Ethics Letters Newspaper Letters Sex and sexuality

Does Ruth Davidson Think She Knows Better Than Jesus?

clipping (8)
I was delighted that the Courier gave this letter such prominence and even put the following as their box quote on the next page –
clipping (9)
The Scotsman carried more of the full text of the letter (for which see below)….Neither of the headlines were mine but they are interesting and accurate.  It may be a lonely battle (although I am thankful for the Catholics and others who stand with us on this)  but I will continue to speak up for the Christian view of marriage and to challenge both politicians and those who profess to be Christians (as Ruth does) not to throw out Christ’s teaching on this.    She is a far better political leader than she is theologian!  (Can I add because I critique her on this there is no need for others to take that as an excuse to be rude about her). And of course I continue to pray for Ruth Davidson, that she may recognise as a servant of the Lord (Romans 13:4) that she should should humbly submit to His word.
(This was the original I sent).
Dear Editor,
Ruth Davidson (Courier 1st July) is now putting pressure on the DUP and personally lobbying Arlene Foster so that Same Sex Marriage can be imposed upon Northern Ireland. In this she is joined unsurprisingly by the other leaders of Scotlands political parties.   The SNP’s Christina McKelvie, convenor of the Scottish Parliaments Equalities and Human Rights Committee calls the DUP ‘dinosaurs’.    Does she realise that there are politicians in her own party who do not support SSM?  Is Ruth Davidson saying that the many Tories who don’t support SSM are no longer welcome in the Tory party?  I wonder if McKelvie and Davidson regard the leader of the free world (Merkel not Trump – who ironically on this issue would agree with our ‘progressives’)  as a ‘dinosaur’ because she voted this week against SSM and declared that marriage is between a man and a woman?
When SSM was passed we were all categorically assured that this was something permissive and would not be enforced upon others.  At the time the late Gordon Wilson and I warned that this was being passed hastily without due thought and consideration and would quickly lead to the marginalisation and demonisation of those who held to a traditional Christian view of marriage.  Although we were laughed at, called extremists and told this would never happen, it appears that within a couple of years we have been proved right.  In the words of one BBC journalist this week “disagreeing with Same Sex Marriage is not in line with acceptable opinion”.
Ruth Davidson likes to play the ‘Christian card’ when discussing this.  “I am a practicing Christian’ she writes – as though this were somehow a justification for imposing her social/sexual views on the rest of us.  I’m not exactly sure what she means.  Does it mean that she is a follower of Jesus Christ who taught that marriage was between a man and a woman?  Does she think Jesus was a ‘dinosaur’?  Meanwhile those of us who follow his teaching will continue to do so – even when our elites tell us it is ‘not acceptable opinion’ and threaten us.   Is Ruth Davidson really telling us that the Christian church throughout the ages, the Catholic Church in Scotland today, the growing evangelical churches and up until this year, her own church, have got it all wrong?  I realise that our political leaders are prone to hubris but even they should beware of claiming to know better than Jesus!
Yours etc.



  1. Sadly there is no major player in the newspaper industry in England that will print similar letters on similar subjects, unless it is written by a liberal, or by someone they recognise as being amongst the elite. And most of us aren’t, even with the weight of, for instance, the Protestant Truth Society behind us. Make the most of your opportunity with the Scotsman while it is there.

  2. Sir. Biblical marriage as I understand it, is a union of a man and a woman, a joining of two (male/female) to make one flesh, as much as a written contract (promise) that two individuals make to each other. Without wanting to be thought sensual or vulgar, it must be said that the Same Sex lobby are very keen to highlight the union as being a written contract or promise to love one another, but not to discuss the joining of two to make one flesh. In any discussion I have listened to it would seem that there is no sexual activity in same sex marriage, it’s platonic, good friends sharing a life together, yes, and loving one another, but not sexual. The Same Sex lobby, especially ‘Christians’, seem reluctant to acknowledge that there are two men having sexual intercourse (buggery/anal intercourse), and two women unable without artificial help, able to have sexual intercourse, in Same Sex marriage. In Christian circles it’s spoken about very much like the content of ‘Little House On The Prairie’, all innocent loving domestic bliss.

    Though I believe Bible teaching is for everyone, I do not expect non Christians to live their lives under its authority, but I do expect those of us who say we are Christians to be obedient to Bible teaching.


    Derek Watt.

  3. I agree with 99% of this fine piece BUT Angela Merkel ‘leader of the free world’ ??? I think not! May the day never dawn when any German Reichchancellor leads this country .Never!

  4. Totally agree with you David, thanks for speaking out so boldly. Believers need to stand up for the truth of God’s Word in its entirety.

  5. Derek Watt,

    As far as the law in England and Wales was concerned, if a marriage, male and female, had not been physically consumated, with a full physical definition, it could be annulled. The marriage was void as if the ceremont had not taken place.

    Similarly, adultery was a factor that could trigger divorce. Again, that involved a physical action which can not physically be replicated by homosexuals.

    As far as I’m aware, but I stand to be corrected, there has been no legal redefinition, which, in effect, amounts to inequality, with different rules applying to homosexual and heterosexual couples.

    1. Geoff, you are correct. The new ‘same-sex’ marriage act does not include any definition of adultery, ergo what they have created is NOT the same as marriage between a man and a woman, legally as well as morally, physically or spiritually.

      1. Yes, of course, and this is also important because it is a just cause (in law) for divorce.

  6. All excellent points which are excluded from the debate. There is absolutely no discussion allowed about the consequences of homosexual acts nor whether they should be still be considered aberrant behaviour…

  7. Well written David. I can assure you, you are not alone in the battle. I, for one, and many of my friends are not afraid to “speak up for the Christian view of marriage and to challenge both politicians and those who profess to be Christians (as Ruth does) not to throw out Christ’s teaching on this.”

  8. The horses are on the track and the odds are 3 or 4 to 1 ?
    I mean who on earth do the scribes and authors of scripture think they are ?
    In Genesis 2:24 Moses declares that marriage is between a man and a woman. In Matthew 19:5 Jesus himself tells us that marriage is between a man and a woman. Then the apostle Paul tells us in the book of Ephesians 5:31 that marriage is between a man and a woman. All scripture is inspired by the Holy Spirit so I missed out on someone not so important as Ruth Davidson and that’s the creator God himself backing the 3 horses racing down the track.
    Ruth is simply doing what the scriptures tell us as blind horses need a blind horse who will lead all the other blind horses into a great big ditch. We pray that during this cavalier charge of darkness that these blind riders will encounter the glorious Christ who is the only true light who gives both life and light to all.

  9. Love it, David. Especially the reminder that we were assured this was to make SSM permissible and not enforceable. It’s still not the latter by law but it certainly is in every other way. Like you, I am always willing and prepared to maintain a private and public stand on this issue.

    It has to be the most serious legal move since 1967 from which we now learn that, whatever is written into law, is treated as incidental since interpretation and enforcement is increasingly in the hands of rebellious God-denying ‘progressives’ who are hell bent on destruction but, in their blindness and with seared consciences, haven’t a clue what they’ve been given over to.

    Romans 1 is in full manifestation but so few Christians appear to perceive it.

  10. Free will, choice, freedom from oppression are supreme and on the throne, in society, the church and individual lives, all of which deny, remove, oppress freedom of thought and belief in the “other” and usurp the Supremacy of Christ.

    Is he Lord over every facet of our lives, including sexuality and relationships and our relationship with Him? Is He our Love Supreme, that expels all lesser affections, loves?

    Will we be part of His pure spotless Bride, in His return to consummate, to be flesh of His flesh, bone of His bone, one with Him?

  11. David, I agree with you that the legislation has vone beyond being merely permissive and that those who out of a good conscience oppose SSM are being marginalised. Frankly it’s possibly worse than that and people are being called worse things than ‘dinosaur’. Personally I have no problem with people declaring they don’t want to support SSM although I reserve the right to disagree with them. I certainly don’t consider them to be somehow the personfication of evil and little better than Nazis as I hear too frequently. What I struggle is your continued insistence that Christians cannot support SSM abd call themselves disciples of Christ. You may disagree with their position and you may do so profoundly but I don’t think that on that account you can dismiss them as believers of integrity trying to find a way through a difficult issue in a scriptural and sensitive manner.

    1. Alex – it was inevitable that it would cease to be permissive. I don’t doubt that some Christians can and do support SSM -just as some did support slavery – because they go along with the zeitgeist of the culture. I don’t doubt that there are some of integrity – but I have met many for whom their political/sexual ideology always trumps the bible.

      1. David I can’t argue with you although I think to draw a parallel between support for the unmitigated evil of slavery as it’s usually understood and for SSM, or even just same sex sexual relationships, is needlessly provocative. Most will find the analogy gratuitously offensive with the result they’re not willing to even consider your own view even that of SSA christians that advocate celebacy.
        I agree that there are LGB christians that give the impression that SSM is just about the only issue of any importance facing the church today. Personally I find that a desparately sad, and even narcissistic, position. I’m particularly frustrated that the issue is framed in terms of rights before any consideration of obligation to serve. Im also finding I’m increasingly bored with the whole thing. There are too many far more important things to think about: things that, in my view, ought to occupy the minds of those concerned about social justice more than gay marriage.
        My difficulty with the whole thing is the tone of the debate and endless mutual recrimmination. Both sides are effectively declaring the other to be non-christian. There is very little sense of perspective.

  12. Live and let live.

    Unless you are a member of the social/political “elite” who propose to questioning 12 year olds in school if they practice anal sex and wish to use the education system to determine and record their parents social, religious and political views.

  13. Hi David,

    Very powerful letters, filled with wisdom, honesty and Christian integrity…and impressive that they have gained such high profile coverage up in Scotland!

    I’m an evangelical Christian, but I have to confess I’m in two minds about the same sex marriage issue. On the one hand, the bible without a shadow of a doubt does say that marriage is a union between one man and one woman (and two shall become one flesh), but on the other hand can we really expect non-Christians to live their lives in compliance with our own Scripture?

    While many of my evangelical friends believe Christianity has an exclusive claim to the institution of marriage, and while I personally do believe that marriage is a union created and blessed by God, it goes without saying that there are many millions (billions, even) of marriages that in no way recognise or comply with Biblical teachings – Hindu marriages, Muslim marriages, Sikh marriages…even atheist marriages, since in my opinion atheism is a form of religion, a worldview based on a strongly held (non-)belief system.

    In addition, the Bible is pretty clear that second marriages are not recognised by God unless one of the spouses from the first marriage is either deceased or has committed adultery. Yet it also goes without saying that there are many, many people who have divorced and remarriaged, even Christians, despite the fact that adultery was never the reason for many of those divorces.

    If these other marriages are non-Biblical, and yet almost no one argues for their criminalisation, couldn’t we Christians be called hypocrites and homophobic bigots for fighting against the legalisation of gay marriages on the grounds that they are non-Biblical?

    I’m not asking that question to pick a fight or cause controversy, by the way. I am a follower of Jesus and am genuinely keen to hear the views of my brothers and sisters in Christ on this issue.

    Warmest regards,

    1. Thanks Malcolm for a very interesting comment. As to your question – let me ask you this – you are all for the poor being cared for but can we really expect non-Christians to live their lives in compliance with Scripture? The point about marriage is that it is for the good of all – not just believers and it would be incredibly selfish for Christians just to fight for our selves and not for the good of the wider community. You are confusing the issues when it comes to Muslim, Hindu and Sikh marriages. Their marriages are as valid as anyone elses. Their religion isn’t.

  14. Alex Staton

    There seems to be an underlying assumption abroad in the church today that it is only heterosexuals who are opposed to SSM.

    Sam Allberry who is same sex attracted, lives out his life, in fulfilled celibacy, under the authority of scripture, just as there are fulfilled. unmarried, celibate heterosexuals. Devotion to God trumps their desires and temptations. In their weakness they find grace sufficient to overcome.

    Here is a link to his address to the General Synod, of which you may be aware:

    His faithful obedience and devotion is, surely well, pleasing to God, though it will be odorous the those in the SSM camp.

  15. Alex Staton,

    Your personal boredom is irrelevant in the light of eternity, and is, in itself, self regarding, narcissistic. Is there any place for morality, sanctification, holiness, in your version of Christianity, any room for a God who know no other love than Holy-Love, any room for a God who will contradict you and your views?

    From which higher ground do gain your perspective – a perspective that social justice is a higher good than heterosexual marriage and family, or excludes family? Does your social justice include the morality of human relationships?

    But, back to the original titles of the newspaper articles: is your perspective higher than the word of Jesus? I presume it is, as you have not deigned to address the stunningly simple, yet volcanically provocative, editorial heading. Is Jesus verbal ejaculation ,“brood of vipers” provocative, his cleansing of the Temple? Will there be a separation of sheep from goats, wheat from chaff, wheat from deceptively similar tares. Will there be a final judgement in the Supreme Court to end all Supreme Courts, from which there is no right of appeal? Will we stand naked, thunderstruck, dumsrtuck?

  16. Lastly, here is a short video from Sam Allberry, which complements your articles and answers the contention in support of SSM and homosexual practice : “Jesus never mentiond homosexuality.”

    [vimeo 215866259 w=640 h=360]

    If the links don’t work (as I’m not adept at this stuff) it can be found on the Gospel Coalition site.

  17. No apologies for this abstracted section from Albert Mohler’s comments on his site on the Peterson farrago, as, as he states in his article, questions on homosexuality are to be answered by all Christians:

    “Consider these lessons from Eugene Peterson’s ordeal.
    First, there is nowhere to hide. Every pastor, every Christian leader, every author — even every believer — will have to answer the question. The question cannot simply be about same-sex marriage. The question is whether or not the believer is willing to declare and defend God’s revealed plan for human sexuality and gender as clearly revealed in the Bible.
    Second, you had better have your answer ready. Evasive, wandering, and inconclusive answers will be seen for what they are. Those who have fled for security to the house of evasion must know that the structure has crumbled. It always does.
    Third, if you will stand for the Bible’s clear teachings on sexuality and gender, you had better be ready to answer the same way over and over and over again. The question will come back again and again, in hopes that you have finally decided to “get on the right side of history.” Faithfulness requires consistency — that “long obedience in the same direction.”
    That is what it means to be a disciple of Christ, as Eugene Peterson has now taught us—in more ways than one.”

    What a marvelous turn of phrase: “Evasive, wandering, and inconclusive answers will be seen for what they are. Those who have fled for security to the house of evasion must know that the structure has crumbled. It always does.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

%d bloggers like this: