Scottish Venue that Canceled 2020 Franklin Graham Event to Pay Over $100K for Violating UK Equality Act
According to the Christian Post, Graham said he is “grateful to God for this decision,” viewing the ruling as “a clear victory for freedom of speech and religion in the UK.” Graham further stated the lawsuit was not about receiving a settlement but “about the preservation of religious freedom in the UK.”
On Monday (October 24), a Scottish court ruled in favor of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association (BGEA) in a lawsuit against Scottish Event Campus Limited (SEC), which canceled an evangelistic event at the Hydro Arena in Glasgow featuring Franklin Graham in 2020 on the grounds of Graham’s stated beliefs about human sexuality and Islam.
Sheriff John N. McCormick ruled that SEC would be obligated to pay over $111,000 (£97,000) for violating the UK’s Equality Act.
SEC was one of seven UK venues that canceled BGEA events, part of Graham’s “God Loves You” tour, in January 2020 after facing pressure from LGBTQ+ advocates. Multiple groups argued that Graham’s public remarks regarding LGBTQ+ issues and the Muslim faith constituted dangerous hate speech.
Graham, who is the son of legendary evangelist Billy Graham and president of BGEA, has often publicly rebuked LGBTQ+ values and has referred to the Muslim faith as “wicked and evil.”
In his Monday ruling, McCormick wrote, “Briefly put, if it is correct that the event was evangelistic, based on religion or philosophical belief, then it follows that the decision to cancel was a breach of the Equality Act 2010 in that the event was cancelled as a commercial response to the views of objectors.”
Related Posts:
You Might also like
-
Walking Wisely through Trials
As those who are united to Christ, by faith the friendship of God is a sure and steady source of comfort in the midst of suffering. But be encouraged, “For as we share abundantly in Christ’s sufferings, so through Christ we share abundantly in comfort too” (2 Corinthians 1:5).
Suffering is incredibly difficult, but all the more so when we don’t understand its purpose and we’ve lost our hope in the midst of it. It’s important, then, that in the midst of suffering we take time to reorient our perspective by turning to Scripture. The book of Job is particularly helpful to walk wisely through trials. It teaches us to fear the Lord, find hope in our friendship with God, and recognize our true foes.
Fear of the Lord
By the time we reach chapter 28 of the book of Job there has been no resolution, either from Job, or from his friends, regarding why he is suffering. If wisdom isn’t found in his friends, and Job isn’t coming up with answers either, “where shall wisdom be found?” (Job 28:12, 20). Job knew it wasn’t in the deep or the sea. He knew it couldn’t be bought with gold or silver. He knew the price of wisdom was far superior to pearls or pure gold. But he didn’t know the way to it. Thankfully, “God understands the way to it, and he knows its place” (v. 23). And He told humankind how to get it, “the fear of the Lord, that is wisdom, and to turn away from evil is understanding” (v. 28).
To fear the Lord means to walk in His ways, love Him, serve Him wholeheartedly, and obey Him (Deut. 10:12-13). But apart from Christ this is impossible. That is why it is such good news that Christ “became to us wisdom from God” (1 Cor. 1:30). In Christ “are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge” (Col. 2:3). When we lack wisdom we can “ask God, who gives generously to all without reproach, and it will be given to him” (Jas. 1:5).
Friendship of God
One of the things that made Job’s suffering so difficult was that he felt like he had lost God as a friend. He had known a time when “by his light he walked through darkness” (Job 29:3), but now God “has set darkness upon my paths” (19:8). Furthermore, Job wasn’t prepared for his suffering. He assumed he would die a happy and honorable old man surrounded by his children and possessions (Job 29:18-20). Instead, his children are dead, his wife loathes him, his wealth is gone, and his health is poor. How could a man whom others “kept silence for [his] counsel” and “waited for [him] as for the rain” end up like this (vv. 21-23)?
Read More
Related Posts: -
The Last of the Great Reformation Creeds
Professor John Murray noted: “The Westminster Confession is the last of the great reformation creeds. No creed of the Christian church is comparable to that of Westminster in respect of the skill with which the fruits of fifteen centuries of Christian thought have been preserved, and at the same time examined anew and clarified in the light of that fuller understanding of God’s word which the Holy Spirit has imparted.”
Over the course of five politically tumultuous years, committees of the Assembly met and developed a set of documents that would have significant influence in defining the belief and practice of Presbyterian churches in Britain (especially in Scotland) and indeed the world. The doctrinal framework that the Assembly established in their Confession also provided the foundation of the central creedal documents of the Baptists and Congregationalists that were clarified in the decades following the Assembly.
Although the hoped-for unity between the English and Scottish churches did not materialize, nevertheless the documents produced by the Assembly, and especially the Confession of Faith and Larger and Shorter Catechisms, would become the touchstone for sound doctrine, cherished by generations of Christians as a well-honed summary of biblical truth.
Of the Confession of Faith itself, Professor John Murray noted: ‘The Westminster Confession is the last of the great reformation creeds. No creed of the Christian church is comparable to that of Westminster in respect of the skill with which the fruits of fifteen centuries of Christian thought have been preserved, and at the same time examined anew and clarified in the light of that fuller understanding of God’s word which the Holy Spirit has imparted.’
This volume contains the Confession of Faith, the Larger and Shorter Catechisms, and the other principal documents to come out of the Westminster Assembly. The text is newly typeset, and biblical references are given in full. Later American revisions of the Westminster Confession are included in an appendix.
Below you will find the first paragraph of each article of the Westminster Confession for your edification.
Chapter 1Of the Holy Scripture
1. Although the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men unexcusable; yet are they not sufficient to give that knowledge of God, and of his will, which is necessary unto salvation. Therefore it pleased the Lord, at sundry times, and in divers manners, to reveal himself, and to declare that his will unto his church; and afterwards, for the better preserving and propagating of the truth, and for the more sure establishment and comfort of the church against the corruption of the flesh, and the malice of Satan and of the world, to commit the same wholly unto writing: which maketh the Holy Scripture to be most necessary; those former ways of God’s revealing his will unto his people being now ceased.
Chapter 2Of God, and of the Holy Trinity
1. There is but one only, living, and true God, who is infinite in being and perfection, a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions; immutable, immense, eternal, incomprehensible, almighty, most wise, most holy, most free, most absolute; working all things according to the counsel of his own immutable and most righteous will, for his own glory; most loving, gracious, merciful, long-suffering, abundant in goodness and truth, forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin; the rewarder of them that diligently seek him; and withal, most just, and terrible in his judgments, hating all sin, and who will by no means clear the guilty.
Chapter 3Of God’s Eternal Decree
1. God, from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass: yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.
Chapter 4Of Creation
1. It pleased God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, for the manifestation of the glory of his eternal power, wisdom, and goodness, in the beginning, to create, or make of nothing, the world, and all things therein whether visible or invisible, in the space of six days; and all very good.
Chapter 5Of Providence
1. God the great Creator of all things doth uphold, direct, dispose, and govern all creatures, actions, and things, from the greatest even to the least, by his most wise and holy providence, according to his infallible foreknowledge, and the free and immutable counsel of his own will, to the praise of the glory of his wisdom, power, justice, goodness, and mercy.
Chapter 6Of the Fall of Man, of Sin, and of the Punishment Thereof
1. Our first parents, being seduced by the subtlety and temptation of Satan, sinned, in eating the forbidden fruit. This their sin, God was pleased, according to his wise and holy counsel, to permit, having purposed to order it to his own glory.
Chapter 7Of God’s Covenant with Man
1. The distance between God and the creature is so great, that although reasonable creatures do owe obedience unto him as their Creator, yet they could never have any fruition of him as their blessedness and reward, but by some voluntary condescension on God’s part, which he hath been pleased to express by way of covenant.
Chapter 8Of Christ the Mediator
1. It pleased God, in his eternal purpose, to choose and ordain the Lord Jesus, his only begotten Son, to be the Mediator between God and man, the Prophet, Priest, and King, the Head and Savior of his church, the Heir of all things, and Judge of the world: unto whom he did from all eternity give a people, to be his seed, and to be by him in time redeemed, called, justified, sanctified, and glorified.
Chapter 9Of Free Will
1. God hath endued the will of man with that natural liberty, that it is neither forced, nor, by any absolute necessity of nature, determined to good, or evil.
Chapter 10Of Effectual Calling
1. All those whom God hath predestinated unto life, and those only, he is pleased, in his appointed and accepted time, effectually to call, by his Word and Spirit, out of that state of sin and death, in which they are by nature, to grace and salvation, by Jesus Christ; enlightening their minds spiritually and savingly to understand the things of God, taking away their heart of stone, and giving unto them a heart of flesh; renewing their wills, and, by his almighty power, determining them to that which is good, and effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ: yet so, as they come most freely, being made willing by his grace.
Chapter 11Of Justification
1. Those whom God effectually calleth, he also freely justifieth: not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous; not for anything wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ’s sake alone; nor by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them, as their righteousness; but by imputing the obedience and satisfaction of Christ unto them, they receiving and resting on him and his righteousness, by faith; which faith they have not of themselves, it is the gift of God.
Read More -
Church Abuse Activism? Easy Targets and Misused Critiques
I make no apology for being an advocate against spiritual abuse. So when James writes that “This dynamic [of pathologizing discomfort] is evident throughout the broader Christian subcultures that have embraced a more activist approach to church abuse,” I can only conclude that he is not reading the right advocates.
Samuel D. James has given some additional thoughts on “church abuse activism” generated by books like When Narcissism Comes to Church by Chuck DeGroat. I published a response to James’ prior critique of DeGroat last November, and feel the need to do so again, but with some hesitation. I hesitate, because I believe there are different strands of “abuse activism”, and what I want to defend is probably different than what James wants to critique. His examples come from the milieu of social media. My experience in advocating for abuse survivors comes from flesh and blood experience of witnessing church abuse. If we are careful in distinguishing our dialogue partners, I suspect (or hope, at least) that James and I would have substantial agreement. The danger is in addressing different enemies while arguing as if they are the same. So, caveat lector; or, caveat apologiste: let the apologist beware.
What pushes me past this hesitation is that influential evangelical leaders seem to really like what James has to say about spiritual abuse. Justin Taylor retweeted (twice) James’ initial review and Dane Ortlund praised this second piece.
So, a pastor who as been accused of abusing spiritual authority commends an article on spiritual abuse. Hmmm. That gives me pause. Well, not pause, because I’m taking action by writing. But it’s certainly a red flag for me. Now onto the material itself.
I don’t find a whole lot new in James article. Indeed, it’s strange to me that he hasn’t actually addressed the “pointed pushback” he reports:
“My review of When Narcissism Comes to Church generated some of the more pointed pushback I’ve ever received from those I would consider generally in my theological/political tribe.”
James conveniently passes over the majority of Mike Cosper’s 3,000+ word constructive criticism. For those who like what James has to say, I can only hope that you do the hard work of studying his critics even if he doesn’t. I don’t mean any offense by that. It’s just that Substack is a medium for richer dialogue that social media doesn’t allow, yet James spends more time critiquing social media tweets than he does engaging 3,000+ word responses (including my 3,000+ word response, but that I understand, I don’t realistically expect James to read my writing because I don’t have any kind of online platform). Given the greater potential of long-form writing vs social media, I would welcome some true back-and-forth dialogue with James in a spirit of genuine Christian catholicity.
Given that he presents similar ideas in this second piece, I will be re-using some of my previous responses. Here is how James restates the main point of his first review:
“The decision that DeGroat made to emphasize psycho-therapeutic categories and marginalize concepts like sin and repentance is consistent with the framework he establishes, wherein the definition of a narcissistic, abusive person is highly contextual and depends mostly on how the people around that person feel about him.”
I commend James for softening his critique here. Where he initially said DeGroat “abandoned” theological language of sin (2x in that review), now he says DeGroat “emphasized psychology” and “marginalized Biblical concepts”. Still, emphasizing one domain of discourse does not logically require marginalizing another, and as I pointed out before, DeGroat is quite comfortable and adept at using biblical language and concepts. This means DeGroat does not believe there is an inherent incompatibility between psychology and Scripture. I believe James is reading DeGroat with a presupposition that DeGroat does not share, and charitable reading requires acknowledging those differences.
More to the point, here is how I restated James’ main points from his initial review:
First thesis: Biblical categories are superior to psychological categories, and psychological categories are harmful/heretical.
Second Thesis: Biblical categories allow us to come to true and accurate judgments, whereas experiences and feelings do not.
The rest of James’ article after that quote about emphasis and marginalizing, which was initially behind a paywall, is all about how “we’re seeing a pathologizing of personal discomfort”. But James focuses his attention at “online therapy culture”, whereas my concern is the local church. I am going to skirt that online discussion entirely, except to say that any analysis of cultural influence between social media and church is going to be complex and multifaceted. So, I am wary of any reductionistic assumptions that because “pathologizing of personal discomfort” is happening online, it’s obviously happening in churches.1
This is where I think we are talking about different cultural forces. And I am concerned that pastors will take James’ critique of online spiritual abuse discourse and apply that to their local church in defense of truly abusive behavior. To that I say, anathema.
Theology vs Psychology?
Back to the first thesis. Are Biblical categories really superior to psychological ones? I believe James’ approach suffers from an overworked antithesis principle similar to movements generated by Cornelius Van Til, Jay Adams, and the nouthetic counseling / ACBC movement. That is a big debate, and in a short response I can’t do much better than quote from Eric Johnson:
“In transposition, in order to understand the lower order [e.g. biological, psychological] properly and more comprehensively, the knower interprets the dynamic structures of lower orders from within a higher order of meaning…This process is a hierarchical transposition, by which the meaningfulness of the lower order is redesignated, so that the higher order gives the lower-order information a new depth and significance.”2
This comprehensive perspective, or what Johnson terms “complex theocentrism,” contrasts “simple theocentrism” and “religious dualism.”
“Religious dualists focus on the highest order of human life—the spiritual—and see it as so much more important than the other orders of the creation that the latter are neglected or seen as unworthy of serious attention, or, in the most extreme versions, are interpreted as being antithetical to the spiritual realm…Christian models of counseling that focus exclusively on God and sin and downplay reference to biological and psychosocial influences may have fallen under a gnostic spell.”3
Johnson calls for “a more profoundly theocentric approach” than dualism:
“Upon greater reflection and in light of Scripture, all the created aspects of human life are recognized as important because they are made by God. Therefore, for God’s glory every aspect must be “given its due,” corresponding to its particular significance in relation to God…Contrary to religious dualism, a more thoroughgoing theocentrism understands that God is honored by an appropriate regard for all that he has done and made, including those created strata of lesser significance.”4
Read More1 This really isn’t my concern, but it’s also worth noting that James (and many other objectors) missed David Dark’s actual wording, which pointed to Keller’s statement as a reflection of “the language of spiritual abuse.” He did not say, “this is spiritual abuse.” As such, the statement merits dialogue, not dismissal as “gross overreaction”.
David Dark’s Inner Psychic Revolution @DavidDark
This is the language of spiritual abuse.
“Nothing more important for a Christian to do than to read right through the whole Bible over and over and over, at the very least once a year. You have to keep checking and refining your beliefs by immersion in the Scripture.”
2Eric L Johnson. Foundations for Soul Care: A Christian Psychology Proposal. IVP Academic, 2007, p. 366, emphasis original.
3Ibid., p. 357.
4Ibid., p. 359.
Related Posts: