Change

On June 27 Gordon Brown swept into Downing Street for the first time as Britain's new prime minister. Before entering No 10, he made a short speech in which he emphasised the need for change - particularly in the areas of health, schools and affordable housing.Clearly there is much need for change in modern Britain, and far beyond the policy areas to which Mr Brown has pointed. Yes, after several years when house prices have soared incessantly upwards, there is a great need for affordable housing for the less well off. And, although many in the world of education may yearn for a period of stability, free from the pressures of continuous change, no one will deny the need to tackle widespread indiscipline in schools, which is becoming ever more serious. No doubt the roots of indiscipline lie in the wider society, but the secularised nature of modern education does a profound disservice to today's children. The directive: "Train up a child in the way he should go" (Prov 22:6), is not merely for parents; it applies also to all involved in education. In what direction should a child go? Surely that indicated in the Bible. The most helpful change that either the UK Government or the Scottish Executive could bring about in education is to restore the Bible to the place it ought to have in our schools.

One of the saddest features of the conduct of government in Britain for many years now is a studied refusal to acknowledge God. When did a Cabinet minister last say in reference to any issue: I must pray about it? In sharp contrast, Solomon at the beginning of his reign asked the Lord for wisdom. Whatever the defects of his later life, he started well, and God granted his request. There was no mention of God, however, in Mr Brown's speech; no acknowledgement that the Most High is ruling in all the affairs of this world; no expression of a sense of dependence. Instead the Prime Minister declared: "I am convinced that there is no weakness in Britain today that cannot be overcome by the strengths of the British people".

And he made a promise "to all the people of Britain" in the words of the motto of Kirkcaldy High School, where he received his secondary education, "I will try my utmost". No one can complain about an undertaking to carry out conscientiously the difficult duties of the office he has inherited; in any case, his capacity for hard work cannot be gainsaid. But while no one, in this secular age, need be surprised at the absence of any reference to God and to dependence on Him, that absence should be a matter of concern. The Prime Minister must expect to meet many situations when to try his utmost will just not be sufficient. But how appropriate, for everyone in a position of responsibility, is King David's prayer: "When my heart is overwhelmed, lead me to the rock that is higher than I" (Ps 61:2).

Yet Mr Brown has been described (on the epolitix website) as "a committed Christian". But he "rarely speaks of his faith"; he "appears keen to keep his religion a private matter". So what does his religion amount to - if it can sit quietly in the background of his life? He told the last Labour conference that his parents had provided him with a moral compass which taught him that everyone has a duty to make use of their talents. His father was Rev John Brown, a Church of Scotland minister, described by his son as "more a social Christian than a fundamentalist. His sermons were about charity, good works." This seems to suggest that Mr Brown senior was not committed to the infallibility of the Bible and that its doctrines did not loom large in his preaching but that his was a form of the social gospel.

Of course, good works must feature prominently in the life of every truly committed Christian. But what, in scriptural terms, are good works? We may note two points, in the words of the Westminster Confession of Faith: (1) they are "done in obedience to God's commandments", and (2) they are "the fruits and evidences of a true and lively faith". And the second point implies that good works cannot in any way be a foundation for salvation; too often ministers who would distance themselves from fundamentalist Christianity have encouraged their congregations to depend on good works as the price they need to pay to enter heaven. But, in the words of Walter Marshal, the Puritan, "though we are not saved by good works as procuring causes, yet we are saved to good works as fruits and effects of saving grace, which God hath prepared that we should walk in them". ⁽¹⁾

Where will the new government take Britain? It is difficult to believe that it will set a course very different from its predecessor, of which Gordon Brown was such a prominent member. Yet The Independent newspaper of May 28 reported that "he has not voted on a single one of" what it calls "the 18 pro-gay measures" brought in by the Blair government, "although he did once vote for an equal age of consent in 1994". This was in contrast with Mr Blair himself who claimed to have done "a little skip" when he saw pictures of the first "civil-partnership" ceremonies in Northern Ireland - this at an "equality dinner" held by the homosexual activist organisation Stonewall, when £230 000 was raised. Indeed one significant part of the change that Britain very much needs is to sweep away all the legislation of recent decades which is in opposition to the demands of God's law - in particular those laws which encourage homosexuality and treat "civil partnerships" as virtually equivalent to the God-given institution of marriage, when one man and one woman come together in that most intimate of human relationships.

Yet, however much Gordon Brown might have said about families during his 10 years at the Treasury, his focus was not on supporting marriage. And when another political party suggested a small degree of financial support for marriage, the newly-promoted Cabinet minister Ed Miliband claimed that the Government would not "discriminate against some children" in its tax policy - although many might consider that its present policy discriminates against the children of married parents. He went on to say, "I don't think it's right for politicians to come on and preach", which seems to be an objection to any statement with a moral basis, especially one which has support from the Bible. It is clear that the whole approach of the Government needs to change - and this would be true whatever political party was in office.

In fact, more fundamentally, the whole nation needs to change. While governments have a duty to rule by Scripture principles and, in every way proper for them, to promote the true religion, the people have corresponding responsibilities. In Jeremiah's time, the Lord asked, "Hath a nation changed their gods, which are yet no gods? But My people have changed their glory for that which doth not profit" (2:11). Britain had great privileges as a professedly-Christian nation. But these privileges have largely been squandered, and our leaders despise the glory of true religion as they speak of a multi-faith Britain. Yet in practice, the official religion seems to be tolerance - for everything except firm beliefs, especially that "there is one God and one Mediator" and that there is a unique moral code.

Endnotes:
1. Quoted in E F Kevan, The Grace of Law, p 208, from The Gospel Mystery of Sanctification.