House of Lords’ Decision in Case of Jehovah Witnesses’ Official.
A 21-year-old Scottish official of Jehovah Witnesses, of Dalmuir, Glasgow, claimed to be a “regular minister” of a religious denomination and therefore exempt from National Service in Her Majesty’s Forces. He, not being granted this exemption by the authorities, took the case to the Court of Session, Edinburgh, claiming a decision in his favour under the National Service Act, 1948. Lord Strachan, in the Second Division of the Court of Session, found and declared that this young man, Douglas Walsh, was not entitled to exemption from National Service. At the hearing of this case, officials of this evil organisation came over from America to be witnesses on behalf of this “pioneer publisher” and “congregation servant” in the person of Walsh. An Appeal was intimated to the House of Lords, from Lord Strachan’s judgment, and this was heard; and the judgment of the House of Lords was published last July. The House of Lords upheld what Lord Morton described as “the powerful judgments delivered by the Second Division” of the Court of Session. And the Appeal of this member of Jehovah Witnesses was accordingly dismissed. Lord Morton, Lord Goddard, Lord MacDermott, Lord Somervell, and Lord Keith, all agreed that this young fellow was not a regular minister of a religious body within the meaning of the National Service Act, 1948. In giving judgment, Lord Morton said, “The organisation of Jehovah Witnesses is of such a kind as to create no such office as a ‘regular minister’ in the sense in which these words are used in the 1948 Act.” He said that every member of this organisation became a “minister.” Lord Goddard said: “It is the spiritual or pastoral status and not the performance of functions that gives the right to exemption from military service. . . . Considering that among Jehovah Witnesses every person baptised into the sect is a minister regardless of sex, age, education, or any qualification, it follows that the sect has no ministers within the meaning of the Act, and consequently no regular ministers.” It was indeed good that the Courts of Britain have thrown out this claim by Jehovah Witnesses. It was an attempt on their part to get exemption from obligation to the law of the land for hundreds, maybe thousands of their young men, who go about the country selling and spreading blasphemous literature judged by Scriptural doctrine.
But from our personal knowledge of their tenets, the real issue behind the whole case was the fact that this pernicious and dangerous organisation repudiates and disowns all the civil governments of the world, as being, in their perverted view, Satanic governments. To be “consistent” with this, they must refuse to serve such governments when it suits themselves. They take and enjoy the civil liberties and privileges provided by the British and U.S.A. Governments, but there is no rebellion against such matters. And so men scripturally and regularly ordained to the office of the Christian ministry by a religious denomination have a special status in the eyes of the law of the land. This is as it should be and is according to the Word of God.
New Edition of Russian Bible.
A copyright article in the Scotsman, Edinburgh, recently gave interesting information regarding the first Bible to be printed in Russia for over 30 years. Copies have arrived in London from Moscow. It is a large volume of more than 1,200 pages, and in London costs £3. The first 25,000, according to Russian reports, have been eagerly bought in the Soviet Union. The new Bible is said not to bear the censor’s stamp, as most printed material from Russia does. The text has not been tampered with, and is exactly the Bible the Russian Church has had for over 80 years. Of course, the Apocrypha is included, and it is said that there are some additions to the Books of Esther and Daniel, which are not recognised as belonging to the Canon of Scripture. One Russian professor said that this Bible was one more step on the road . . . in order that the Russian believing man may easily, and as completely as possible, assimilate the great revelations of the Bible given to us for our salvation. . . .” May the God of the Bible cause His Word to have free course in Russia, in face of much godless and wilful opposition to its doctrines and principles, that light and liberty may permeate that nation held in the oppressive grasp of a number of godless men; who are also oppressing Hungary at the present time.
Threats to Israel.
As we write, all news regarding the Israeli invasion of Egypt and the British and French intervention in the Suez Canal area, is the subject of world-wide discussion and controversy. We do not propose to make unnecessary comment here on the present situation. But we herewith reprint significant comment on the background of this situation from what is called a Prayer Letter, of September, 1956, issued by the Hebrew Christian Testimony to Israel, with the address, 189 Whitechapel Road, London, E.1, viz. “We pen these notes on the day of the opening of the London Conference on Suez . . . who can guess what the news will be by the time that this letter is in the hands of the readers. . . .
“Nasser threatened Israel in his Suez Canal speech. He said that Israel’s ambition was to control the land ‘from the Nile to the Euphrates,’ but he would counter that by avowing that he would see the ‘Arab homeland extended from the Atlantic Ocean to the Persian Gulf.’
“The Egyptian Government seems determined to deprive all foreigners of their property and belongings, for in July they seized a Jewish Land Company, and ‘legally transferred it to Egyptian hands.’
“At the Security Council Israel accused the Jordan Government leaders of inciting their people to hostility against Israel in the most unbridled and irresponsible language. ‘Children in schools are taught to regard the destruction of Israel as the goal to which they must aspire. The newspapers and the radio inject a daily dose of poisonous propaganda calling for the “day of revenge,” the “conquest of the stolen Arab paradise,” the “complete elimination of Israel,” and other such exhortations to war. The Government of Israel, which like all other Governments is responsible for securing the lives, the safety and the property of all who dwell within its borders, cannot be expected to submit to this calculated terrorism pursued by Jordan, and cannot acquiesce in a state of affairs in which those who do violence to the Armistice Agreement are enabled to pursue their evil designs with impunity.”
Strathpeffer Convention.
This religious Convention was held once again at Strathpeffer, Ross-shire, in the autumn, and a note appeared in the North Star, the Dingwall paper, on the final day’s proceedings. As reported in former years, a united communion service was held. A Church of Scotland minister officiated, and the elements were distributed by a minister of the Church of Scotland, a minister of the Free Church, a minister of the Baptist Church, and a leader of the Christian Brethren. The writer of the note said it was “inspiring to see denominational differences sunk in a common loyalty and allegiance to the Redeemer of mankind.” No doubt the Convention concerned itself with doctrine, experience, and practice and worship related to the Christian faith. According to the accepted and professed testimony of the above four branches of professing Christians, fundamental differences characterise each one. For example: Recently, the Baptist Union gave notice that they were (naturally) critical of the Church of Scotland’s views on baptism unfolded in a lengthy and detailed report on baptism by one of its special committees. The Free Church professes that it is, if anything, a Calvinistic body, and the Church of Scotland and the Baptists are anything but Calvinistic.
The Christian Brethren, if not Plymouth Brethren, yet seem to lay no stress on the New Testament stated ordained ministry, etc. The questions of instrumental music and uninspired hymns in the particular public worship of God were no doubt ignored in the said “common loyalty” once more. Without dwelling on this line of things, we think it may be fairly said that this Convention is a Convention of common compromise; unless, of course, there is discussion and controversy, in an orderly manner, upon the vital and professed fundamental religious differences which characterise those taking part. If this does not obtain, then there must of necessity be a serious limitation of the doctrinal ground of the unity and fellowship said to be experienced at Strathpeffer. The Baptist loses his special identity and the Presbyterian leaves at home much which he professes to hold by conviction. Why, if there is a common loyalty and allegiance to the Redeemer at this Convention, is it not carried to a permanent and continuous activity by a union of those religious bodies concerned? Indeed, this is the up-to-date theme of many religious leaders to-day. Strathpeffer in a small way is following that lead, albeit unwittingly on the part of some.
Site of Gibeon Discovered.
As reported in the Press, America archaeologists have recently discovered, while excavating near Jerusalem, the site of the Israelite city of Gibeon of which we read in the Old Testament. One outstanding part of the discovery is the disclosure of a pool cut from the solid rock, and large enough to contain a three-storey house. It is naturally believed that this pool is the one mentioned in II Samuel ii. 13, viz.: “And Joab the son of Zeruiah, and the servants of David, went out, and met together by the pool of Gibeon. . . .” Although the inspired Scriptures need no external or human testimony to substantiate their absolute trustworthiness; yet men have been, and still are, discovering undeniable confirmation of what is recorded in the Scriptures, and which many sceptics have looked upon as myth and fokelore.
The Keswick Convention.
The late godly Pastor J. K. Popham of Brighton, and editor of the Gospel Standard, declared the Keswick teaching to be false, false to Scripture, and false to experience. “Touch not, taste not, handle not,” he writes, “the unclean thing of universal redemption; for it is a deep dishonour cast on the glorious Redeemer who attained eternal redemption, and purchased the Church with His own blood. It impugns the justice of God, of whom it is written, ‘A just God and a Saviour.’ Have nothing to do with the flattering, natural faith preached—it is not true to the Scripture teaching on this vital subject. Leave the so-called deepening of spiritual life, the consecration, the returning home of the pilgrims with the vows of God upon them. Remember that underlying all Keswick teaching is a redemption which does not redeem, a Saviour who does not save, a Lord who does not reign, except with the consent of that natural faith, which according to Dr. Scroggie is possessed by the avowed infidel equally with the children of God.”—D. MacL.