NO FOSTERING FOR CHRISTIANS

The last day of February brought an astonishing ruling from the High Court. In the case of Eunice and Owen Johns the court ruled that they would not be allowed to foster a child because as Christians the couple would not be prepared to encourage a homosexual lifestyle. The court upheld the objection of Derby City Council which rejected their application despite a long record of previous successful fostering. The two judges involved thus determined that the equality laws could override Christian conscience and prevent Christians from performing a useful and helpful function in society.

This does not mean Christians cannot continue to apply to foster children, but it does mean that if objections are made to them doing so by any council there will be no redress for Christians at law. In practice this means there will be an increasing bar on Christians wanting to foster or adopt if they wish to adhere to Christian sexual ethics.

However, the judgement has gone much further than simply barring Christians at law, since the judges also said clearly that Christian beliefs on sexual ethics may be “inimical to children” (i.e. “harmful”). In this they were explicitly upholding a submission by the Equalities and Human Rights Commission that children risk being “infected” by Christian beliefs. They loudly endorsed the notion that we are now a secular society and the Christian religion had no part in the law of the land. This makes a very strong general statement that Christian parents with traditional Christian views are no longer suitable as foster parents.

This judgement, of course, is manifest nonsense; it simply reveals that the judges were making a political and ideological judgement in favour of one point of view on behaviour over and against another point of view which has had a very long history and still today commands the support of the vast majority of people. They have interpreted “equality” in the most bizarre of ways. What it will really achieve is that lot of children are going to be barred from good homes, and a lot of excellent people willing to foster are going to be disappointed.

It is probably one of the most pernicious and absurd judgements that we have yet seen. It steamrollers over a very crucial factor of real social freedom, namely the right of conscience. This is being done not on account of majority thinking but on account of a minority militant pressure group which not only wants the freedom for their own sexual morals but is demanding that all others fall into line. It has, unfortunately, become part of the very real destructive side of modern political correctness, under the specious cloak of equality.

The most helpful thing we have seen is the very large response to this from all quarters which has labeled this ruling as a disgrace. Many articles in the media have taken this stance. This has not come simply from Christians. Hopefully this may the beginning of a come back to real equality, and sanity.

We have so much to pray over in our nation! We have so much also to speak out about!

Bob

To print this column Go to Archive list of dates on right hand side of page and click on the date of this column. This will allow the printing of this column alone. This can be done for previous columns.

To make a comment: click on word “comments” below, write your comment in the white box which appears and add your name and e mail address (if you wish), choose “select profile”, click “anonymous” and then continue

NOW LIBYA!

The deep political unrest in the Middle East continues with Gaddafi’s Libya in turmoil, and revolutionary rumblings in Yemen, Bahrain and Tunisia. Egypt has gone quiet, not because any real solutions have been found to the future, but simply because the media is more interested in the immediate blood and thunder aspects of news. It remains at a crucial stage.

It is very important to put this extraordinary revolutionary “earthquake” into historical perspective if we are to get any true picture of what the future may hold.

Up until the end of World War l these Arab countries had no individual existence but were part of the Ottoman Empire, ruled from what is now Turkey. It was an empire renowned for its autocratic rule and its utter poverty and backwardness. World War 1 brought about the dismemberment of that Empire and the formation of new Arab “nations” like Iraq, Syria etc under the “Protectorate rule” of the victors of the war, Britain and France. A sense of national identity emerged in these new nations with some slight flavour of western democratic ways. But they remained under strong local central rule.

World War 2 brought about another move forward as the “Protectorate rule” of the shrinking colonial West was thrown off, and strong autocratic princely or kingly rules were established in their own independent right. These were in their turn overthrown by military rule (e.g. General Nasser deposing King Farouk; Gaddafi emerging in Libya). All this century-long process is in reality the painful process of Arab nations emerging from a dark Mediaeval past into the modern world of the West.

We have now come to a third and very critical stage in that process. This stage is a revolt against the tyranny and corruption of hard, autocratic rule. We are truly witnessing history in the making. We are seeing, in fact, these Arab nations going through something akin to what the European nations went through in the nineteenth century, which was a century of continuing political revolt against the ruling despotisms of Europe, beginning with the French Revolution in 1789 and lasting until World War 1 in 1914.

The same underlying forces that brought about “democracy” in nineteenth century Europe have been in fact at work in the Middle East over the last sixty years. They are primarily an increasingly educated population with access to communication, and an increasingly powerful and vocal professional and business class, both wanting freedom and law. These are now showing themselves strong enough in the Middle East to break through and challenge the narrow, corrupt, elite political rulers.

History shows, however, that the pathway of revolution never provides a “quick fix”! It is always a very dangerous process. The Russian revolution against the despotism of the Tsar in 1917 was an unmitigated disaster. There was not too much difficulty in deposing the Tsar, but the aftermath was actually a descent into the most appalling tyranny under Stalin. The problem was that the revolution was taken over by a virulently violent ideology, Communism. The same has happened in Iran; there was little difficulty in dislodging the Shah, but what emerged was a greater repressive power through the ideology of militant Islam.

The history of revolutions shows us two dangers; first, that reactionary forces do not go away quickly – they tend to lurk in the background and make a come-back at the first opportunity; second, that once dogmatic ideology (religious or secular!) gains control of the revolution there is a regression into a worse scenario. The weak spot of any revolution is that it does not always throw up a cohesive group of able and purposeful leaders that can bring about progressive change, nor does it in itself enable the downtrodden culture of a nation to catch up with the new culture of self governing tolerance that successful revolution demands. Unfortunately religious ideology is much more likely to provide cohesive leadership and general cultural appeal. And such ideology is very much there in the wings in both Egypt and Libya.

All this means that we are in for a long ride! It means a lot of prayer, and much of the grace of God’s sovereign intervention. The media will get tired of the process; we should keep alert.


Bob

TO PRINT this column: go to Archive list of dates on right hand side of page and click on the date of this column. This will allow the printing of this column alone. This can be done for previous columns.

TO MAKE A COMMENT: click on word “comments” below, write your comment in the white box which appears and add your name and e mail address (if you wish), choose “select profile”, click “anonymous” and then continue

THE ASSAULT ON MARRIAGE CONTINUES

A week ago the Government announced its intention to allow Civil Partnerships (i.e. the formal commitment of gay and lesbian people to each other) to take place in religious meetings (something hitherto not permitted). At the same time it announced it might seek to consult on whether such civil partnerships should be defined as “marriage”.

The first proposal will effectively give “religious sanction” to same sex unions and further undermine the strength of the traditional Christian principle of recognizing only heterosexual unions. Unfortunately it has come about, not simply because of the pressure of the gay lobby, but as a result of religious groupings themselves departing from traditional standards of sexual relationships. There are those in every denomination, and at the highest level of leadership, who are anxious to secure this “religious sanction”. This is the most tragic aspect of the whole affair. The church has too many holes in its “front line”!

The government is anxious to make clear that no church will be forced to “host” a civil partnership; they will simply be allowed to if they wish. On the surface this seems at least a safeguard, but there is a real problem as to whether any such safeguard can be made water-tight. What is certain is that a militant gay lobby will test such safeguards by applying to churches that refuse such “hosting” of civil partnerships, and then seeking to challenge any refusal on some other ground such as “discrimination”. The militant gay agenda envisages a complete social revolution not a state of “live and let live” The battle is incredibly determined, indeed vicious.. It could be a devastating battle ground for many a “parish” church! The pressure on all churches to host “civil partnerships” will inevitably grow to breaking point.
It is astonishing how blind governments can be to the shortcomings of seemingly helpful legislation and the utter weakness of safeguards. We have seen it time and again: this is a case in point. (If you write to your M.Ps. simply challenge them on the integrity of the safeguard in the proposed legislation.)

The second Government proposal, to widen the meaning of “marriage”, is equally pernicious. Christian marriage in its basic concept is the foundation of society’s wellbeing, and no individual marriage failures can ever constitute a valid argument against the underlying principles of this Christian concept. It insists on one man and one woman, joined for life by covenant vows, and it insists that such a union is essentially the best place for the conception and nurturing of children. It represents the fundamental natural order of life. Up to now, that has been the common concept of “marriage”, and as such has carried a clear message to society even if people have preferred co-habitation. If the word is made to include any other types of sexual union, it will confuse and blur any real meaning for the word “marriage”, and will be a severe blow for morality and truth. Sadly, neither of those latter two terms has any coinage in the cult of political correctness.

This is another reminder of the devastating inroads that a secular culture continues to make on fundamental Christian principles. The secular concepts of freedom and equality are fundamentally flawed at critical points. We have reached a stage where we are seeing, not the waters getting close to the top of the flood barriers but rather a stage at which they are breaking through them and about to unleash appalling devastation. The times are very grave.


Bob

To make a comment: click on word “comments” below, write your comment in the white box which appears and add your name and e mail address (if you wish), choose “select profile”, click “anonymous” and then continue