very little doubt that there is a “tip of the iceberg” surrounding and concerning Prof Donald McLeod. I have heard of a number of cases of women complaining to others, and I am aware also of a young woman who boasted of her tryst to old school friends.
    There are men in ministry in the Free Church of Scotland and the PCEA in Australia who refused to deal with allegations and merely engaged in cover up. These events have been covered during the course of this blog
    The bottom line is that any preacher of the Gospel in any part of the Body of Christ who is at the centre of such allegations should face action by the Courts of the Church if Christ is to be honoured and obeyed.
    We are to hate sin! We are to deal with sin! We are to repent of sin! We are to seek forgiveness of sin! We are to be Holy and faithful servants of Christ honouring Him in all things!
    Men in leadership in the FCoS are in utter denial that there have been predators in their midst

  170. My husband was a minister in the Free Church of Scotland (now retired). We were in Canada not Scotland when this tragedy took place in a church we had respected and served. I was baptised, nurtured and converted in the Free Church of Scotland and my husband came to conviction of their Theology, Worship & Ethos. Be both came to a very settled decision to affiliate with the Free Church of Scotland( Continuing) not just because of what we read, but because of our own knowledge of the caliber of the men who were forced out of the church. These were ethical and godly men who would never have lied and conspired as they were accused of doing. May the Lord grant repentance and may those who refuse to even look at the facts, have their eyes opened.