EKKLESIA WATCH: The British Humanist Association (BHA) has forthrightly rejected as “untrue” accusations published in the Church of England Newspaper (CEN)
I used to do a “British Humanist Watch” but think I’ll now swap to an “Ekklesia Watch”.
Intriguing to observe yesterday, Ekklesia expending their efforts to defend the British Humanist Association, and offer us a nice apologetic on their behalf in the face of negative comments written in the Church of England Newspaper.
Here is a snippet for you enjoyment:
Humanists reject accusations that their election briefings ‘target’ Christians
The British Humanist Association (BHA) has forthrightly rejected as “untrue” accusations published in the Church of England Newspaper (CEN) this week that it has targeted and criticised Christians in its election briefings.
The BHA, whose high-profile backers include the popular actor and author Stephen Fry, works for a world “where people are free to live good lives on the basis of reason, experience and shared human values”.
Its aims state that the organisation exists to “promote Humanism, campaign for an open society and a secular state, and work with others of different beliefs for the common good.”
I’ll let you read the rest if you can stomach it.
I for one am looking forward to an upcoming blog post promised by Gavin Drake on the subject of: “Why I believe Ekklesia is anti-Christian”.
Just noticed a great little article in the Guardian by Jonathan Chaplin:
At the beginning of the week Jonathan Bartley argued here – as he routinely does via his Christian think-tank Ekklesia – against recognising churches’ legal right to hire staff according to their own beliefs. He didn’t frame it in that unflattering way, of course. Instead he tried to justify the significant curtailment of corporate religious freedom his view implies by appealing to an unanswerable claim: that Christian love mandates treating people inclusively, with equal regard.
Well he’s right about that. But he simply bypasses the question of what equal regard actually means in practice. A moment’s thought reveals that equal regard can’t possibly mean treating every individual identically. Jesus certainly wasn’t being very “inclusive” in castigating the oppressive religious leaders of his time as “whitewashed sepulchres”, or turfing out the corrupt money-changers from the temple. Acts of justice are acts of discrimination and exclusion. Anti-racist laws rightly exclude racist behaviour: that’s their particular way of showing equal regard – love – to people of colour.
Tags: Church Life
March 21st, 2010 at 10:13 am
I humbly submit that the Humanist manifesto is not intrinsically anti-Religion, or more specifically anti-Christian. Rather it seeks to separate the role of Church from State, and to remove unelected religious interest groups from within Government.
March 21st, 2010 at 11:12 am
Hi Jim, I don’t think the webmaster is so much commenting on the validity of the article and Humanist manifesto, but more on Ekklesia’s desire to defend such groups, whilst attacking swaythes of the church in one form or another, under the guise of a “theology think tank”, dressed up as Christianity.
There are many who now view Ekklesia to have stepped over the line from a useful Christian (theology and society) think-tank, to a secular left-liberal political trojan horse.
March 21st, 2010 at 12:44 pm
The Humanist manifesto doesn’t seem to attack Christianity any more than any other religion. It’s definitely not singled out in any way.
Because most British nonbelievers share or at least understand Church expectations, most people don’t get particularly steamed up about discrimination on religious grounds when those grounds are Christian. Not many people would object if a Catholic primary school refused to employ openly transvestite staff. How many transvestites would apply for such a job? And how many non-faith schools would hire him either? We have a consensus on what’s OK in terms of a teacher’s public behaviour and what one might call unusual or scandalous sexual behaviour is not acceptable. You can’t be a porn star and expect to teach in any state school, faith or not.
So asking for Christian values to be respected isn’t particularly controversial. Trouble is, there are other faiths offering a world view completely alien to what one might call the European moral consensus, and if Christianity is immune from discrimination legislation then so are all the faiths, however distasteful. Demand respect for one faith and, to be consistent, you have to grant it for all sorts of dangerous nonsense.
Seems to me Christianity is so embedded in our culture that its values are generally respected and accommodated without legislation. It’s a tricky one, though, and not entirely true. For example, secular society demands equality for homosexuals in all contexts and this view has mainstream support. The discrimination against homosexuals that occurs within some – though not all – of the churches is definitely against the law. More importantly, perhaps, it goes against the grain with the mass of people and, because of this lack of public support I think the Church will eventually have to back down over this issue.
March 21st, 2010 at 1:01 pm
Susan, you are right that the blog post is not seeking to comment on the validity of what the Church of England newspaper reports of what the BHA have actually written.
The point of Ekklesia’s article is not to defend one group or another, but actually reveal what the truth of the matter is. Our commitment, which stems out of our desire to follow Jesus, is to work with truth. We believe it is wrong to bear false witness. Sadly, this doesn’t seem to the priority of this blog post, which seems more intent on attempting to rubbish its Christian brothers and sisters for showing some love to others.
The positions we take stem from our beliefs about Jesus Christ and our desire to follow him. Those who consider us ‘secular’, are either not bothering to read what is plainly written on our website about where we are coming from http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/about/values or are themselves deliberately bearing false witness.
I think in light of that, one might legitimately ask what is particularly Christian about the approach that this blog is taking. It seems to bear very little ressemblance to the way of Jesus Christ?
March 21st, 2010 at 2:44 pm
Point taken Sophie. Actually I did not think that the original article particularly attacked Christianity. All it did was to report the views of both sides as understood by the correspondent. I was trying (clumsily) to make the point that a symathetic view of the Humanist position did not seem to me to be taking an anti-Christian position.
March 21st, 2010 at 3:24 pm
Jonathan Bartley,
You have spoken much on love and equality, you recall hymns at school about love, and you wish, like all of the saints to show love to others. Yet….
“The point of Ekklesia’s article is not to defend one group or another, but actually reveal what the truth of the matter is. Our commitment, which stems out of our desire to follow Jesus, is to work with truth. We believe it is wrong to bear false witness.
Here you are suggesting that the letter writer to the Church Times is bearing false witness?
Of course, I suppose you think that it is your duty to reveal the ‘truth’. To pick the speck out of other Christians’ eyes?
Sadly, this doesn’t seem to the priority of this blog post, which seems more intent on attempting to rubbish its Christian brothers and sisters for showing some love to others.
Yet you are showing your love, not to your brothers and sisters, but to the BHA, by criticising your brothers and sisters in Christ.
Our Lord, said “By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
March 21st, 2010 at 4:23 pm
Helen,
“Here you are suggesting that the letter writer to the Church Times is bearing false witness?”
I am suggesting that both sides need to be told, and that the BHA’s feelings should be heard too. Others can judge who is telling the truth. But BHA feel that they have been misrepresented. What is sad to me is if people would not want to investigate the truth of a situation. Indeed, it would make me very concerned as a follower of Christ.
“Of course, I suppose you think that it is your duty to reveal the ‘truth’. To pick the speck out of other Christians’ eyes? ”
I am truly surprised if you don’t feel a commitment to truth-telling is part of your calling as a Christian. My belief is that Christians should aspire to a higher commitment to truth-telling than others. But if you don’t agree I would be keen to hear why.
If you can point to examples where I personally or Ekklesia and anyone who works for it are not telling the truth or are misrepresting people I hope you would let us know. We would seek to investigate/ correct/apologise etc… as soon as possible. Presumably you would do the same?
“Yet you are showing your love, not to your brothers and sisters, but to the BHA, by criticising your brothers and sisters in Christ.”
It is not an “either..or”. We faithfully report much of the excellent work that churches do on a day to day basis on the Ekklesia website. We report far more that is favourable (overwhelmingly so). And where we express concern, we always try to do so in a loving way. We don’t of course always get it right. But I would certainly make my feelings known to the BHA, and question them too if appropriate, just as I would with churches/ Christians.
I don’t believe though, to express concern, or even criticise (constructively and fairly), is not to express love? If I suggest to my friend/ brother or sister that s/he is wrong, it doesn’t mean I don’t love him/her. However, if I misrepresent them, it does tend to imply that I don’t truly love them.
But now you have heard about how we express our love both to the churches and the BHA, and indeed many others, I would be keen to know Helen, how have you shown your love to the BHA? We are, after all called by Jesus to love our enemies. That is what makes following Jesus different from some airy fairy liberalism, or humanism I think.
So perhaps we could use the 1 Cor 13: 4 definition of what love is? Do you want to talk a bit about how you have adhered to that definition of love with regard to BHA and other people who you might consider ‘enemies’? Indeed, perhaps the other contributors to this blog could too? I think it would be a very good exercise to see how bible-based we all are, and how much we are really following Jesus?
JB x
March 21st, 2010 at 6:15 pm
ah Mr Bartley, on standard form I see….spinning & defending….spinning and defending.
the truly remarkeable thing is Mr Bartley, that you will never be able to perceive why so may mainstream Christians are sick to the back teeth of Ekklesia.
i do not believe for one moment that this is an issue of theology Mr Bartley, as Ekklesia appear to be driven by an ideology.
a liberalist ideology that focusses soley on “feelings”.
i particularly liked you telling us how ekklesia “loves” everyone sooo much. You deftly tied this in to mean that anyone critical of you, or your organisation, obviously doesn’t know or exhibit love, and by default cannot be in pursuit of “truth”.
i pray that you will grow to understand the difference between ideology and true theology.
March 21st, 2010 at 6:34 pm
Peter. Do you have any substance to back up your allegations?
“I am going to attack you, and then criticise you for defending yourself?” isn’t really enough to have a productive conversation.
If you can provide some examples of what you mean then I would be happy to discuss them, but I get the impression that constructive dialogue isn’t really what you want?
JB x
March 21st, 2010 at 7:05 pm
PS Peter – Thought I should add two more things.
One of the most encouraging things about my job, is the occasions, when after I have done TV and radio interviews, or written something in the press, that people get in contact and tell us that they have come back to faith, and what we have said or done with Ekklesia had helped them alot in that.
I should also add that many of these have said they left the church after feeling rejected, judged and pushed out. They have come back, because they have realised that not all Christians are judgemental and nasty, and actually can be full of love and grace. I would urge you to reflect on that.
I wanted also to respond to your comment above which said: “i particularly liked you telling us how ekklesia “loves” everyone sooo much. You deftly tied this in to mean that anyone critical of you, or your organisation, obviously doesn’t know or exhibit love, and by default cannot be in pursuit of “truth”.”
You will see above that actually I made a point of saying that one can still be crtical and be loving. I state clearly: “I don’t believe though, to express concern, or even criticise (constructively and fairly), is not to express love”.
As I say above, you might also like to have a look at our values (which I link to above), which make it clear where we are coming from (not a ‘liberalist ideology’) You might also like to check out the theological convictions to which we subscribe: http://www.anabaptistnetwork.com/coreconvictions
I would draw you particulalry to the first two points which say:
” Jesus is our example, teacher, friend, redeemer and Lord. He is the source of our life, the central reference point for our faith and lifestyle, for our understanding of church and our engagement with society. We are committed to following Jesus as well as worshipping him.
2. Jesus is the focal point of God’s revelation. We are committed to a Jesus-centred approach to the Bible, and to the community of faith as the primary context in which we read the Bible and discern and apply its implications for discipleship.”
You may not like what we are saying, but please take the time to read what we are about.
March 21st, 2010 at 7:08 pm
Dear Jonathon,
Thanks for you post. I think my point may have eluded you. Love amongst us.
Why was it necessary to accuse the Church of bearing false witness? Who lied? or did they express an opinion?
Why defend BHA feelings? Are BHA persecuted? Are they a small silent voice, a vulnerable people that needs your protection?
Conversely, I admire your tenacity to promote the ‘truth’.
Jonathan, our Lord is the only Truth worthy of proclaiming. I pray that you continue to grow in grace and love.
In Him x
March 21st, 2010 at 7:37 pm
As my daughter would say: “Oh pleeeeeaase!”
No one forces you to read, quote, or discuss Ekklesia articles. By doing so you provide oxygen to something of which you apparently do not approve. If it were not for someone complaining about it a while back, I for one would not even know of its existence!
Do you seriously feel Christianity is threatened by Ekklesia? I’m a Humanist, and I can assure you I do not get the feeling that Jonathan Bartley is defending me and denigrating Christianity.
Actually its people like him that make me take Christianity seriously. Is that so bad?
March 21st, 2010 at 7:38 pm
Caral – Thank you.
The original blog post I think links through to the article which explains what the issue over truth was. In case it doesn’t here it is again: http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/node/11564
I am not aware that anyone has said the BHA is being persecuted, are a small silent voice, or vulnerable and in need of our protection? As I explained above, that is not why we reported what the BHA were saying.
Jesus is indeed the way, the truth and the life. That is why I follow him, and I hope why you follow him too. And that is why indeed I think it is important that we have a commitment to truth (recognising that we will all fail, but working nevertheless towards it).
I do find it fascinating that some who say they follow Jesus find the idea of truth-telling (or even discussing) so threatening. It does raise all sorts of questions about the kind of Jesus that we follow. Do we follow a biblical Jesus, or one of our own making?
On a related point it’s interesting too, isn’t it, that it was the religious leaders who always seemed to have it in for Jesus, and tried to catch him out? Coincidence? Or perhaps because Jesus didn’t fit neatly into the kind of religious box that they had created? I find it fascinating too that it was at his trial that he made the claim: “everyone on the side of truth listens to me”. Begs the question “so what about the people who aren’t on the side of truth? Who are they following?”
March 21st, 2010 at 8:36 pm
Thanks for saying that Jim. That is really encouraging. I will pass your comments on to my colleagues at Ekklesia too.
JB x
March 22nd, 2010 at 7:36 am
Dear Jonathan
I did read through your theological values that you adhere to, and it certainly explains a lot.
I hope that you would have to agree that ‘truth’ can be subjective? So perhaps the question is whose ‘truth’ do people adhere to? Rightly every pilgrimage seeks the knowledge and wisdom of Truth, which is the Christ, and only found within Him. So I do wonder why so publicly you dismiss the traditions and heritage of the Church, as your site quotes… “remains committed to a positive exchange of mainstream traditions,…yet . .takes it inspiration from dissenting strands of Christianity.”
The universal catholic Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth (1Tim 3:15). She may not be perfect, but she is the Lord’s body, His people, His representative here upon on the earth, and has been for 2000 years. So why choose to go a new way or is it a ‘third way?’
I suppose that, like many of us, in this moment of time, your theological beliefs will affect greatly your convictions and your version of what the truth of the gospel is. Personally for me the Gospel is not just a socio-political gospel, but in it’s full glory, the Truth of the Gospel is the revelation of Christ, His passion, and His love of mankind manifested through His salvific work. We enter into Him, into the fullness of love, light and truth, through our theosis, and He overflows into the world around us.
Jonathan I am genuinely pleased that you have been so encouraged by Jim’s response. Our Lord is so good to us, in encouraging us. But please do consider the things that have been brought to your attention on this thread. In particularly the confusion by many of the saints, as to why just recently you keep having a pop at the Church. Whilst you may stand for good, as a lot of your stuff is good, can you see the problem? Interestingly perhaps it is your view of the Church, which could possible explain your comments and position. Whilst holding onto to a view that it is acceptable for you to constructively critique others, you accuse others that critique what you have to say, as not being very Christ like. This is again reflected in how you use examples of the religious leaders of Christ’s time, and hints that you possibly believe that the Church, in all her glorious traditions is pharisaical.
Unite with all of the saints in Christ, Jonathan, encourage one and another, as it is by love amongst us, that we are recognised.
In Him x
March 22nd, 2010 at 8:31 am
Caral,
I will indeed consider the things that have come up on this thread, (and have been). Thank you.
Regarding the truth, yes, it can often be subjective. That of course is Pilate’s question to Jesus: “What is truth?”. But Jesus’ response I think highlights how truth is relational. It is more than a factual proposition. Indeed, in Jesus it is incarnational. For me this underpins the importance of dialogue and engaging constructively with the isssues. It has been great to be able to do this with you.
Re your point about the churches, Christendom (to which we refer in our values/ convictions) was interesting in that, pre-Constantine, the empire periodically persecuted the churches. Post-Constantine, persecution didn’t end. Rather it was the objects of persecution that changed. Periodically the churches persecuted other churches too. Christians who didn’t fit in with the settlements between churches and government were periodically clobbered by other Christians!
Today too, what one person might perceive as “having a pop at the churches” another would see as defending (other parts of) the churches. When for example Ekklesia speaks up about bishops in the House of Lords, or church schools, or the equality bill, we are also speaking up for parts of the churches as well as others, who are/ will be affected by what is going on. It isn’t that the churches are on one side or the other in these debates.
(There is of course a long biblical tradition of the ‘remnant’, which the Bible is quite hot on, which perhaps reminds us that God is often working through the less visible, powerless people).
So the call to “unite with all the saints” begs the question “which saints”? and “on which saints terms”? I hope you would agree that no one section of the church can call the shots on this, and all sides should listen fairly to the perspectives/ critiques of the other? We don’t need to agree, but we should all be willing to listen to each other and seek to understand what the others are saying. I entirely accept that this runs boths ways as I have said before. It is not the criticism which I object to, it is the way in which the criticism is made. Which brings us back to the first point of course, that truth is relational.
JB x
March 22nd, 2010 at 11:36 am
Canon Peter says (in a markedly unChristian post from one claiming to be a Canon): “the truly remarkeable thing is Mr Bartley, that you will never be able to perceive why so may mainstream Christians are sick to the back teeth of Ekklesia.”
I couldn’t disagree more. The articles I’ve read on the Ekklesia site reflect my experience of mainstream Christianity, they’re thoughtful and, while thought-provoking, are far from controversial.
What’s extremist and controversial is this “new” trend in Christianity characterized by “Bible-believing”, anti-science, intolerance, bigotry. Quite scary, and very off-putting to someone brought up in a liberal Christian tradition. (I put “Bible-believing” in quotes because liberals believe the Bible too.)
I’m middle-aged. Yet I have *never* come across a Creationist in real life, let alone anyone who believes in the “rapture” or lots of other weirdy-beardy stuff that’s emerging in recent years among what I consider Christian extremists. It comes over as a sort of flight into history – returning to an almost medieval view. This attitude obviously has adherents in the blogosphere but is in no way mainstream among real life C of E believers, thank God!