Plaudits for the Authorised Version of the Bible
Anticipating the four-hundredth anniversary in 2011 of the King James, or Authorised, Version (AV) of the Bible, the BBC broadcast a series, “King James Bible”, in December. The major emphasis of these programme was the Bible as literature. One scholarly participant admiringly said, “You can turn to nearly any page of it and find the qualities of majesty, clarity, directness, beauty, [and] a kind of deep musicality in the language”. On the whole, it was gratifying to hear the commendatory manner in which the AV was dealt with.
At the end of the month, many were heartened to hear the Queen, in her annual message, also speak highly of the AV, describing it as “a masterpiece of English prose and the most vivid translation of the Scriptures”. Its production, she said, “was guided by an interest in reaching agreement for the wider benefit of the Christian Church, and to bring harmony to the kingdoms of England and Scotland”. She then spoke about harmony being created by sport, but concluded by saying about the King James Version: “From the Bible which bears his name, we know that nothing is more satisfying than the feeling of belonging to a group who are dedicated to helping each other: ‘Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them’”.
Finally, on New Year’s Day, the Archbishop of Canterbury also praised the literary merit of the AV, but stressed our need of the Bible in order to make sense of what he called “the big picture”. While we would wish to have heard more spiritual points made and, particularly the Bible recommended as “the word of salvation”, we hope that these approving comments will go some way to reversing the decline in the use of the Authorised Version – the most faithful and accurate translation of the Word of God in the English language.
The Trinitarian Bible Society said recently: “Sadly, many Christians have abandoned this wonderful version of the Word of God in recent decades. This marked decline in the use of the Authorised Version has to be set alongside an unprecedented downgrade in the Church, marked by a lack of reverence, an embrace of false doctrine and worldliness and a huge movement towards unbiblical modes of worship and Christian living.”
Our urgent duty as a country is to turn to the Word of God to hear and heed what He requires of us in Church and state. “O earth, earth, earth, hear the word of the Lord” (Jer 22:29). NMR
End of Life Assistance (Scotland) Bill
It is reason for thankfulness that the Scottish Parliament on 1 December 2010 rejected Margo MacDonald’s Bill by 85 votes to 16 with 2 abstentions. Thus assisting a person to commit suicide, which is the plain meaning of “end of life assistance”, continues in Scots law to expose a person to the charge of homicide. The Bill aimed to decriminalise “assistance, including the provision or administration of appropriate means, to enable a person to die with dignity and a minimum of distress”. A person would qualify to request such assistance if he or she “(a) has been diagnosed as terminally ill and finds life intolerable; or (b) is permanently physically incapacitated to such an extent as not to be able to live independently and finds life intolerable.”
Much stress was laid on the autonomy of the individual. According to the Policy Memorandum, “the philosophical argument for autonomy is that ‘any competent person has the right to make momentous personal decisions which involve fundamental religious or philosophical convictions about life’s values for himself’. Death is seen as amongst the most significant events of a person’s life, ‘the final act of life’s drama’, which should ‘reflect our own convictions, those we have tried to live by, not the convictions of others forced on us in our most vulnerable moment’.”
In the debate one supporter of the Bill said that he believed that, when he or anyone else comes to die, “the principal question is what control we have over the precise timing, location and circumstances of our passing. I would like the law to allow me the greater right, even if I choose not to use it.” Another declared: “Our authority does not come from a deity or a holy book, even for those of us who believe in deities and holy books. Our authority comes from the electorate . . . a life belongs to the person who is living it . . . each one of us is the one who is best qualified to make that decision in respect of our own life.”
Most of those who made submissions to the Committee which reported to the Parliament and advised against receiving the Bill, and most of those who participated in the debate, objected to the Bill on perfectly rational grounds. They alleged the vagueness of many of its qualifications, questioned the stress put on autonomy and demonstrated the subjectivity of the criteria to be applied. Some made reference to it being contrary to their Christian convictions. Margo MacDonald herself acknowledged that MSPs who adhered to religious beliefs “will find themselves fundamentally opposed to the bill because, according to their beliefs, it usurps the place of God, whom they believe to be the only giver and taker of life”, and she recognised that “some members are more concerned with the morality of the debate, and others are concerned with the Bill’s practical proposal”.
We are not aware that any MSP in the debate did refer to God as the giver and taker of life or that there was any recognition of the reality of continued existence after death. These are our fundamental reasons for maintaining that no one has the right to end the life of the terminally ill or physically handicapped who find life intolerable. The Sixth Commandment forbids “all taking away the life of ourselves or of others, except in the case of public justice, lawful war, or necessary defence; the neglecting or withdrawing the lawful and necessary means of preservation of life” (Larger Catechism, Ans 136).
As a 2010 Synod resolution on this subject stated, we are “acutely conscious of the pain and distress which terminal illness inflicts on sufferers and their near relations”. Sympathy, compassion and every endeavour to relieve and comfort those in such situations is called for and is motivated by the faith we profess. We long that in such circumstances we and others may have that strong consolation which there is in Christ and in the gospel for those enabled to say with Paul: “For none of us liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself. For whether we live, we live unto the Lord; and whether we die, we die unto the Lord: whether we live therefore, or die, we are the Lord’s” (Rom 14:7,8).
Let us be thankful for the outcome of this debate and let us continue to watch and pray. Margo MacDonald has indicated that if she is re-elected to the Scottish Parliament in May she will bring another version of this Bill before the Parliament. We are thankful that members of the Parliament exercised their own judgement instead of going by the results of opinion polls, but the real safeguard against further retrogressive legislation in this and other areas is the recognition of the authority of God in His Word. The denial of this leaves us exposed to such danger. HMC
Christianity in China
The January Banner of Truth Magazine carries an article on Christian publishing in China. The Chinese government now allows the publication of a number of Christian books, provided that they have a Beijing ISBN number. Permission is more readily granted to biographies, old books with historical value (such as Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress and Calvin’s Institutes), and books on marriage and the family. Many of the books published by the Banner of Truth fit this description, and the main constraint is in the funding.
Meanwhile the BBC website reported in August 2010 on a factory in Wenzhou, China, which prefers to employ Christians because it finds them “more responsible”. One of the workers, who had converted to Christianity since he started at the factory, is now seeking the conversion of his friends and colleagues. “If everybody became a Christian, it would have a very big impact, and would really help the development of our factory,” he said. According to some estimates, about 20% of the people in Wenzhou would describe themselves as Christian. The Chinese government is studying the impact of Christianity on European history and on China, and is particularly interested in the connection between economic prosperity and the Protestant work ethic. Perhaps the most surprising thing of all was that the report should be on the BBC website. DWBS
Covert Islamisation
The Christian organisation Barnabas has drawn attention to the “massive growth in Sharia-compliant products” in British shops. An Islamic agency has to certify that these halal products comply with Sharia regulations covering the killing of the animal and the preparation of the food, yet they are not so labelled in the shops. This certification costs money, so that in paying for the meat the public is contributing to an Islamic organisation in Britain. But since the halal meat is not labelled, Barnabas point out, this contribution is unwitting, and the choice and consumption of this meat is made by the consumer in ignorance. JRT