As might have been anticipated, the representatives from the Moral Welfare Board of the Church of Scotland have come out in favour of showing the BBC Primary School sex films to eight-year-old children. There seems to be little concern for moral welfare among these clergymen, and we have no doubt but that Church of Scotland parents, however careless, have been shocked at the news.
The usual excuse for exhibiting harmful and objectionable material on films is made: they can be left out if the school wishes. Parents should, therefore, make it abundantly plain to Headmasters that they do not wish their children to be exposed to these films. As the films are to appear at the end of a nature series, it is evident that the matter is treated from a biological point of view, without setting it in its proper context of love and marriage, and without respect to moral principles. The leading idea behind these films is based on the false evolutionary hypothesis that man is some kind of Number One animal. Consequently, his offspring should be treated accordingly. This degrading view of man leaves out of account the inevitable harm done to a child, who is a human being and not a young animal, by exposure to a film dealing with this subject at such an early stage in his or her development.
We are glad to see that the Glasgow Education Committee is against these films, and their attitude is a rebuke to so-called ministers.
If there is a sincere desire to resist the rising tide of immorality and its attendant alarming increase in venereal disease, the proper course for ministers is not to support educational programmes of no moral value, but to preach the clear doctrines of the moral Law of God. Until the consciences of men and women, young and old, are convicted by the realisation that fornication and adultery are sins against the God of Eternity, there will be no improvement in the present state of moral degradation. The notion that education in biological facts will secure an improvement is naïve, and shows a complete misunderstanding of sinful human nature. “By the law is the knowledge of sin.” “Whoremongers and adulterers, God will judge.” —D.M.
An Unsafe Guide
Professor William Barclay is Professor of Divinity and Biblical Criticism at Glasgow University. He has recently published the second volume of his translation of the New Testament, which is supposed to meet some demand for a more readable version of the Bible.
In a recent interview given to William Foster of the Weekly Scotsman, Dr Barclay indicated some of his religious views. His popular appeal as a writer and broadcaster is based on his profession to be able to talk to the plain man, and one of his most widely-read books is entitled “The Plain Man’s Book of Prayers“. It is only too evident, however, that Dr Barclay is a very unsafe guide to both the “plain” man and the “educated” man as far as teaching Christianity is concerned. Says William Foster, “He disbelieves in the miracles and has severe doubts about the life hereafter, without letting it cramp his style.” In referring to the miracle of Christ stilling the storm, Dr Barclay says, “I don’t think He stopped the storm. I think He stopped the storm in their minds, calmed their fears.” The teaching of Scripture is that Christ did calm the fears in the minds of His disciples but He did this by manifesting His power in stilling the storm. Those who were eye-witnesses on the occasion said one to another, “What manner of man is this, that even the wind and the sea obey Him?” But Dr Barclay says the Saviour never stilled the storm! Surely he must have got this idea, like many of the others he mentions, in the realm of imagination and not from Scriptural data. If Dr Barclay does not believe in miracles, does he believe in the miracle of the Virgin Birth and the Resurrection of the Saviour? If he believes in these miracles, upon what ground in reason can he reject the other miracles? If he does not believe in the Virgin Birth and the bodily resurrection of the Saviour, then he is not a Christian and should cease writing about the subject.
How can a man who has doubts about the life hereafter instruct sinners how to prepare for death, judgment and eternity? Surely the teaching of Christ on the hereafter is plain enough, in language which cannot be misunderstood. The rich man who lifted up his eyes in Hell, being in torment, knew where he was, as surely as he realised the blessed state of Lazarus, whom he so despised when he was in this world. It is surely perfectly simple for the “plain” man to understand the “plain” truth that he is either on the broad way to a lost eternity or on the narrow way which leads to life. Nothing could be plainer, and if Dr Barclay does not understand this, there are plenty plain men who could teach him about it.
Dr Barclay, according to this interview, has a “devastating” effect on the unfortunate young men who sit at his feet in Glasgow University. “I do not know why it is,” he says, “that all ordinands arrive with the most fundamentalist notions in their heads and then mellow and become more liberal.” There are two reasons for this. The first is the theological poison instilled into their minds by a man who does not believe the fundamental doctrines of the historic Christian Faith, as revealed in an inspired and therefore infallible Bible, and set down with crystal clarity in the Westminster Confession of Faith. The second reason is that the said students never really believed these doctrines, because they lack that principle of vital godliness which is absolutely necessary for the ministry of the Church and which arises from the regenerating and illuminating work of the Holy Spirit. Such as are taught from heaven have an unction from the Holy One and know all things necessary for salvation. They are not likely to be deceived by the notions of liberal theologians. On the other hand, where this divine unction is missing the Scripture is fulfilled in a devastating way: “And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.” (Matt. 15: 14).
Dr Barclay is to give the James Reid Memorial Lecture in Cambridge on the subject, “Pelagius or Paul?” He says, “I am to answer the question how much has man to do with his own salvation? I think I’ll come down in half on that one.” This would appear to mean that he will support Pelagius against Paul at least to the extent of adopting semi-pelagianism. The positions held by Pelagius were opposed and refuted by the eminent Augustine, and have been held by all denominations, apart from Socinians, to be fatal heresy. They were condemned by two Councils held at Carthage in A.D. 407 and 416 and by the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus, A.D. 431. Semi-pelagianism is, in its essential principles, one with the system now called Arminianism. In both the Pelagian and semi-pelagian positions man does have a hand in his salvation to some degree or another. The Pauline and Scriptural position is that man is dead in trespasses and sins and must be wholly saved by God’s grace. Both the Old and New Testaments speak with one voice on this matter: “Salvation is of the Lord” (Jonah 2: 9); “By grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God; not of works lest any man should boast.” (Eph. 2: 8, 9). The very title of the lecture which sets up a choice between a condemned heretic and an inspired Apostle makes one shudder.
— D.M.
A Cardinal’s Address
Cardinal Gordon Gray, Archbishop of St. Andrews and Edinburgh, according to press reports, will address Church of Scotland elders and office-bearers on the subject “The Role of the Christian in Today’s World”, in New College, Edinburgh, on 11th March. The leaders of the Church of Scotland are busily engaged in betraying the Protestant Church into the hands of Rome. Their task is made very much easier by the widespread ignorance and appalling lack of discernment among office-bearers and people of that church, who are blind to the perils of Romanism. Cardinal Gray will not scruple to make full use of the opportunity which has been given to him of spreading Romanist doctrines throughout the Church of Scotland. Rome never makes concessions of any importance, but demands submission to her doctrines and claims, as becomes a church whose boast is that she never changes. At present she is using the ecumenical movement in her own interests, and accordingly, it needs no great stretch of the imagination to conceive what his interpretation of the Christian’s role in the world today may be. We may rest assured that Rome’s conception of a Christian’s main work in the world is the promotion of Romanism in doctrine, practice, claims and prestige. In attaining this ambition, if she can enlist the aid of uninstructed, thoughtless, although perhaps amiable Protestants, she will gladly avail herself of any help they may be able to give. It is deplorable to see Church of Scotland officials doing the work of Rome by bringing this high-ranking, experienced papal churchman into one of their Divinity Halls to lecture to their office-bearers on Roman Catholic doctrine.
—C.
Condign Punishment
The riotous conduct and violence of modern youth often make the headlines of our daily newspapers. The most recent example, which is now too often becoming associated with student activities, occurred in the High Court, London, when an important case was interrupted by a group of Welsh University students, who marched into the High Court, filled the place with uproar, and brought the processes of law to a halt. They occupied the seats of court officials and for half an hour sang Welsh national songs, made speeches and distributed literature. They explained that “our loyalty to our country is more important than our loyalty to the British Constitution”. Up in the gallery more Welsh enthusiasts took up the singing and threw English and Welsh leaflets into the body of the court. The judge announced that the court was adjourned and withdrew until the police arrived and cleared the room by carrying out the demonstrators bodily by their arms and legs into the Strand, before lodging them in the cells. Such conduct as this, if law and order are to be preserved in our country, is quite intolerable.
It is gratifying to read that, when calm was restored, those responsible for this outrageous conduct were brought, individually, before the presiding judge, and asked for an explanation. Mr Justice Lawton then sentenced fourteen of their number, both men and women, to three months in jail, and a further eight, who apologised to the court, were let off with a fine of £50 each. Reckless demonstrations, destroying public property, endangering the lives of policemen, and interrupting the orderly conduct of the nation’s affairs are now getting out of hand. Such swift and summary justice as was handed out to these thoughtless youths by this London High Court judge may deter others who may have ideas of doing the same thing, and might with great benefit to the orderly lives of our people be carried out elsewhere, when protests go beyond the limits of peaceful demonstrations.
—C.
Churchman’s Untimely End
The reported disappearance of Bishop James A. Pike, one time bishop of California, America, at the end of last year, in the deserts of Palestine, and his presumed death, recalls the stormy career of one of the most controversial figures in modern times. Born a Roman Catholic, Pike as a young man rejected the Christian faith and lapsed into atheism. During this period he engaged in a successful legal career, recovered his religious beliefs, and joined the Episcopal Church of America. During his life he was involved in controversies on a variety of subjects, and on three occasions was before his church on charges of heresy. He denied the fundamental doctrines of the deity of our Lord, the physical resurrection of Christ from the dead, miracles, and in general might be said to have renounced every supernatural element in the Bible. He was acquitted, however, on each charge. For a time he was dean of the Cathedral of St. John the Divine in New York, which is the second largest church in the world, and while there used his position to grant communion to members, including students of the nearby Columbia University, who openly declared themselves to be atheists. He was greatly dejected over the suicide of his son, and turned to the doubtful consolations of spiritualism, claiming to be able to enter into communication with the spirit world. One of his last interests was the pursuit of the historic Christ, which made him decide to visit the scenes of our Lord’s earthly life. Here he met his untimely end.
It is a sad fact that such an infidel as Bishop Pike and other like minded churchmen appeared frequently on the platform supporting Dr Billy Graham’s so-called evangelistic campaigns. This is not to say that Bishop Pike, however, renounced his heretical views, but is a clear indication that Dr Billy Graham had succumbed to the ecumenical craze, so popular in the religious world today. There are many such blind leaders of the blind in the modern church today, from whom we are warned to turn aside.
—C.