Denial of Christ During Episcopal Church Service
An inter-faith service at St Mary’s Episcopal Cathedral in Glasgow included a singing from the Koran in Arabic by a Muslim woman, who concluded her singing by reciting a verse from the Koran denying that God has “begotten a Son”. When challenged about this, the cathedral authorities refused to say whether they knew that she was going to recite this verse. In spite of an outcry, neither they nor the Primus of the Scottish Episcopal Church have expressed any regret for what happened. Their sorrow has been for “the offence that has been caused”, for the so-called “Islamophobia” that has resulted, and for themselves and the abuse that they claim to have suffered, which is now being investigated by the police. For the public dishonour to the Name of Christ, for which they were at least indirectly responsible, they have expressed no sorrow.
True Christians are sorry that the Divinity of Christ is being openly denied in Britain by Muslims, atheists, Unitarians and others. They are sorry that such denials should happen during so-called Christian church services. They are sorry that professing Christians should be so foolish and disobedient to God as to arrange inter-faith services (which predictably backfire on them and accomplish nothing). They are sorry that the Koran should be read at all on these occasions; or indeed that anybody in Britain, or anywhere else in the world, should be reading it for authoritative instruction in religious matters. They are sorry that there is so little gospel light in Britain at present, and that so many people are going in their own various paths down the broad way that leads to destruction.
In the nineteenth century, the Scottish Episcopal Church had some godly men such as Charles Popham Miles of St Jude’s in Glasgow, and D T K Drummond, who was involved in the republishing of the works of Puritans such as Goodwin, Sibbes and Manton. For the last few decades, however, it has been grossly liberal, and it now brazenly supports sodomy. DWBS
Sacked Christian Magistrate Removed from NHS Trust
Britain’s obsession with political correctness is exemplified by the continuing intolerant treatment of Family Court magistrate, Richard Page. Last May we wrote about him being sacked over his views on adoption by same-sex couples. Following a BBC interview he was accused of bringing “the magistracy into disrepute” by his comments. Now it appears Mr Page will be permanently removed from all public service if the authorities have their way.
In 2014 he had been reprimanded and accused of bias, when it was reported that “during a Family Court hearing he had allowed himself to be influenced by his religious beliefs and not by the evidence”. He stated that he could not agree with colleagues over an adoption case, claiming that “it would not be in the child’s best interests to be placed in the care of a same-sex couple”. In this case the potential “parents” were two men.
After the magistrate reiterated his position on BBC TV, and was reported again, Michael Gove, the then Lord Chancellor, removed him from his post. Government officials claimed that “Mr Page’s comments on national television would have caused a reasonable person to conclude he was biased and prejudiced against single-sex adopters”. They considered this to be serious misconduct, in spite of his 15 years’ untarnished service on the bench.
Some months later, Mr Page was barred from his other post, which had no direct connection to the role of magistrate. Although he had nearly 20 years’ experience as a finance director in the NHS, Mr Page was suspended from his position as a non-executive director of Kent and Medway NHS and Social Care Partnership Trust. He says the Trust accused him of homophobia and of opposing the LGBT movement stating that, in its opinion, the “expression of his beliefs about family life would have a negative impact on the Trust, its staff and, most importantly, its patients”.
Last year Mr Page’s four-year appointment as a non-executive director came to an end; however, he requested to have his case reconsidered and applied for another term. In August he was told that a panel considering his suitability for this role was unanimous in its view: “It was not in the interests of the Health Service for [him] to serve as a non-executive director in the NHS”. The panel stated that his beliefs about family life, which resulted in his dismissal as a magistrate, were “likely to have had a negative impact on the confidence of staff, patients and the public [in him] as a local NHS leader”.
In addition he was warned that the panel’s view would be taken into account if he applied for a similar role in the NHS in the future. He was virtually threatened: “The panel also agreed that the adverse impact on your credibility would continue into the future”. This conclusion was arrived at in spite of only one complaint being made against him and 6500 e-mails protesting against the treatment meted out to him. The Trust’s position was clear: he would not be welcomed by the NHS at any time in the future even although he had given dedicated service to it over many years.
Andrea Williams of Christian Concern comments, “Richard is being driven from public service simply for expressing the widely-held, lawful belief that children need a mother and a father. First the magistracy, now the Health Service. Where will this end?” She adds, “Society is being deprived of a long-standing, sacrificial public servant simply because he has expressed what many people believe about family life. This is another in a growing list of cases where Christians are being squeezed out of different areas of public life, simply for expressing their beliefs. . . . This is the harsh reality of how the current ‘equality and diversity’ framework is being applied and imposed.”
At the time of writing (late January 2017) Mr Page is in the process of taking legal action against the NHS and the Secretary of State for Health. At a preliminary hearing, the NHS asked for the case to be “struck out”, but the Employment Tribunal Judge Downs, argued, “My instinct is that this is a case crying out to be heard”. In spite of these hopeful words, one wonders how successful the outcome will be in the face of such obvious prejudice. KHM