The Blasphemy Law
On 5 March 2008 the House of Lords approved by 148 votes to 87 an amendment to the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill which provided that “the offences of blasphemy and blasphemous libel under the common law of England and Wales are abolished”. According to a legal definition adopted in a 1970s case, “every publication is said to be blasphemous which contains any contemptuous, reviling, scurrilous or ludicrous matter relating to God, to Jesus Christ or the Bible, or to the formularies of the Church of England as by law established”. As long ago as 1949 Lord Denning asserted that “the offence of blasphemy is now a dead letter”. Few prosecutions have been attempted under it over the years.
The removal of this offence from the statute book in England and Wales has been the aim of secularists for many years. The issue was considered in the Lords in 1995, 2001, 2002 and 2005. On the latter occasion the Lords rejected by 153 votes to 113 a proposal by Lord Avebury which would have abolished the offence of blasphemy. The reports of Law Commissions and Select Committees over a period have indicated that the wind was blowing in the direction of either abolishing the offence or extending equal cover in some form to other religions. On this occasion the subject was introduced hastily by the back door as a result of a promise made in the House of Commons in January 2008 to persuade Evan Harris MP to withdraw proposals along these lines – a promise that after a short period of consultation the Government would abolish the common law criminal offences of blasphemy and blasphemous libel. So much for the place given to consultation!
The amendment was moved by Baroness Andrews on behalf of the Department for Communities and Local Government, which she described as “the department that promotes social cohesion and matters of faith”. Lord Avebury was again to the fore in seeking the abolition of the offence and the Government imposed a three-line whip on its peers. Among the arguments were the following: if the Lord exists, He can defend Himself and does not need the protection of our laws; He was content to be mocked when He was on earth; there are other laws now to protect individuals from religious hatred; the law is rarely invoked and is probably unworkable and so its continued existence brings the law as a whole into disrepute; and its existence hinders the UK’s ability to challenge oppressive blasphemy laws in other countries. There was also the common cry that in a multi-faith society the law discriminates between religions and infringes freedom of expression.
In the debate the point was well made by several speakers that the removal
of the offence of blasphemy from the law of the land, however rarely people may have been prosecuted or found guilty, was not promoting neutrality but was a clear signal that the state was abandoning its Christian heritage and character and marked a major step in its secularisation and its growing hostility to the Christian religion. No doubt this was a strong motivation for the enthusiasm of its opponents to get rid of a law which they alleged was redundant. How many “redundant” laws clutter the statute book and are left undisturbed? One speaker said that “secularisation will bleach from our memories the inextricable link between Christianity and so much of value in our society and in our system of law and government”.
It seems that the last convictions for blasphemy under Scots law were in 1843 and it is alleged that there is uncertainty as to whether or not it is now a criminal offence in this part of the Kingdom. How sadly we have departed from the position of the Westminster Confession of Faith, “ratified and established by Acts of Parliament 1649 and 1690 as the public and avowed Confession of the Church of Scotland”. The Confession requires that the civil magistrate “take order . . . that the truth of God be kept pure and entire, that all heresies and blasphemies be suppressed” (23:3). Even if such laws and their sanctions are but rarely implemented, they bear symbolic testimony to the Christian character of the state and to the reverence publicly professed for the one living and true God. As William Cunningham says, “it is competent to, and incumbent upon, nations as such, and civil rulers in their official capacity, or in the exercise of their legitimate control over civil matters, to aim at the promotion of the honour of God, the welfare of true religion, and the prosperity of the Church of Christ” (Historical Theology, vol 2, p 561).
The jettisoning of laws which were adopted with these aims clearly indicates the extent to which the legislature has renounced the fear of God. The significance of abolishing the offence of blasphemy will give fresh impetus to those who engage in profanity. It will encourage those who will not rest until Christianity is disestablished and the Protestant character of the throne and of the national constitution is destroyed. It will further weaken those who seek to use the legal status of Christianity in their witness on the side of truth. And it cannot but incur the displeasure of God whose glory is ultimately the matter at stake. HMC
The Doctrine of the New Birth in the Free Church
The doctrine of the new birth is fundamental to evangelical Christianity: “Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God” (Jn 3:3); “If any man be in Christ he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new” (2 Cor 5:17). The startlingly rapid loss of this doctrine in the Free Church of Scotland after the Disruption should
be a warning to every Church to be “watchful, and strengthen the things which remain” (Rev 3:2). Judging by their February Monthly Record, however, the same doctrinal declension seems to be taking place in the present Free Church of Scotland.
The radical problem, over a number of years now, has been the promotion of worldliness by some of the Free Church leaders. Several of them have defended, even actively encouraged, conduct which conforms to the world in a way that is sinful. This has ranged from inappropriate behaviour and dress in public worship, which has become increasingly casual, to practices such as listening to pop music and going to pop concerts, drinking in public houses, reading Harry Potter books, and attending football matches.
The effect of this, inevitably, has been to blur the distinction between the Church and the world, so that a “Christian” is only distinguished from the world by the fact that he goes to church (on the whole) and that he abstains from the grosser sort of sins. And the effect of this blurring, equally inevitably, has been to undermine the doctrine of the new birth, and to nurture dubious Christianity. True conversion involves a great spiritual change in the soul, a passing from “death to life” (Eph 2:5) and from “darkness to light” (1 Pet 2:9), but this cannot be preached if “converts” are going to behave very much as before. The danger of spurious conversions and of self-deception is greatly increased. If an acceptable profession of Christianity involves only a minimal commitment, with no real change of life, then there will be more “conversions”, but how many of these will be real?
An article by a female contributor in the February Monthly Record highlights this danger. The article discusses the “spiritual journey” of the members of the well-known pop group U2, three out of four of whom are said to be Christians. They still “drink, smoke, and swear!” the article boasts, before going on: “Can they be Christians? One way of telling is to see if they have changed and touched other people’s lives.” Reference is then made to their concern for social justice, their work in famine relief, their efforts to improve water supply in Third World countries, and their use of Scripture in some of their songs. The conclusion is that there can be no doubt that they are Christians.
Our main concern is not with U2, but with the evidence which the Monthly Record regards as convincing proof of true Christianity. The biblical warning against bad language is brushed aside: “If any man among you seem to religious, and bridleth not his tongue, but deceiveth his own heart, this man’s religion is vain” (Jas 1:26). Instead we are directed to a criterion invented by the author of the article: whether one has “changed and touched” other people’s lives. The example of Judas – one who in Christ’s name had cast
out devils and done many wonderful works (Matt 7:22) – shows the false-ness of this criterion.
The Bible gives us many directions for examining our spiritual state. But one which, it seems, needs to be emphasised at this time is that of “holiness”. There must be a love of God’s holiness: “Give thanks at the remembrance of His holiness” (Ps 30:5, 97:12); there must be a desire for personal holiness and an endeavour after it: “Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord” (Heb 12:14); “Let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God” (2 Cor 7:1). If there is no such love and desire in the soul, then the Holy Spirit does not dwell there, whatever outward good works may be performed. DWBS