“On Keeping Religion out of Politics”
This is the subtitle of a recent book by Mary Warnock entitled Dishonest to God. Baroness Warnock, a philosopher whose career was in secondary school and university education, is best known for chairing the Committee of Inquiry into Human Fertilisation and Embryology, 1982-84, and for advocating the relaxation of legislation on abortion, euthanasia and assisted suicide.
The book’s basic argument is that law depends on morality but morality does not depend on religion; indeed the claim of divine authority for moral principles is unfounded and dangerous, for if religion is regarded as basic to morality those who reject the one may reject the other. She endorses David Hume’s assertion that, even if there were a creating God, we could not know anything about Him. The existence of natural laws by which the universe operated would not mean that the same God laid down moral laws by which we ought to conduct our lives. “We must learn morality from each other, not God.” “We do not need the idea of God to teach us what is good and what is bad. We can learn this from society itself, not from tablets of stone handed down from Mount Sinai.”
Baroness Warnock recognises the influence of Christianity on our culture, traditions, political thought and legislative practice but maintains that, in a democratic, secular, multi-faith, multi-cultural society where so many no longer profess Christian faith, it is important to refuse moral authority over others to views based on religion. She considers the narratives and rituals of religion to have been created by the human imagination to manifest the essential truth that human beings need morality to survive. Religion, like morality, is the response of the human imagination to the feeling of mystery and lack of personal control. It is not necessary or obligatory, as morality and law are. As long as we do not think that it can provide unassailable moral truth and has authority to enforce it, we can learn from its stories, benefit from its rituals at emotional times, and enjoy its language, architecture and music, if so inclined.
She sees morality as the recognition of our common humanity but is aware of the inadequacy of Utilitarianism (the greatest-happiness principle) and merely emphasising human rights and of the danger of moral Relativism. Basically, to be truly moral is “to exercise imagination, to be able to understand the situation of other people, their feelings and their motives, to be capable both of sympathy and of a reasonable judgement of what the consequences of your actions will be, how they will affect other people than yourself . . . the ability sometimes to treat others as having not merely an equal but a greater need than I”. As soon as people acknowledge the limits of their own imagination and the temptation to overlook the needs and aspirations of others as equal to their own, “the concept of morality is born”. “The general convictions of society may change” – “with changing values, new knowledge and newly perceived risks.” “A democratically elected parliament is the best interpreter of where consensus lies, and how in the end it may be reached.” Law brought about by the proper process must be the ultimate authority, though it will be open to criticism on moral grounds and be changed. The wrath of the book comes down on any who would endeavour to justify bringing Biblical or religious authority to bear on the discussion of moral issues in the Houses of Parliament, most particularly in the House of Lords.
This note cannot deal adequately with this volume and its arguments. We have here the practical denial of God characteristic of the carnal mind, the avowed denial of Divine revelation and absolute truth, the failure to reckon with the fact of human sin and its consequences for morality as demonstrated clearly enough in society, and even the failure to recognise that such aspects of morality as may be still adhered to are the fruit of revelation which once determined what was regarded as moral conduct. Making such remarks exposes us to dismissal with the Baroness’s passing remark that “it would now be generally agreed that to treat the Bible as a kind of once-and-for-all revelation, with no regard either to its historical context or its variable truth-content, is a view to be embraced only by cranks and fanatics”. It is well to be aware of the dogmatic, irrational and anti-religious sentiments found among our legislators and their determination to exclude the voice of Biblical religion, however feeble and mixed, from being heard. It should make us pray for those who do endeavour to bring Biblical principles to bear and to thank God for the things that remain and plead with Him to turn back the tide. HMC
The Cruden Trust
One Church of Scotland congregation in Aberdeen has set up a trust “with the primary purpose of proclaiming the good news of Jesus Christ to the people of Aberdeen and beyond”. The trust is named the Cruden Trust after the Aberdonian Alexander Cruden, famous for his Concordance. We understand that members of the congregation are encouraged to contribute to this trust rather than to the central funds of the Church of Scotland. The forthcoming Assembly of the Church of Scotland is due to consider whether the Church should ordain homosexuals to the ministry, and a number of Evangelicals have indicated that they might leave if such unbiblical and vile legislation were passed. Perhaps other Church of Scotland congregations should be thinking about the practicalities of separation. DWBS
Resignation of Free Church Minister
Rev Kenneth Stewart, Free Church minister of Downvale, Glasgow, has resigned from the Free Church in consequence of the recent decision of the Free Church Assembly to permit the use of hymns and musical instruments in public worship. Mr Stewart regards the Free Church as having broken its side of his ordination vow, when he vowed to “assert, maintain, and defend . . . the purity of worship as presently practised in this Church”. The Free Church, Mr Stewart argues, is now expecting him to “assert, maintain, and defend” the exact contrary of what he was required to do a few months ago. Then his vow was requiring him to defend unaccompanied, exclusive psalmody, but now, if taken seriously, it would require him to defend musical instruments and hymns. Mr Stewart’s argument has the attraction of being simple and logical. DWBS