The Inequitable Equality Bill
The Equality Bill is intended to clarify and codify the numerous existing acts and regulations against discrimination, but one of its overtly anti-Christian measures was the requirement that churches and Christian organisations employ even those who are opposed to Christianity, such as atheists and homosexuals. (This requirement does not apply to posts that mainly involve leading worship or teaching doctrine.) In December, the Government rejected an amendment to protect the right of churches not to employ such persons. To the surprise of the Government, the House of Lords voted in January for an amendment to the Bill to safeguard that rights of Christian churches.
However, in March, the House of Lords removed from the Equality Bill the ban on civil-partnership ceremonies being held in places of worship, by voting in favour of an amendment by the openly-homosexual peer, Lord Alli. Although it applies to those churches which choose to perform civil partnerships, there are fears that it will lead to confrontation between homosexual activists and the churches which will not so choose. We agree with those who say it will “open the floodgates of requests by homosexual couples to have civil partnership ceremonies conducted by the Church”.
At the time of writing, the Bill has to go before the Commons again, and we pray that the concerns voiced by numerous Christians will be heeded and the House of Lord’s civil-partnerships amendment rejected.
Whatever merits parts of the Bill may have, it is gravely flawed as a whole because of its anti-Christian elements, which include a requirement for public authorities to promote homosexuality, and the demotion of marriage to the level of relationships which are immoral. It is also restrictive of religious liberty – at least in spirit if not yet in fact. Although Harriet Harman is the Minister for Equality, she appears to believes that Christianity is less equal than other beliefs and certainly inferior to her egalitarian ideology.
When our religious freedom is under increasing pressure from ungodly legislation and a hostile media, it seems that widespread persecution of biblical Christianity is not far distant. Last November, our overlords, the unelected, unaccountable European Commission, sent the UK Government a legal document which argued that the UK needs to restrict the religious-liberty safeguards in its employment laws. Miss Harman’s Equalities Department tried to keep the document confidential but it has come to light that it also contains the statement: “The UK Government has informed the Commission that the new Equality Bill currently under discussion before the UK Parliament will amend this aspect of the law and bring UK law into line with the [Commission’s Employment] Directive”. We cannot but think of the prophet’s woeful words, “Your land, strangers devour it in your presence, and it is desolate, as overthrown by strangers” (Is 1:7).
However, although dark clouds gather, the Church of Christ will yet grow and be gathered together. God’s promise will certainly be fulfilled: “As a shepherd seeketh out his flock in the day that he is among his sheep that are scattered; so will I seek out My sheep, and will deliver them out of all places where they have been scattered in the cloudy and dark day” (Ezek 34:12).
NMR
Dr Lloyd-Jones and English Evangelicalism
A recent exchange between Rev Iain Murray of the Banner of Truth and Dr Carl Trueman, currently a Professor at Westminster Theological Seminary, raises an important issue. The exchange centres on Dr Martyn Lloyd-Jones and his split with Dr J I Packer in 1970. Carl Trueman contributed a chapter to the book, J I Packer and the Evangelical Future, published last year (which we have not seen); Mr Murray replied in The Banner of Truth of March 2010; and Carl Trueman has now responded on the website “Reformation 21”. The question, roughly speaking, is: “What happened at the split in 1970, and what ought to have happened?”
Professor Trueman’s response is written in an unfortunately-flippant style, with “jesting, which is not convenient”; with unpleasant images (such as “kicking a sheep”); and with a jarring description of Dr Lloyd-Jones as “total-
ly depraved”. While theologically accurate, the point, if it needed to be made, should have been done so much more delicately. Mr Murray, too, is handled with a roughness that seems excessive towards such a senior figure. As far as Dr Lloyd-Jones’ character is concerned, it seems implausible that the 1970 split should have arisen, even in part, because “Lloyd-Jones could not stand competition and could not bear not to be in overall control”. He and Dr Packer had collaborated for 20 years, and Dr Lloyd-Jones had arrived at the mellow age of 70 by the time the split occurred. There is plenty of evidence that “the Doctor” did like to be in control, but there seems no need to invoke this as a factor in the 1970 split when there are other obvious explanations to hand.
Having said this, we think that Professor Trueman is making an important point about the present state of English Evangelicalism: that while Dr Lloyd-Jones did so much good, he has also left a regrettable legacy. His preaching was a primary reason for the existence of many Evangelical, Calvinistic congregations, but his views on Church government have contributed to the disorganised state of these congregations and of the Church as a whole. In particular his aversion to Scottish Presbyterianism, which Mr Murray seems partly to share, is endemic in English Independency and is the source of endless problems. Dominant elders do not want a Kirk Session in which they will have only one vote, and headstrong ministers do not want a Presbytery at which they will not be perpetual moderator. In the absence of these regular courts, there is little co-operation between churches and there is no forum for resolving disputes other than by congregational splits and the summary ejection of ministers.
Another problem, which was highlighted in the Evangelical Magazine at the end of 2008, is that the churches feel minimal responsibility for the training of ministers. The theological colleges are independent institutions and most churches give them neither thought nor money until such a time as they need a new pastor for themselves. The result is that the training and settling of ministers in England and Wales is chaotic.
We certainly do not blame Dr Lloyd-Jones for every defect in English Evangelicalism, but his influence has been immense, as everyone testifies who has tried to address these defects. The 40 years since 1970 have confirmed that Dr Packer was mistaken to stay in the Church of England, but they have also shown up the consequences of the lack of structure in Dr Lloyd-Jones’ model of Independency. The historic view of Scottish Presbyterianism has been that what England needs is neither Anglicanism nor Independency but the biblical Presbyterianism envisaged by Henderson, Rutherford and Gillespie and summarised in the Solemn League and Covenant:
“That we shall sincerely, really and constantly, through the grace of God, endeavour in our several places and callings, the preservation of the reformed religion in the Church of Scotland, in doctrine, worship, discipline and government, against our common enemies; the reformation of religion in the kingdoms of England and Ireland, in doctrine, worship, discipline and government, according to the Word of God, and the example of the best reformed Churches; and we shall endeavour to bring the Churches of God in the three kingdoms to the nearest conjunction and uniformity in religion, confession of faith, form of Church government, directory for worship and catechising, that we, and our posterity after us, may, as brethren, live in faith and love, and the Lord may delight to dwell in the midst of us.” DWBS
The Shortage of Baby Girls
The Economist draws attention to the sex-ratios among babies in Asian countries such as China, India, Taiwan and Singapore. The imbalance between the number of boys and girls in these countries shows that more than 100 million girls must have been aborted or murdered at birth. Furthermore the imbalance is getting worse. In some Chinese provinces there are 130 boys for every 100 girls. China’s “one-child” policy, introduced in 1979, has contributed to this but there are other factors as well. Female suicide rates have also risen, particularly in rural China, and it is thought that grief following abortion is the main cause.
God allows the evil and folly of the human heart to manifest itself. But these tens of millions of young men looking for brides, necessarily from other countries, will soon be another significant feature of human life, and who knows what the political, economic and spiritual consequences may be? “Known unto God are all His works from the beginning of the world” (Acts 15:18). DWBS