Charles Simeon quizzes John Wesley on the tenets of Calvinism

I’ve just listened again today, during a long run on my day off after a fantastic CMF National Students' conference, to John Piper’s biography on Charles Simeon, ‘Brothers, We Must Not Mind a Little Suffering’ .

If you have not yet discovered Piper’s biographies then I heartily recommend them. They can all be downloaded free of charge from the Desiring God website and are great for car or train journeys, walks and runs. 

The following, extracted and adapted from Piper, is I hope a useful taster.

Charles Simeon (1759 – 1836) was an English evangelical clergyman who lived through the American Revolution, the French Revolution and not quite into the decade of the telegraph and the railroad.

Jonathan Edwards, the major figure of the Great Awakening in the US, died the year before Simeon was born but the Wesleys and Whitefield were still alive, and so the Methodist awakening was in full swing.

In his 54 years at Trinity Church, Cambrdige, Simeon became a powerful force for evangelicalism in the Church of England. His position at the university, with his constant influence on students preparing for the ministry, made him a great recruiter of young evangelicals for pulpits around the land. But not only around the land. He became the trusted advisor of the East India Company, and recommended most of the men who went out as chaplains, which is the way Anglicans could be missionaries to the East in those days.

Simeon had a great heart for missions. He was the spiritual father of the great Henry Martyn. He was the key spiritual influence in the founding of the Church Missionary Society, and was zealous in his labours for the British and Foreign Bible Society and the Society for Promoting Christianity among the Jews. In fact, on his death bed he was dictating a message to be given to the Society about his deep humiliation that the church has not done more to gather in the Jewish people.

Probably most of all, Simeon exerted his influence through sustained Biblical preaching year after year. This was the central labour of his life. He lived to place into the hands of King William the Fourth in 1833 the completed 21 volumes of his collected sermons.

In this sermon Piper reports on a debate between Simeon and John Wesley on the subject of Calvinism.

Simeon did not want to be labelled a Calvinist or an Arminian. He wanted to be biblical through and through and give every text its due proportion, whether it sounded Arminian as it stands or Calvinistic. But he was known justifiably as an evangelical Calvinist and was uninhibited in his affirmation of what we would call ‘the doctrines of grace’.

However he had little sympathy for uncharitable Calvinists and did not let his passion for truth divide from others, believing that ‘kindness and concession are far better than vehement argumentation and uncharitable discussion’ (Horae Homileticae, Vol. 15, p. 357).

An example of how he lived out this counsel is seen in the way he conversed with the elderly John Wesley. He tells the story himself:

Sir, I understand that you are called an Arminian; and I have been sometimes called a Calvinist; and therefore I suppose we are to draw daggers. But before I consent to begin the combat, with your permission I will ask you a few questions. Pray, Sir, do you feel yourself a depraved creature, so depraved that you would never have thought of turning to God, if God had not first put it into your heart?

Yes, I do indeed.

And do you utterly despair of recommending yourself to God by anything you can do; and look for salvation solely through the blood and righteousness of Christ?

Yes, solely through Christ.

But, Sir, supposing you were at first saved by Christ, are you not somehow or other to save yourself afterwards by your own works?

No, I must be saved by Christ from first to last.

Allowing, then, that you were first turned by the grace of God, are you not in some way or other to keep yourself by your own power?

No.

What then, are you to be upheld every hour and every moment by God, as much as an infant in its mother's arms?

Yes, altogether.

And is all your hope in the grace and mercy of God to preserve you unto His heavenly kingdom?

Yes, I have no hope but in Him.

Then, Sir, with your leave I will put up my dagger again; for this is all my Calvinism; this is my election, my justification by faith, my final perseverance: it is in substance all that I hold, and as I hold it; and therefore, if you please, instead of searching out terms and phrases to be a ground of contention between us, we will cordially unite in those things wherein we agree. (Moule, 79f)

Some matters on which Islam and Christianity are right (and atheism is wrong)

Both Christianity and Islam have been tremendously influential in world history. About one quarter of the world’s population at least nominally, would regard themselves as Christians. One in five would call themselves Muslims.

Yet for most of the last thirteen centuries the two religions have developed in parallel in separate parts of the world. Islam has mainly been centred in the Middle East, North Africa, Central Asia, Turkey, India and South East Asia (especially Indonesia and Malaysia). By contrast Christianity has been confined largely to Europe, North and South America, Africa and the former Soviet Union. And yet both have been, and still are, growing rapidly.

Now, perhaps for the first time in world history, Christians and Muslims can meet and exchange views in a way that they’ve never been able to before. This is especially possible in schools, university forums and on the internet where Muslim Christian dialogue is taking place on an unprecedented scale.

In many ways Muslims and Christians find themselves as co-belligerents in a common battle against the modern world. The West is now not Christian but rather post-Christian and post-modern. It’s characterised by an obsession with media technology (consumerism and entertainment), a radical relativism which asserts that we can all have our own private truth, an ego-centrism (which looks after number one) and a religious pluralism which asserts all religions are the same. This way of thinking has led to escapism and cynicism in society generally.

By contrast both Christianity and Islam find themselves running against this ideology. They share a concern for community, service and absolute truth: involvement rather than escapism, hope as opposed to cynicism. While postmodern society holds that man is simply a clever monkey, the product of matter, chance and time in a Godless universe, Muslims and Christians are together in asserting that man was made to enjoy a relationship with God.

There are obviously strong differences between the truth claims of Islam and Christianity – especially with regard to the person, words and work of Jesus Christ – but it’s also useful to map out our common ground. Here there are seven common strands clearly evident.

First, Islam and Christianity share a common ethical code, one which underlies respect for marriage, a belief in the sanctity of life, and a respect for property. The Ten Commandments of the Old Testament are very similar to Islamic ethics and as Christian doctors we find ourselves agreeing with Muslims on many ethical issues. For example members of the Christian Medical Fellowship work together with members of the Islamic Medical Association within Care Not Killing, which campaigns against the legalisation of euthanasia.

Second, Christianity and Islam share a common geography and history. The two religions date back to the Middle East and in particular come together in the person of Abraham and his two sons, Ishmael and Isaac.

Third, we share a belief in one God. This may seem a surprise to Muslim readers, but both the Old and New Testaments of the Bible assert God’s oneness. ‘The Lord is one’ says Deuteronomy 6:4. ‘There is One God…’ says 1 Timothy 2:5.

Fourth, we share a belief in prophets – men throughout history chosen as God’s mouthpiece who spoke God’s Word. Many of these prophets are shared in both religious traditions. For example: Moses who brought us the Torah (Taurat), David who brought us the Psalms (Zabur), and of course Jesus who preached the Gospel (Injil). There are several other biblical prophets who are also mentioned in the Qur’an.

Fifth, we share a belief in angels: heavenly beings who are used as God’s messengers throughout history. Gabriel in particular plays a prominent place in both religions. Muslims believe that Muhammad was visited by Gabriel and of course Christians believe that Gabriel appeared to Mary to announce the birth of Jesus Christ.

Sixth, we share a belief in Scriptural authority. We accept that God’s revelations throughout history have been recorded in books, and while we may disagree about the degree of divine inspiration of the various books in our religious traditions, we nonetheless both share a profound respect of the authority of ‘Scripture’.

Seventh and finally, we share a belief in the day of judgment. Both, Christians and Muslims, hold that on this day God will divide everyone who has lived on our planet into two groups; one group consigned to heaven (paradise) and the other group consigned to hell. While we differ on the criteria by which that judgment will be made, we nevertheless concur on the fact that there are only two possible destinations for human beings after death.

As a basis for dialogue aimed at establishing the truth, it is worthwhile first to acknowledge these convictions that are held in common by Christians and Muslims and are not shared by atheists - matters on which Islam and Christianity are right and atheism is wrong.

Where I take issue with some Catholic teaching about Mary

There is no doubt that Mary, the mother of Jesus, plays an important role in salvation history. Like John the Baptist, her coming is prophesied in the Old Testament (Isaiah 7:14; Micah 5:23). She is personally visited by the angel Gabriel at the time of Christ’s conception and is told that she is highly favoured by God (Luke 1:28).

She prophesies about Christ while he is still in the womb (Luke 1:46-55), and is given the responsibility by God of being the earthly mother of the Lord. It is no wonder that Elizabeth, is inspired by God's Spirit, to say of Mary ‘Blessed are you among women’! (Luke 1:42)

These are all biblical truths to be treasured and affirmed. However, some Catholic traditions have added to these facts, other statements which the Bible does not affirm. These add to Scripture, contradict other biblical teachings and both elevate Mary and subjugate Christ. Specifically:

1. Mary was born without sin

‘the mother of God entirely holy and free from all stain of sin' (Lumen Gentium 56); ' the Immaculate Virgin, preserved free from all guilt of original sin' (LG 59) 

The Bible nowhere states this. This contradicts the plain teaching of Scripture that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (Proverbs 20:9; Ecclesiastes 7:20; Isaiah 64:6; Romans 3:10-12, 23). It means also that Christ was not the ‘second Adam’ (Romans 5:12-19), but rather Mary was. It also implies that Christ’s death and resurrection were not necessary for Mary’s salvation (Romans 5:8). The doctrine is a mistaken deduction from the truth that Jesus was born without sin. In fact, Jesus’ sinlessness was not jeopardised by being the son of a sinner.

2. Mary remained a virgin

' the Mother of God, ever virgin' (LG 69)

The Bible does not say this. It rather implies that Joseph had sexual relations with Mary after Jesus’ birth (Matthew 1:25). This is consistent with the fact that Jesus had siblings (Mark 6:3, 12:46,47), and that there is no suggestion of Joseph being polygamous.

3. Mary is the mother of the church

‘We believe that the Holy Mother of God, the new Eve, Mother of the Church, continues in heaven to exercise her maternal role on behalf of the members of Christ' (New Universal Catechism 975) 

Mary is nowhere given this title in Scripture, and it places Mary on a par with God himself, the only one Christians may address as ‘father’ (Matthew 23:9). This is an unwarranted deduction from Jesus’ instructions to John at the time of the crucifixion (John 19:26,27). He makes it clear elsewhere that the term mother (as opposed to Mother of the Church) can justifiably be applied to other women disciples who do his will (Matthew 12:48-50).

4. We should pray to Mary

‘ the Blessed Virgin is invoked in the Church under the titles of Advocate, Helper, Benefactress, and Mediatrix’ (New Universal Catechism 969); 'the Blessed Virgin has been honored with the title of ‘Mother of God,’ to whose protection the faithful fly in all their dangers and needs' (NUC 971)

Scripture tells us only to pray to God the Father (Matthew 6:9). Communication with the dead is elsewhere forbidden (Deuteronomy 18:11; Isaiah 8:19). Christ is the only mediator between God and man. The Hail Mary in which Mary is enjoined to ‘pray for us sinners’ presupposes that we ourselves cannot have the confidence to enter ‘the Most Holy Place’ by the blood of Jesus alone. This is simply not true (Hebrews 10:19-22).

5. The assumption of Mary

‘the Immaculate Virgin...  on the completion of her earthly sojourn, was taken up body and soul into heavenly glory and exalted by the Lord as Queen of the universe’ (LG 59)

Again, there is no biblical record of this event occurring. The ‘assumptions’ of Enoch, Elijah and Moses are mentioned (Deuteronomy 34:6; Jude 9; 2Kings 2:11; Genesis 5:24) but not that of Mary.

These and other more fanciful claims such as the pre-existence and immaculate conception of Mary herself (ie Mary was also conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit), can mean that in practical terms she ends up occupying a place equal if not higher than that of Christ himself. In some Catholic traditions she even becomes the Wisdom of the early chapters of Proverbs and the Woman of Revelation 12.

Christ makes it clear that it is those who do the will of God who are truly blessed (Luke 11:27-28) and while Mary is without doubt included in this number, she is by no means unique in this regard. I am sure she would agree with me. 

Belgian Parliament on verge of fully legalising child euthanasia with final vote on 13 February

I have previously documented Belgium’s meteoric rise to become the euthanasia capital of Europe and its concomitant grisly descent down the slippery slope.

Now the country is moving to allow euthanasia for sick children.

The measure has already passed by 50 votes to 17 in Belgium’s upper house and only needs a vote in the lower house to pass fully into law.

The Belgian government announced yesterday that the debate on the child euthanasia bill, in the Chamber of Deputies, will occur on 12 February.

According to the Belgian media the vote will likely happen the next day, but possibly on the same day of the debate.

The bill is being fast tracked likely because a strong opposition to it is developing. 

A few weeks ago, a large protest was held in Brussels opposing the extension of euthanasia to children.

An English petition against the move has already gained over 56,000 signatures and other language versions of the petition are accessible on the home page of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition Europe website (Please add your signature).

Last week 38 Belgian paediatricians denounced the child euthanasia bill. The paediatricians stated that extending euthanasia to children was not necessary because:

1. Even the most complex medical cases can be solved in the current legal framework, with the means and expertise at our disposal. For whom is this legislation therefore designed?

2. Children in Belgium are not suffering. The palliative care teams for children are perfectly capable of achieving pain relief, both in hospital and at home.

3. A sensitive child may perceive the option of euthanasia as a solution or a duty, especially if the child feels that the parents can no longer bear to see him suffer.

4. In practice, there is no objective method for determining whether a child is gifted with the ability of discernment and judgment. So this is actually largely subjective and subject to other influences.

The paediatricians concluded: 

We believe that there is no urgency to pass this bill in the current legislature.

In a key demonstration of cross-continent opposition, parliamentarians from across Europe have now laid down a motion at the Council of Europe – best known for its focus on human rights – also denouncing this latest of alarming developments in the country’s law.

Written declaration no. 567, is entitled ‘Legalisation of euthanasia for children in Belgium’.

The Declaration states that extending euthanasia to children:

1. Betrays some of the most vulnerable children in Belgium by accepting that their lives may no longer have any inherent value or worth and that they should die

2. Mistakenly assumes that children are able give appropriate informed consent to euthanasia and that they can understand the grave meaning and complex consequences associated with such a decision

3. Promotes the unacceptable belief that a life can be unworthy of life which challenges the very basis of civilised society.

36 British MPs and Peers are members of the parliamentary assembly (18 principals and 18 substitutes – is your MP among them?) and thankfully seven have already signed the declaration. 

They are:

·         James CLAPPISON MP (C, Hertsmere)

·         David DAVIES MP (C, Monmouth)

·         Sir Edward LEIGH MP (C, Gainsborough)

·         Jeffrey DONALDSON MP (DUP, Lagan Valley)

·         Joe BENTON MP (L, Bootle)

·         David CRAUSBY MP (L, Bolton North East)

·         Sir Alan MEALE MP (L, Mansfield)

Care Not Killing, for which I act as Campaign Director, has covered this issue in context a number of times (see here, here, here and here)  and fully endorses the parliamentarians’ view that the move ‘betrays some of the most vulnerable children in Belgium by accepting that their lives may no longer have any inherent value or worth and that they should die... [and] promotes the unacceptable belief that a life can be unworthy of life which challenges the very basis of civilised society.’

It is widely acknowledged that euthanasia is out of control in Belgium: a 500% increase in cases in ten years; one third involuntary; half not reported; euthanasia for blindness, anorexia and botched sex change operations; organ transplant euthanasia; plans to extend euthanasia to children and people with dementia. 

One commentator has said that Belgium has 'leaped head-first off a moral cliff'.

Belgium's law, which came into effect in 2002, permits euthanasia for those in a ‘medically hopeless’ situation due to a serious and incurable condition caused by injury or illness, with physical and/or psychological suffering which is constant and unbearable, and cannot be mitigated.

But it is clear that in practice the boundaries are continually migrating and the nation's moral conscience is shifting year on year. Call it incremental extension, mission creep or slippery slope - whatever - it is strongly in evidence in Belgium.

With the Falconer and MacDonald bills currently before the House of Lords and Scottish Parliament respectively Britain needs to take sober warning from events across the English Channel.

Other articles

Belgium’s meteoric rise to become euthanasia capital of the world (This blog)

Belgium’s grisly descent down euthanasia’s slippery slope (This blog)

Belgian Child euthanasia bill will likely go to a vote on 13 February (Alex Schadenberg’s blog)

A catalogue of reasons why Margo Macdonald’s Assisted Suicide Bill should be rejected

An opinion piece in The Guardian on Saturday by the Editor of the Daily Mail in Scotland, Kevin McKenna, provides a powerful critique of Margo MacDonald MSP’s Assisted Suicide (Scotland) Bill.

Mr McKenna highlights that, although Ms MacDonald’s Bill contains safeguards and claims to ensure that only terminally ill people or those suffering from deteriorating progressive conditions can seek assistance with dying, it may encourage those suffering from depression to take their life.

Mr McKenna reinforces this point by noting that Ms MacDonald’s proposed Bill mirrors the Oregon model which, when passed into legislation, led to a 450% increase in assisted suicides, 20% of which involved depressed individuals.

He continues by challenging the view upon which support for assisted suicide hinges - that we should ‘alleviate the suffering of a fellow human being in extremis’ - with the example of sufferers of locked-in syndrome (LIS).

McKenna highlights that, contrary to the assumption that most LIS sufferers must have reached a stage where life is simply not worth living anymore and should be put out of their misery, the largest-ever study of chronic LIS patients found that almost three-quarters were happy and that only 7% had suicidal thoughts.

He also suggests in the piece that Ms MacDonald campaign instead for a minimum quality of palliative care for everyone in Scotland who requires it at the end of their lives. 

Last week Marilyn Golden, Senior Policy Analyst with the Disability Rights Education & Defense Fund (DREDF) in the United States published a blog in which she neatly summarised why legislation allowing assisted suicide is so dangerous. Here’s her list of reasons which is equally applicable in the UK:

1. Assisted suicide is a deadly mix with our profit-driven healthcare system. At $300, assisted suicide will be the cheapest treatment. Assisted suicide saves insurance companies (and governments) money.

2. Abuse of people with disabilities, and elder abuse, are rising. Not every family is a supportive family! Where assisted suicide is legal, such as in Oregon, an heir or abusive caregiver may steer someone towards assisted suicide, witness the request, pick up the lethal dose, and even give the drug—no witnesses are required at the death, so who would know?

3. Diagnoses of terminal illness are too often wrong, leading people to give up on treatment and lose good years of their lives, where assisted suicide is legal.

4. Where assisted suicide is legal, no psychological evaluation is required or even recommended. People with a history of depression and suicide attempts have received the lethal drugs.

5. Financial and emotional pressures can also make people choose death for fear of being a burden upon others. Legislating increases these pressures.

6. Legalising assisted suicide is unnecessary. Everyone already has the legal right to refuse
treatment and get full palliative care, including, if dying in pain, pain-relieving palliative sedation.

7. There are no true safeguards against abuse. Where assisted suicide is legal, the safeguards are hollow, with no enforcement or investigation authority.

8. Prejudice against disabled people is already widespread and their quality of life underrated.  Will doctors and nurses fully explore their concerns and fight for our full lives? Will they get suicide prevention or suicide assistance?

This debate is primarily about autonomy versus public safety. The current law we have is clear and right. Through its blanket prohibition of assisted suicide it provides a strong disincentive to abuse and exploitation whilst allowing prosecutors and judges discretion in hard cases. It has both a stern face and a kid heart and does not need changing.

Scottish legislators should give the same short shrift to Macdonald’s latest bill as they gave to her last by overwhelmingly rejecting it. 

I'm grateful to Whitehouse Consulting for drawing my attention to the McKenna article above.

Lessons about depression from the life of poet and hymn writer William Cowper

William Cowper (1731-1800) was the leading poet of the evangelical revival in the 18^th century. He was also for a brief period associated with our church in St Albans and was converted within 50 meters of the front door.

In 1763 Cowper suffered a severe bout of depression. His brother John placed him into the care of Dr Nathaniel Cotton who ran a private hospital in his house known as the Collegium Insonorum which stood on the corner of what is now College Street and Lower Dagnall Street.

Dr Cotton was a great friend of Dr Samuel Clark, the minister of the chapel in Dagnall Lane where our predecessors met before our present church building was erected (the current building is just around the corner in Spicer Street so one walks past the site of Cotton’s home walking the 60 or so metres from one site to the other).

Dr Cotton used to leave Bibles opened at strategic places around the house and in this way it was in reading Romans 3:25 that Cowper was delivered from the gloom of terror and despair to comfort and delight in knowing Christ ‘whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in His blood, to declare His righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God.’

Cowper described his reaction: ‘Immediately I received the strength to believe it, and the full beams of the Sun of Righteousness shone upon me. I saw the sufficiency of the atonement He had made, my pardon sealed in His blood, and all the fullness and completeness of His justification. In a moment I believed, and received the gospel.’

Later he was to pen such hymns as ‘God moves in a mysterious way’ and ‘There is a fountain filled with blood’ which are still sung in many churches today.

But Cowper’s conversion did not mean that he was permanently delivered from his depression. In fact he suffered four serious episodes throughout his life and attempted unsuccessfully on several occasions to commit suicide. He often suffered periods of profound doubt and after a dream in 1773 believed that he was doomed to eternal damnation.

It is not difficult to identify possible triggers to his illness. Cowper’s mother died when he was four years old and his father, with whom he never had a good relationship, sent him shortly afterward to boarding school. Later he was prevented by his uncle from marrying his cousin Theodora, with whom he was very much in love and had enjoyed a close relationship for five years. He never saw her again and neither of them ever married although she secretly supported his work financially through an intermediary. And he lived at a time when the clinical treatment of depression was far more rudimentary than it is now.

After leaving St Albans Cowper moved to Huntington where he was to meet Mary Unwin, later widowed after her husband was killed in a fall from a horse, and John Newton: former slave-trader, pastor and author of the hymn ‘Amazing Grace’.

Unwin and Newton took Cowper under their wings and were a wonderful support to him in the years to come, enabling him to function to the level he did and grace us with his legacy of wonderful poetry and hymns.

Recently, on a long run, I listened again to John Piper’s excellent reflections on Cowper’s life, ‘Insanity and Spiritual Songs in the Soul of a Saint’.

I highly recommend the audio (I have listened to it several times already), but particularly wanted to recommend Piper’s six ‘lessons’ about mental illness in Christians, and to add a seventh of my own.

1. We can all fortify ourselves against the dark hours of depression by cultivating a deep distrust of the certainties of despair. Despair is relentless in the certainties of his pessimism. But we have seen that Cowper is not consistent. Some years after his absolute statements of being cut off from God, he is again expressing some hope in being heard. His certainties were not sureties. So it will always be with the deceptions of darkness. Let us now, while we have the light, cultivate distrust of the certainties of despair.

2. We must love children and keep them close to us and secure with us. John Newton lost his mother just like Cowper. But he did not lose his father in the same way. In spite of all the sin and misery of those early years of Newton's life, there was a father, and who can say what deep roots of later health were preserved because of that. Let us be there for our sons and daughters. We are the crucial link in their normal sexual development and that is so crucial in their emotional wholeness.

3. May the Lord raise up many John Newton's for us, for the joy of our churches and for the survival of the William Cowpers among us and in our churches. Newton remained Cowper's pastor and friend the rest of his life, writing and visiting again and again. He did not despair of the despairing. After one of these visits in 1788 Cowper wrote: ’I knew you; knew you for the same shepherd who was sent to lead me out of the wilderness into the pasture where the Chief Shepherd feeds His flock.’

4. In the very research and writing of this lecture I experienced something that may be a crucial lesson for those of us given to too much self-absorption and analysis. I devoted about three days from waking till sleeping to William Cowper, besides leisurely reading of his poetry up till that time. Those three days I was almost entirely outside myself as it were. Now and then I ‘came to’ and became aware that I had been absorbed wholly in the life of another (which)… seemed to me extremely healthy… For the most part mental health is the use of the mind to focus on worthy reality outside ourselves.

5. The first version of this lecture was given in an evening service at Bethlehem Baptist Church. It proved to be one of the most encouraging things I have done in a long time. This bleak life was felt by many as hope-giving. There are no doubt different reasons for this in the cases of different people. But the lesson is surely that those of us who teach and preach and want to encourage our people to press on in hope and faith must not limit ourselves to success stories. The life of William Cowper had a hope-giving effect on my people. That is a very important lesson.

6. Let us rehearse the mercies of Jesus often for our people, and point them again and again to the blood of Jesus. These were the two things that brought Cowper to faith in 1764. In John 11 (the story of Jesus and Lazarus) he ‘saw so much benevolence, mercy, goodness, and sympathy with miserable men, in our Saviour's conduct, that I almost shed tears’. And on the decisive day (of his conversion) he said, ‘I saw the sufficiency of the atonement He had made, my pardon sealed in His blood, and all the fullness and completeness of His justification’.

And my seventh point? Don’t take feelings, dreams and ‘revelations’ too seriously, but rather test them all by Scripture. Cowper was best when he took God at his word, trusting his sure promises in the Bible, rather than placing his trust in his fickle feelings and a dream which it sounds had its origin in the depths of his wounded psyche or in the pit of hell itself.

As the Apostle Paul reminds us, ‘If we are faithless, He remains faithful, for He cannot deny 

Himself’ (2 Timothy 2:13).

Our eternal security lies ultimately in the faithfulness of God. Although we may feel at times like baby monkeys clinging on to God for dear life through the storms of our existence - at any moment at risk of losing our grip - our real situation, regardless of how we might feel, is more like that of baby kittens secure in the faithful grip of their mother’s jaws.

The Archbishop of Uganda has clearly identified what Justin Welby must do

There’s been an interesting interchange this week between Anglican Archbishops in the UK and Africa over laws regulating homosexual behaviour.

In Nigeria last month, President Goodluck Jonathan signed into law a bill which bans same-sex marriages, gay groups and shows of same-sex public affection.

In Uganda, a bill allowing for greater punishments for people involved in homosexual acts, and those who fail to turn them in to police, has been passed by parliament, but blocked - for now - by President Yoweri Museveni.

This week the Archbishops of Canterbury and York (Justin Welby and John Sentamu) wrote to all Primates of the Anglican Communion and to the presidents of Nigeria and Uganda, after being asked about laws penalising homosexuality (full text here).

The Archbishop of Uganda, Stanley Ntagali, has replied (full text here).

The letters have come in the same week that the College of Bishops has released its initial response to the Pilling report which controversially recommended the use of services to ‘mark’ same sex unions.

The House of Bishops have not taken this latter recommendation up but have taken up Pilling’s suggestion of initiating ‘facilitated conversations’ across the Church of England and in dialogue with the Anglican Communion and other churches ‘so that Christians who disagree deeply about the meaning of scripture on questions of sexuality, and on the demands of living in holiness for gay and lesbian people, should understand each other's concerns more clearly and seek to hear each other as authentic Christian disciples’.   

This statement interestingly begs the key question of whether a person who participates in homosexual acts, or teaches that such acts are admissible, can actually claim to be an authentic Christian disciple.

In this context Archbishop Stanley Ntagali’s full statement is well worthy of study.  

He says that the Church of Uganda is encouraged by Uganda’s Parliament amending the Anti-Homosexuality Bill to remove the death penalty, to reduce sentencing guidelines and to remove the clause on reporting homosexual behaviour. In this he is supporting Welby and Sentamu in their legitimate concern that Christians be committed to the 'pastoral support and care of homosexual people'. 

But he then reminds the Archbishops of Canterbury and York as they lead their own church through the ‘facilitated conversations’ recommended by the Pilling Report, that the teaching of the Anglican Communion from the 1998 Lambeth Conference, from Resolution 1.10, still stands. It states that ‘homosexual practice is incompatible with Scripture,’ and the conference ‘cannot advise the legitimising or blessing of same sex unions nor ordaining those involved in same gender unions’.

In this he really cuts to the chase. Welby and Sentamu’s statement fails both to make a clear distinction between homosexual attraction and homosexual behaviour (see my previous discussion here) and also to make it clear that homosexual acts are morally wrong. These are in my view unfortunate and serious omissions.

Ntagali also calls on the Archbishop of Canterbury to withhold invitations for the 2018 Lambeth Conference from the Episcopal Church in the USA and the Anglican Church of Canada in view of the fact that they have ‘violated’ Lambeth Resolution 1.10.

This he says, would be a ‘clear signal’ of Justin Welby’s ‘intention to lead and uphold the fullness of the 1998 Lambeth Resolution 1.10’.

Archbishop Ntagali has put his finger on the key issue.

As I have previously argued on this blog, it is not enough for church leaders simply to affirm a biblical position on homosexual behaviour. Christian leadership also involves ensuring that those who teach in our churches hold to a position on this issue that is consistent with Scripture. There is, in other words, a responsibility to exercise godly discipline.

The Bible is very clear that homosexual practice in particular, as well as being included within the boundaries of sexual immorality (porneia), is also a specific marker of a society that has turned its back on God – Genesis 19, Judges 19 and Romans 1 are familiar examples.

Furthermore there is a grave warning in 1 Corinthians 6:9,10 that ‘men who have sex with men’ (along with other unrepentant sinners) will not ‘inherit the kingdom of God’. Revelation 21:8 and 22:15 confirm that the unrepentant sexually immoral are destined for the lake of fire and will not partake of the tree of life.

The book of Hebrews (10:26) tells us that ‘if we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God’.

Jesus himself calls the church of Thyatira to repentance over ‘(tolerating) that woman Jezebel’ who ‘by her teaching’ ‘misleads my servants into sexual immorality’ (Revelation 2:20-25).

All sexual acts outside marriage (including all homosexual acts) are viewed very seriously indeed in Scripture but false teaching which leads people into sexual sin is viewed even more seriously (Luke 17:1-2) and warnings about the affirmation and endorsement of sexual immorality (2 Peter 2 and Jude are poignant examples) are particularly strong.

Those who lead ‘little ones’ astray (Matthew 18:6), like those they mislead, are in great danger. This is why it is so important for us to exercise godly discipline with them (Matthew 18:15-20; Luke 17:3-4; Galatians 6:1; James 5:19, 20) for their own sakes, as well as for those who they might mislead or have already misled.

The Apostle Paul urged his co-workers to ‘command certain men not to teach false doctrines’ (1 Timothy 1:3) and to ‘gently instruct in the hope that God will grant repentance’ (2 Timothy 2:25). He added that false teachers ‘must be silenced’ (Titus 1:11). 

These biblical standards of leadership apply to all of us who exercise leadership within the Christian Church.

The real test of Justin Welby’s leadership of the Church of England will be whether or not he allows the current situation - whereby senior leaders in his church both in these islands and across the Atlantic are teaching that homosexual acts are sometimes acceptable - to smoulder and fester.

If he fails to grasp this nettle in the interests of ‘unity’ he may find himself presiding over a greatly reduced Anglican communion. I believe he will also find himself on the wrong side of history. But to deal with it firmly and graciously will require not only the wisdom of Solomon, but also the courage of Daniel.

He needs our prayers. But he also needs other Christians within his own denomination to help him be faithful, in both word and deed, to the teaching of Jesus Christ and the Apostle Paul on this matter.