Revd. Canon J.John comments on the recent European Court rulings
Last week, the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg ruled on
four separate appeals from British Christians over what they felt was
unfair discrimination. You can find details elsewhere but let me
summarise. In one case, widely felt to be the most minor, the court
found in favour of the believer while in the other three it ruled that
what had taken place had been justified. Now, in one sense, this
ruling was not a big issue. None of these were life-or-death matters
and no one went to prison. Yet it was a significant ruling and I agree
with many that it is a landmark in the intensifying struggle between
the 'social progressives', who seem to dominate our society, and
Christians. Yet landmarks can also be revealing viewpoints.
Firstly, the cases have shown us the severity of the
opposition against Christians. As a whole, we British Christians are
gentle souls (possibly too gentle) who prefer to live and let live. We
had assumed that the non-Christian world shared our desire for amiable
coexistence. The rulings - and the cases that brought them - are proof
that, in reality, there is hostility towards us. Many of us had
probably assumed that Jesus was exaggerating when he said to his
disciples in John 15:19 '. I have chosen you out of the world. That is
why the world hates you.' We may wish to think again.
Secondly, the ruling has shown us the strength of the
opposition against us. We have seen an unholy alliance of New
Atheists, gay-rights activists and general progressive social
libertarians ganging up against traditional Christianity. This is bad
enough. What has been worse has been the reaction of other people.
Within the media (an utterly untypical element of the community) there
has been, at best, apathy and, at worst, open rejoicing that we
Christians have been put in our place. Worse still has been the
realisation that a vast number of ordinary people whom we might have
expected to show support have quietly walked on by, apparently
preferring to toe the line rather than run the risk of guilt by
association. And in all fairness, who can blame them? Why should they
who do not know Jesus support the Lord's people?
Finally,
it has shown us the strategy of the opposition. Quite
evidently, what is being sought is nothing less than the expulsion of
biblical Christianity from British society, eliminating utterly an
effective, committed, proclaiming faith from any position of
influence.
So what should our response be? Consider
exactly how the opposition want to neutralise us. They want to force
us into one of two reactions. The first is for Christians, by removing
everything of offence, to adjust our faith into a politically correct
form, acceptable to the will of society. There, universally tolerated,
the Church would linger on as a harmless spiritual mood. It would not
preach because there would be nothing to preach.
The
second reaction would be for us to maintain our beliefs in all their
unacceptability but instead to retreat into meeting behind closed
doors, staying quiet and becoming - to hijack a phrase - 'the faith
that dare not speak its name'. There, in our isolated, frightened
silence we would exist as a curiosity of culture, a pathetic, dumb
museum reminder of an ancient past. In the first case we would have
retreated from our right relationship to God, in the second from our
right relationships with our neighbour. In both cases, the Church
would have ceased to be the Church of God. In both cases it would be
rendered silent.
So what must we do? We must be faithful,
and we must rely on God, on his Spirit and on his Word. Above all, we
dare not retreat, whether physically into holy huddles or spiritually
into a gospel-less faith. And if we perish in standing firm, what of
it? After all, whatever the claims of the 'social progressives' they
hardly offer us eternal life. It is also worth remembering that we are
privileged to find ourselves called up into the great, recurrent
battle of the ages between God's people and Caesar. For us, this
Caesar is not - or at least not yet - personified in human form, but
merely the spirit of the age. Let us be encouraged. For two thousand
years Caesars of every form have attacked the Church, yet the Church
still lives and every Caesar has died!
I have previously enjoyed reading J. John's writing, but this article is nothing short of sensationalist claptrap. "An unholy alliance of New Atheists, gay-rights activists and general progressive social libertarians?" Really? The Daily Mail would love to print that line I'm sure.
British Christians are far, far to quick to cry persecution. These people were asked to do their jobs properly, not thrown to the lions. We should not expect preferential treatment in the event that we choose to hold fast to a handful of much-debated verses that are most certainly not integral to the faith of every christian.
Perhaps we have grown comfortable in our historical position at the top of the pile. Christians are so used to the power that we once held that we don't know how to preach our message without laws and lawmakers. Who knows? Maybe if the Church can let go of the political trappings it has borne since Constantine, we'll begin to see a transforming influence that begins in the lives we lead, not in the rules of the realm.
Is that not how Jesus transformed us?
Susil: Which "handful" of verses do you refer to? By my understanding there is a whole Bible full of very clear references which are debatable only by those who want to evade their clear meaning.
From Genesis to Revelation God makes it clear over and over again that what human beings do with their bodies matters to him as our Creator and Ruler.
We do our present "progressive" culture (really, very regressive, right back to practices of the ancient past -- see Genesis to Revevlation for details) a great disservice if we do not speak out to say that some things may be legal but still wrong, may be culturally acceptable and even (God help us) celebrated, but still immoral.
Is that really how jesus transformed us?
[report abuse]