The Columba Declaration
The Church of England and the Church of Scotland have announced “an historic agreement”, called the Columba Declaration, which “recognises their long-standing ecumenical partnership and lays the groundwork for future joint projects”. At the time of writing, the document has not even been published in full, and has not yet been debated either by the Synod of the Church of England or by the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, but this does not stop leading figures from saying that an agreement “has been reached”. The approval of the Church courts is regarded as a rubber stamp, apparently.
The summary of the report contains no surprises, and amounts to little more than a mutual acknowledgment and the keeping up of a “Contact Group” which is to meet “at least annually”. An example is given of the sort of ecumenical projects that are in mind: the Church of England and the Church of Scotland, along with three other denominations, have set up an internet bank, in response to “concerns that low-income families needed access to low-cost banking and loans”. That such an agreement should be hailed as “historic” shows the extent to which the ecumenical movement has run out of steam. Surprisingly, the Declaration has deeply offended the Primus and other members of the Scottish Episcopal Church because it disregards the special position that they feel that they have in Scotland.
The bitter ecumenical manoeuvring behind these agreements reminds one of Dr Martyn Lloyd-Jones’ comment that “the burial of many corpses together in a graveyard does not lead to resurrection”. The great need of the Church of Scotland is not ecumenical links but rather to relearn the fundamental truth that “he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned” (Mk 16:16). DWBS
Children Seized From Christian Parents
Draconian measures appear to have been taken against a Christian family in Norway by the Barnevernet, the country’s child welfare service. It has accused Marius and Ruth Bodnariu of “Christian radicalism and indoctrination” and seized their three sons and two daughters. Marius, a Romanian, and his wife Ruth, had moved from Bucharest to Ruth’s home town near Bergen 10 years ago wishing to raise their family according to biblical principles.
Last November, without warning, the authorities took their two daughters, Eliana and Naomi, out of school and placed them in an unknown location. They then went to the home and forcibly removed the two elder sons, Matthew and John, and arrested Ruth who, with three-month-old baby Ezekiel, was taken to a police station. Officials went to Marius’ workplace and apparently arrested him too. After several hours of interrogation the parents were allowed home with Ezekiel but without the other children. The following day, Barnevernet officials and four police officers, seemingly with no documentation, came to take away the “breast-feeding baby”, on the grounds that Ruth was “dangerous”.
Why did all this take place? Apparently, according to Marius’ brother, Daniel, who is a pastor, the principal of the girls’ school contacted welfare authorities voicing concern about how the children were being raised and disciplined at home. She complained that they were “very Christian” and that the parents and other relations believe “God punishes sin”, which “creates a disability in the children”. The principal went on to say that “she did not believe they were physically abused at home but that the parents needed ‘help and guidance’ (by the child welfare service) as to how to raise their children”. When the Barnevernet questioned the girls about their home life they said that they hid some things from their parents because they feared being pulled by the ear and spanked.
Daniel Bodnariu adds that the girls explicitly told the investigators that although they feared punishment, they did not fear their parents. The report goes on to say that “it is clear that there are no signs of physical abuse, but that the older children stated that they were being punished”. The children were physically examined and the baby was even subjected to x-rays and a CT scan but no injuries were discovered. The child welfare service, however, claims that Marius is physically abusive. He vehemently denies this. Presumably the allegation is made because the Barnevernet believes he uses corporal punishment on the children, which is illegal in Norway.
Within a few days the devastated parents were notified that the children had been separated into two foster families and that they had “already started integrating into their new lifestyle”. The Barnevernet then appeared to taunt them saying, “The kids don’t even miss you; what kind of parents are you?” According to Daniel Bodnarius, the children were told that “their parents had abandoned them and did not care for them”. The Bodnarius’ appeal against the state’s intervention was rejected; however the couple are allowed to see Ezekiel twice a week for two hours at a time. Ruth is also allowed to visit their younger sons once a week, but both parents are denied any contact with their daughters.
Of course, all alleged abuse must be investigated and Daniel Bodnarius acknowledges this. Clearly we need to know the facts, but it is hard to think that these reports indicate anything other than a secular state seeking control over a Christian family and indeed persecuting them. Apparently there is a documented history of unwarranted Barnevernet interference in families – especially immigrant families. Daniel Bodnarius certainly believes so. In an internet post he states, “Norwegian children are taught in school to notify their teachers if a parent asks them to do their homework, or to do something that a child, in its childishness, finds unappealing, so that the teachers help the children to get rid of such parents”. He concludes, “Marius and Ruth have raised a ‘normal’ family with Christian values . . . and have taken every imaginable step in raising their children with loving care”.
It is clear that many agree with him. A petition on their behalf has attracted nearly 30 000 signatures. Ongoing worries about Barnevernet have led concerned professionals, including lawyers, psychologists and social workers to petition the Norwegian Parliament in June 2015 seeking assurances: “Society wants to be confident that Barnevernet operates with high professional competence and exercises good judgement . . . but those of us involved in individual cases unfortunately see another reality too often”. A Romanian senator has asked the Parliamentary Assembly of the European Council to investigate the Bodnarius case.
When we read and hear of such cases we see the results of a secular outlook. Christianity is under attack. Scotland’s acceptance of the “Named Person Scheme” may open doors for similar cases; it is a cause for concern and for prayer. Families could be destroyed solely because parents have sought to discipline their children in love and to bring them up according to God’s own Word, which says, “Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou beatest him with a rod, he shall not die. Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell” (Prov 23:13,14) Of course, punishment must not be excessive and children must not be abused. They are to be brought up in the “nurture” as well as in the “admonition of the Lord” (Eph 6:4). Correction must be carried out in love, which is how God deals with His children: “Whom the Lord loveth He chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom He receiveth” (Heb 12:6). KHM
Acquittal of Falsely Accused Evangelist
Christian Voice reports on the acquittal, on appeal, of a Christian open-air preacher in Taunton who had previously been convicted of a public order offence before a Muslim judge. The interesting point was the collapse of the prosecution case when it transpired that both witnesses had embellished their testimony by alleging that the evangelist said things that were “homophobic”. What had offended them was the simple preaching of the gospel, but to get the man arrested they complained to the police about “homophobia” and “racism”.
The martyr Stephen was dealt with similarly in Acts 6: “And they were not able to resist the wisdom and the spirit by which he spake. Then they suborned men, which said, We have heard him speak blasphemous words against Moses, and against God. And they stirred up the people, and the elders, and the scribes, and came upon him, and caught him, and brought him to the council, and set up false witnesses, which said, This man ceaseth not to speak blasphemous words against this holy place, and the law” (vv 10-13). The gospel has lost none of its offence. DWBS