Presbyterian Churches do not attempt to dictate the political allegiances of their members, and readers of this Magazine may hold different views of the precise nature of the relation which should exist between the member nations of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. But it helps in assessing situations to be clear on matters of fact and to judge not by prejudice but by principle informed by regard to God’s Word and concern for God’s glory and the spiritual well-being of the population of our Islands. The Establishment Principle implies that it is part of the prophetic function of the Church to bring biblical considerations to bear on social and political issues. Current discussions of the Union of the Parliaments in 1707, and of the desirability or otherwise of continuing the Union, focus on the perceived economic and political benefits or disadvantages of union or separation in 1707 and today and frequently confuse the issues.
The Union, which became effective on 1 May 1707, did not spring out of nowhere in the years immediately preceding it, though events during these years occasioned it at that particular time. It was the culmination of a process which probably originated in the eleventh century and received its first great impulse after the Scottish defeat by the English at Flodden (1513), from the Protestant Reformation (1560) and close relations with Reformers in England. Its second great impulse came from the Union of the Crowns (1603), its third from the Covenant into which these nations entered with one another and with God (1643), and its fourth from the Revolution and the accession of King William III (1689).
Undoubtedly questions of politics, national security, finance, language and an increasingly-common culture entered substantially into the movement for union. Many Presbyterians as well as Jacobites strongly opposed the movement initially, some because they considered it wrong to enter into an incorporating union with a nation which they perceived had broken Covenant and maintained a prelatic Church which they feared would threaten the Presbyterian constitution of the Church of Scotland. Acts of Security written into the union treaties safeguarded the independence and Presbyterian government of the Scottish Church and muted much of the ecclesiastical opposition.
It has to be said that the British Parliament violated the terms of agreement, for example with the Acts of Toleration and Patronage, 1712, which resulted in several secessions and the Disruption of 1843.
However, it soon became apparent that the Union was made possible in the providence of God because of the common Protestantism of England and Scotland and that, in spite of the tensions accounted for by the Presbyterian / Anglican antipathy, it was a bulwark against the threat of resurgent Roman Catholicism and of coming again under Jacobite and French dominion. Before long this was publicly acknowledged even by church courts which had formerly been hostile or lukewarm towards union. As Professor Christopher Whatley (The Scots and the Union, 2006) puts it: “Almost by default, the union and the defence of the ‘true’ Protestant interest against the Catholic enemy without and the Episcopalians within were becoming inextricably linked in the minds of the mass of Scottish Presbyterians”.
The single biggest factor in the unity of this Island has been the common commitment of the constituent nations to the Protestant constitution and throne. As this has declined, so has meaningful understanding of what it is to “be British”. While the present legislatures of the United Kingdom and of Scotland practically ignore the Christian and Protestant constitution of the Kingdom, it still exists as the basis of the Union and provides some legal leverage for those seeking to defend their right to maintain Christian standards. There is little doubt that the breaking of the Union would result in this nation ceasing to be constitutionally Protestant and so, at least formally, committed to the religion and morality of the Bible. Prominent Roman Catholics have indicated either indifference to the outcome of discussions regarding the Union or a preference for an independent Scotland.
Some who wish to break up the union which exists in the United Kingdom are enthusiastic to enter independently into the union which exists in Europe. A columnist in The Scotsman (19 January 2007) comments: “For Scotland, there would be some piquancy in removing itself from one union in the quest for sovereignty and self-determination, only to find we have sustained a greater loss of sovereignty through an EU dedicated to ‘ever-closer union’, common foreign affairs, defence and security policies, citizenship rules and economic policies”. We fear that more than sovereignty and self-determination are being lost. We are jettisoning the heritage which, in its modern form, we owe ultimately to the work of grace which began in the sixteenth-century Reformation.
The writer’s views are probably obvious, but this note is simply an appeal to readers to consider these important issues from a spiritual and religious point of view.
HMC
Highest-Ever Number of UK Abortions
Even the notorious organisation, Marie Stopes International, itself seemed surprised when it announced that almost 6000 abortions had been carried out in its nine UK centres in January alone – the highest number in 32 years. One must agree with the spokesman for a pro-life organisation who commented, “Stopes should stop trying to fool the public by feigning innocence and bewilderment about the rise in abortions. . . . Marie Stopes spends significant resources promoting and providing abortion. Unborn children are being killed and vulnerable women are suffering post-abortion trauma as a result of Marie Stopes’ work.”
How appalling that since the Abortion Act was passed in 1967, over six and a half million unborn children have been killed by surgical abortion. It is a disgrace to our nation that, when passed, it was one of the most liberal abortion acts in Europe. Abortion is allowed in Britain at up to 24 weeks – more than half way through a normal pregnancy and the highest legal limit for such terminations in Europe.
There is growing unease among politicians about our Government’s barbaric approach to human life. No doubt such recent incidents as the survival of baby Amilla Sonja Taylor, born after only 22 weeks in the womb, underlined the barbarism of aborting babies at up to 24 weeks old. There are also instances of babies surviving the abortion procedure. A Government agency is launching an inquiry into doctors’ reports that up to 50 babies a year are born alive after botched abortions in the National Health Service.
It is solemn indeed that abortion marks our nation as guilty before God. God warned Israel not to leave unpunished any unlawful killing, at the peril of having guilt and punishment come upon the nation itself. How much more does a nation which legislates for unlawful killing stand guilty before God. “For, behold, the Lord cometh out of His place to punish the inhabitants of the earth for their iniquity: the earth also shall disclose her blood, and shall no more cover her slain” (Is 26:21).
NMR
The Education Secretary on Marriage
The ordinance of marriage was instituted by God in the Garden of Eden. It was between one man and one woman, the woman being specially created for the man, and out of the man. “This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh,” said Adam; “she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. Therefore shall a man shall leave his father and his mother and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh” (Gen 2:23-24).
Marriage has both civil and religious elements. It involves a vow before God, and therefore it is religious; but it also involves rights and property,
which are the concern of the civil powers. In marriage, therefore, there is to be an acknowledgement both of God and of the state. It is right that the ceremony of marriage should be performed by a minister of the gospel, and it is right that the state should have knowledge of the union which is to be formed. When men and women cohabit without marriage they are defying God and they are also defying the authority that He has established in the hands of civil rulers. If rulers were wise, and were governing according to biblical principles, they would discourage such conduct. Those who are living in open rebellion against God and authority are not likely to be loyal or scrupulously honest in other matters.
The fruit of the widespread breakdown and abandonment of marriage is seen all around us, and it is increasingly forcing its attention upon our rulers. What can be done, they wonder, to reduce the torrent of juvenile crime? An obvious solution is to try to promote marriage, and this, very feebly, has been the policy of the present Government. But such a policy “stigmatises alternative lifestyles”, say the more extreme enemies of Christian morality in the Labour Party. And the Education Secretary, Alan Johnson, who is a candidate for the position of deputy leader of the Labour party, has publicly maintained that “other family models” are equally effective in the upbringing of children. He regards the former married couple’s allowance, which the Government abolished, as “pernicious and judgemental” because it discriminated against children whose parents were not married.
As long as our rulers regard the sin of immorality as sacrosanct, and indeed as the essence of liberty, we as a nation must expect to incur the increasing anger of God. We very much doubt that Mr Johnson’s remarks are based on evidence, but rather on a simple refusal to admit that God’s way is best. “The commandment is holy, and just, and good” (Rom 7:12). Sin has many ramifications, and the immorality of the parents causes difficulties for the children, and for society, that the parents did not envisage or intend. We are seeing, alas, that God does indeed visit “the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children’s children, unto the third and to the fourth generation” (Ex 34:7).
DWBS