Religious Education concessions to political correctness
Objections to the exclusive teaching of Christianity in RE in schools sound so intellectually persuasive that few are able to withstand them. So says Peter Murcott, Isle of Man, in his document The Way We Should Go, as reported by Christian Herald. The drift to multi-faith instruction, he argues, resulted from damaging concessions to political correctness among other things. He complains rightly that a political correctness which objects to the teaching of Christianity as indoctrination of children does not hesitate to use its own brand of indoctrination, namely, telling children that there is nothing to choose between the various creeds.
In Scotland the same situation prevails. As our Religion and Morals Committee made clear to the Scottish Education Department last year, in response to a Report on RE by HM Inspectors of Schools, it is quite unacceptable that true Christianity should be ruled out of court because it proclaims its own uniqueness.
It is tragic that the rising generation should be subjected to the Satanic lie that no religion can claim absolute truth and that all religions are equal. May the Lord hasten the day when the young people nationwide will learn and believe the truth declared by the Saviour: “I am the way, the truth and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.” NMR
“Toronto Blessing” ready to curse Westminster Chapel
Dr R. T. Kendall, the present minister of Westminster Chapel, London, where Dr Martyn Lloyd-Jones ministered until 1968, has gone public on his acceptance of the Charismatics’ Toronto Blessing. He thinks that it is a divine blessing indeed, for in March 1994 he wrote in the foreword to a book called Heaven and Hell by Charismatic Alex Buchanan, “The ‘Toronto Blessing’ (which is of God) must lead those who have experienced it to the burden of this book if they are to be mature and truly begin to shake the nations.” And then in the October 1994 edition of the Charismatic magazine Renewal, Dr Kendall spoke of his contact with Holy Trinity Church, Brompton, which earned a place in the national headlines for its wild acceptance of the Toronto Blessing. So what does Dr Kendall think of the appalling scenes of their so-called public worship, where worshippers are falling on the floor making noises like animals? “I have publicly affirmed what is happening at Holy Trinity, Brompton,” he says.
Dr Kendall also spoke of his own personal experience of the Blessing. When a member of the Holy Trinity staff prayed for him, Kendall is quoted as saying, “Within a minute or so, suddenly my mind became so relaxed. The nearest I can think of to describe it was when I had sodium pentathol years ago when I had major surgery. Yet I wasn’t unconscious. I felt myself falling forward There I was on the floor in front of all my deacons and their wives.” Would he like Toronto to come to Westminster Chapel? Sadly yes: “It may be that is not what God is calling us to do, but I can tell you we are open to it. We will be a bit disappointed if we don’t get into it up to the hilt.”
Sadly, this dire situation at Westminster Chapel is not altogether unconnected with Dr Lloyd-Jones himself. In May 1986 our Synod issued a resolution warning against the second-blessing teaching contained in some of Dr Lloyd-Jones’ books. For a vindication of the propriety of that warning, we have two reliable witnesses. The first witness is the article by Roy Middleton in volume 92 of the Free Presbyterian Magazine (pp. 149 ff.), where historical and literary evidence was marshalled forth in irrefutable manner. The second witness is the witness of present providence. For we cannot help but think that if Dr Lloyd-Jones had been more faithful in his own day, and had condemned outright all the distinctives of Pentecostalism and the Charismatic movement, things would not now be in so grave a condition at Westminster Chapel. May God grant its present minister spiritual light to see through the Satanic deception of the curse from Toronto.
KMW
Divorce Law Reforms
The Divorce Law Reform Bill which is to come before Parliament in the course of its next session has already stirred up much controversy at the centre of which is the Lord Chancellor. It grieves us much that we should find ourselves in disagreement with him over the matter. As we understand it — and many others — the introduction of the changes proposed will make divorce even easier than it is at present and that can only lead to the further undermining and demeaning of the divine ordinance of marriage. It will also accelerate the breaking down of the family unit. The Lord Chancellor does not see it that way and that he does not leaves us very perplexed. The Westminster Confession of Faith which all office-bearers in our Church — past and present — subscribe to, on ordination, and the whole doctrine of which they solemnly promise to maintain, assert and defend, to the utmost of their power and in their station, is clear and explicit on this matter: Although the corruption of man be such as is apt to study arguments unduly to put asunder those whom God hath joined together in marriage: yet, nothing but adultery, or such wilful desertion as can no way be remedied by the Church, or civil magistrate, is cause sufficient of dissolving the bond of marriage: wherein, a public and ordinary course of procedure is to be observed; and the persons concerned in it not left to their own wills, and discretion, in their own case. How can we possibly fit the concept of “no-fault divorce” into that statement? Lord Mackay denies that he is making divorce easier and because of the present state of the legislation which allows ‘quickie divorces’ within three or four months he may be right, but it is only relatively so. The abolition of the five-year waiting period and the introduction of the one-year period of ‘reflection and consideration’ would perhaps be a step in the right direction if one were sure that it would result in marriages being saved, but since divorcing couples are not forced into mediation, it is not clear that the provision will be of much help. Is it not to be feared that people will enter into marriage knowing that if things start to go wrong the union can be dissolved after a year without either party being blamed for the break-up. The Lord Chancellor’s proposals have stirred up so much political controversy that it is possible that Bill will never pass into law. Lords and Commoners are one day to give an account unto God and it would be their wisdom in matters such as these to conform to His will as the supreme Lawgiver. Is it not the height of folly to tamper with His law when He has plainly stated: “What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder.”?