The Prime Minister, Lord Soper and the Rev. Ian Paisley
The chagrin of Labour politicians at having their cherished plans for power-sharing smashed by the national strike in Northern Ireland came out in attacks made by the Prime Minister in the House of Commons and by Lord Soper in the House of Lords against the Rev. Ian Paisley. Their unconcealed hatred of the Protestant leader and of all he stands for appeared in their bitter remarks. The Prime Minister spoke as follows: “I noticed the Member for North Antrim (Mr. Paisley) wore a small sponge as a political symbol yesterday. Let him realise — and speak for the vast majority in this House — that all the sponges in the ocean are not capable of washing away the things for which he has been responsible in Ulster over the past few weeks . . . nor the actions and words in which a minister of a church, based on the doctrine of reconciliation, has deliberately sought to make reconciliation between two communities impossible.” This attack provoked one Labour back-bencher to hurl the epithet ‘Judas Iscariot’ at Mr. Paisley.
Lord Soper’s contribution was still more extreme. He called the Rev. Ian Paisley “a loud-mouthed mob orator, with an unfortunate capacity to arouse emotions, and a savagery which precludes him from any inclusion among the servants of the Lord Jesus Christ.” He also went on to castigate the Protestantism for which Mr. Paisley stood saying that there was a growing tendency within this Protestantism which was menacing and dangerous. It sprang, he said, from the nature of its fundamentalist faith, sponsored by those who worshipped the Bible as though every page contained immaculate evidence on how life should be lived. “It is a totalitarian form of religion,” he added, “which is totally in disharmony with the principles of the faith I would seek to uphold.”
If these Press summaries of the speeches are accurate, what sad reading they make. Men in high office ought to remember that while it is easy to stigmatise others as enemies of righteousness, yet that this kind of invective has a habit of rebounding on the head of those that use it. In a short time we shall stand before the Judge of all the earth and then it shall be known without any dubiety who are the men of uprightness and truth.
We have repeated at some length the reported utterances of the Prime Minister and Lord Soper, not because we homologate the sentiments they contain, but to show what men who are prepared to stand for principle in this unprincipled age will have to bear in the way of persecution and abuse. We are quite sure that the Rev. Ian Paisley will gladly wear these epithets as a badge of honour for the Master whom he serves. Dr. Paisley can take encouragement from the words of the Saviour: “The disciple is not above his master, nor the servant above his lord. It is enough for the disciple that he be as his Master and the servant as his lord. If they have called the master of the house Beelzebub, how much more shall they call them of his household?”
Lord Soper and the Bible
The attack by Lord Soper on fundamentalist belief is unworthy of one who claims to be a minister of the Gospel. Although he would deny to Mr. Paisley inclusion among the servants of Christ, yet his own attack on the infallibility of Scripture must put a question mark at both his claim to be a preacher of the Gospel and his claim to be a servant of Jesus Christ. If the gospel he preaches is based on a fallible Bible, then what a worthless gospel it is — certainly not a Gospel that can save a soul from eternal death and certainly not the Gospel of God’s grace. And if Lord Soper preaches another gospel, then how can he be a servant of Jesus Christ?
Gift to Chairman Mao
When the Rt. Hon. Edward Heath visited China recently he was received by the Chinese Communist Leader, Chairman Mao. Mr. Heath to mark the occasion presented Chairman Mao with a book. The book chosen for the occasion was none other than Charles Darwin’s Origin of Species.
We can hardly think of a more unsuitable book to give to the leader of atheistic China than that chosen by Mr. Heath. It was through this very book that the theory of evolution was foisted on a gullible public during last century. Why then did Mr. Heath not avail himself of this golden opportunity to present the Chinese leader with a book of real worth. What could have been more suitable than a copy of the Bible in Chinese as an antidote to “Mao’s Thoughts.” If he was not prepared to receive a Bible, surely there were at least books setting forth Christian values which would have been suitable. Why then resurrect Darwin’s dreams?
Mr. Heath’s return from China on Sabbath was a poor example to give to the benighted Chinese communists. The sooner men in high places realise that they are subject to the Divine laws, the sooner can they hope to have respect shown by men to the laws which they themselves make in Parliament. “God is not mocked; for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.”
Resistance to Evolution
The philosophical basis for the hypothesis of Evolution has been effectively shattered during the twentieth century. The catastrophic effects of two world wars, together with the rising tide of crime, violence and moral degradation during the years after the Second World War, have made it impossible for any realistic person to hold the view that man is progressing as the years pass by. In the scientific field, however, the hypothesis has not, so far, been abandoned, and nearly every textbook, lecturer and school teacher holds forth the evolutionary hypothesis as an assumed scientific fact. There are signs, however, that there are many in the scientific world who are reaching the conclusion that this dogmatic assertion and approach to the evolutionary hypothesis cannot possibly be sustained.
‘Faith and Thought’ is a journal devoted to the study of the interrelation of the Christian revelation and modern research. It is issued by the Victoria Institute, a learned society, whose members profess the Christian faith. In its final issue for 1973, the Journal remarks on the fact that there appears to be some revolutions in the biological department of science. For instance, it states: “An interesting study of the growth of science is to be found in a pleasing little book by John Maynard Smith (On Evolution). A convinced evolutionist himself, Professor Smith nevertheless speaks of a widespread conviction that there is something wrong in the state of evolutionary theory, and that profound changes in the theory are imminent.” One point that worries him apparently is whether evolution is a truly scientific idea.
The Journal also remarks on the controversy concerning the teaching of evolution versus creation in the Californian schools which apparently continues unabated in the U.S.A. The position is that the Californian State Board of Education ruled on 30th November 1969 that both evolution and creation should be mentioned in textbooks. When some Christians requested equal coverage for the two views to be presented antithetically, reaction set in. The supporters of evolution managed to get nineteen winners of Nobel Prizes to sign a letter rejecting the principle of equal time, and stating that “the creation theory is not based on science, and does not belong in a science textbook.” The board thereupon retreated, but at the same time something was gained in favour of the Christian position. The position in 1973 is that no mention of creation is demanded, but that a statement that evolution has not been proved must appear. The controversy is also raging in other states, notably Georgia, Michigan and Washington, and also in Alberta, Canada. A less dogmatic way of presenting evolution is certainly to be welcomed warmly and Christians in general are indebted to those in California who have worked so hard to raise those issues at the Educational Board.
It appears the controversy has also spilled over into England, and a considerable number of letters appeared in a magazine called ‘Nature’ from those who support the Christian position. It was stated that anti-Darwinian views are quite common in universities, but there are many “power-seekers and career men” and people suffer if they speak up against the evolutionary hypothesis. The Journal went on to comment:—”There has been little sign of open warfare between science and religion in recent years. The letters in ‘Nature’ remind us that the signs of an impending polarisation are appearing.” It certainly is high time that a proper Christian approach was made to attack and destroy the evolutionary hypothesis. It is absolutely necessary, however, that those Christians who do launch this attack should themselves be firmly convinced as to the true nature of the doctrine of creation taught in Holy Scripture. We are sorry to say that this cannot always be said of contributors to ‘Faith and Thought.’
Consideration ought to be given as to the best method of approaching the education authorities in this country to secure a similar position to the schools in California, or even better, to secure that a proper presentation of the Biblical doctrine of creation be presented alongside these evolutionary concepts. It is certainly wrong that our children should be subjected to the belief that an unproved and unprovable hypothesis such as evolution is a fact.
D.M.