Having said this, what follows may surprise and even disappoint a few folk.
I have already reached the point whereby I am utterly wearied by the “gay marriage” debate. I don’t think there is an argument or counter-argument I haven’t read.
The Christian Interweb is absolutely awash with this issue, day in, day out, and yet I do wonder if the average pew sitter is as absorbed with this.
In terms of “gay marriage” I have now reached the point where I no longer feel strongly either way. I feel that there are more important issues, and if homosexual folk wish to marry civically, then so be it. As long as there are no legal challenges to force the church to solemnise these unions under “equality” legislation, then I won’t be losing any sleep over it.
I believe that the political will is now in place for “gay marriage” and I don’t think there is any stopping this momentum now.
Call me pessimistic if you will, but I believe this is a reality that Christians must face head on.
I feel that in some respects the church’s mission has been subverted into a cultural war that detracts from her true purpose; namely, the Kingdom. By this, I mean the kingdom not of this world, but of the one to come, and that indeed is already amongst us, and growing at a furious and unprecedented rate globally.
By this we should be encouraged, not despairing.
It is not the church’s mandate to impose a ‘regenerated’ morality on the heathen (I use this tongue in cheek), but to declare the wonder of our God.
I don’t believe that my reality, or that of many others, will change due to “gay marriage”. In fact, I think that most folk will carry on viewing the institution of marriage in exactly the same way as they always have. I don’t believe the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony will be affected in the slightest.
Regardless of the outcome of the consultation on “gay marriage” proposals, orthodox Christians will continue to view “gay marriage” as an oxymoron, irrespective of cultural shifts, or legislation.
I feel that getting sucked into the vortex of the cultural wars is exactly what those most opposed to the Church would wish for, and we play into their hands.
Sadly I believe that the relaxed attitude on divorce in some quarters of the Church has helped to precipitate the situation we now find ourselves in.
Perhaps it would be more appropriate for orthodox Christians to direct their ire at those liberal minded Christians that have publicly declared their support of gay marriage, and those clerics that will happily solemnise these unions, rather than at the government.
Whatever the outcome, we all still need to live together.
The Equality and Human Rights Commission has published a major review of human rights protections in the UK. The executive Summary and links to all parts of the review can be found on this link.
I’m no lawyer and so will simply highlight a few snippets that I thought were of interest:
Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights provides that:
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.
2. Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
Summary:
Article 9(1) protects the right of individuals to hold religious and other beliefs, and to practise them alone or with other people. It also protects people’s right to freedom of conscience, and the right to follow one’s own ethical and moral principles in one’s actions. The right to hold, as distinct from to manifest, religious and other beliefs is an absolute right.
Holding a belief may be intrinsically bound up with manifesting it, for example, through worship, teaching others, the wearing of symbols or of special clothes, or the avoidance of certain foods. The right to manifest a belief is a qualified right and its limitation is permissible if it is prescribed by law and can be justified as being necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, the protection of public order, health or morals or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
It was not until the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA) that legislation recognised a general legal right to religious freedom. Anti-discrimination provisions followed in 2003 and 2006 and today Britain’s Equality Act 2010 prohibits discrimination because of religion or belief in connection with employment, vocational training, education, premises and the provision of services, and by public authorities and associations.
Domestic case law on freedom of religion and belief is developing as a result of the implementation of the Human Rights Act and of domestic provisions regulating discrimination relating to religion and belief. The Commission has identified three areas in which we believe that the law should be interpreted in a way that is more strongly protective of Article 9 rights and that appropriately balances Article 9 and other rights.
I thought it interesting that article 9 has been used to protect not only religious belief, but also philosophical beliefs such as: atheism, veganism, environmentalism and pacifism.
Although Article 9 does not seek to define ‘religion’ the review quotes Williamson in the House of Lords who suggested:
‘when questions of “manifestation” arise … a belief must satisfy some modest, objective minimum requirements . The belief must be consistent with basic standards of human dignity or integrity. … The belief … must possess an adequate degree of seriousness and importance … it must be a belief on a fundamental problem. With religious belief this requisite is readily satisfied. The belief must also be coherent in the sense of being intelligible and capable of being understood. But, again, too much should not be demanded in this regard. Typically, religion involves belief in the supernatural. It is not always susceptible to lucid exposition or, still less, rational justification … Overall, these threshold requirements should not be set at a level which would deprive minority beliefs of the protection they are intended to have under the convention…’
The review goes on to say:
…..the Act allows organisations with a religious ethos to discriminate in offers of employment and in the provision of services in specific circumstances, recognising that religious beliefs influence the way such organisations run themselves.
and
Several cases have been about whether an employee can refuse to provide a service which conflicts with their religious views, where this may result in discrimination against others. Judges have had to strike a balance between the competing rights of an individual or group to manifest religious beliefs and the rights of others not to be discriminated against. Cases have considered a Christian registrar of marriages who refused to carry out civil partnership ceremonies for same-sex couples; a Christian relationship counsellor who refused to counsel same-sex couples on sexual issues; Christian hoteliers who refused accommodation to same-sex civil partners; and a Catholic adoption agency which wanted to provide adoption services to heterosexuals alone.
The courts have so far ruled that employers or organisations can legitimately limit the freedom of employees to manifest their religion or belief to prevent discrimination against other individuals or groups.
The lack of success of some claimants who bring cases under Article 9 or the Equality Act (or its predecessor legislation) has prompted some religious groups to argue that the right to manifest religion or belief is treated by the law as a ‘lesser right’ than others. They argue that religious discrimination claims are too readily trumped by the aim of preventing discrimination on other grounds. This view does not appear to be widely held, however, among the representatives of different religious groups. In contrast, other groups believe that religious groups enjoy a privileged position in the UK, and that the law does not provide sufficient protection to those without religious beliefs.
Minority communities tend to view equality legislation as a ‘guarantor’ of a ‘level playing field’.
Many of the Article 9 and other cases on religion have attracted considerable media coverage and public debate. The issues are contentious, but the experiences of the claimants are not necessarily representative of the common experience of other people following a particular faith, or a reliable indicator of the public role for religion or belief in society. It is also difficult to read legal or social ‘trends’ from the judgments as the cases are context- and fact-specific.
The UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief found in 2008 that the UK government had ‘balanced approaches in responding to difficult situations with regard to freedom of religion or belief and the contentious issues involved’ and welcomed the case-by-case approach which allowed each complaint to be judged according to particular circumstances.
The Equality and Human Rights Commission believes that the domestic courts have taken the appropriate approach in cases balancing competing interests. Some forms of manifesting belief, such as wearing religious clothing or jewellery, are likely to have a limited impact on other people; but other forms of manifestation may result in a refusal to provide a service to, or different treatment of, a particular group of people, and so may affect their fundamental rights and freedoms. The Commission believes that an employer may legitimately refuse to accommodate an individual’s religious beliefs where such accommodation would involve discrimination on the basis of other protected characteristics. In a public sector context, employers are also obliged by the Equality Act 2010 to have due regard to the need to advance equality of opportunity for protected groups; so public sector employers cannot legitimately agree to actions which undermine the equality of opportunity for groups defined
by reference to the protected characteristics.
The review goes on to explore two key issues; namely:
1. Courts are setting too high a threshold for establishing ‘interference’ with the right to manifest a religion or belief, and are therefore not properly addressing whether limitations on Article 9 rights are justifiable
2. Indirect discrimination provisions in domestic law covering protection for individual beliefs may not be consistent with Article 9
It looks at the legal cases brought under Article 9 in respect of these key issues (Page 11 onwards) and is worth a read.
There is apoplectic outrage across the Interweb as the Occupy St Paul’s Cathedral Occupy the London Stock Exchange protest was finally forcibly evicted late last night.
The real bone of contention seems to be the fact that police removed folk that were forming the “Ring of Prayer” from the steps of the Cathedral. From what I can glean, the High Court eviction order (obtained by the Corporation of London, with the support of the Cathedral) was against the encampment in the square, and so the folk gathered on the Cathedral steps believed they had a legal right to be there.
As it turned out, a Trespass Order had been granted in collusion with the Cathedral, granting police authority to remove those folk from the steps.
It’s also purported that four policemen could be clearly seen on the Cathedral balcony, “in silhouette”.
Enter on stage Jonathan Bartley of Ekklesia and his viral Video:
As you can hear, the police cite Cathedral permission, Section 14 of the Public Order Act, and breach of the peace. They also state the assembly was antagonising other people.
This has led to a stream of “dismayed and shocked” comments aimed at the “un-Christian” stance of the Cathedral.
Just a couple of quick comments.
From the very beginning this protest morphed into a battle with the Cathedral in particular, and Christianity in general. And as it began, so it has ended. In the process, many of us (Christians) who may have been sympathetic to the grievances of this movement, were alienated and sent on the defensive.
I witnessed a continued outpouring of vitriol against the Cathedral, with many that have not darkened the door of a church in years, pontificating on Christian morality. So much so, at times, you could be forgiven for thinking that the very Raison d’être for the protest was the ‘evil’ cathedral itself.
The irony is, with all the focus on the Cathedral; all talk of greedy bankers and corrupt Capitalism, was notably absent.
I think this all highlights a serious weakness in the Occupy movement. They are so easily subverted simply because they don’t really know what they stand for. What I mean by this, is that although we know what they stand against – corporate greed, banking systems, markets, capitalism – we never really found out what they proposed as alternatives.
I think the reason for this, is that they don’t really have any answers. And I’ve been observing this movement for months.
I note that Ekklesia have used coverage of this eviction as a nice little opportunity to have a dig a conservative Christians:
….I wonder whether those groups who sound off about supposed ‘Christian persecution’ in the UK will take up the issue of political and religious authorities working together to have people who are praying kicked off Cathedral steps? Or are they only concerned to support sectional privileges for those with conservative views?
The hypocritical irony here, is that Ekklesia often rail against conservative Christians as wishing to be in some way exempt from the laws of the land; especially, in regard to “Equality” laws.
It would now seem that Ekklesia themselves would wish to be exempt from certain laws; notably, trespass, or Section 14 of the Public Order Act.
Granted, the system we live in has many flaws, but it also has many benefits, that need to be recognised and more often readily acknowledged. I know for a fact that I don’t want anarchy.
I don’t know of a better system this side of the Kingdom, do you?
Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God.
to take stock and learn the lessons of the past four and a half months. But be assured that plans are already afoot: plans of some ambition, employing a diversity of tactics and delivered with the aplomb you would expect from us. All will be revealed in time. May is one of our favourite months.
I hope they do learn the lessons; namely, not to allow themselves to be so easily subverted against their natural allies, and to present to us concrete ideas of what they actually stand for; rather than just what they stand against.
Earlier this week Messianic leaders issued a joint statement responding to the forthcoming Christ at the Checkpoint conference. The statement is available here. (I mentioned this briefly in an earlier post), while the Messianic RPP site commented on it here. Later this week the organisers of Christ at the Checkpoint issued a response to the Messianic statement, which can be found here.
I have not really commented on this blog about Christ at the Checkpoint (CatC). However, in light of the public Messianic statement and the CatC response, now seems an appropriate time to do so, especially given the nature of this view expressed by CatC about the Messianic statement:
Your statement has undermined all these reconciliation efforts, given the wrong impression concerning our relationship with the Messianic body, and done harm to the unity of the body of Christ in the Holy Land.
This seems to be the main point that the CatC organisers seek to make (this sentence is highlighted in bold on the blog of CatC programme director Stephen Sizer, though not on the CatC website which must be a formatting error). It is a serious charge which, together with another point the CatC statement raises, merits some comment.
Whether intended or not, the appeal to Matthew 18 in the CatC statement gives an impression of the organisers seeking to silence those who publicly disagree with them. After all, Matthew 18 is referring to taking a brother to task when he sins against you personally as an individual. It has nothing to do with doctrinal disagreements within the Church (often dealt with publicly in the New Testament). Besides, CatC has publicised far and wide its views, aims and activities, so it cannot reasonably expect fellow believers to remain silent about issues they disagree with so profoundly. Neither can CatC expect their critics not to go public yet actively promote and publicise endorsements of the event. This is a double standard.
Related to this is the serious claim that the Messianic statement has somehow done immense harm to the unity of the body of Christ in the Holy Land. Leaving aside how a lack of Messianic support for the event suggests this statement is somewhat hyperbolised, I struggle to reconcile CatC’s claim in its statement to have the right to express itself as it sees fit yet with an expectation that Messianic leaders may only express their concerns in private. Again, it merely reinforces the impression of seeking to silence critics. Moreover, such a statement looks like nothing less than spiritual one-upmanship, an attempt to claim the high moral ground.
Finally, concerning the claim that the Messianic statement has contributed to a wrong impression of CatC’s relationship with the wider Messianic community, the lack of Messianic participation in the forthcoming CatC conference strongly suggests very little of a relationship with the Messianic movement in the first place. And here, I believe, is where the heart of the problem lies. The nature of much of what came out of the first conference, inflammatory rhetoric from some individuals involved with CatC since, involvement of strongly anti-Israel speakers, and indeed even some of the comments on the CatC Facebook page, all contribute to an impression of CatC as an Israel-bashing, anti-Zionist fest. Thus, while I believe there are sincere people involved with CatC who seek genuine reconciliation, it is hardly surprising that some of the voices and noises emanating from CatC make the Messianic movement deeply suspicious and involvement by Jewish believers minimal. Neither is the view that Christian Zionists are somehow heretics who follow another gospel the language of reconciliation, nor will it further the involvement of many on the other side of the debate. And that is precisely the point: for some of us in the middle or who lean towards the other side of the debate, the trenchant and inflammatory views of some of those closely involved with CatC leaves us unconvinced of the reconciliation value of the conference.
There is nothing more many of us would long to see than sincere, genuine and longlasting reconciliation between believing Jew and believing Arab in the land. I believe that if and when it happens at the hierarchical level (it already exists between many believing Arabs and Jews at the grassroots level, whatever some would have us believe), some of the genuine and sincere people involved in CatC will play a key role in such reconciliation. And when it comes I cannot help but think it will initially be reached in private, out of reach of the glare of public scrutiny as both parties seek to build trust towards each other. Unfortunately, too much inflammatory rhetoric contributing to an unnecessarily pejorative and divisive debate by some involved with CatC has affected how the whole event is perceived by many, as the Messianic statement demonstrates. Such unchecked rhetoric is either the result of ill-discipline, or else absolutely no desire for any kind of meaningful dialogue or true reconciliation. This was certainly my own personal experience of one of the CatC speakers some time ago who made clear that dialogue was pointless, that he would never permit it to change or modify his views. Clearly he was only interested in dialogue which led to agreement with his own extreme viewpoint.
I wholeheartedly agree with the archbishop of Westminster Rt Rev Vincent Nichols who is quoted in the Guardian as saying:
I personally don’t feel in the least bit persecuted. I don’t think Christians should use that word.
Absolutely right.
In fact, if Western Christians are to self-define as “persecuted” then we need a new term to coin the brutalisation of Christian minority groups in Islamic lands and elsewhere.
Nichols goes on to say:
“what might have started out as an acknowledgement of a variety of religious and philosophical positions has produced a seeming determination to tear the legal and therefore cultural life of the country away from its Christian roots.”
Again, absolutely right. And I will be the first to acknowledge that the secular agenda is on the ascendancy in the UK. However, this still does not equate to “persecution” in the true sense of the word.
It is entirely possible of course, that the UK Christian ‘persecution narrative’ is based on a subjective perception that we are witnessing the thin edge of the wedge, and I think this is the very heart of the matter. UK Christian persecution anxieties are not so much based on current events, but on the perception of what may be on the horizon. We can see a slippery slope and it makes us edgy.
Let me elaborate on the UK Christian “persecution narrative” as I see it. I believe it is a self-reinforcing group narrative within which subjective perceptions are evidenced as an objective reality. Firstly, you cite a few recent high profile legal cases. Any that were successful prove the encroaching persecution; any that were unsuccessful prove the anti-Christian bias of the law courts. Either way the narrative is affirmed and the lawyers make money.
All of this “evidence” of persecution perpetuates the narrative, leading to a subcultural “moral panic” that potentially precipitates a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Many outside of Christianity perceive Christians to be lamenting the loss of a privileged position and status within our culture, rather than anything else. Sometimes I can’t blame them. Many of the recent high profile Christian ‘persecution’ legal cases have revolved around the ‘Equality’ laws and many in society are annoyed, as they perceive Christians as believing they should be exempt from such laws. Yesterday Sir Trevor Phillips, the Head of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, was quoted as saying:
…..the law stops at the door of the temple as far as I am concerned.
Of course, this cuts both ways.
The crux of Phillips’ argument is that it is only inside a church or religious institution that believers can apply their own rules. Phillips also makes the argument that if we make exceptions for Christians, then we need also make exceptions for others; for example, the implementation of Sharia law. There is a logic to this in my mind.
In truth, no government will really be able to legislate for ‘offense’ or ‘equality’ for everybody, as it is inevitable that as a result of these laws, some will actually become discriminated against. Personally I believe the government should legislate as little as possible in this area of life.
Given the hostility of the world towards Jesus, should we always expect the world to be nice and friendly towards us? Is this even a healthy state of affairs for the Church, as it can potentially foster complacency and too much involvement in worldly affairs?
The truth is, if we define ourselves by our victimhood, we have a massive problem, as we ape the society around us, which is dominated by a hierarchy of victimhood.
In conclusion, I will state that I personally don’t feel that I belong to a beleaguered minority; we’re everywhere and I think Christians need to be more confident about who we are.
UK Christians need to stop using the word “persecution” for fear of devaluing the term. We may experience areas of discrimination, belittlement, exclusion, and so forth – Who doesn’t – but this is patently and qualitatively different to persecution.
Anyway, when did Jesus say it would be an easy ride?
….it is worth analyzing the effect of elevating tolerance to the level of supreme virtue. It generates scores of ironies that relatively few people even notice. As J. Daryl Charles puts it, the old tolerance that has recently been transmuted to this new status “becomes indistinguishable from an intractably intolerant relativism.” Worse, it soon becomes massively inconsistent and manipulative.
