IN a House of Commons dominated by anti-Christian political correctness, it is important to celebrate any attempt, however small, to stand up for countercultural Christian orthodoxy. Conservative MP Sir John Hayes has recently given a reason to thank God for a cheeringly cheeky move to promote traditional Christianity in Parliament.
In July, Lincolnshire MP Sir John, a campaigner for British independence from the European Union, tabled some Parliamentary questions to the House of Commons spokeswoman on Church of England matters.
Dame Caroline Spelman, the Second Church Estates Commissioner, has this past week given some answers.
In a rare display of respect for the Bible in Parliament, Sir John had asked her whether the Church of England would be willing to ‘clarify its interpretation of biblical teaching on sex and gender in relation to transgender issues’.
As expected, hers was the managerial voice of ecclesiastical compromise: ‘The Church of England is currently undertaking a consultative process called “Living in Love and Faith” which is considering all matters of sexuality and gender.’
But Sir John had successfully made his point. The Church of England hierarchy is flagrantly disregarding the Bible in its Gadarene rush to jump on the transgender bandwagon.
Sir John’s countercultural masterstroke, though, was to ask what steps the Church of England is taking to help ensure that its theology in founded on the 39 Articles of Religion.
These biblically-faithful statements of Anglican doctrine include affirmations such as the fact that ‘man is very far gone from original righteousness’ and is ‘of his own nature inclined to evil’ (Article IX); the statement that ‘holy Scripture doth set out unto us only the Name of Jesus Christ, whereby men must be saved’ (Article XVIII), and the statement that ‘the Laws of the Realm may punish Christian men with death, for heinous and grievous offences’ (Article XXXVII).
Very significantly, in the light of the ‘progressive’ drive to get the Church of England to ditch its exclusively heterosexual understanding of marriage, the 39 Articles affirm that ‘it is not lawful for the Church to ordain any thing that is contrary to God’s Word written, neither may it so expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another’ (Article XX).
It may be a small thing, but with the politically correct establishment in Westminster doing their very best to prevent a General Election, it is cheering to see a parliamentarian pursuing the spiritual priorities that are essential for Christian democracy.
