There’s a lot of things one would like to say to the pro-abortion lobby, but let’s try to focus narrowly (for now) on the matter in hand.

The logic of the RCOG’s report is alarming. Just look at the reasoning: such young children can’t feel pain (being “unconscious and sedated”), therefore there’s no reason to stop killing them (I understand “terminate the pregnancy” is the preferred phrase, but let barbarous things have barbarous names). Even if this research were accurate (and it’s disputed by other doctors), perhaps the RCOG would be kind enough to explain why the inability to feel pain should have become a criterion for allowing a child to be killed. After all, “a state of induced sleep” can easily be induced artificially. Would the RCOG apply the same logic in those cases? If not, why apply it here?

For the convenience of people living in or around Emmanuel (Southgate, North London), the data for MP’s in this (Enfield Southgate) and the surrounding constituencies can be accessed via the links below. All these MPs are standing for re-election in May.

And here’s a national map of Parliamentary constituencies.

But first, some caveats: Obviously anyone who decides how to vote solely on the basis of this information needs their head examined. Maybe the Christian Institute’s data should have covered other issues. Maybe their assessment of “morally right” or “morally wrong” is mistaken. There are dozens of other relevant factors. And, for the avoidance of all doubt, let me emphasise that all this data is in the public domain. There’s nothing here that you couldn’t find out some other way.

Having said all that, here goes:

David Burrowes (Con), Enfield Southgate

Theresa Villiers (Con), Chipping Barnet

Lynne Featherstone (Lib Dem), Hornsey and Wood Green

Andy Love (Lab), Edmonton

Joan Ryan (Lab), Enfield North

David Lammy (Lab), Tottenham

James Clappison (Con), Hertsmere

Here’s one interpretation of today’s events: The government was forced into a “humiliating U-turn” during negotiations with opposition parties, and abandoned this part of the Children, Schools and Families Bill in order to force the rest of it through in the “wash-up” – that’s the period just before the dissolution of Parliament when (sadly) some (though fortunately not all) politicians seem tempted to abandon the job they’re supposed to be doing (carefully and thoughtfully scrutinising proposed legislation, for example) and concentrate instead on getting re-elected.

That’s one way of looking at it, and it’s true enough as far as it goes.

Here’s another way:

The God who taught his people not to put their trust in princes has answered their prayers and spared them (and the rest of the country) for the time being from one small piece of oppressive lunacy flying in the direction of godly mums and dads who are just trying to bring up their kids in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.

The God who taught his people to pray “Your kingdom come” has extended his gracious rule an inch or so further into an area of British public life where the devil was about to get his own way (temporarily) by enlisting the support of the powers that be in pursuit of his (doomed) project to overthrow the rule of the risen and exalted Lord Jesus Christ.

The God who commands all the earth to pay homage to his exalted Son and worship him with all their heart and soul and mind and strength has mercifully delivered us from being yet more deeply mired in slavery to the idolatrous and self-destructive statism that will one day ruin this nation if her people don’t repent in a big way.

The God whose people are too often tempted to doubt that the hearts of kings are in his hands has gently reminded us that the Most High is sovereign over the kingdoms of men and gives them to anyone he wishes.

One or two civil rulers who apparently do not realise that they, like the rest of us, are required to submit to the authority of Jesus Christ in every area of their lives, and who have therefore apparently forgotten that their job is to enact the laws that God commands, not to make up their own, have received a less-than-gentle reminder that there is no authority except that which God has established, and that the Lord gives and the Lord takes away, and that anyone who thinks he is standing firm needs to take care that he doesn’t fall, and that the Lord drowned Pharoah and his host in the Red Sea, and that with an overflowing flood he will make an end of all his adversaries.

I haven’t checked the facts, but I’m suspicious about the claim that “one in 8 stores has closed down.” And it’s not true that the government has “forcably nationalized all major banks on the island.” Just some bits of some of them. So far. But that aside, the prediction of short-term national decline is probably fairly accurate.

But he’s dead wrong about the solution. Our hope does not lie “in small parties … like the English Defense League.” Pass the band-aids, I’ve got gangrene.

Bizarrely, Mishin is simultaneously too pessimistic and too optimistic. Too pessimistic if he thinks that the present decline is terminal, and too optimistic if he thinks that mere politics can do anything to halt the slide.

The only hope for this nation – like any other nation – is the gospel of Christ. Any nation that refuses to worship the LORD of Hosts will, sooner or later, be brought down to the dust by the God who said, “Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and you perish in the way, for his wrath is quickly kindled. Blessed are all who take refuge in him” (Psalm 2:12).

So hear the word of the LORD:

3 Put not your trust in princes, in a son of man, in whom there is no salvation. 4 When his breath departs he returns to the earth; on that very day his plans perish. 5 Blessed is he whose help is the God of Jacob, whose hope is in the LORD his God. (Psalm 146:3-5)

And:

Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people. (Proverbs 14:34)

At the same time, we should remember that the true test of Christian integrity comes not when we need to stand against those who hate us, but when we need to challenge our friends. It’s one thing to confront the unbelieving world, whose opinion of us we have rightly learned to disregard. It’s another matter to expose deceit and ungodliness among those close to us, whose good opinion we may be tempted to covet just a little too much.

After all, generations of wicked Israelites managed to summon up contempt for the Pagan nations of the world. But Phinehas received a covenant of eternal priesthood when he slayed the fornicator within the camp (Numbers 25), and the Levites were set apart for Temple service because they put to death their idolatrous brothers (Exodus 32).

The true test of character for an evangelical leader is not public, but private. Frankly, if doesn’t take much to stand up to the predictable and yawn-inducing hostility of the mainstream press, since at this point his Christian friends (his real audience?) can be relied upon to cheer from the sidelines. But will he have the courage to expose the hidden deceit of behind-the-scenes church politics, when to do so may cost him friends (and preferment) he really values?

This is something we in the UK should be worried about, says Warner. For ‘our rulers subscribe to the same tyrannical statist philosophy’ that underlies state opposition to homeschooling in Germany. Whether or not we happen to be homeschoolers – or for that matter, whether or not we even have children – all of us ought to be share the Americans’ concern about ‘the creeping totalitarianism that has engulfed Europe.’

‘Children are being nationalised,’ claims Warner. The British government’s most recent attempt came in the shape of the Badman Report. After that, they might try just about anything.

If this blog had a category called ‘Shameless Appeals,’ I might just think to mention this…

Well, one and a half cheers.

The problem with the Pope’s statement is the reasoning on which it is based. In his view, the bill is bad because it violates ‘natural law’ and therefore compromises the freedoms of ‘religious communities.’ But the real problem with the the bill is that it violates the word of God and compromises the right of Jesus Christ to be proclaimed as the King of the whole earth.

Ironically, the Pope’s reasoning places him squarely in the camp of the liberals he is attempting to oppose. When he says that the proposed legislation ‘violates the natural law upon which the equality of all human beings is grounded,’ he sounds indistinguishable from the Government Equalities Office spokesman who declared, ‘everyone should have a fair chance in life and not be discriminated against.’

So at first glance the Pope looks like he’s standing against the government by defending the gospel; while in fact he’s standing alongside them by defending ‘equality’, and merely claiming that he’s got a better idea of how to achieve it. This was spotted by a sharp-eyed British official, who pointed out that ‘the Pope acknowledges our country’s firm commitment to equality for all members of society.’ So there we are – we all agree really, and the Pope should just be reasonable and stop complaining.

To defend the gospel on the ground that it secures other values (such as ‘equality’ defined in terms upon which we’re all supposed to be able to agree) in effect turns those values into our gospel, transforming the Lordship of Jesus Christ into a means designed to secure some other end. We should defend the gospel on the grounds that it is true (since Jesus is, in fact, Lord), not because a consistent liberal ought to like it.

T. S. Eliot thought not:

The World is trying to experiment with attempting to form a civilised but non-Christian mentality. The experiment will fail; but we must be very patient in awaiting its collapse; meanwhile redeeming the time: so that the Faith may be preserved alive through the dark ages before us; to renew and rebuild civilisation, and save the world from suicide. (Quoted in P. J. Leithart, The Kingdom and the Power, p. 217)

Despite the government’s recent reassurances, I’m still troubled – and for several reasons. Here are just a couple of them.

First, the Badman proposals represent an inversion of the proper relationship between parents and the state. At present, parents have the right to bring up their children in accordance with their own religious and ideological convictions. Parents can, if they choose, delegate some aspects of this (formal education, for example) to the state, but the state has no a priori rights in this area. The state only becomes involved if the parents give them the authority to do so. The Badman proposals imply a reversal of this: parents would need the state’s approval to educate their own children, not vice versa.

Second, the Badman proposals will, if adopted, establish principles that will extend to every other area of family life, not just formal education. All the arguments by which Badman seeks to justify his proposals in the area of education (the ‘welfare’ argument; the ‘quality’ argument; and so on) would apply no less to the less formal aspects of childrearing. In other words, it’s not just home-educating families that should be worried.

I’m not in the habit of making predictions, but on this occasion I’ll make an exception. I predict that if Badman’s proposals are adopted then within 10 years someone will propose that all families should be subject to ’safeguards’ similar to those that are currently being proposed only in respect of home-educating families. After all, children who attend state school are in danger of ‘poor quality parenting’ in the evenings, right? And shouldn’t the government ‘protect’ all children?

Maybe the Right Hon. James Hacker spoke better than he knew… beginning at about 6 minutes, 4 seconds.