“Kirk on Course for Schism”
Such is the headline of an exclusive report in The Herald which states that a secret ballot, held by the Church of Scotland Commission on Same Sex Relationships, shows that almost 1 in 5 members of Kirk Sessions “would consider it obligatory to leave the Church” if people in same-sex relationships are allowed into the ministry. If Church people were to follow the lead of these members of Kirk Session, says The Herald, some 100 000 will leave the Church.
Whether or not such a forecast is realistic, it seems certain that, if the General Assembly favours the inclusion of homosexuals in the ministry, numerous ministers, office-bearers and members will have no conscientious option but departure. No doubt they will be branded as schismatics, but there comes a point in moral decline in a part of the visible Church when the compelling call to believers is: “Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you” (2 Cor 6:17). The blame for any ensuing schism must then be laid fairly on those who reject the Scripture prohibition of sodomy.
In a letter to the press, a senior minister of the Church, who believes that the “unity of the Church is paramount”, bewails giving the option to Kirk Session members to say they would leave the Church if the General Assembly allowed the ordination of ministers in same-sex relationships. But it has to be said that merely-external ecclesiastical union is no substitute for “the unity of the Spirit”, which can never exist if the morality prescribed by God is replaced by a morality dictated by the spirit of an adulterous age.
It is to be feared that the next General Assembly, in an endeavour to prevent schism, will buy more time, engage in further consultations, and still tiptoe around the issue. Meantime, the matter would remain sub judice, public discussion in the media by Church people would still be banned, the minister who is in a same-sex partnership would continue in his charge, and the Church would further deprive itself of the blessing of the Lord.
We hope that all commissioners of Assembly who see that such immorality is contrary to Scripture, offensive to God, destructive to the Church and dangerous to people, will quit themselves like men. We must earnestly pray that they will be given the courage to respond appropriately to the question, “Who is on the Lord’s side?” (Ex 32:26). NMR
“The Laws and Usages of the Realm Do not Include Christianity”
In a recent legal judgement, two High Court judges upheld the position of Derby City Council in relation to a couple who had brought up their own children and had lovingly and competently fostered young children in the past. They decided that the couple could lawfully be disapproved for respite fostering of children of ten years of age and under because of “an inability to respect, value and demonstrate positive attitudes towards homosexuality and same-sex relationships”. The couple had asserted, when questioned by a social worker, that their Christian principles would not allow them to tell these children that homosexuality is acceptable.
The judges stated, in response to the couple’s advocate, that no one asserted that Christians were not fit and proper persons to foster or adopt, or contended for a blanket ban, or sought to delegitimise Christianity, or to give Christians or people of any faith a second-class status. Sadly, they were able to assert that not all professed Christians hold the views of this couple on the subject under review.
In the process of their judgement, the judges claimed that, as a result of “enormous changes in the social and religious life of our country over the last century”, our society is now “pluralistic and largely secular”. They went on to say: “We sit as secular judges serving a multicultural community of many faiths. We are sworn (we quote the judicial oath) to ‘do right to all manner of people after the laws and usages of this realm, without fear or favour, affection or ill will’. But the laws and usages of the realm do not include Christianity, in whatever form. The aphorism that ‘Christianity is part of the common law of England’ is mere rhetoric.”
The judges leaned heavily on Lord Justice Laws’ contention in a previous case that while the law protects the right to hold and express a belief, if it protects “a particular social or moral position which is espoused by Christianity” it does so “not because of its religious imprimatur, but on the footing that in reason its merits commend themselves. . . . The conferment of any legal protection or preference upon a particular substantive moral position on the ground only that it is espoused by the adherents of a particular faith, however long its tradition, however rich its culture, is deeply unprincipled; it imposes compulsory law not to advance the general good on objective grounds, but to give effect to the force of subjective opinion . . . . The precepts of any one religion, any belief system, cannot, by force of their religious origins, sound any louder in the general law than the precepts of any other. If they did, those out in the cold would be less than citizens and our constitution would be on the way to a theocracy, which is of necessity autocratic.”
The judges maintained that the Council were not treating the couple as they did because of their religious belief but because of their antipathy to homosexual relationships. Anti-discrimination legislation required respect and a positive attitude to such relationships by the Council. The position upheld is that the right to hold religious beliefs is safeguarded by anti-discrimination legislation but that religious beliefs cannot be used as an argument against complying with legislation which requires behaviour inconsistent with them, when providing a public service governed by that legislation. In the case, for example, of an employer who objects to such a manifestation of religious belief, “the fact that the employee’s motivation for the conduct in question may be found in his wish to manifest his religious belief does not mean that that belief is the ground of the employer’s action”.
Once again the judges of the realm are denying the Protestant, Christian constitution of the United Kingdom, claiming that they and the nation are secular. People can hold to the doctrines and principles of Christianity as matters of personal belief but cannot act in accordance with them if they conflict with the “rights” of others which have been established in laws which are contrary to Christianity. In the hierarchy of “rights”, the right to put one’s Christian beliefs into practice will be subordinate to rights which have a secular basis. There is the unjustified assumption that judgements come to from a secular standpoint will be neutral and fair, whereas judgements relying on Christian belief will be prejudiced and unfair. There is a practical denial of the fact that commitment to the Christianity which is still the recognised religion of the United Kingdom is not a matter of merely theoretical belief but has implications for the whole of life and for all relationships.
We suspect that many who do not have Christian faith, but have something of the morality which it fostered, consider with believers that the legislation of our land and the way that it is being interpreted by employers and by judges is unreasonable. Increasingly those whose commitment to Biblical Christianity and its morality constrains them to put their beliefs into practice are being excluded from callings for which their Christian way of life makes them supremely suitable. It is time that the legislators and potential legislators of the land were bombarded with demands that they take this situation in hand and prevent the further erosion of our Christian heritage and victimisation of those whose crime is that they practise the Christianity which is established as the religion of our monarch and kingdom.
HMC
Free Church Minister Undermining Sabbath Observance
A prominent Free Church minister, Rev Iver Martin of Stornoway, has caused great damage to the witness for Sabbath observance on the Isle of Lewis. In a video interview reported in the Stornoway Gazette he claims that it would be “petty” for him “to say that it is wrong to play golf on Sunday”. He maintains that to do so would only be wrong if someone had to be in paid employment to make the round of golf possible.
The Westminster Confession of Faith, in summarising the teaching of Scripture on the Sabbath, states that everyone must, “not only observe an holy rest, all the day, from their own works, words, and thoughts about their worldly employments and recreations; but also are [to be] taken up, the whole time, in the public and private exercises of His worship, and in the duties of necessity and mercy” (21.8). This statement is included in what Mr Martin has more than once subscribed to as the confession of his faith. Recreation is forbidden, as well as worldly employment (paid or otherwise) if it does not come under the headings of necessity and mercy. By giving us the Sabbath, God is providing us with a period of time which is to be used, as far as possible, for activities which are of benefit to our souls. Playing golf plainly does not come into that category. It is tragic to find a minister who has subscribed to the Westminster Confession denying its teaching.
Free Church Record and Ordination Vows
Rev Peter Wallace was the “Official Observer” of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC) at the recent Free Church of Scotland Plenary Assembly which permitted the introduction of hymns and musical instruments in public worship. In the “Concluding Remarks” of his account of the Assembly, published in The Record, he made the following telling comment on the Assembly’s decision: “Men who vowed to support and defend the old position on worship may struggle with how to support and defend the new position”. We are surprised that the Editor of The Record, Rev David Robertson, allowed the comment to stand. All Free Church ministers took the same vows, and the implication of Mr Wallace’s comment is that Mr Robertson and his progressive friends have not been as faithful to their vows as they should have been. DWBS
The Definition of Marriage
In an interesting editorial article in the British Church Newspaper (February 25), a lawyer, Peter Murcott responds to Government moves to redefine marriage. He discusses the present legal definition of marriage which dates back to 1866: “The voluntary union for life of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others”. He comments on the various elements of the definition: that the marriage is voluntary; that the intention at the time of marriage is that it is for life; that it is between a man and a woman; and that it is to the exclusion of all others. None of these elements can be varied without sin and unhappiness. The pattern for marriage is the union between Christ and His Church which is indeed voluntary, permanent, between two parties permitted by God to marry, and to the exclusion of all others. “I will betroth thee unto Me for ever; yea, I will betroth thee unto Me in righteousness, and in judgement, and in lovingkindness, and in mercies. I will even betroth thee unto Me in faithfulness: and thou shalt know the Lord” (Hos 2:19-20).
DWBS