Christian Britain
The Prime Minister, David Cameron, surprised many people by declaring, in a speech in Oxford in December, that Britain is “a Christian country”. Mr Cameron was speaking on the occasion of the four-hundredth anniversary of the Authorised Version. He commented on the immense influence that this Version has had on the English language, on the British constitution and parliamentary democracy, and on morality and “values” in Britain. It was in relation to the third of these points that he described Britain as a Christian country.
The point is an interesting one and on the whole, we think, valid. The effects of the Reformation and the subsequent dissemination of the Word of God throughout the British nation are still clearly discernible. Indeed they are strikingly obvious when Britain is compared with certain other countries which might be described as Muslim, Hindu, or Roman Catholic. The standards of kindness, fairness, industry, unselfishness and honesty are far from what they should be in Britain but they are far better than they might be, and they compare favourably with those in many parts of the world.
One evidence of this is the desire of people from different parts of the world to live in Britain. They are attracted, not simply by the free health care and the sometimes-ludicrous benefit system, but by the general state of society. We were reading recently about the eagerness of Germans at the end of the Second World War to surrender to the advancing British and American armies rather than to the Russians, and we would like to think that some of the compassion that the Germans were hoping for still remains two generations later.
Mr Cameron’s statement was greeted by a predictable storm of complaints from the atheistic sections of society. In recent years, militant atheists have done much to undermine the legacy of Christianity in Britain with their perversion of equality and human rights which goes by the name of “political correctness”. Increasingly we have been experiencing what atheistic society might be like. Its main features seem to be selfishness; unfairness, especially towards Christians; immorality, in the promotion of homosexuality and pornography, and in an antipathy to marriage; and the shedding of blood through abortion and euthanasia. Probably most atheists, if they made the experiment, would find that they would rather live in the “Christian Britain” of 2012 than in a society in which their own evil principles were more fully worked out.
The United Kingdom is Christian in her constitution, has the remnants of a Christian ethos, contains many nominal Christians, and also has not a few, we would hope, of the true people of God. But she is far from being the Christian nation that we would desire. We seek the repeal of the wicked laws of recent years, the purging of the national Churches of false shepherds and enemies of Christ, the filling of the places of worship with multitudes of God-fearing people, the discountenancing of false religion, and the honouring of Christ in public places such as schools, law courts, and the Houses of Parliament. In short, we are pursuing the aims of the National Covenant of 1638 and the Solemn League and Covenant of 1643.
We are glad that Mr Cameron made his remark and spread dismay in the ranks of the ungodly. But the truth is that Britain falls far short of what she has been as a Christian nation, and infinitely far short of what she ought to be. “Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven” (Mt 6:10).
DWBS
Lord Falconer’s Commission Recommends Assisted Suicide
The euthanasia lobby in the UK has fought persistently to have the blanket prohibition on assisted suicide lifted. It is determined to have its way by fair means or foul, as is shown by the recently-published final Report of the Commission on Assisted Dying chaired by Lord Falconer, a former Lord Chancellor.
The findings are what might be expected, given that Lord Falconer has long advocated changing the law to make assisted suicide legal, that nine of the 11 commissioners (chosen by himself) are actively in favour of euthanasia, that the Commission was sponsored by Dignity in Dying (formerly the Voluntary Euthanasia Society) not by the Government, and that it was funded by two prominent supporters of Dignity in Dying, Sir Terry Prachett and Bernard Lewis. So, yes, the Commission states there is a case for legislating for assisted suicide.
It is not surprising that more than 40 organisations, including the British Medical Association refused to give evidence to the Commission, believing it to be biased, lacking in transparency and quite unnecessary. It was unnecessary, argues Dr Peter Saunders of the Christian Medical Fellowship, because in 2005 a House of Lords Select Committee carried out an official parliamentary inquiry into assisted suicide which covered some 860 pages in Hansard, had 48 groups or individuals give evidence, with 88 witnesses giving written evidence. “Falconer’s enquiry, in comparison, was not only unbalanced but miniscule,” says Saunders.
Parliament has refused three times in recent years to change the law, but, as Christian Concern says, “Lord Falconer and his allies know that change comes through persistence”. Baroness Hollins, president-elect of the British Medical Association is certainly correct in saying, “We risk sliding towards a situation in which euthanasia is not just legal, but normal – not just for the sick, but for the old, or simply the inconvenient”. We pray that Lord Falconer and his allies will be defeated. “Arise, O Lord, let not man prevail” (Ps 9:19).
NMR
Judge Moves to Mend Marriage
It is a major move in the right direction. A High Court judge, Sir Paul Coleridge, has taken steps to launch a pro-marriage pressure group, The Marriage Foundation, which is to be established this spring. He told couples contemplating divorce: “My message is, Mend it, don’t end it”.
The initiative has the support not only of leading legal figures but also of many MPs. Julian Brazier MP said, “This can only help make the political and legal establishment aware of the importance of marriage. Too much family law has been driven by judges for the past two generations. The courts brought in no-fault divorce, marginalising the rights and wrongs of the behaviour of husbands and wives, well before Parliament considered it.”
Mr Justice Coleridge said, “Over 40 years of working in the family justice system, I have seen the fallout from these broken relationships. . . . There are an estimated 3.8million children currently caught up in the family justice system. I personally think that’s a complete scandal. . . . I am unashamedly advocating marriage as the gold standard for couples where children are involved.”
Labour leader Ed Miliband and Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg have dismissed the idea of adjusting the tax system to encourage the institution of marriage. But we hope the Prime Minister will keep his pledge to give tax breaks to married couples.
Our society has for too long lost sight of the divine purpose of marriage. It is not only the best environment in which to bring up children, but, more fundamentally, it “was ordained for the mutual help of husband and wife, for the increase of mankind with legitimate issue, and of the Church with an holy seed; and for preventing of uncleanness,” as The Westminster Confession of Faith so admirably sums up the teaching of Scripture.
NMR