No Easy Way out
The notorious Dr Harold Shipman has died after being found hanging in his prison cell. He was jailed for life in January 2000 for murdering 15 patients but it is believed that he killed at least 215 people and maybe as many as 260. A relative of one of his victims has commented: “This seems like an easy way out for him. He never showed any compassion or any guilt.”
One can understand the desire on the part of the relatives for some expression of regret from the murderer, but it must be stressed, especially in the face of the contemporary refusal to believe in the reality of eternity, that suicide is not “an easy way out”. Shipman has now gone to face his Maker, from whom no sin can be hidden. It is a solemn matter for any sinner to appear before God if he is not under the shelter of the blood of Christ, but it is a particularly solemn matter for one responsible for the deaths of so many, who were under his care as a medical practitioner. One cannot believe that anyone in a lost eternity will feel the least degree of compassion for those they have sinned against, but they will most certainly feel the guilt of their sins before God for ever. How necessary for everyone – including those who are not guilty of serious crimes – to flee at once to Christ!
Anglican Reform?
An article recently drawn to our attention from the Daily Telegraph reports on proposals by a working party of the House of Bishops to secure conformity to church law by the clergy. Concerns range from the denial by Anglican ministers of doctrines such as the Trinity and the Incarnation to the failure of many of them to conform to regulations regarding the proper “vestments” to wear and the number of daily services to be held. These have led the working party to propose the imposition of “an unequivocal public oath to uphold Church law” and the creation of new courts to try those “alleged to have erred on doctrine, ritual or ceremonial”. The proposed new tribunals, described by the journalist as “heresy courts”, would be chaired by an independent lawyer,
and consist of “three bishops, two members of the clergy and two lay people”. They would be advised “by a panel of theologians selected to reflect a range of opinions”. The working party made clear that discipline over doctrine would be “rare and exceptional” but that there needed to be “boundaries of permissibility”.
It is not clear from the article whether the working party’s concern over vestments is that vestments with Romish implications are being worn, or that prescribed priestly vestments are not being worn. At the time of the Reformation, Bishop John Hooper contended that priestly vestments were not among things indifferent which might be tolerated in the Church but belonged to the “rituals of Aaron . . . annulled in Christ”. The compromise of leaders of the English Reformation on this matter was symptomatic of the failure of the Anglican Church to implement the regulative principle, which resulted in the Church of England becoming a Reformation Church with which Rome has always considered bridge-building most promising.
It is difficult to envisage what the “boundaries of permissibility” can be with regard to doctrine. The article recalls that, in a recent survey of 2000 of the Church’s 10 000 clerics, a third doubted or disbelieved the physical resurrection and only half were convinced of the truth of the virgin birth. Another recent article reported the experience of a Roman Catholic who decided for once to attend “midnight mass” on “Christmas Eve” in his local Anglican Church in West Norwood and found that it was more traditionally Romanist than what he was used to. The Scotsman of 26 December 2003 reported that “an ecumenical message from the Archbishop of Canterbury has urged Christians, Jews and Muslims to stand together against an increasingly secular society. . . . He also made a call for multi-faith unity, saying: ‘All our great religious traditions say something of this – which is one reason for Christians, Muslims, Jews and others to stand with each other and speak out for each other in times of stress or harassment’.”
The inclusiveness of the Church of England is what accounts for the difficulty which the Telegraph article (and no doubt the Church of England also) finds with the definition of heresy. The article refers, though inaccurately, to the highly significant case of Rev G C Gorham, whom the Bishop of Exeter in 1847 refused to admit to a charge in his diocese because Gorham, a Calvinist, denied baptismal regeneration, which the bishop claimed to be the doctrine of the Church of England. The ecclesiastical courts upheld the bishop, but the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, to which Gorham appealed, concluded that the standards of the Church of England did not exclude Gorham’s position. This was a major factor in the decision of Anglican Archdeacon Henry Manning to move to Rome, later becoming a cardinal.
This was not, however, the last heresy case, as the article claims. Apart
from anything since, there was the case of Rev G A Denison, an Anglican Archdeacon who was, as a result of legal processes between 1854 and 1858, deprived of his charge on account of Romanising views of the presence of Christ in the Lord’s Supper, but was eventually acquitted on a technicality. These conflicting outcomes in the Tractarian-Evangelical controversy and the acceptance in subsequent decades of liberal views of Scripture, and of doctrine generally, were significant aspects of the trend towards the present pluralism of the Church of England which makes the definition of heresy and the disciplining of heretics in a Biblical sense a remote prospect.
The situation of the Church of England is a solemn reminder to all ecclesiastical bodies of the absolute necessity of maintaining and acting on thoroughly Biblical Reformation principles in every area of church life. As far as human means are concerned, this is the way to preserve church life and practice from the inevitable downgrade resultant upon human corruption, and to reform it when that downgrade has taken place: “Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you” (Matt 28:20). HMC
The Wicked Honoured and Sin Promoted
Among the newspaper articles on the Queen’s New Year Honours list, some commented on people who refused an honour, and others criticised the giving of honours to certain entertainment figures as a trivialising of the system. But we have seen none – except the British Church Newspaper – which noted that “members of the homosexual community were prominent in the list”. The paper rightly observes that “this confirms their influence at the highest levels of the British political establishment”.
Some of these awards were given specifically in recognition of furthering the agenda for their own iniquitous lifestyle. For example, an inspector in the Metropolitan Police was given the MBE for “services to the gay community”. And an Edinburgh woman received her award “in recognition of the influence and value of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community” – whatever that may exactly mean.
It is a fixed principle that when a nation honours those who promote practices condemned by God that the nation will descend deeper into sin. Apart from God’s grace, our nation can only sink further into the morass of immorality in which it now wallows. “The wicked walk on every side, when the vilest men are exalted” (Ps 12:8). NMR
The Law and Parental Discipline
A booklet entitled, Children, Physical Punishment and the Law – a guide for parents in Scotland, has been recently issued by the Scottish Executive. It has found its way into most homes where there are young children who attend either nurseries or primary schools. It sets out to explain recent changes in the
law which, among other things, make it illegal to use an implement in the chastisement of children. The booklet indicates that, when a court considers a case of physical punishment, it will make full scrutiny of “what was done to the child, for what reason and what the circumstances were”. To most parents the actual terms of the new legislation may sound acceptable, in that there is a very obvious need to protect little children from a minority of violently abusive parents. However certain things in the booklet give cause for concern.
When this new legislation was being framed, it was argued strongly that the law as it then stood, if properly administered, was sufficient to protect vulnerable children from physical abuse. However, it was felt that this new legislation tended to infringe on the liberty of perfectly reasonable, loving parents who saw the need, on occasion, to chastise their children physically. This remains our view. What causes most concern in the approach of the Scottish Executive to the issue, however, is the response to the question, “Don’t children need to be taught discipline?” In answering in the affirmative, the booklet takes the line that “discipline should not be about instilling obedience or inflicting physical punishment”. Apart from the rather inappropriate use of the loaded word inflicting, this statement is manifestly at variance with Scripture and common sense. Every parent should know that physical punishment is not something to be administered for every misdemeanour and that discipline is best instilled by careful explanation and encouragement. Yet discipline is all about instilling obedience. “Children, obey your parents,” is the Fifth Commandment, as expressed in Ephesians 6. And a minister of the New Testament is to be one who “rules well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity” (1 Tim 3:4). There is no conflict between instilling obedience and the gentle encouragement to self-discipline which the booklet suggests.
It seems clear that, as is strongly suggested in this booklet, the Executive desires the complete abolition of all reasonable physical chastisement. There is a very real concern, among Christian parents who love their children, that the interference of the State in such matters undermines their duty, to God and to their children, to bring them up to obey God’s commandments. The lawlessness of young children, who now rule many homes, is only further advanced by the insinuations of this booklet. While endorsing the very laudable attempt to restrain the evil and brutish parents who maltreat their children, we commend to parents the standards of the Bible in this as in every other social and domestic matter. We also commend to children of all ages God’s command to obey their parents when that is consistent with the other laws of God. To the Fifth Commandment there is added an unfailing promise: “that thy days may be long in the land”.
DC
Evil Men Waxing Worse and Worse
How persuasively certain TV producers, filmmakers, playwrights and their psychologist supporters have argued in recent years that portraying immoral behaviour would not incite others to similar behaviour. Common sense itself, let alone Scripture, indicates otherwise. And so do the cases of those who have been defiled by, and become addicted to, pornographic images – an evil that is especially heinous when child abuse is involved.
The children’s charity NCH, in a study entitled Child Pornography, Child Abuse and the Internet, says that the internet has allowed a huge increase in the volume of child abuse images being viewed and that such images act as a “crucial trigger” for some men to become involved in the sexual abuse of children. Child-pornography crime, says the study, has risen sharply in Britain over the past 13 years and, it adds, “the consequences for children in all parts of the world are horrifying”.
Our prayer for children worldwide is that they would not only be kept from such evil men but also that they would be made, by the spread of the gospel and through the power of the Spirit of God, spiritual children of God. Paul warned Timothy that evil men would wax worse and worse, but he was to continue in the truths he had learned from Scripture even as a child. May today’s rising generation learn the truth and be kept by the power of God.
We pray too that such bodies as the NCH will have much success in publicising the seriousness of the problem, in pressing the internet industry to improve technical tools to prevent access to such shocking images, in calling for a unified international approach to child abuse, and in urging the United States in particular (where many of these images originate) to dedicate more resources to eradicating this evil. We must also prayerfully remember law-enforcement agencies which are striving to stem the increasing incidence of this most base vice.
NMR
Palestinian Terrorism and Christian Churches
The Christian Church is indebted to the Jewish people, from whom we have received the Word of God, and it is therefore obliged to love and help them. The Christian Churches cannot remain indifferent to the Palestinian assault on Israel and the murder of numerous citizens by suicide bombers. We consider it to be the duty of the churches, in terms of the Sixth Commandment, “Thou shalt not kill”, to support the State of Israel in her endeavour to defeat Islamic terrorism. Accordingly, we disapprove of the majority of Christian churches in Israel giving misguided support to the Palestinians and thus lending tacit support to the terrorists. These churches are surely aware that recent polls have found that 70% of Palestinians support suicide bombing, and that Palestinian leaders are bent on the eradication of Israel.
The Christian churches should note, for example, that in a BBC interview last year a Hamas spokesman, Mahmoud Zahar, admitted his belief that there is no place for Israel in the Middle East and that, whatever concessions Israel may give, Muslim opponents will never renounce violence completely. Zahar also said that the “ceasefire” which Islam permits is known as a “hudna” – a temporary cessation of hostilities until strength is regained to resume the fight. These churches should also remember that the Hamas terrorist leader Abdel Aziz Rantisi told the world’s media from his hospital bed last year that he would not rest until the last Zionist is killed or kicked out of the Holy Land.
In our view, therefore, the appropriate Christian response is to support and sympathise with the people of Israel in their sufferings as they endeavour to oppose the campaign of terror being relentlessly waged against them. Where the “powers that be” are exercising their lawful authority, the Christian – whatever his community or ethnicity – is called to act in accordance with the principles of Romans 13:1-7.
JLG