18 who did not bow the knee to the 'cool' perversion of political correctness.

The Scottish Parliament has spoken - but it does not reflect the beliefs and desires of the majority of the population of Scotland.  By 105 votes to 18, it has passed the Bill that will redefine marriage - except that, to the majority, it will do no such thing.  It all boiled down to a failure to recognise the difference between equality and equivalence (see my letter to Mr John Pentland, MSP, below).  However, there were eighteen brave persons who showed that they could not be browbeaten into subjection on such an important issue.

Why is it so important?  Because marriage, between a man and a woman, to the exclusion of all others, for life, is the bedrock of any civilised society.  It is the only union that is capable of procreation, and the continuation, for as long as time exists, of the human race.  This is true whether, or not, one is a religious person, let alone a disciple of Jesus.

Of course, according to the Scottish Government’s Health Secretary, Alex Neil: “We have always maintained at the heart of this issue there is one simple fact: a marriage is about love.”  Sorry, Mr Neil, but such a statement is, to put it mildly, gushy garbage.  Of course a marriage ought to have love at its heart, but there is much more to the institution than that.  There is commitment; there is mutual support; there is, above all, and uniquely within a heterosexual relationship, the conception of children - without the need to go to a third party for assistance.  Of course I know, as we were frequently reminded over the past year or so, that there are heterosexual couples who are either unable, or unwilling, to have a family.  These, however, are a small minority.  Within a homosexual/lesbian relationship there is no possibility.  The number of men who are capable of bearing a child with another man is absolutely zilch/zero - and the same is true of two women.  At the very least, and from a non-religious perspective, it is an anthropological phenomenon that affirms that marriage is actually about the sanctioning and recognition of new biological, sexual and physical unions of men and women; the way human societies order, structure, promote and protect mating, motherhood and procreation, attaching fathers to children and their mothers, providing an ordered context for sexual activity, rooted in the protracted and intense needs of mothers and infants and in securing the future of society.

So what happens next?  I imagine that we will have to wait and see.  Of one thing I am certain, that the homosexual lobby will not be satisfied with what they now have (although I will be happy to be proved wrong!).  There will be appeals to the European Court of Human Rights as soon as a member of the Christian clergy refuses to 'marry' a homosexual couple.  It is unlikely that  any Muslim Imam will have the same problem!   It will be then that the current Scottish government will realise how totally useless are their assurances that individual members of the clergy will be 'protected'.

However, anyone who has read the chapter on Predestination in my book, Great Words of the Faith, will know that this evening's vote did not surprise the Eternal Creator of all that is.  He is still on the throne of heaven and, as the old adage had it: "Man proposes, but God disposes."  Could it be that all of this is a judgement on a society and culture that has moved far from the faith of its fathers?  Paul's words to the early believers in Rome, which you may read at Rom.1:18ff, are a valid commentary on our modern, 'progressive' society.

Those of us who are disciples of Jesus will continue to pray - that the relevant law will be repealed, and that God will have mercy on an apostate nation.

When is a church apostate?

An "apostate" is defined, in one on-line dictionary, as "One who has abandoned one's religious faith, a political party, one's principles, or a cause."

I was born into Presbyterianism; I was saved as a Presbyterian;I was called to pastoral ministry as a Presbyterian; I was trained as a Presbyterian; I was ordained to the ministry of Word and sacrament as a Presbyterian; I ministered as a Presbyterian.  It pains me, therefore, to watch the national Church of Scotland (Presbyterian) abandon so much of what it is, I believe, meant to uphold.

At the 2013 General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, it came up with the fudge that claimed that it stood by the scriptural teaching that the practice of homosexuality (and the feminine counterpart of lesbianism) is contrary to the teaching of the Scriptures of the Old, and New, Testament.  However, it then decided that individual congregations were at liberty to call, and have inducted, a practising homosexual minister.  I won't start on the subject of church government, but that, to me, is Congregationalism, not Presbyterianism!

At the same General Assembly it was agreed that, notwithstanding the literal interpretation of the Bible, the Children of Israel have no divine right to the land known as Israel.  I immediately recalled the words of the father of Corrie ten Boom, as he saw the Nazis deal so harshly with the Jewish people: "They are still the apple of His eye."!  

This past week has seen a further abandonment on the part of the Kirk.  A Church of Scotland press release referred to a new deal done between the Kirk and the Scottish Secular Society which would see a reform of Religious Observance to remove the overt religious components which, it is alleged, cause a problem for so many parents, and a change of name to Time for Reflection.  The Kirk, and the Secularists, united in further diminishing any Christian influence on schools that were, at one time, the sole responsibility of the church!  It is a sad day, indeed and, to use the common  saying, John Knox must be birling in his grave - even if the initial reaction of the SSS is that the Kirk is suggesting more of a change of name, than of content!

So, what else is required before the Church of Scotland is considered to be fully apostate?  Do we have to wait until it disowns one of the fundamental doctrines of the Church?  Many individual ministers appear to have difficulty over such matters as the virginal conception of the Lord Jesus, or His bodily resurrection. Is it possible that their number will rise so as to make a vote at a future General Assembly deny such basic doctrines?  Surely not - but then, who would have thought that recent matters would ever have seen the light of day, let alone be accepted by the Kirk?!

I pray that, even now, there might be a spirit of revival, and repentance, sweep through the denomination.   I feel, deeply, for personal friends who are Bible-believing, full Gospel preaching, Word of God accepting ministers, yet who, at this time, believe that they must remain with their congregations.  I pray for them on a daily basis.  Regretfully, the time may soon come when they will have to 'do a Joshua', and state categorically that, regardless of what the denomination may do, for them, their households and, one trusts, their congregations, they will serve the Lord. (see Josh.24:15).