Bishop supports reduction of age of consent to 16
IT is shocking that Bishop Richard Harries of Oxford has called for the age of homosexual consent to be lowered from 18 to 16. It is especially significant that he has done so, says the Times, because he is the chairman of the bishops’ committee on homosexuality, a leading adviser to the Archbishop of Canterbury, and the first diocesan bishop to call publicly for this further lowering of the age of consent. He also wants the law which prohibits local authorities from promoting homosexuality to be abolished.
We need not be surprised at his conduct. When the issue was before Parliament in 1994, he supported the lowering of the age of consent to 18. Indeed, most of the bishops at that time voted for an age of consent of 21 or 18.
Church leaders are under obligation to teach the people that sodomy is contrary to the divine law and exceedingly offensive in God’s sight; and they are to compassionately call those who are guilty of this sin to repentance, showing from Scripture that such sinners may be forgiven and renewed by God. What a solemn indictment it is of these professed ministers that instead they support the legalising of sodomy, and even vote for the lowering of the age of consent. They claim to be God’s servants, but they are doing the devil’s work.
William Hague’s views of marriage and cohabitation
FEW will disagree with the editorial in the Times which says that “William Hague has planted his standard on libertarian ground since coming to office”. Although he claims that he and his Conservative Party support the traditional family, they do not regard marriage as fundamental to the building of society, but rather as one of several alternative lifestyles, which are equally valid, including cohabitation and homosexual unions.
He has demonstrated his belittling of marriage when he insisted, according to a press report in September, “he will still sleep with fiancée Miss Ffion Jenkins during next month’s Tory conference.” He rejected criticism saying, “We are getting married in December. We are absolutely committed to each other.” His response suggests that he wants to identify with the many unmarried couples who live together in Britain, and seems to give them the green light.
But whatever Mr Hague may have done or not done, unmarried couples who justify their cohabiting because they are committed to one another should note that they do not absolve themselves from the sin of uncleanness by their excuses. They will be condemned by God if they repent not. Scripture says, “Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed is undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge,” Hebrews 13:4. ☐
Government proposals to relax Sabbath legislation
THE Home Secretary, Mr Jack Straw, has said that the Home Office has been examining proposals to relax the 1780 Sunday Observance Act, which prevents night clubs and discos from opening on the Lord’s Day. He believes that the decision could create up to 3,000 jobs.
Not only would such a decision directly contravene the Fourth Commandment but also result in more opportunities for young people to get caught up in problems caused by drink and drugs, with the related increase in violence, and other social problems. It is very necessary that we write to our local MPs stating our strong objections to this proposal. ☐
Car Boot Sales on Sabbath in Inverness
THE Northern Presbytery protested to the Highland Council some time ago against the Council giving permission for car boot sales to take place in the car park of the Council’s Headquarters. Among other things the Presbytery said, “Our concern is that this decision can only encourage further desecration of the Lord’s Day. . . Up and down the country, various councils are discovering the cost of abandoning the “Sabbath rest” of the Lord’s Day. . . There is the overlooked and immeasurable cost in awakening the displeasure of God by this disregard of the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ whose triumph over the power of death is commemorated weekly in the Lord’s Day. . . We will be grateful to see the Highland Council follow past policy in the Highlands and distance itself from Sabbath desecration.”
Part of the Council’s reply is as follows: “Planning consent has been granted only on a temporary basis at the moment, as has permission from the Highland Council, . . . I think that at the end of the day members felt that this was . . . purely for charitable purposes and all activity was done simply on a voluntary basis, and at the end of the day considered that, all things considered, more people would benefit from this sort of activity than would be affected adversely. . . The democratic process took its course and, as I said before, generally elected members felt that in this particular circumstance it would be acceptable certainly for a trial period, after which time it will be reassessed.”
The Council offers the sop of a “trial period” arrangement, but past experience proves that this is the thin end of the wedge for greater Sabbath desecration – one Inverness shop at least has decided to open on Sabbath because of competition from these car boot sales. The fact of the proceeds of the sales going to charity will not for a moment atone for desecrating the Sabbath. The Council also seems to shift responsibility for the decision to the “democratic process”, but this will not make the elected representatives less blameless in the eyes of the Lord of the Sabbath. ☐