Christian Nurse Shirley Chaplin is today the “face” of UK Christianity in the Media
As “Christian” nurse Shirley Chaplin readies herself to take the exceedingly wicked and sinful Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Trust Hospital to an employment tribunal, for preventing her from expressing her religious beliefs (they asked her to conceal or remove a necklace cross for health and safety reasons), she has today become the media “face” of our Christian community:
Notice her fondling the very necklace cross for which she has suffered this most outrageous and heinous persecution, at the hands of the Devil himself no doubt.
I can almost hear her murmuring:
I will not part with you my precioussssssssss…..
I will never part with you my preciousssssssss….
And yes I am in a wicked mood and really don’t care what anyone thinks of this post.
I am sick to the back teeth of these pathetic and embarrassing so called “Christian persecution” cases. This is what the whole world sees of us in every newspaper today.
No wonder our community is held in contempt as George Pitcher and Ekklesia rightly note.
Oh the shame of it. The shame on our community and our Lord.
Tags: Christian Persecution, Media, News
March 29th, 2010 at 11:42 am
Well – I think people should be allowed to wear symbols of their religion. I wear a chalice pendant and/or lapel pin because I am proud to be a Unitarian.
I really don’t get why people want to wear crucifixes, or indeed crosses: images of a man being tortured, or the thing he was tortured on – no thanks. But if other people want to wear it, that’s up to them. However, asking her to remove her crucifix doesn’t represent “persecution of Christians” as you rightly point out.
Early Christians used the Chi-Ro or the fish (though that now has a very specific evangelical meaning, unfortunately). I suppose the Chi-Ro might be seen as a bit imperialistic too, though (“In this sign ye shall conquer” – hmm).
March 29th, 2010 at 2:29 pm
Well said Webmaster! I’m sure you’re far from alone. How sad the whole thing is. With the Church scoring such unneccessary home goals as this, is it any wonder that people roll their eyes in disbelief!
I was particularly puzzled to see the Anglican Bishops making such a fuss about it, whilst they seem to be ignoring some more serious issues. Maybe it’s a case of trying to win a battle that offends the fewest Christians, rather than facing up to the more serious issues which are more likely to offend some parts of the Church?
March 29th, 2010 at 2:31 pm
Thanks Jim I appreciate that. And on the subject of those 6 bishops, do they even have a right to cite this case, when it has not even come to court yet!
March 29th, 2010 at 3:18 pm
Christina Odone, takes a err slightly different approach to this:
In face of persecution from the chattering classes, Christians need to be as strident as Muslims
March 29th, 2010 at 3:27 pm
People don’t like Christianity because it claims to be the only truth, the only means of salvation, and the only way to truly connect with the Divine. Also because some Christians have an annoying habit of turning up on your doorstep and asking for your views on the afterlife. Not to mention the ridiculous views on sex and sexuality held by many in the churches.
If Christianity really supported social justice and that sort of thing (and didn’t say that Christianity is the only truth and that homosexuality is wrong), the rest of us would be completely OK with it. That’s why I like Ekklesia, which wants to reclaim the good bits of Christianity and leave the rest.
March 29th, 2010 at 3:31 pm
@Yewtree, I must admit I’m liking Ekklesia more and more as I find out about their views etc.
March 29th, 2010 at 3:32 pm
Yes, they are very fine people.
March 29th, 2010 at 3:35 pm
@Yewtree + @Dave.
I’m inclined to agree!
March 29th, 2010 at 5:00 pm
@webmaster: On your side – totally. Christianity should be bigger and better than this. Or what I probably mean is humbler and more loving…
March 29th, 2010 at 5:51 pm
@Sophie Amen!
March 30th, 2010 at 9:34 am
http://twitpic.com/1bx7ph
April 1st, 2010 at 10:08 am
@DavidMWW: People always post “ROTFLMAO” but in this case I really am in fits of giggles. Brilliant!
April 1st, 2010 at 10:20 am
@Sophie and DavidMWW.
I am giggling!
But Christian poster girl??? Makes me want to facepalm.
Perhaps ‘Christian’ is a label that we all need to drop quicktime!
April 1st, 2010 at 10:27 am
@Caral – Perhaps ‘Christian’ is a label that we all need to drop quicktime!
Well, if I were you, I would modify it with “liberal” or “mystical” or some other adjective, just so people know you’re not like the other lot.
Or you could point your non-Christian friends to my handy “Spotter’s guide to Christians” – I got so fed up of people assuming that all Christians are exactly the same (all expecting the rapture any minute and all that sort of thing) that I wrote a spotter’s guide.
The reason that I could never ever call myself a Christian is all the murder, persecution & torture that has been carried out in the name of Christianity (pogroms, auto da fé, the Inquisition) and the fact that I would have to share the label with people like Stephen Green, Ratzinger, Fred Phelps, Lilian Ladele, and the hatchet-faced nurse. But I realise others think the name can be reclaimed by its more liberal and tolerant adherents.
April 1st, 2010 at 10:29 am
Oh, and here is the URL of the spotter’s guide to Christians: http://stroppyrabbit.blogspot.com/2009/02/christians-spotters-guide.html
April 1st, 2010 at 12:03 pm
@Yewtree. Just have to wiki Fred Phelps. Gosh those hypercalvinists are a hate filled bunch. I expect it would make Jean Cauvin facepalm, to know how they have twisted his theology.
So perhaps I am a non fundie, non hypercalvinist, post reformed, liberalish thinking, non literalist, amillennialist, thiest evolutionist, Anglocatholic christian.
I would love to read your Spotter Guide.
April 1st, 2010 at 12:11 pm
Hi Caral. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but I am afraid that Calvin was not at all a nice man; he was instrumental in getting Miguel Servetus (proto-Unitarian, author, and discoverer of the circulation of the blood) burnt at the stake. (Oh and wasn’t Calvin the originator of the concept of double predestination?)
I posted the URL of the spotter’s guide in a separate comment (comments with URLs in them are moderated on this blog – understandably as spammers often post URLs).
I like your list of flavours of Christianity that you like. If that is the case, I am still confused as to why you think that theosis can only be obtained through Christianity, but perhaps we have exhausted that avenue of inquiry on the other thread!
April 1st, 2010 at 12:35 pm
@ Yewtree: where’s this Spotter Guide, then? Pretty please?
April 1st, 2010 at 1:43 pm
Sophie – the URL is 3 comments above this one!
Dear webmaster: could you consider not moderating comments with URLs?
April 1st, 2010 at 2:57 pm
@Yewtree. I think I’ve changed the setting now, would someone post a comment with a link as a tester.
April 1st, 2010 at 3:21 pm
Spotter’s Guide: http://stroppyrabbit.blogspot.com/2009/02/christians-spotters-guide.html (feel free to post your own exotic variety in the comments)
April 1st, 2010 at 3:23 pm
Thanks Yewtree, that worked fine.
April 1st, 2010 at 4:03 pm
@Yewtree
The doctrine of predestination origins with Augustine, double predestination, as understood and ascribed to by the hypercalvinists, is an ugly concept, and makes Christ out to be a damner of mankind, rather than a Saviour.
I don’t think that theosis is obtained through Christianity, but through Christ. A huge difference.
April 1st, 2010 at 4:06 pm
I glad you like my list, I can add a number of things, but just covered the basics
I am still learning.
April 1st, 2010 at 4:08 pm
Ahhhhhhh yes indeed, a huge difference. So are you saying that the Christ-principle is known by other names in other religions?
I’m not at all keen on any form of predestination, but double predestination seems even more inhumane.
April 1st, 2010 at 4:51 pm
So are you saying that the Christ-principle is known by other names in other religions?
To be honest Yewtree, I am sorry, but I am more than a little ignorant of other religions, and am unsure of the Christ- principle found in them, or even what the Christ-principle is .
I hope that I am Christocentric in my beliefs, as they are founded and based in Him. I believe that the person of Christ, the second person of the Trinity, as revealed in the Holy Scriptures, is the Saviour of mankind, and only through Him we obtain theosis. God became a man, so man can become like God.
I am really interested to know how you think theosis is obtained, and in particular the physical mechanics of how it is obtained?
April 1st, 2010 at 5:18 pm
Hi Caral. I am not sure I can couch my answer in terms of Christian theology. I think I should be careful not to assume a loose equivalence between different religions’ terms for the central experience / transformation that they purport to bring about. However, many religions seem to have as their goal some sort of transformation involving union with the Great All, however that is perceived.
In Buddhism, the central aim is to achieve enlightenment; as they don’t believe in God, this takes the form of realising one’s own Buddha-nature and merging with the void (nirvana). In Hinduism, the aim is moksha (union with the divine). In Sufism, the esoteric form of Islam, the aim is to achieve union with Allah. So the goal is differently described, but the process looks similar.
Hmm, the physical mechanics of how it is obtained… well I know in Orthodox Christianity it’s through the Eucharist. In Buddhism and various other traditions, they invoke deities into people, with the aim of transcending the individual deity-form and merging with the energy beyond. In other traditions, such as Tantra and Judaism, it’s by making love.
You are entitled to be Christocentric, but I feel quite strongly that people shouldn’t limit the workings of grace to their own particular tradition. And there are such spiritual riches in all the traditions that it would not undermine your faith to look at them. It might transform your ideas, though.
When I said “Christ-principle” I meant the archetype and idea of Christ, the Anointed One, the Messiah, the Enlightened One, that sort of thing. For instance in Sufism there is Khidr, the Friend or the Green One. There’s the Buddha. And so on. These seem to perform a similar function in their traditions. I have come across some Christians who believe that Christ works invisibly in other religions. It’s how they get round the problem of what will happen to all the righteous people in other religions if Christ is “the only way to the Father”. Since I am not a Trinitarian, I don’t have that problem.
April 1st, 2010 at 6:42 pm
Yewtree, thanks for your detailed and enlightening reply. I do believe that Christ is the only way. He is the Way, the Truth and the Life, and the only way to the Father. I believe that Christ is the Saviour of mankind. The Grace of our Lord God, shines throughout our temporality of time and throughout eternal.
When He was lifted up on the Cross, He said that He will draw ALL men to Him. I don’t hold to the fire and brimstone theology of some Christians, and I certainly don’t hold to the eternal damnation and torment of any human.
This is so hard to explain, without giving copious theological arguments, tradition and reasoning from the scriptures, the Church Fathers, and the Doctors of the Church. See, even in that sentence, I place authority with the Church, as I adhere to Prima Scriptura, rather than Sola Scriptura. As I believe that the Church, the body of Christ is the pillar and foundation of the Truth.
Barth is so eloquent and extensive than I. But here goes, I believe that ALL will come and be one in Christ. Not one will refuse Him, not one will reject His Light and His Love, when they are face to face with Him. Many will have to go through a purification process, if not started here on earth, during this lifetime, but God has an eternity.
Having said this, I may receive the normal retorts (not from you) about Hitler, Nazis, etc., not being saved, blah, blah blah. But who can deny that eventually every knee shall bow, and confess Jesus is Lord.
My personal eschatological ruminations, (at this moment in time) may not be understood correctly, but I have dedicated and many spend years, studying extensively the Scriptures, and this is where I am at. I chose to follow the teachings of the Church
Great is the mystery of Faith: Christ has died, Christ is Risen, Christ will come again.
By His Holy Cross He redeemed the world. We are to proclaim the love of Christ to the world till all the world adore his sacred name.
You posted that lovely prayer from St Teresa yesterday, have you read St John of the Cross’ Dark night of the Soul?
April 1st, 2010 at 8:31 pm
@ Nwaocha Ogechukwu
This is not the place to advertise your book.
Furthermore, the qualifications you claim on your website do not fill anyone with confidence.
1. A glance at the “American Biographical Institute”‘s entry in Wikipedia reveals that your “Great Mind of the 21st Century award wacn be obtained by just paying for it.
2. Anyone can claim to be a member of The Royal Institute of Philosphy” just by paying their subscription.
I think you’re wasting your time and ours here.
April 1st, 2010 at 9:19 pm
Thanks Jim. I totally agree with you, the post has now been deleted.
April 3rd, 2010 at 2:38 pm
@ Caral: Aha! Apocatastasis. Excellent, good for you. That’s another way around the problem, and a perfectly honourable one. Thanks for the clarification.
I haven’t read John of the Cross’s Dark Night of the Soul, but I have read some of his other poetry, and I liked it very much.
April 6th, 2010 at 4:39 pm
You were right as usual Webmaster:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/apr/06/christian-nurse-loses-battle-crucifix
Christian nurse loses battle to wear crucifix at work
Employment tribunal says NHS trust acted in reasonable manner as it rules in favour of Royal Devon and Exeter hospital
A Christian nurse who was moved to a desk job after refusing to remove her crucifix lost a claim for discrimination today.
Shirley Chaplin, 54, took the Royal Devon and Exeter NHS trust hospital to an employment tribunal, claiming that taking off a necklace bearing a crucifix would “violate her faith”.
The trust said the move was not specifically about the crucifix, but about health and safety concerns about patients grabbing necklaces.
Today, John Hollow, the employment tribunal panel chairman, found against Chaplin, who had worn the emblem throughout her 30 years as a nurse.
Hollow ruled the trust had acted in a “reasonable” manner in trying to reach a compromise. He said the damage to her was “slight” and noted that wearing a crucifix was not a requirement of the Christian faith.
In a 71-point statement, Chaplin, who wore the crucifix to the hearing in her home city of Exeter, said she was “personally convicted” to wear the emblem, given to her as a confirmation gift in 1971.
She said: “I have been a nurse for roughly 30 years and throughout that time I have worn my crucifix. The crucifix is an exceptionally important expression of my faith and my belief in the Lord Jesus Christ.
“To deliberately remove or hide my crucifix or to treat it disrespectfully would violate my faith.”
She started working for the trust continuously in 1989, being made a grade-D nurse in 1994, and promoted to an grade-E nurse in 2001.
Wearing the old uniform, the cross was visible and she wore it safely for 30 years, Chaplin said.
When a new-style uniform was introduced, there were still no issues until she was asked to remove the necklace last summer.
It was suggested she pin the crucifix inside her uniform but Chaplin could not accept that. She explained: “I was being asked to hide my religion and my faith. I found it disrespectful.”
In September, a request to keep the cross pinned outside her uniform was turned down, she said. “This answer confirmed to me that they simply wanted to remove the visibility of the crucifix”, she said.
Last July, she was told she was facing a “disciplinary sanction”. In August, she was threatened with formal disciplinary action. She said she received a letter in September telling her the cross was not a “mandatory requirement” of her faith, unlike Muslim headscarves, which “therefore could be exempted”.
She said: “I view this as a clear discrimination against Christians. The respondent [the trust] clearly regarded themselves as experts on religious manifestations of all faiths.”
Later that month, she accepted formal redeployment from frontline duties.
Chaplin’s case was highlighted by the archbishop of Canterbury in his Easter sermon last weekend, when he referred to “wooden-headed bureaucratic silliness”, which has seen some Christians stopped from wearing religious symbols at work. Rowan Williams said there was a “strange mixture of contempt and fear” towards Christianity. But he urged believers to keep a sense of perspective in the face of opposition and “think about the larger picture”.
April 6th, 2010 at 5:35 pm
Thanks for the update Susan, as you can probably imagine I’m not surprised.
And who was behind this case?
eChurch – Shirley Chaplin a Christian nurse re-assigned to an office role after refusing to take off a necklace bearing a cross will take her case to an employment tribunal next week
Yep, non other than the Christian Legal Centre aka Christian Concern for our Nation.
This was an earlier statement from the health trust:
“Sadly, it appears that Mrs Chaplin may have been deflected from agreeing a sensible and pragmatic resolution of this dispute by the involvement of other parties outside the trust.”
CLC & CCFON stirred this up and shamed our whole community in the process frankly with yet another alarmist “Christian persecution” legal case.
The Christian community has not lost another legal case over religious freedoms, but has lost in terms of credibility.
April 6th, 2010 at 8:07 pm
To put this in perspective, it may be worth mentioning that Pagans have had to hide their faith for years. Wearing a pentagram or similar to work used to mean constant approaches from evangelical Christians wanting to “save the soul” of the wearer. They wouldn’t have got away with it if the person had been wearing a Star of David, but Pagans were apparently fair game until 2003, when the regulations about not discriminating against people on grounds of religion came in.
Quite often, Christian “witness” strays into unwanted proselytising, and this is why people are hostile to Christians. The rest of us have heard the message of evangelical Christianity (unless one is ignorant and has been living in a bubble) and found it utterly lacking.
That said, I think people should be allowed to wear symbols of their faith — within reason. The fact that this woman has worn her crucifix for 30 years, presumably without patients grabbing it, does make the rules seem somewhat bureaucratic actually — and I have absolutely no sympathy whatsoever with her theological position, or the way she went about the case, or the “persecution” alleged by the Christian Legal Centre (which I agree is alarmist).
April 6th, 2010 at 11:53 pm
Persecution?
.
This is not Christians being thrown before the lions.
This is Christians being thrown before the gerbils
April 7th, 2010 at 9:20 am
Ah, but those gerbils have a nasty nibble….
April 12th, 2010 at 2:39 pm
@ Yewtree: off-topic, I realise, but I’m still totally confused about this Crucifixion business. Do you have any *easy* links for those who think humbly, if at all?
April 12th, 2010 at 2:51 pm
Hi Sophie… yes it is confusing. The Khanya blog has the best explanation that I have seen.
OK, I will try to sum up. Penal substitution (also known as vicarious atonement) theology was invented by Anselm of Canterbury in the 9th century. Apologies for any un-subtlety in my exposition of it. It holds that God is very angry with humanity for its sins, and requires satisfaction (in the form of sending everyone to hell). So, instead, God sent Jesus to earth to die on the cross as a substitute sacrifice. It turns God into a vengeful God. (This is the nastiest form of this theology – others have come up with less unpleasant variations.)
The alternative offered by Eastern Orthodox Christianity is Christus Victor theology. This is the idea that we are all imprisoned by sin, and that death is the ultimate form of that. As Jesus was one with God, he “trampled down death by death” as the Orthodox liturgy says: he literally couldn’t die, because he is God. So he went down into hell where the dead were, and burst their prison asunder and freed them. Thus his death, descent and resurrection are all equally important to Eastern Orthodox Christians.
A third possibility is to regard the whole story as mythology along the lines of other dying-and-resurrecting Middle Eastern vegetation gods (this is my own position). This does not make the story any less valid; it just sets it in the context of other similar mythology and allows us to experience it as the death of the ego and the resurrection of the larger self as we turn towards the Divine in the experience of metanoia. You might like to read the excellent book The Man they called the Christ by David Doel, which reverentially explores this idea.
April 12th, 2010 at 3:05 pm
Blimey, that was fast. Thank you. Have cut n pasted it so I can have a think.
April 12th, 2010 at 3:08 pm
Incidentally, the psychoanalytical approach that I have outlined in my third possibility is also compatible with either of the first two; though I think they are probably mutually incompatible. I have come across someone who held to a mild version of vicarious atonement and something like Christus Victor. I once read a blogpost by a Quaker outlining no less than 17 different models of the Atonement — Christian theology is immensely complicated!
April 15th, 2010 at 9:11 am
Good morning, This is an excellent article, but I was wondering how to suscribe to the RSS feed?