The American Church must now speak to the American People about Donald Trump


Each week, I drive past Donald Trump’s golf course just north of Aberdeen. I haven’t yet turned off the road to explore what lies beyond the glamorous sign at the junction of Trump’s International Golf Links and the main road to Peterhead. The construction of the golf course remains highly controversial. The Balmedie dunes and coastline is a major beauty spot of significant natural wonder and value. Local argument for and against Trump’s investment centred on whether or not the human impact on the natural splendour and grandeur of this part of the Aberdeenshire coastline would be more than offset by the economic and employment boon that would follow. Most now think the economic boost, promise by Trump, has been negligible. Any dream of an injection of life and capital into the local economy has long since died.

That has not been the only element to the controversy. There was an intensely and vitriolic, personal dimension to it. The Guardian reported that Donald Trump had referred to a local opponent of his golfing development as a ‘disgrace’ and to his home as a ‘pigsty’. Feelings ran high. Local resistance has been a constant thorn in the flesh and an irritation to Trump, and his language has been both dismissive and insulting, to say the very least.

Trump later embarked upon a public feud with Alex Salmond, formerly the Scottish First Minister and now the MP for the Gordon constituency, over the Salmond-backed proposal to build a wind farm two miles off the Aberdeenshire coast, ‘spoiling the view’ of those driving off from the first tee on the Balmedie golf course and drinking tea in the clubhouse. Trump objected unsuccessfully at every level possible, even as far as the supreme court. Locally, it galls considerably that Donald Trump has a foothold in the NE of Scotland, owning prized land and property just north of Aberdeen, and with every bitter twist and disgusting development in Donald Trump’s current presidential campaign, local dismay grows at the behaviour of the neighbour.

And now, Donald Trump is ‘sorry’ because of misogynistic comments recorded from ten years ago and dominating the headlines today. He is reported as saying “these words don’t reflect who I am… I apologise”. In a video, he is heard to say “you can do anything” to women “when you’re a star” and we hear him boasting about ‘hitting’ on married women.   Donald Trump says: “I’ve said and done things I regret. Anyone who knows me knows these words don’t reflect who I am. I said it, I was wrong, and I apologise. I’ve never said I’m a perfect person nor pretended to be someone I’m not. I pledge to be a better man tomorrow.”

In response, Mitt Romney posted this withering tweet, getting right to the very heart of things. Nothing appears to be sacred to the present Republican candidate for the Presidency of the world’s greatest power.


Mr Trump’s comments about women are nauseous to all right-thinking people. He says he made them ten years ago and that they do not represent who he is today. We must ask, however, has he had a conversion? Has he experienced some great and as yet unknown epiphany? Has he had a Damascus Road vision of light and truth as a consequence of which he is no longer the man that he was in 2005 when the comments were made?

And would anyone truly believe that?

The answer is that no one believes Donald Trump whatsoever, except for those who inexplicably hate Democrats even more than they ought to hate, properly and rightly, the unparalleled odiousness of Trump’s views about women and other minorities.

And whilst we have heard from Romney and Clinton, here is the elephant in the room. Where is the voice of the Church? Why have we not heard a clear clarion call from the Christian leadership of the USA about Trump’s comments and opinions? Are they silent, maintaining a posture of nonpartisan neutrality for the sake of Church unity and peace? Is that ethical and biblical? What would a genuine prophet say and do? Whilst it is perfectly understandable that the Church and its leaders should be wary of taking up official political positions in completely fair and open electoral processes, with rational candidates and carefully thought out manifestos – believers are normally free to vote one way or another – there must surely come a time when the choices are so stark and obvious, the candidate(s) so manifestly flawed, irrational and unsuited for office, even perilously risky, that the Church must publicly give a spiritual pronouncement on the state of affairs.

This, the American Church seems unwilling to do. But is this not what all sensible people think, that a political candidate for the very highest office of the land, who displays consistent disregard and hatred for women, cannot be President of the world’s greatest power? Would the American Church not be right to say that a candidate who shows blatant contempt for the divinely-ordained institution and gift of marriage and who is prepared to act so predatorially on the personal relationships of others cannot be President of the world’s greatest power? A candidate who showed such disrespect for the dignity, value and worth of women who, when he attempted adultery with a married woman, ‘moved on her like a bitch’, cannot be President of the world’s greatest power. Isn’t that what all right-thinking Americans believe, today, following the revelation of Trump’s comments?

And the American Church should now say so. The time for ecclesiastical neutrality is over. The Church must give Christian direction to the American people. Will the American Church now do what is right, and speak out in support of righteousness and the essential dignity of women and men? It is not a case of ecclesiastical tampering in the political process. It is a matter of telling the American people that one of the political options they believed was theirs, is no longer a righteous option at all, and it should call upon the Republican Party to do the honourable thing and to seek an alternative.

This moment is not just about political leadership. It is critically about spiritual leadership, too.

‘So that they may rule…’


Many of the years of my childhood were spent in Zimbabwe. My childhood was lived cheek by jowl with the flora and fauna of Africa, the flame lily and the baobab, the chameleon and the kudu. My introduction to the beauty and majesty of Africa’s natural world took place in the world-famous Hwange game reserve. There, crossing the dusty strip roads and deep in the shadowy thickets of the surrounding bush, were the sable antelope, the warthog, the giraffe and the elephant. It is hard to believe today, but the elephants were present then in such great numbers that the bush could not sustain them. The sheer size of their herds overpowered the reserve. Their massive numbers devoured the vegetation, leaving other wildlife to do the best they could in a denuded landscape. And so elephants were culled. There were simply too many of them. The reserve could not sustain them all. Their abundant numbers made culling necessary. Elephant meat was on the menu of some of the best and most expensive hotels.

It is not so now. Far from it. Africa is now facing an environmental crisis of desperately saddening proportions. The elephants are being slaughtered and many more are dying or being killed than are being born. These great and noble animals are being hunted and poached to the very brink of endangerment, if not extinction. Unless conservation groups and national governments can defeat the efforts of the poachers and the insatiable demands of the oriental and eastern markets for ivory, the African elephant will be like the dinosaur and the dodo. The long corridors of Africa along which they travelled from watering hole to watering hole will see them no more, and nor will we. This most astonishing and powerful of creatures will have been hunted to brutal nothingness within a matter of a few decades from now.

In a remarkable and desperately moving article about the struggle of the elephants to survive in Africa, David Mackenzie and Ingrid Formanek describe a pitiful scene on the ground. In Botswana, an elephant lies in a dry river bed:

He was a magnificent bull right in his prime, 45 to 50 years old. To get at his prized ivory tusks, poachers hacked off his face. Slaughtered for their ivory, the elephants are left to rot, their carcasses dotting the dry riverbed; in just two days, we counted the remains of more than 20 elephants in a small area. Visitors and managers at the tourist camps here are frequently alarmed by the sound of gunshots nearby.

Mike Chase, the founder of Elephants Without Borders (EWB), leads the Great Elephant Census, (GEC), a project to count the number of Africa’s elephants, from the air, using small aircraft flying an incredible number of hours across vast tracts of the African savannah. Before the Census, knowing the number of elephants in Africa was purely a matter of hints and hunches. Not so now:

Before the GEC, total elephant numbers were largely guesswork. But over the past two years, 90 scientists and 286 crew have taken to the air above 18 African countries, flying the equivalent of the distance to the moon — and a quarter of the way back — in almost 10,000 hours.

This is groundbreaking work – vital research if the true extent of human savagery towards the natural world is to be known and properly understood, and appropriate counter-measures introduced. The sheer scale of Man’s rejection of the wonder and joy of God’s hand in creation, and of his willingness to lay waste to the earth, is staggering:

Prior to European colonization, scientists believe that Africa may have held as many as 20 million elephants; by 1979 only 1.3 million remained — and the census reveals that things have gotten far worse. According to the GEC, released Thursday in the open-access journal PeerJ, Africa’s savannah elephant population has been devastated, with just 352,271 animals in the countries surveyed — far lower than previous estimates.
One of the recent causes has been the opening up of the African continent in the last 20-30 years to the needs and demands of the east – hunting in the colonial decades has historically been another. But now quack medicine and ruthless human greed target the rhino’s horn and the elephant’s tusk. Superstition and quasi-medicine has raped the African landscape and the abundance of God’s creation just cannot rebuild and repopulate quickly enough. Additionally, poverty in Africa tempts many to turn their hands to poaching, in spite of the risks and the shoot-to-kill policy in some regions. Poaching earns vast profits for everyone except the African poacher, whilst poverty in the far east drives an ever-rising demand for bone, horn and feather to be turned into curios and novelties.
Paradoxically, the natural wealth of Africa is worth more alive than dead. This is an essential message for local African communities, struggling with poverty and shortage. A living animal brings tourists, and tourists bring cash dollars to the local economies of Africa’s heartlands:
Despite the poachers’ desire to make a quick buck, elephants are actually far more valuable alive than dead. Every elephant killed will earn a poacher just a few hundred dollars — the overwhelming majority of the tens of thousands of dollars its ivory fetches on the black market go to middlemen and organized crime gangs. By contrast, a live elephant can earn more than a million dollars for communities involved in eco-tourism, according to a report from The David Sheldrick Wildlife Trust. 
The crisis is not just economic. This is a theological crisis for the Church. It is a crisis of faith. Not least for the Church in Africa, where the numerical strength of christianity is so much greater than it is in western nations. It is a crisis for the Church in Africa precisely because in the lands of the Church’s greatest strength, it is there that the work of the creator is most threatened with eradication. One must wonder what factors are at work when the creator is worshipped most joyfully and numerically in the lands where His creation is destroyed most savagely and visibly. The beauty and wonder of God’s creative handiwork are tossed into the undergrowth in butchered barbarity whilst tusk and horn are carried bloodily away to the markets of the far east. The Church must ask itself how such a rejection of God’s work in creation can be despised so ruthlessly in those lands where the Gospel of the creator God is embraced so readily.
There is a theological crisis for the west, and for the western Church, as well. Western governmets and Churches must fully acknowledge that poverty drives people to take short-term decisions that have far reaching impacts. A poached elephant might provide a family with income for a year. There must be an economic answer to that very real issue. Nor can the western Church remain silent whilst the waters and seas no longer team with life, whilst the coral reefs lie colourless – dead and broken, and whilst creatures longer ‘move along the ground… wild animals, each according to its kind.’ It is no longer a species here and there. It is the elephant, the rhino, the whale. To be anxious about such matters must be an essential part of the christian witness, too. This has to be part of the testimony to the greatness of God, a vital element in the Church’s declaration of who God is as well as of what He has done. He is saviour, yes. But only because He is firstly creator. He saves that which He creates, because He loves His creation, and the elephant is most magnificent. If its endangerment does not stir the Church into a particular sort of mission, the Church has not properly understood its creator and God.
Isn’t a truly rounded theology of mission bound to include a concern for the natural order? If the Church is missional, by which I understood it to be sharing in the mission of God the creator, and in humility and obedience sharing His concerns and goals, isn’t the Chuch supposed to speak about creation as well as salvation? Aren’t the constituent parts of the creation of God so inter-connected that the demise of natural life necessarily impacts on human life?
If we’re not properly ruling God’s creation, what should the Church do about that?
Shouldn’t this become a vital part of our Christian meditation?
Then God said, ‘Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground’ (Genesis chapter 1 verse 26).
Soli Deo Gloria

Is Sunday School best for our children?


On Sunday, our morning service began, and the church’s children were not with the adult congregation. That is usual. We hadn’t lost them somewhere in transit. Honest. Instead, they were in Sunday School and Bible Class with their teachers and leaders, taking part in age-appropriate lessons, complete with worship songs, games and crafts (for the youngest ones), all intended to reinforce the main teaching points for the day. After an hour, as the adult offering was being received, the children were reunited with the congregation for the final 25 minutes of corporate worship – the sermon having been delivered – but a vital 25 minutes or so in which the Apostles’ Creed and Lord’s Prayer normally are included. The children, minus those who attend the crèche, worshipped with the adult element of the congregation for about one third of the morning service.

Is that a good thing? Is that helpful to their Christian development and training? Is this the best way to disciple children and young people? It’s what we do. It’s what most churches do. John Piper doesn’t think we should.

In an article entitled ‘The Family: Together in God’s Presence‘, John Piper argues against the separation of children and their parents or guardians in the worship of the Church. He believes that this misses a key opportunity to teach children about the holiness of God and to expose them to the historic riches of the Church’s worship and spirituality. Nor does he believe that there should be a place in the collective worship of the Church for a specific ‘talk’ or ‘sermon’ directed at children. This only serves to introduce a mood of irreverence and chattiness into the joyful solemnity (my phrase, not his) that should characterise collective worship. There are 168 hours available in every week. Surely, for a short space of time on Sundays, the Church can turn away from the trivial and mundane:

we don’t have a children’s sermon as part of our Sunday morning service. It would be fun for the children, but in the long run would weaken the spiritual intensity of our worship. To everything there is a season. And we believe that, for at least one hour a week, we should sustain a maximum intensity of moving reverence

John Piper argues that the worship of the Church, when young and old gather together without age-differentiated learning, is akin to a healing balm for the rushed and harassed nature of modern life, in which the generations are hard-pressed to meet each other and to share in corporate activity. We are all so busy that we have no time to sit alongside one another; to be together. The corporate worship of the Church offers us a chance to sit beside each other, young and old. This is invaluable. Can we do without it? John Piper argues:

Worshiping together counters the contemporary fragmentation of families. Hectic American life leaves little time for significant togetherness. It is hard to overestimate the good influence of families doing valuable things together week in and week out, year in and year out.

It’s hard to resist the force of his pastoral argument, and I don’t intend to try. I find it convincing, albeit with some caveats. But this was the oft-repeated point made by William Still, for 52 years minister of Gilcomston South Church, in Aberdeen. He believed that the impact upon a young child of seeing his or her mother and father with head bowed on a Sunday morning in the presence of a holy and righteous God would make so deep an impression on the young personality that it would likely last for eternity. There is moving power in that argument, and as a young child I have never forgotten the sight of my rugby-playing father making his emotional way from the back of the Salvation Army hall to the mercy-seat at the front in order to repent of his sins and to make peace with God, having been convicted of sin by the Holy Spirit. These moments of human obeisance before an almighty yet merciful God indelibly impress themselves on children:

Children should see how Mom and Dad bow their heads in earnest prayer during the prelude and other non-directed times. They should see how Mom and Dad sing praise to God with joy in their faces, and how they listen hungrily to His Word. They should catch the spirit of their parents meeting the living God.

I remember, too, in that far off Salvation Army childhood, that Sunday School did take place, but that it took place before the start of the morning meeting, early on Sunday morning, and when it was done, the children then took their places with their parents in a form of corporate worship in which little concession was made for the presence of children. And what did we do? We read, or coloured in, whilst subliminally learning the hymnody of our church. We imbibed the holy scriptures. We heard snatches of sermons. And we learned the discipline of Christian worship. In time we believed, and we received Christ as understanding grew. Would this have happened otherwise? Not sure. This is what John Piper says:

Music and words become familiar. The message of the music starts to sink in. The form of the service comes to feel natural. The choir makes a special impression with a kind of music the children may hear at no other time. Even if most of the sermon goes over their heads, experience shows that children hear and remember remarkable things.

It may be a considerable unorthodoxy to suggest that the Sunday School, as good as it is, may also be the enemy of the best. It teaches, but doesn’t incorporate. A generalisation, I know, but is there some truth there? When children ‘leave’ the church on Sundays, after the children’s sermon/talk, and depart the sanctuary for Sunday School, will they come back, as teenagers, having spent most of their childhood without any serious exposure to the worship and ethos of the adult congregation? John Piper again:

We do not believe that children who have been in children’s church for several years between the ages of 6 and 12 will be more inclined or better trained to enjoy worship than if they had spent those years at the side of their parents. In fact, the opposite is probably the case.

I can’t escape the nagging feeling that we are not helping our children as much as we might by offering them a Sunday School. In effect, we may be unchurching many of them at the very moment in life at which we want them to learn from the piety of their parents and from the richness of the Church’s liturgy and worship. And there is always that small and sacrificial cohort of Sunday School and Bible Class teachers and leaders who faithfully, every Sunday, are denied a regular ministry of the word – particularly if there is no evening service – because they have left the church along with the children.

I think that John Piper over-eggs this particular pudding, but only a little. A good, well-delivered children’s sermon or talk serves an important purpose and need not damage the ‘intensity of moving reverence’ within collective worship. God is not averse to laughter or to the enjoyment of collective fun in the presence of his Spirit. But John Piper’s main point surely deserves reflection:

Worship is the most valuable thing a human can do. The cumulative effect of 650 worship services spent with Mom and Dad between the ages of 4 and 17 is incalculable.

Is the Sunday School doing all that we want it to do? Are most of us missing something crucial?

Don’t stone me, but I wonder.

Soli Deo Gloria

A glass ceiling for the Reformed?

give-take-compromiseThere hasn’t been any blogging on this site for some time – I’ll say something about that at some point soon – but the impulse is stirring once again and my attention has been caught by the current public process, initiated by the Church of Scotland, to find the next Moderator of the Church of Scotland’s General Assembly.

The Moderator, whoever he or she will be next time round, will chair the Church’s week-long meeting of ministers, deacons and elder, held in Edinburgh every May, and will then visit various corners of the Church’s life and work to bring encouragement and to provide a degree of denominational cohesiveness.

In recent years, the job of annually selecting the General Assembly’s Moderator has retreated into greater secrecy and confidentiality than was the case in the past. This happened a small number of years ago, after some opposition from outside the relevant nomination committee to the candidacy of a moderatorial nominee, when the nominee’s name appeared in the media, as was customary, along with the names of the other candidates then under consideration. It was felt from that moment onwards, and with justification, that the work of the Church’s committee, given the task of finding a new Moderator, might be open to ‘outside interference’ if the names of moderatorial candidates were not kept entirely under wraps until the committee’s work was done and the successful candidate duly selected.

And now, a process that has for the reasons above become more confidential and closeted is, at the same time, pressing towards greater openness and involvement, at least to the extent that members of the Church of Scotland are being asked to suggest the names of possible candidates. This was once the private domain of the committee elected to nominate the Moderator. Now, we are in the age of ecclesiastical glasnost. We have greater openness. The Church’s members will be given a fair shout. And there are just six days left to submit your nomination, if you are so minded. There is even an online application form on which the candidates credentials, qualifications and consent to being nominated can be recorded.

With just six days to go, perhaps a good number of nominations have been posted. Who knows? Maybe some last minute applications will hastily be put together this weekend. No one has yet contacted me to ask me if I consent to being nominated, so I guess that this year will not be my year, which is a shame because I think that a Moderator looks better and more dignified in frills and lacework when in his fifties than when he is in his sixties, when he is more likely to take on an unmistakably Falstaffian or even piratical appearance. But what is much more to the point is whether or not a theological evangelical, with reformed biblical convictions, of any age and appearance can accept nomination within the next six days and be selected by the committee in due course, probably in October.

Evangelical ministers have been in a small minority within the Church of Scotland since the Disruption. Our numbers have never been large but there were once signs of hope. Church of Scotland evangelicalism reached its peak at about a third of the Church’s ministry just prior to the recent domination of the Church by the revisionist trajectory and its agenda, when a number of ministers and Church members left in protest. The number of evangelicals may increase yet, but it is not clear if the number of evangelical ministry candidates coming from other countries and from other Churches will have any effect. The present state of affairs, then, is that that the number of possible evangelical candidates for the moderatorship of the General Assembly is small. You could perhaps count them on three fingers.

Is that significant? There is a  more basic issue than the number of potential candidates, and it concerns the role that the Moderator is expected to play, principally but not exclusively within the Assembly. Here is the real question. Can an evangelical minister or elder carry out the role of Moderator of the General assembly of the Church of Scotland with true evangelical and reformed integrity? Could an evangelical fulfil the role without compromising his or her reformed, biblical convictions along the way?

In recent years, the Church of Scotland has had evangelical Moderators. This brought a sense of hopefulness to evangelicals throughout the Church of Scotland, a wondering – is this the harbinger of something notable, the turning of the waning, reformed tide? But hopefulness for some soon turned to concern and disappointment for others. Evangelical Moderators continued to chair the Assembly meetings that facilitated and encouraged the development and dominance of the revisionist trajectory that is now taking over this Reformed Church. Ought they to have done so? They presided over the very Assemblies that led the Church further away from a biblical, historical and ecumenical understanding of the Christian life, with its emphasis on biblical faithfulness and gender complentarity as a revelation of the divine purpose for human flourishing at all times and in every age. They welcomed speaker after speaker who sought to lead the Church’s membership and the flock of God away from a biblical standpoint regarding marriage, from which the Church itself has not been able yet to formally depart.

I do not know why they participated in this. One can only assume that they did so because they believed that some greater good was in sight, and that the evangelical opportunities which the moderatorial year might bring would be worth spending the whole year holding one’s nose whilst administering liberal theology’s odiousness. I understand this, though I don’t agree with it. I thank them for their service. But I believe, on the other hand, that when reformed and evangelical Moderators serve the revisionist trajectory, a trajectory that redefines sin and holiness in the image and likeness of Man, this is a form of collusion that affirms on the one hand the desire of the Church to grant a place to evangelicalism whilst at the same time tying evangelicalism’s hands with the silken cords of Church office and preventing it from declaring a fully-orbed Gospel, of message and lifestyle.

Here is the remarkably under-recognised consequence. Some evangelicals will accept nomination to the moderatorial office. True. They know that the revisionist trajectory is wrong, but they will purse their lips and look away whilst hoping that good, Gospel things can go on in the midst of it all, for however long ‘it all’ will last. But other evangelicals, who might have served moderatorships characterised by godliness and evangelical zeal will feel that there is now a theological glass ceiling in place. There is the appearance of equal opportunity – nominations are sought from the Church’s membership – but the expectations of the Church for its Moderator will be of such theological breadth and diversity that they cannot compromise a bible-shaped conscience by accepting nomination to office. This is a great shame, and a source of weakness for the Church. The Moderator of genuine reformed doctrine and evangelical piety inescapably must further the revisionist project, and this they cannot do. They are forced instead to expend their efforts in the lower courts of the Church where, perhaps only in the Kirk Session, can the reformed and evangelical minister truly carry out a moderatorship that does not involve compromising one’s theological convictions by remaining true, paradoxically, to the Church’s confession and articles.

What is the bottom line? Evangelical and reformed ministers and elders are forced to retreat towards a ministry and Christian life that is de facto congregational in polity, simply because full participation in the presbyterian government of the Church, which they wish for and to which they felt called, now involves them more and more in the gradual abandonment of historical, presbyterian standards.

How much can we give and take?

Six days are left.

Soli Deo Glori


Kirk ministers and Roman Catholic bishops to ‘exchange’ roles and offices with one another

John Knox

The General Assembly of the Church of Scotland is now just a couple of months away and a drip feed of likely proposals and plans will soon begin.

Amongst the many obvious issues that will make it on to the agenda, there is one that is guaranteed to raise eyebrows and generate debate.

In this age of ever-closer ecumenical co-operation, in which experienced churchmen are ‘loaned’ out to help with difficult issues, the General Assembly this year will be asked to approve a novel gesture in which some senior ministers of the Kirk and some bishops of the Roman Catholic Church will ‘exchange’ roles and offices with one another, in a one-of-a-kind exchange of ministries not ever seen anywhere else.

Even though the failed effort of SCIFU is far from forgotten, the General Assembly will be asked to agree that some of the Kirk’s ministers be ‘seconded’ for a year to the Roman Catholic Church in Scotland to serve as temporary diocesan bishops – there is a shortage – albeit with restricted sacramental authority, whilst a small number of Roman Catholic bishops be permitted to ‘guest’ serve as Moderators in a number of selected and willing Presbyteries.

It’s hoped that greater understanding and fraternal closeness will emerge, and perhaps a cross-fertilization of liturgical ideas and theological insights. Sources say that if it goes well, it could become a regular opportunity for both sets of clergy, like a sort of international student exchange programme or work experience project.

It can only be a good thing.

‘Moderator Designate withdraws from Church of Scotland’s annual gathering due to ill health’ – The Herald

The minister appointed to lead the Church of Scotland this year has withdrawn from the position due to ill health.

Moderator-designate Reverend Angus Morrison said he has made the decision reluctantly as he undergoes medical treatment.

A new appointment will be announced on April 2 ahead of the opening of the General Assembly on May 17.

The Church of Scotland said it is the first time in living memory that a moderator-designate has stood down.

Rev Morrison was due to take over the annual appointment from the Right Reverend Lorna Hood.

The minister of Orwell and Portmoak Church in Milnathort, Perth and Kinross, said: “This has been a very painful decision but deep down I feel it is the right one. I am undergoing medical treatment and anticipate an operation ahead.

“The demanding role of moderator requires someone to be operating on all cylinders. I do not have the necessary reserves just now.

“It is with huge regret and reluctance that I make this decision. My heartfelt prayers will be with all those on whom unexpected burdens now fall. May God’s guidance, strength and peace be given to each one.”

Read the rest of this article here

Exceptionally sad news that the Reverend Angus Morrison will not now be able to take up the responsibility of serving as the incoming Moderator of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland.

Let us not fail to pray for Angus and for his family members as Angus deals with issues to do with his health and strength. We should pray, too, for his successor, due to be announced in the next couple of weeks or so.

Rev John Chalmers, principal clerk for the Church of Scotland, said: “We ask the whole Church to remember Angus and his family in their prayers and we hope that his health is fully restored in due course.

We will all no doubt agree wholeheartedly with the Principal Clerk and will want to to say ‘Amen’ as the Lord surrounds Angus and his family members with His grace and peace.

Soli Deo Gloria 

The Russian invasion of Crimea

They are rare moments indeed, but every now and then an event or an incident of global proportions comes along that shatters the fantasy of everyday life and smashes the illusion that all is well with the human race, that the march towards human improvement and emancipation is unstoppable and inevitable.

The Russian invasion of Crimea and its de facto annexation of the sovereign territory of the Ukraine is such a moment. In truth, other conflicts in other global hotspots ought to have the same effect on us but they don’t. It takes a military threat on our European doorstep to shake us out of our self-confidence and pride.

At the very moment of defence cuts to Western armed forces down to the lowest levels seen in seventy years, we are now seeing the massive deployment of Russian infantry and armour onto Ukrainian soil. Russian soldiers encircle Ukrainian servicemen and women in their barracks and outposts. Though a shot has yet to be fired, the rapidity and totality with which Russia has taken possession of the Crimea embarrasses and shakes the humanist mantra that the world and humanity are on the glad pathway towards a political and economic utopia, in which Church and faith will have no place, and where men and women will live peaceably with one another in mutual love, collaboration and back-slapping.

It is just so very unfortunate, isn’t it, when original sin and human fallenness pop up wearing the guise of international power politics and completely ruin the humanist party?

There has not been any shortage of humanists who have worked hard to make religionists of all shades and flavours the bad guys when it comes to tracing the root cause of all the world’s ills. They are everywhere in the mainstream and social medias. They have declared it time and time again. Faith is the fault. Religion is the reason. Religion per se is the fons et origo of the world’s wars and conflicts. Religion therefore has to be eradicated from the public sphere, or actively persecuted and harassed into the private realm if it will not go there peacefully and of its own accord. They conveniently overlook the untold millions who died in the purges of Stalin and Hitler.

But humanists don’t monopolise an optimistic view of human nature whilst at the same time cherishing a pessimistic view of human fallenness. Within the Western Church, the doctrine of original sin is an embarrassment to many, even to many amongst the evangelical and theological orthodox ranks, where it ought to be the starting point for all right thinking about salvation and justification. But even here, it just sounds so arcane. Evangelicals in worrying numbers believe that it is bound to turn people off who might otherwise be interested in choosing Christ as their personal faith option. By way of rationalization, they attribute it to the errant theology of a group of desert-based hermits and Church Fathers obsessed with sex and matters of the flesh they had renounced.

They refuse to see it in the theology of Paul

Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned (Romans 5.12)

Or in the pointedly sarcastic and, dare I say it, biting words of Jesus,

And when Jesus heard it, he said to them, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. I came not to call the righteous, but sinners” (Mark 2.17)

Or even in the first biblical hint of the Gospel, of a remedy for humanity’s rebellion in the Garden, the promise of a Saviour in Genesis.

And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel (Genesis 3:15)

And yet, deny it if you will, its fruit today carries an automatic weapon and stalks the streets of the Crimea. It lands on the beaches of Sebastopol. It makes threats of violence and offers ultimatums about attacks.

What we are looking at as we watch Sky, CNN or the BBC, is not just the foreign policy of a newly-confident Russia, seeking to get back to the glory days of its Soviet past. We are seeing what original sin looks like in the arena of modern geo-politics, all the more shocking because we expect it – and ignore it – in those parts of the world where the sun shines at its hottest. We don’t expect to be brought face to face with the ascendance of human sinfulness and unaccountability on the very doorstep of our blessed European Union.

The Westminster divines knew this full well. Against the historical backdrop of the English Civil War and the Covenanters conflict in Scotland, the brutal flowering of human sin was apparent. The propensity for men and women to inflict great hurt upon one another was obvious. And, it must be admitted, the distance men and women of faith could go from the example and teaching of their Lord and Master had provided sufficient evidence of the power of sin and the depth of its root and influence, even in lives apparently redeemed and baptised.

And so the Westminster divines, touching on our first parents, on their rebellion against God, and on the subject ‘Of the Fall of Man, of Sin, and the Punishment thereof’ wrote:

They being the root of all mankind, the guilt of this sin was imputed; and the same death in sin, and corrupted nature, conveyed to all their posterity descending from them by ordinary generation (Ch 6, Westminster Confession of Faith).

Here is the cause of the conflict in the Crimea today, the underlying power and purpose of it. Here is the reason why Russian soldiers march so boldly up to the gateway to Europe. This is why Vladimir Putin ignores the West and presses forward with his geo-political goals and aspirations. This is why so many are butchered in Syria this morning, and why limbs are blown off in Afghanistan. It is sin, deeply-rooted in all men and women, traceable back to the origins of humanity, and not able to be removed from the human psyche by human means. The fons et origo of all oppression and violence, for its originator is no other than Satan himself, a murderer from the very beginning (John 8.84).

If the nations of the world do not know this, then we must acknowledge that the Church of Jesus Christ is in danger of forgetting it also, if it even believes it any longer. We have become so fixated on meeting the needs of communities and people, in physical and material terms, that we are dangerously close to forgetting that men and women need a Saviour who alone can deal with the problem of original sin, and that men and women, once renewed and transformed by the Good News of Jesus, will, in turn, renew many around them with the same Good News. The world will not be changed by a renewal of international relations or by a new solution to a re-emerging Cold War, but by a rediscovered commitment on the part of the Church towards declaring and proclaiming the historic Gospel of Jesus Christ.

As Paul puts it so beautifully and enigmatically;

Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come (2 Corinthians 5.17).

The renewal of the world can only take place if people are renewed, having encountered Jesus the Renewer.

Sin is the cause. Christ is the cure. Will the Church get this?

Soli Deo Gloria