Sunday, 18 June 2017

Christ is King

This is a guest blog from Catriona Murray the excellent blogger of Post Tenebras Lux.

The Wee Frees have a reputation for schism. Put two Wee Frees in a room and they will splinter into three new denominations. We’ve heard all the wisecracks and, as you might expect, we’re not laughing. No, not because we are dour, joyless Calvinists, but because it is not a completely fair representation.  True, there have been unedifying, pointless spats among the brethren which do little to show the world a good example of Christians dwelling in unity. We might all do well to think about that. There is little point in being a light set on a hill if we’re going to flicker on and off, sending as much shadow over the countryside as we do light.

However, the Disruption of 1843 has to be viewed in an entirely different context. Like all great historical events, it has much to teach us and enjoys a resurgence in relevance every now and then. For the members of the Free Church, it should be a touchstone anyway – where have we come from, what are we about, what are we? The Disruption was not really schism at all: it was a protest against the Kirk’s continued departure from the Establishment Principle. In creating a new denomination, the Evangelicals who walked out of the Kirk were actually doing the only thing they could in order to maintain that Principle, which states that both the church and state are under God’s jurisdiction and must have mutual respect.

Creating a new national church was probably the only thing they could have done. Thomas Chalmers was quite clear about the motive:  

‘We quit a vitiated Establishment but would rejoice in returning to a pure one. We are advocates for a national recognition of religion . . .’

So, responsible Wee Frees have to give some consideration to this foundational principle. It is getting increasingly difficult in a country which seems to grow more secular with each passing day. Even in Lewis, still labelled by some as ‘the last stronghold of the pure gospel’, the right of the church – or even individual Christians – to have a voice in the affairs of state is constantly challenged by a self-styled ‘silent majority’ of secularists. The fact that they are far from silent and not remotely in the majority need not interfere with a good line. Many of those who were opposed to their campaign simply said, ‘it’s not what they’re wanting, it’s the way they’re going about getting it’.

Negative campaigning does not go down well in a society like ours. I am the veteran of many parliamentary campaigns in the Western Isles and saw the Labour Party fall victim to that mistake repeatedly. No one wants to hear what you’re against – tell them instead what you are for.

Although I am a member of the SNP, I find it hard to reconcile some of what the party advocates at a national level with my faith. I think the party has taken the country down unbiblical routes and I have struggled with this in terms of my support. There are some Christians I know who cannot stand to hear the SNP mentioned. This is understandable, but I think that it’s also worth noting that a lot of liberalisation of policy was inevitable under a government of any hue. After all, which party has taken a stand against the steady erosion of traditional values?

Another objection to the SNP that I have heard from many Christians is that an independent Scotland would be a wholly secular state. That might very well be the case, but it is not much of an argument against independence - -after all, we are already living in a secular Britain. Oh yes, we are. There may be a vicar’s daughter in number 10, but that hasn’t stopped the political arena from being utterly hostile to Christianity. Tim Farron has been hounded and harassed for his views on sin (by a media pack that thinks sin is a myth on behalf of an audience which largely agrees) to the point where he can no longer continue as leader of his party.

There are countries in the world where Christians are persecuted and killed for their faith; this is not yet one of them. However, let’s not fool ourselves that there is freedom of speech either, or freedom of conscience: certainly not for Christians. If a bakery refuses to make a wedding cake for a gay couple, they are labelled ‘bigots’, despite the fact that they are being asked to go against their beliefs. Where is the freedom in that, or the parity?

Wee Frees like myself, by virtue of living in Scotland, are called upon to make frequent trips to the ballot box, so we’d better get a grip on our political consciences and reconcile them to our Christianity. We can do no better than head back to our roots, and our first Moderator. Although he was a political economist, Thomas Chalmers did not see government as the seat of all wisdom on how a country should be run. For the moral compass, he believed that the direction should come from the people themselves, and from their church.

Chalmers’ church had Christ as its head; He rules there still and no election can unseat Him. If we take our concerns to Him, praying for those we elect and praying for wisdom before voting, then who is to say that we will not yet see a halt called to the march of secularism in our land? Decline is not inevitable as long as revival is possible – and revival is possible as long as Christ is King. 

The Disruption painting.

No comments:

Post a Comment