The Vanishing Gospel in Legal Circles

By Mark Mullins, Barrister

We are moving increasingly into a time when Civil Government is turning against the Laws of God and leading to the persecution of Christians.
My title is "The Vanishing Gospel in Legal Circles"? You might think that this is a strange topic for me to speak on because the Gospel is primarily about calling individuals to repent and put their trust in the finished work of the Lord Jesus on the Cross.

So how does the Gospel apply to Legal Circles?
the Bible has much to say about how we are governed. This is seen very clearly in
Romans 13:1-7 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. (2) Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. (3) For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: (4) For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. (5) Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. (6) For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing. (7) Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.

This passage tells us the following:
1. All Government is ordained by God (v1);
2. We are to obey the Government because if we don't then we disobey God (v2);
3. Government is to punish evil, which includes the ultimate sanction of taking life (v4);
4. Government is to reward good behaviour (v4)
5. Every Government is given its power by God so Parliaments should acknowledge this truth if they want the blessing of God upon their proceedings.

Although I am not in favour of an established church and believe that the two institutions should be separate, nevertheless, it seems to me to be entirely appropriate that the head of a nation should acknowledge that he or she reigns under God as our Monarch did upon her Coronation in 1953. She promised to uphold the Laws of God.

How tragic it is, then, to see how that pledge has been dishonoured during her reign both in the UK and in all the lands where she is still the constitutional monarch. Upon taking office Government ministers are required to take an oath of allegiance to Her Majesty and I understand this is something that Fred Niles has succeeded in restoring to the NSW Parliament. Ministers should remember, when they do this, that they are undertaking to uphold the Coronation Oath to uphold the Laws of God.

Let me take you back to a description of the first state opening of the Federal Parliament on 9th May 1901:
The Old Hundredth hymn, All People That on Earth do Dwell, was then sung by the gathering to the accompaniment of the orchestra, and afterwards Lord Hopetoun read prayers for the King and Queen and the Federal Parliament. No one who heard it could have failed to be impressed by the solemnity of the occasion. His Excellency's voice rang clear through the building, and as he proceeded with the reading of the service the words could be distinctly heard at the farthest corner. Nothing more impressive could be imagined than the hush which fell over the vast assemblage as Lord Hopetoun delivered the prayer for the Federal Parliament:

We pray Thee at this time to vouchsafe Thy special blessing upon the Federal Parliament now assembling for their first session and that Thou wouldst be pleased to direct and prosper all their consultations to the true welfare of the people of Australia, through Jesus Christ our Lord.

As his Excellency bowed his head at the last syllable, the multitude joined in the Lord's prayer. ‘For Thine is the kingdom, the power and the glory, for ever and ever. Amen.' The words rolled in muffled tones through the building, and the religious portion of the ceremony was concluded.
There is little doubt in my mind that God blesses a nation that seeks him in prayer for the direction it should take for righteousness exalts a nation but sin is a reproach to any people. I therefore believe that it would be a great shame if the Lord's Prayer was no longer said every day in Parliament. Although a very small number of MPs are Christians, yet it stands as a reproach to the majority who are not and to the current Prime Minister's immoral living arrangements.
We must not mistake this for a theocracy. We cannot demand that our secular leaders are Christians; indeed the example of Cyrus (Isaiah 45) was of someone appointed to rule over an Empire who did not know God - that is quite different from the governance of the church which is only for Christians. However godly rulers can be a great blessing to a nation. Let me give you an example from the 2nd World War -
Well, what kind of laws are our Governments to pass? The answer is very simple because its mandate is contained in Romans 13. It has its authority from God to punish evil and reward good behaviour.
A nation that rules as if there is no God is destined to come to disaster even though judgment may be withheld for a time. It is the role of the Church to be uncompromising in reminding rulers of the One to whom they will one day give account. There is a fine line of prophets in the Old Testament who were not afraid to inform the rulers of the coming judgment of God upon their kingdoms from Samuel, Daniel and Jeremiah down to John the Baptist who lost his head for declaring King Herod's marriage to Herodias, his brother' wife, unlawful.
PP A picture of the working of the Government and the ministry of God's ministers in the visible church may be seen in Zechariah 4 in the vision given to Zechariah of the two olive trees dripping their oil into the candlestick. At that time Zerubbabel was the prince over Israel and Joshua was the high priest. Both were great and good men and both were anointed to qualify them for the work to which they were called.
They stood before the Lord of the whole earth, to minister to him, and to receive direction from him; and a great influence they had upon the affairs of the church at that time. Their wisdom, courage, and zeal, were continually emptying themselves into the golden bowl, to keep the lamps burning; and, when they are gone, others shall be raised up to carry on the same work;
We must straight away say that we do not live in a theocracy as Israel was and so the application must be carefully made today. However there is no doubt that God has appointed the government of every nation and if that Government is to do its job then it must stand before him.
PP It is a profoundly unfortunate and tragic state of affairs that we could have come so far as a nation from the high point of the Victorian era when in 1848, Queen Victoria was able to say in a letter to African chiefs who had petitioned her about slavery: "England has become great and happy by the knowledge of the true God and Jesus Christ ... In order to show how much the Queen values God's Word, she sends with this, as a present to (Chief) Sagbua, a copy of this work in two languages." She was emphasising the place of the Bible at the centre of public life and the rule of law.
That was a time when there was a real effort to align our laws with the laws of the Bible. Reading the speeches in the debate over the Divorce and Matrimonial Causes Act 1857 it is extraordinary how seriously the Bible was taken in the debate: it reads like a theological debate rather than a parliamentary debate. PP At one point during the debate in 1854 the Lord Chancellor said: "that in legislation they ought to act on the spirit and principles to be justly deduced from Scripture". And yet, as we will see, the Victorian era, sowed the seeds of the whirlwind we are reaping today.
PP In the Century before it was the great jurist, Sir William Blackstone, who said: "Christianity is part of the Laws of England"
No doubt historians are well equipped to chart the changes in the moral outlook of this nation which will only be of limited interest to us who are students of God's Word. It is the view of many, including the Judge who gave the judgment in the Bulls' case that God's Word is now outdated.
Let's have a look at the changes in the law over the last 150 years for marriage and family life: PP.
We see the trends were set many decades ago: Martyn Lloyd Jones traces the decline back to the end of the 19th Century: PP.
So we can see that where a people slip from their belief in God, then so do the laws by which they judge their fellow creature.
You currently have a debate within the Federal Parliament about whether the Lord's Prayer should no longer be said every day.
Let me take you back to a description of the first state opening of Parliament on 9th May 1901:
The Old Hundredth hymn, All People That on Earth do Dwell, was then sung by the gathering to the accompaniment of the orchestra, and afterwards Lord Hopetoun read prayers for the King and Queen and the Federal Parliament. No one who heard it could have failed to be impressed by the solemnity of the occasion. His Excellency's voice rang clear through the building, and as he proceeded with the reading of the service the words could be distinctly heard at the farthest corner. Nothing more impressive could be imagined than the hush which fell over the vast assemblage as Lord Hopetoun delivered the prayer for the Federal Parliament:

Where is that voice today in the face of increasingly godless legislation? May I take an example from this city?
The pressing issue today for Australia is Gay Marriage and I am sorry to say that this is a live issue in England too. There should be a simple answer to this point that all homosexual activity is wrong and the state should therefore give no encouragement to homosexual behaviour because to do so would be a flagrant breach of its God given duties under Romans 13 to restrain evil and reward good.
Peter Jensen, Anglican Archbishop of this Diocese, has made a number of valid points against homosexual marriage in his recent article called Real Marriage which you can find on the Sydney Anglicans website. However this is how he begins that article:
Over the years, I've said little about same-sex relationships. My opposition is known but I hope I put my views with respect. I have supported legislation to register relationships and to extend economic rights. I condemn violence against homosexual people. Like most Australians, I prefer to live and let live.
I am sure you are all aware of the Relationships Register which passed into law in NSW on 12th May 2010. Any couple, regardless of sex can register their relation but not if either person:
o married,
o in another registered relationship,
o in a relationship as a couple with another person, or
o if they are related by family.
While these relationships are not explicitly sexual they are not open to sisters or brothers or to a daughter looking after her ageing mother. Also it means that the couple cannot be in a permanent sexual relationship with someone else unless it is casual sex. So what are the advantages?
1. You will be treated as a de facto relationship under Commonwealth law so that if the relationship breaks down you will be entitled to the same legal rights as married couples who divorce;
2. Treated as a family for the purposes of Medicare and superannuation
3. recognition as a family for medical consent and in judicial processes.
By supporting this relationships register, Peter Jensen could not have done more to undermine marriage. He has endorsed a parallel marriage system within his own diocese so that heterosexual couples have no state incentive to marry and fornication, of both the heterosexual and same-sex variety are legitimised.
I have been informed by Steve Lucas, Manager of Legal Services at the Anglican Church Diocese of Sydney that at the time the Archbishop did write to Premier Keneally seeking three amendments to the Bill: (1) a prohibition on ceremonies in connection with registration, (2) a clause similar to that in section 62 of the Property Relationships Act 1999 to the effect that the Register is not intended to effect marriage or eligibility to adopt, and (3) the Register incorporate close personal relationships (eg. carers).

We share many of the concerns you have and it is clear from the amendments we sought that we were attempting to reduce the Register's effect as a means of recognising relationships beyond property matters. If I recall correctly we discussed the proposal with the Shadow Attorney-General at the time and were told that there was little prospect of the Bill being defeated and that our best hope of reducing the Register's effect was to propose amendments.
My challenge to him remains. First these amendments were not passed and yet the Archbishop still states he supports the register.
Secondly, even if the amendments had been passed it would not excuse the church from supporting legislation that rewards immorality - indeed it is entirely inconsistent with the role of the church.
Can you imagine John the Baptist giving support to Relationships Registers when he was prepared to condemn his Prime Minister's unlawful marriage? He would have know he was very unlikely to succeed in changing Herod's mind and must have known the risks he ran.
It appears that Peter Jensen's motivation for supporting Relationships Registers is to live and let live. Peter Jensen obviously knows that the Gospel message is to warn all to flee from the wrath to come and earnestly to plead for them. I fear that the compromise of the Australian Christian Lobby, led by Jim Wallace, on this same issue may have influenced Peter Jensen's stance - how we need to watch that we do not become leaven within the church which so quickly infects the whole lump.
If the church is doing its job it will be telling the Government that it is answerable to God himself for passing laws in flagrant opposition to His purposes. I am sorry to say that Peter Jensen's compromise on this Register is unacceptable in a Christian leader and he needs publicly to repent.
There is no doubt that today we need men and women to stand up for Christian laws in public life. Of course we are not helped in legal circles when we have homosexual judges such as the retired High Court Judge, Mr Justice Kirby. Whereas the likes of General Dobbie bring the blessing of God to a nation, those in leadership who are in open sin bring only the judgment of God as the Psalmist says, Psalms 12:8 The wicked walk on every side, when the vilest men are exalted.

I was therefore disappointed that Peter Jensen did not show more public support for one of his ministers, Rev Richard Lane who challenged Mr Justice Kirby for remaining a communicant Anglican within the Sydney Diocese while being in an openly homosexual relationship. Peter Jensen, was quoted as saying to the Sydney Morning Herald that the correspondence between Mr Lane and Justice Kirby needed to be read fully and in context that he had a "long-standing personal relationship with Justice Kirby and he and I have communicated about these letters in confidence," he said.
Where is the clear public denunciation of sin that was expressed by Richard Lane in his letters to Mr Justice Kirby? How is it that Peter Jensen could have an ongoing personal relationship with a practising homosexual who calls himself a Christian in the light of the Bible's clear teaching in 1 Corinthians 5? The Bible is clear that we are to separate ourselves from those who call themselves Christians but are in sin. Why hasn't Peter Jensen done this? Who has confronted him?
Friends, it would be easy for us to pass judgment on Peter Jensen but the temptation to compromise is something we all face at a time of increasing hostility to the Gospel Message.
It is not only the denunciation of ungodly laws and the ungodly (particularly of those who call themselves Christians) that is required but it is also vital that if and sadly when ungodly laws are passed that Christians do not compromise their faith by being party to them. In one sense this is simply the other side of the same coin. One of the reasons for Christians to speak against ungodly laws is because it will mean putting believers themselves to the test when they have to participate in state sanctioned unbiblical behaviour. It is sad that Peter Jensen and the Australian Christian Lobby didn't think of the Christians who would be caught up in implementing this sort of legislation. The Bible is very clear that we are not to be partakers of other men's sins and that we are to be like Paul who strove to keep a clear conscience before God and men (Acts 24:16).
Let me illustrate what I mean from an experience of my own. In July 2004 I was sent a brief requiring me to represent a homosexual male seeking to join his homosexual partner in the UK under the Immigration Rules which allow for a person who has been in a relationship akin to marriage for two years to join his partner in the UK provided they could show that they intended to continue the homosexual relationship and were able to meet the financial and housing requirements.
I felt that I could not represent this person because to do so would involve me facilitating the continuation of sinful conduct. 1 Tim 5:22 tells us to take no part in another man's sins. By representing him in court I considered that this was just what I would be doing: I would be putting forward a case for him to be allowed to continue his sinful conduct by demonstrating that he had been engaged in this relationship for the last two years, that this relationship was permanent and should be allowed to continue. I would therefore have been a party to his sinful conduct.
I found another barrister to do the case which he went on to win. However the Solicitors brought a complaint against me that I had discriminated on the grounds of the person's sexual orientation. The Bar Council took up the prosecution and added further charges. The other relevant charge was that I had broken the cab-rank rule by refusing a brief in a case which I was capable of acting in.
The hearing took place in July 2006 and was heard by a retired judge, two barristers, and two distinguished lay-persons. The judgment made interesting reading. I had also been charged with bringing the profession into disrepute by refusing to take the case and providing an inadequate professional service by failing to read the papers sooner. I was acquitted of these charges but convicted of sexual orientation discrimination and breaching the cab-rank rule. The Court did not consider my rights to freedom of religion had been interfered with because even though the immigration rule had come into force after I became a barrister I had always been subject to the cab-rank rule.
Having told the court that I would have to do the same thing again if sent a similar brief I was expecting this to be the end of my career. It was therefore a pleasant surprise to be told by the Tribunal that it was a tragedy the case had come before them and that I was a man of the highest integrity. They sentenced me to a reprimand. The signal seems to be that the Tribunal did not consider the case should have come before them but as it had they had no option but to find me guilty but they would impose the least sanction they felt they could in the circumstances.
It was not a particularly pleasant experience having to go through this prosecution and the result was a little disappointing because I had excellent representation and good points were made which we felt could have secured a complete victory. However on the day the decision was given my daily reading in Acts 5 when I had been particularly struck by verses 40-42:
And when they had called in the apostles, they beat them and charged them not to speak in the name of Jesus, and let them go. Then they left the presence of the council, rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer dishonour for the name. And every day, in the temple and from house to house, they did not cease teaching and preaching Jesus as the Christ.
Interestingly this verse was also given to me by a friend who sat through the hearing after he heard the result. Just two weeks later, I appeared on Sky News to give the Christian view of the decision by the High Court to refuse the challenge brought by a lesbian couple to have their Canadian so called "marriage" recognised in the UK. It was business as usual. It taught me the valuable lesson that God is ultimately in control over all these situations even where the law of the land stands against practices we find in the Bible.
PP A few months ago Eunice and Owen Johns found that the law was powerless to protect the rights their right as a Christian couple to foster children because they believe homosexual conduct to be wrong and would seek to turn a child away from homosexuality;
PP A few months ago John and Hazlemary Bull were successfully sued by a homosexual couple in a civil partnership because they were not prepared to give them a double bed because it was against their policy which was only to give double beds to married couples;
Lilian Ladele (PP) who was a marriage registrar working for Islington Council. When the Civil Partnerships Act 2004 came into force in December 2005, Islington, without consultation and knowing that Ms Ladele was a Christian who objected to the concept of civil partnerships, designated all their marriage registrars as civil partnership registrars. When Ms Ladele argued that she had been unlawfully discriminated against on the grounds of her religious beliefs she got short shrift from the Court of Appeal:
[PP] - per Lord Neuberger:
... the effect on Ms Ladele of Islington implementing the policy did not impinge on her religious beliefs: she remained free to hold those beliefs, and free to worship as she wished.
The Court of Appeal was unable to grasp that you cannot be a Christian and break God's law which would bring you under the condemnation of this verse of Paul's letter to Titus:

Tit 1:16 They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him.

In a case last year the Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal by Gary McFarlane who was a relationships counsellor with Relate. He refused to offer sexual therapy to homosexual couples although he was willing to give the same service to heterosexual unmarried couples which seems to me to be an inconsistent position. Nevertheless that was not the reason his appeal was dismissed. Rather it was because the rights of homosexuals to manifest their sexual orientation trumped his right to freedom of religious belief. In the Court of Appeal Lord Carey intervened suggesting that special courts should be set aside to try cases of religious discrimination which was not well received by Lord Justice Laws. Responding to what was, in effect, a plea for special treatment for Christians on the basis of the centuries old respect for its moral code, Lord Justice Laws said this:

"The general law may of course protect a particular social or moral position which is espoused by Christianity not because of its religious imprimatur, but on the footing that in reason its merits commend themselves."

May I make clear that these are not merely issues of conscience. As Martin Luther once said: "My conscience is captive to the Word of God". This is a big issue for us.

The Religious Life and Influence of Queen Victoria by Walter Walsh