SUMMARY:
Editorial Note: In 2004 Mark, as a practising barrister, refused to represent a client who wanted to use his homosexual relationship with a UK citizen as grounds to stay in Britain. For this refusal Mark was hauled before a disciplinary tribunal by the Bar Council in July 2006. Charges of bringing the profession into disrepute and of providing an inadequate professional service were both dismissed. Charges of a breach of Cab Rank Rule *1 and of discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation were each upheld as proven. Mark reports: “Although I had excellent legal representation and support from an eminent ex-Lord Chancellor, a distinguished Christian judge, a QC and others, the panel ruled against our submissions under the Human Rights Convention. However the panel appeared very sympathetic and in their sentencing remarks commended my integrity and said that they regarded it as a tragedy that the case had come before them. I am to be reprimanded by the Treasurer of my Inn of Court (a serving Lord Justice of Appeal)”. They therefore departed from the presence of the council, rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer dishonour for the Name. And every day, in the temple and from house to house, they did not cease teaching and preaching Jesus as the Christ (Acts 5:41-42).
BY MARK L.R. MULLINS
WE are living in an unprecedented age of global change where established norms that have formed the basis of our civilisation over many centuries are being questioned and revised in the name of multiculturalism and political correctness.
In the UK the Bible has been the bedrock of our laws down the centuries.
The English legal system was originally based on Christian principles of justice deriving from the Magna Carta *2
. A yearbook of Henry VII’s reign declared that “a basic principle of the Common Law is that any law is, or of right ought to be, according to the Law of God”.
In equity the basic principle guiding the Court of Chancery3 was that all law must conform to reason and the law of God.
In short then our legislators could not make any law that was contrary to the moral law of God. This principle is still enshrined in our constitution. At the coronation the monarch swears to maintain the “Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel and the Protestant Reformed religion established by Law”.
As recently as 1987 the late Lord Hailsham, the former Lord Chancellor stated that: “… while there can never be a direct correspondence between law and morality, an attempt to divorce the two entirely is, and, has always proved to be, doomed to failure ..” *4.
These principles have been seriously eroded over the decades as secular values have increasingly replaced our Christian heritage.
The new revolution of ideas has been greatly assisted by the ambivalence of the church that has not, in many respects, understood the importance of making its voice heard in the political realm — preferring to concentrate on straightforward Gospel preaching and seeing intervention in the political arena as a distraction from this calling.
In the UK the attempt by the government to pass the Racial and Religious Hatred Bill was a rude reminder that we desert the political landscape at our cost and by not seeking to allow our voice to be heard we fi nd a law that threatens even the preaching of the Gospel.
The many Jews that lived under King Ahasuerus *5 at the time of the Babylonian exile suddenly woke up one morning to fi nd a law providing for their execution (Esther 3:8-4:1).
It was “for such a time as this” that Queen Esther was called to get the law overturned and to have the wicked Haman brought to justice.
I believe God is looking today for the 21st Century equivalents to Queen Esther to exert influence within the governing circles of our respective countries to intervene on behalf of the church to preserve it together with the values that it espouses.
In the UK the government tried three times to bring in a religious hatred provision starting in 2001 after 9/11 in an attempt to appease Muslim opinion.
This was blocked in the House of Lords *6.
However, undeterred, the government tried again in 2004 with the then Home Secretary *7 citing the need to “protect society against extreme right wing evangelicals” as well as “Muslim extremists” but this was defeated by the calling of the general election last year when the government was persuaded to drop the Bill by the two main opposition parties.
Not content with this second failure the government brought the Bill back again shortly after its third election success. I am involved in the Lawyers’ Christian Fellowship which took an active stand against this Bill.
The perceived wisdom in the UK was that we were not going to succeed in getting the government’s proposed Bill stopped. While we would have liked to have the whole Bill struck out, it became apparent that the House of Lords were in the mood to compromise since by the third attempt the Bill had become a manifesto commitment by the Labour party. A carefully drafted amendment that would protect the freedom to preach the Gospel was therefore prepared and put before the House of Lords.
The fi rst thing that happened that was different in this Bill was that the church came together in an unprecedented manner.
In September a prayer rally was held at Hyde Park attended by about 1,000 people.
We also organised two demonstrations outside parliament.
The fi rst was on the day that the House of Lords passed their amendment and the second was on the day that the amended Bill was debated by the House of Commons. We found that we had allies on all sides of the political divide.
Two days before the Bill was debated there was a TV drama programme, the script of which included a clandestine political manoeuvre, in which, in order to defeat a controversial measure in the senate, Democrat senators all hid themselves away in their offi ces so as to appear to be absent.
Then at the time the vote was taken they all materialised.
This timely “hint” was taken up by the organisers of those opposing the Bill and MPs were hidden within the House of Commons. Intense lobbying took place by various Christian groups, which paid dividends and right up to the last moment MPs were making up their minds. I should say that the enormous volume of mail received by MPs in their constituencies also infl uenced the way they voted.
The Lord’s amendments were taken in two parts. The crucial vote was the second vote because if lost it would mean the whole Bill being passed in the form amended by the House of Lords.
The fi rst vote was lost by the government.
Hilary Armstrong, the Labour chief whip *8, wrongly assumed that the crucial second vote would be lost and so told the prime minister that he didn’t need to remain for the vote.
The Bill was defeated by one vote, the absent Prime Minister’s being crucial to the loss!
On 15th July we held a rally in Hyde Park to give thanks for this victory.
There is no doubt that the victory belongs to Him.
As the psalmist says in Psalm 127:1 — “
Except the LORD builds the house, they labour in vain that build it: except the LORD keeps the city, the watchman stays awake in vain”.
This victory has signifi cantly boosted morale amongst Christians who have seen measure after measure going against them as those in authority continue to pass laws contrary to God’s Word.
I noticed on my arrival in Australia (May 2006) that there were reports of attempts to remove the Gideon Bibles from some hospitals in Perth. A similar attempt was made in Leicester (UK) using the same lame excuses.
What are the righteous to do when the foundations are destroyed? Psalm 11 contains the answer:
The LORD is in his holy temple, the LORD’S throne is in heaven: his eyes behold, his eyelids try, the children of men. The LORD tries the righteous: but the wicked and him that love violence his soul hates.
Upon the wicked he shall rain coals, fi re and brimstone, and a horrible tempest: this shall be the portion of their cup.
For the righteous LORD loves righteousness, his countenance beholds the upright (Psalm 11:4-7).
Contrary to what the unbelievers think, the Lord is still in His Holy Temple: As Paul urges us in
1 Timothy 2:1-4 —
I exhort therefore, that fi rst of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; Who will have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth.
 |
|
 |
|
Whatever the cost we have a duty to stand up for God’s law within society which is opposed to all relationships outside marriage. |
|
 |
|
 |
When we pray God acts: He set the snares that caught the government off balance in the Religious Hatred Bill.
It is easy for us to get into a defeatist mentality as we live in the last days and lawlessness increases. Indeed Matthew 24:12 tells us this —
“And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall grow cold”.
Will our love grow cold? The next verse informs us that, “he who endures to the end shall be saved”.
We must not give up or be ashamed of standing in the public square.
During supper with a pastor and his wife in Perth we spoke about their experiences in Romania and the wife made this point: “We were not considered worthy of persecution”. I loved that remark.
So many of us will do anything we can to avoid persecution – yet the Bible tells us it is a badge of honour.
This sister was merely quoting from Acts 5:41 referring to the apostles after they had been imprisoned and brought before the high priest when they went on their way “rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer shame for His Name”.
There is no doubt that the experience of the two Daniels in Australia made a decisive difference in the UK. Meetings were held up and down the country where Daniel Scot spoke of his experiences and awoke many Christians to the danger of having a measure like this passed in the UK. Daniel certainly saw the hand of God in his experiences.
The lesson from the Religious Hatred Bill is that we must be alert in the church and be ready to act to speak out against the ungodliness of this age.
I note there is a religious and a homosexual hatred law in Queensland which seems to have been slipped in under the noses of the church. Let us pray it is not used against Christians as in Victoria.
In Western Australia the government is reviewing its Equality Act 1984 and consideration is being given to both a Religious Vilifi cation Law and a Homophobic Hatred Law.
Euthanasia
In May an attempt was made in the UK to bring in euthanasia by the back door in the form of Lord Joffe’s “Assisted Dying for the Terminally Ill Bill” *9. It would have enabled patients to ask doctors to administer a lethal injection of barbiturates.
How could a Christian doctor do such a thing?
It would place vulnerable elderly people in an impossible position under pressure not to be a burden on the hospital or to their families.
Again Christian groups united together; the Lawyers’ Christian Fellowship held a debate in February which was televised; support was mobilised and Christians prayed.
We held another demonstration outside parliament – attended this time by about 500 Christians, which was not large but it made an impact and was picked up by the media. In the event the measure was resoundingly defeated.
Homosexual Rights
Unfortunately the battle in the UK is increasing in its intensity. In recent years we have had a deluge of legislation granting ever more licence to homosexuals.
In 1999 the age of consent for homosexuals was reduced from 18 to 16 to bring it into line with heterosexual couples. In 2003 after a fi erce struggle with the House of Lords the government managed to repeal much needed legislation passed by the Conservatives in 1986 preventing local authorities from promoting homosexual relationships as pretended family life in schools.
In the same year parliament passed an Act allowing homosexual and lesbian couples to adopt. In 2004 the Civil Partnership Act was passed making it lawful for homosexual and lesbian couples to enter into civil unions with each other. In the UK, despite having the Civil Partnerships Act, a lesbian couple (Celia Kitzinger and Sue Wilson) who were married in Vancouver under Canadian law in 2003 sought recognition of that marriage under the European Convention of Human Rights but were thankfully rebuffed in the High Court where it was good to hear the judge describe marriage as “an age-old institution, valued and valuable, respectable and respected, as a means not only of encouraging monogamy but also the procreation of children and their development and nurture in a family unit in which both maternal and paternal infl uences are available in respect of their nurture and upbringing”.
I note that there is a Relationships Act in Tasmania, passed in 2003, and a Civil Unions Bill in the ACT has just been reversed by the Federal Parliament.
The Relationship Act in Tasmania treats registered “significant” relationships as legally equivalent to marriages, all under the common term of “domestic partnership”.
Within the defi nition of what constitutes a partnership are two separate categories: “signifi cant” relationships and “caring” relationships.
The former applies to two people, who are not married or related and are living together as a couple and the latter applies to two people where one is a carer whether or not they are related.
Signifi cant relationships are recognised under the UK’s Civil Partnerships Act because they are just for homosexual couples.
This is no more acceptable to Christians than the Civil Unions Bill because it involves granting rights to people on the basis of sexual immorality which can never be right.
In New South Wales the government is reviewing its Adoption Act with a view to introducing homosexual adoption (the public consultation closed on 14th June).
In the UK a new Equality Commission is being set up as a result of the passing of the Equality Act 2006, which aims to outlaw all discrimination on the grounds of sex, race, religion and sexual orientation.
The government is currently consulting on the form of the sexual orientation provisions, which will be introduced by regulation instead of by act of parliament.
This will mean these regulations will lack the normal degree of scrutiny given to acts of parliament.
This is particularly dangerous given the area that these regulations will cover.
The government has already given exemptions to religious organisations to discriminate in certain areas on the grounds of religious belief and it would be disastrous for Christians if widespread exemptions are not offered under the sexual orientation provisions.
Otherwise Christian bed and breakfasts would have to close down; Christian teachers would be forced to teach that marriage and civil partnerships are indistinguishable morally; they could be forced to promote homosexuality on a par with heterosexuality within the school curriculum; churches would have to let their premises to homosexual couples seeking civil partnerships; Christian printers would have to print gay-rights literature; Christian IT consultants would be forced to build gay-rights websites.
I believe we are seeing a subtle attempt to exclude Christians from key areas of national life and the church must take a stand — in other words the privatisation of religion.
The path to equivalence in Australia is not far behind that in the UK. Nicola Roxon’s Sexuality Discrimination Bill is equivalent to the proposed regulations soon to be published in the UK combined with the existing The Equal Treatment (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2003.
Although Roxon’s Bill proposes to exempt religious bodies there is nothing in the Bill that will protect individual Christians from acting in accordance with their beliefs in the normal course of their employment.
I often think of John the Baptist. He lost his head because he dared to accuse Herod of adultery for taking his brother’s wife.
Whatever the cost we have a duty to stand up for God’s law within society which is opposed to all relationships outside marriage. As
Galatians 3:24 tells us:
“The Law is our guardian to lead us to Christ”.
Unless people acknowledge God’s law they will not understand their need to be forgiven for breaking it.
Of course it is also good for a nation to live according to God’s laws:
“Righteousness exalts a nation: but sin is a reproach to any people” (Proverbs 14.34)
This is not to say that we are calling for a theocratic state, but rather campaigning for laws that are in accordance with God’s revealed moral code.
I believe the blessing of God has departed our nation in large measure because of our sin and we have been handed over to our sinful lusts as a result of God’s wrath.
Let us, however, continue to intercede for our nation: In the Lord’s prayer we are commanded to pray for the Lord’s will to be done.
We know that God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance (2 Peter 3:9).
We are not always going to win but that does not stop us standing!
As Paul enjoins us in
1 Corinthians 16:13 —
“Be watchful, stand fi rm in the faith, quit yourselves like men, be strong”.
Footnotes:
1 ..The cab-rank rule is just that: you take the fi rst client who comes along.
2 ..Issued in 1215, the Magna Carta is also known as Magna Carta Libertatum, the “Great Charter of Freedoms”. Wontentwill be added shortly!
3 ..The Lord Chancellor’s Court, a division of the High Court of Justice.
4 ..R v Howe [1987] 1AC 430
5 ..Named “Xerxes” in the NIV
6 ..House of Lords is the Upper House of the Parliament of the United Kingdom.
7 ..Person in charge of the UK Home Offi ce and minister responsible for internal affairs (England and Wales) and UK immigration and citizenship.
8 ..Whip: a person whose duties include keeping MPs informed of forthcoming business and ensuring member attendance at important debates to maintain a party’s voting strength. < http://www.parliament.uk/works/ pagovopp.cfm >
9.. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200304/ ldbills/017/2004017.pdf
About the Author...
Found this information useful?
Web Site by
S & R Cope in association with
Appeared in Issue CETF 12.3 #37 October 2006
"...contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints" -- Jude v3
© Copyright 2006 Christian Witness Ministries, except where noted. All rights reserved
|
|
|
|
|
-Last revised-
Monday, October 09, 2006
