Rev I D MacDonald1
The recent vote in the House of Commons in favour of legalising assisted suicide marks a further black step in the descent of our nation into the chasm of atheistic darkness. Rapidly, we are taking on the marks of the generation of God’s wrath prior to the flood when, “the earth was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence” (Gen 6:11). Regardless of the plausible arguments and peaceful pictures of those who favoured the introduction of assisted suicide, the fact remains that, in light of God’s Word, it is nothing less than legalised murder. Suicide itself is, of course, self-murder, and is to be met with the cry of Paul to the desperate Philippian Jailor, “Do thyself no harm”. This is an echo of the Sixth Commandment, “Thou shalt not kill”, in as much as it requires all lawful endeavours to preserve, and forbids the taking of, our own life.
The situation with assisted suicide is more complex because it involves two parties: the person requesting that their life be terminated and the person assisting the accomplishing of that desire. Put bluntly, the person assisting by overseeing the administration of a fatal drug is guilty of murder, and the
1Mr MacDonald wrote the article as Convener of the Religion and Morals Committee.
person requesting the termination of their own life is guilty of self-murder. There are therefore two murderers involved in every assisted suicide.
Scripture makes this position clear in one instance at least. King Saul had sunk to a desperately low condition spiritually when he had the awful cry in his soul, “I am sore distressed; for the Philistines make war against me, and God is departed from me, and answereth me no more, neither by prophets, nor by dreams” (1 Sam 28:15). Despairing of help from God he had turned to the occult, by consulting the witch at Endor. In this frame of mind, King Saul went out to battle against the Philistines and was “sore wounded of the archers” (1 Sam 31:3). It is probable, though not necessarily certain, that the wound was mortal.
Saul’s response was to seek an “assisted suicide”. He requested his armour-bearer to draw his sword and to thrust him through to hasten the end of his life. His motive in so doing was the fear of what may have come upon him between the time of his being wounded and his death, especially in the form of torture at the hands of the Philistines: “Then said Saul unto his armour-bearer, Draw thy sword, and thrust me through therewith; lest these uncircumcised come and thrust me through, and abuse me” (1 Sam 31:4). His armour-bearer, rightly, shrank from this act of murder: “But his armour-bearer would not; for he was sore afraid”. Foiled in his effort at an assisted suicide, Saul then “took a sword, and fell upon it” (1 Sam 31:4), committing suicide himself, and so plunged his soul into the blackness of darkness for ever.
Three days later, a young Amalekite man came to King David to tell him that he had encountered the wounded King Saul, and that he had requested him to assist in his suicide, saying, “Stand, I pray thee, upon me, and slay me: for anguish is come upon me, because my life is yet whole in me” (2 Sam 1:9). According to the Amalekite, he fell in with this request and took Saul’s life, saying in apparent justification of his action that he was “sure that he could not live after that he was fallen” (2 Sam 1:10). Now it is by no means clear whether this account was true, or whether it was a mere fabrication to ingratiate himself with King David and to gain a reward.
Regardless, the way in which David dealt with him, taking him at his word, was to reprove him for the sin of murder: “And David said unto him, How wast thou not afraid to stretch forth thine hand to destroy the Lord’s anointed?” (2 Sam 1:14). David then exercised his royal authority in calling for instant capital punishment to be meted out upon him so that he was executed there and then. David’s final words to him were, “Thy blood be upon thy head; for thy mouth hath testified against thee, saying, I have slain the Lord’s anointed” (2 Sam 1:16).
From Saul’s perspective, the fear of future suffering, and the certainty of
death thereafter did not justify his desire for an assisted suicide. His duty was to take all lawful means to preserve his own life, and at the most to have left the matter in the hands of the Lord, as did the deeply depressed Elijah when he prayed to his Creator, “Now, O Lord, take away my life; for I am not better than my fathers” (1 Ki 19:4). From the perspective of the Amalekite who claimed to have slain him at his request, he was guilty of murder in the eyes of God, and had the guilt of Saul’s blood upon his head. His plea that he was certain King Saul was sure to die anyway, in no way altered the case to lessen the breach of the Sixth Commandment, “Thou shalt not kill”.
It has been well observed that the force of legalised assisted suicide is to make doctors, who ought to be preservers of life, to be murderers. It may be remarked that the path to assisted suicide was cleared by the gradual desensitising of society and sections of the medical profession to the murder of unborn infants in the womb. We leave the other more practical concerns about assisted suicide to others who are better able to voice them. The fundamental principle involved in the matter is, “Thou shalt not kill”, and no Christian in the medical profession can have anything to do with assisted suicide.
What poor dejected, suicidal sinners need, whether dying or not, is the stern voice of the law mingled with the sweet tones of gospel love in the words, “Do thyself no harm: for we are all here”. The Philippian Jailor was stopped in the very act of suicide by this exhortation and, having been brought under concern of soul, was found crying out, “What must I do to be saved?” Before long we find that the Lord had opened his heart under Paul’s preaching, and his former sorrow and fear vanished when very soon “he rejoiced, believing in God with all his house”. What the dying need is not premature death, but life eternal through believing in Jesus Christ so that they might be saved.
Protestant View
New English Cardinal
The Pope has appointed Timothy Radcliffe, an English Dominican friar aged 79, as a new English Cardinal. Like the Pope, Mr Radcliffe favours the acceptance of LGBT conduct in the Roman Catholic Church, although his comments on the subject show the usual “yea and nay” attitude so common in Romanism. The Scriptures, by contrast, declare plainly that homosexual desires and inclinations are evil, in the same way that adulterous desires and inclinations are evil. Where they exist, they are to be mortified and crucified rather than defended. They have no lawful outlet. Those who defend sin are
not the friends of sinners, though they often pretend to be, but the true friends of sinners are those who warn them to repent.
DWBS
Notes and Comments
Resignation of the Archbishop of Canterbury
On 12 November 2024, after 11 years in office, Justin Welby, of Canterbury, resigned amid criticism over his handling of abuse allegations and safeguarding policy. On January 6 he will formally hand over his duties to the second most senior cleric in the Church of England, the Most Rev Stephen Cottrell, Archbishop of York, who will act as caretaker until a new appointment is made, which, we understand, is unlikely to be before the summer.
Archbishop Welby faced criticism in an extremely critical report by Keith Makin, a social services director, over how the Church – and the Archbishop personally – handled abuse allegations against John Smyth QC, a Christian barrister and former acquaintance of the Archbishop. Smyth, born in Canada, was actively involved in Evangelical holiday camps run with funding from the Iwerne Trust. The camps were initially aimed at boys from public schools and promoted conservative, Evangelical theology. This enabled some attendees to go on to become leaders in the Church of England (John Stott, Justin Welby, David Sheppard and Alpha course founder, Nicky Gumbel).
In 1982, an internal Iwerne Trust report recorded that Smyth had performed sadistic beatings on schoolboys and young men associated with the camps and with a Christian group at Winchester College. (These were administered for perceived failings in the boys; for example, 400 strokes were given for showing pride.) In 1984 Smyth moved to Zimbabwe, where he continued to run children’s camps and perpetrate abuse. The UK police were not informed of the 1982 report until 2013, and it became public in 2017. Smyth died while under investigation and was not charged. The independent Makin Review, published in 2024, concluded that he had subjected more than 100 boys and young men to “traumatic physical, sexual and psychological and spiritual attacks” over a period of four decades.
It is reported that Welby was informed of an allegation against Smyth in 2013, a short time after he became archbishop. He followed Church protocol, and sought assurances from senior colleagues that the matter was being properly investigated. From then on, however, there appears to have been a failure to follow up. The Makin report criticised Welby and senior colleagues for an “absence of any further questioning and follow-up” to ensure the matter was being robustly pursued, accusing them of a “distinct lack of curiosity”.
After the publication of the report, Welby apologised but said he would not resign because he had no knowledge of the abuse allegations prior to 2013. However, pressure on his position built over the following days, especially over the Church’s continuing struggle to create a robust safeguarding system, and he resigned.
It is appalling to think of abuse of children being perpetrated in the name of “Evangelical Christianity”. Those who turned a blind eye, who did not want to bring a “respected” man or the Church into disrepute, are also to blame. The Church of England, nowadays preoccupied with same-sex marriage, same-sex blessings and women clerics, failed to identify, report and prevent the abuse of children in its midst.
We can only mourn the state of the national church, (not forgetting our own faults and failings) and pray that He who “turneth rivers into a wilderness, and the watersprings into dry ground; a fruitful land into barrenness, for the wickedness of them that dwell therein” would in mercy turn “the wilderness into a standing water, and dry ground into watersprings” (Ps 107:33-35). FDR
A New Blasphemy Law to Protect Muslims and Islam?
According to the following excerpts (mainly taken from recent editions of The Daily Telegraph, The Spectator and Unherd), the UK government proposes to enshrine a definition of Islamophobia in law. It intends to use the definition proposed by the All-Party Parliamentary Group on British Muslims, “Islamophobia is rooted in racism and is a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness”. This definition is not only controversial and dangerous for our civil and religious liberties; it is grossly provoking to Almighty God. Yet, most (not all) of the political parties in the UK, including all in the Scottish Parliament, are backing it!
On November 27, the Labour MP for Birmingham Hall Green and Moseley, Tahir Ali, asked Sir Keir Starmer during Prime Minister’s Questions if he would “commit to introducing measures to prohibit the desecration of all religious texts and the prophets of the Abrahamic religions”. He added that “November marks Islamophobia awareness month”, observing that, “last year, the United Nations Human Rights Council adopted a resolution condemning the desecration of religious texts, including the Quran”. The Prime Minister replied that the Government is “committed to tackling all forms of hatred and division”, including Islamophobia and anti-Semitism.
Interestingly, in response to these comments, the National Secular Society said it is “deeply alarming that an MP is calling for the introduction of new blasphemy laws”. They added: “MPs should uphold values which are found-
ational to our society – not seek to dismantle them”. They were not understanding, perhaps, the significance of what they were stating when it is compared with their relentless attempts to dismantle the great Christian values that are the very foundation of British society!
Stephen Daisley observed in The Spectator, “Anyone outraged by Labour MP Tahir Ali calling on the Government to introduce blasphemy laws has clearly not been paying attention, for there are already blasphemy laws in this country. All Ali wants to do is make them official. When he urges Sir Keir Starmer to prohibit the desecration of the Quran and other Abrahamic religious texts, as he did at Prime Minister’s Questions, he will be aware that people are already punished for desecrating the Muslim holy book, including children”.
Suella Braverman KC, a former Conservative Home Secretary, graphically states in an article in The Daily Telegraph: “Technically speaking, the criminal offence of blasphemy was abolished in Great Britain by the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act of 2008. Yet a growing number of incidents suggest that a shadow blasphemy law has crept into our national psyche, enforced not by statute but by a toxic cocktail of political correctness, identity politics, and institutional cowardice. This is not merely a misunderstanding of law and liberty; it is an existential threat to free speech and the fabric of British society.
“Eighteen months ago, Kettlethorpe High School in Wakefield became the stage for a surreal and troubling drama. An autistic boy accidentally scuffed a copy of the Quran. What should have been a simple matter of pastoral care spiralled into a public reckoning. The headteacher summoned the police. A meeting akin to a Sharia tribunal unfolded in a local mosque, where the boy’s mother was compelled to apologise to an all-male audience, her son’s actions deemed so serious that the police recorded a Non-Crime Hate Incident. Such Orwellian absurdity should belong to fiction, yet it is reality in 21st-century multicultural Britain.
“This is no isolated case . . . a pattern is clear. The Prime Minister, far from defending the British principle of robust and open debate, appears to tacitly endorse this trend. When asked in Parliament whether he would consider banning the desecration of religious texts, Sir Keir Starmer promised to tackle ‘Islamophobia in all its forms’. What does this mean? In practice, it sounds dangerously close to endorsing a blasphemy law, privileging Islam above other religions.
“Let’s be clear: Britain is a Christian country. Yet there is no law protecting Christianity from mockery or insult”. Whilst Suella Braverman acknowledges that Britain is a Christian country, she is not a Christian (she took her oath of allegiance as an MP on the Buddhist Dhammapada). She
does not accept the authority of Holy Scripture or that Christianity is the only true religion.
She continued, “Why is it acceptable to ridicule Hinduism but not Islam? Why are insults to Jewish symbols waved off, while a scuffed Quran becomes a police matter? How can Christians be arrested for silent prayer, while mobs cancel films deemed offensive to Muslims? Such double standards are untenable. They breed resentment, division, and ultimately the erosion of the liberties that define us.
“It is worth remembering that free speech does not come with a guarantee of comfort. It includes the right to question, critique, and yes, offend. . . .”
“Consider the child sexual abuse scandals in Rotherham and Rochdale. Authorities turned a blind eye for years, paralysed by fear of being accused of racism or Islamophobia. More recently, Sir William Shawcross’s review of the Prevent programme revealed that fears of appearing anti-Muslim stymied efforts to tackle Islamist extremism. These failures are not isolated incidents; they are symptoms of a broader cultural malaise.
“Our institutions, from the police to the press, are increasingly cowed by identity politics. They see criticism of Islam not as a legitimate part of public discourse but as a threat to social harmony. This is not just wrong; it is dangerous. Without the freedom to critique and question, society becomes brittle, unable to address its flaws or adapt to change.
“The challenge is not to suppress difficult conversations but to have them openly and honestly. We must be able to discuss radical imams, gender inequality, and cultural practices within Muslim communities, with the same vigour that we investigate historical sexual abuse in the Church of England. To do otherwise is not just hypocritical; it is harmful to the very people we claim to protect.”
The problem Suella Braverman refers to is far greater than the loss of free speech or a cultural malaise; it is the loss of truth, righteousness and godliness that man experienced when Adam rebelled against God. He and his posterity lost union and fellowship with God his Creator. We are where we are today because of the great evil of sin.
As Christians therefore, in these days of trouble, rebuke and blasphemy (see 2 Ki 19:3, Is 37:3), our responsibility and duty – as individuals, as families and as a Church – is far, far greater than that of others who have no spiritual understanding, no true allegiance and love to, or fear of, Almighty God. This is He whose glorious Name and blessed Being is so mocked, defiled and blasphemed. We need to heed the many commands of Holy Scripture and cry mightily to the God of heaven that He might turn our nation again to Himself in repentance and faith, beseeching Him to pour upon us
the Spirit of grace and supplications and turn us from all idolatry and sin to Himself, that multitudes of our peoples may, by His grace, flee to Christ the Saviour and know Him, fear Him and glorify Him in every area of life, as individuals, as families, as churches and as nations. DPR