Can Christians ever speak up in public in secular europe?
8 Nov 2007
On the 24th October, Joel Edwards, general director of the Evangelical Alliance UK, spoke on BBC Radio 4’s ‘Thought for the Day’, on the issue of abortion, that is currently being debated by our medical profession and government (driven amongst other things by the medical advances allowing premature babies, born earlier than the legal limit for termination, to survive).
I thought Joel was sensitive, nuanced, and at the same time probing with a question as the volume of abortions currently practiced. You can read the full text of what he said here.
I must admit I was surprised that the BBC allowed a topic like this without discussion. But what troubled me the most was the vitriolic reaction of so much of the public, that Radio 4 broadcast earlier this week. Whilst there were concerns like my own, the principle objection seemed to be that as a christian he is automatically disqualified from sharing his opinions.
The notion that a christian who speaks on any issue such as this is automatically and axiomatically a ‘religious fundamentalist’, reminded me that in the UK the real dominant fundamentalist religion of secular liberalism is alive and well, and that in the name of its chief tenant ‘tolerance’, it wants to exlude anyone of faith from having a voice/opinion.
If I have met someone who is a reasonable, moderate and thoughtful as a christian, it’s Joel Edwards. Joel has been appointed to the UK governments Equality and Human Rights Commission. Non christians, have ceased on his radio broadcast to bolster their disgust that a christian would be given this appointment.
You can read what the UK National Secular Society, accuse Joel of being, as a Christian. In particular they say he comes to the job with a ‘pre-formed’ agenda, that disqualifies him from the role. Revealing the myth that they think they don’t bring their own!
Amazing that secularist, atheist non christians continue to practice their religion with the same bile, animosity, hatred, and ignorance as the reliigous believers they caricature.
Oh for some humble thoughtful and gracious atheists and secularists. I’m sure they exist but for now the UK is held sway by religious fundamentalism of a different kind.
Tagged: Abortion, Atheism, Evangelicals, Human Rights, Secularism
25 comments
Trackback
Comment by Timothy Wright
12.36 pm on 8 Nov 2007
So true. I believe the only way that Christians will be treated with any sense of fairness is that we are sacrificial with our lives and generous with our money in touching society in a way that actually shames them f or having such attitudes .
Our motive is love and always should be love, but I know in my life I am too selfish with my life and my money. I need to change for the love of Jesus and those who are blinded by the lies of our spiritual enemy and it is not the people of this country regardless of their religion, colour or creed. Our battle is a spiritual battle.
Tim
Comment by Jon F
1.29 pm on 8 Nov 2007
I guess it’s also a lot easier to be sarcastic, insulting and critical than it is to be thoughtful and accomodating, Have a look at http://www.platitudes.org.uk for a good example. The irony of this site is that they probably listen to TFTD more regularly than many Christians!
There seem to be many Christians who also take this easier route – we need more peope like Joel Edwards and like Malcolm Duncan at Faithworks who was able to respond in a balanced way to the SORs, while the fundamental Christians were campaigning outside Parliament.
The problem is the media always prefer fundamentalist to balanced and nuanced- makes better soundbites!
Comment by fernando
3.05 pm on 8 Nov 2007
Interesting. Most of my consumption of BBC current affairs these days comes through podcasts of Radio 4 programmes and via them I’m *not* suprised Joel would be given a voice.
Comment by Paul
5.13 pm on 8 Nov 2007
Maybe this is the backlash of losing our dominant voice and having that replaced by the voice of secularism in the liberal media.
I’d rather have the fired up then the apathetic personally and as a way of helping us as christians learn a hermaneutic of humility maybe this is as good a learning experience as any?
Comment by Lyn
7.12 pm on 8 Nov 2007
Excellent post Jason. I really agree with Jon F’s comments. Secularism is certainly a “religion” within itself.
Comment by Alan
4.15 pm on 9 Nov 2007
Lyn you obviously don’t know the meaning of the word secularism, so here’s the dictionary definition for you.
1. Religious skepticism or indifference.
2. The view that religious considerations should be excluded from civil affairs or public education.
It means nothing more and nothing less, you can’t just go changing the meaning of a word to suit your own agenda.
Comment by Jason
5.23 pm on 9 Nov 2007
HI Alan,
Whilst a dictionary definition is a place to start, secularism is far more than that definition, and cannot be reduced to just that.
Lyn and many others including myself want to assert that secularism functions analogous to a religious system. Secularist claims are deemed to be universal (the demand to have them applied to everyone), and arise from a particular belief tradition themselves.
Secularist do something similar to what they rule out being done by others. To practice and assert universal, supposedly non-relativistic truth claims , from their own tradition isn’t wrong in itself; it’s what religious people do all the time.
The problem is that they set themselves above the practices of other religious groups, and become extremist exclusivists themselves.
The terms of all dialogue become set by their secular philosophy and agenda and it is imposed on everyone. You can either adopt the belief systems of secularism, or be labeled a fundamentalist.
And ultimately the secularist affirmation of the protection of otherness, and difference, and tolerance etc, is destroyed by it’s own religious fundamentalism.
So in that sense Lyn probably knows a great deal more about secularism than you have accused her of.
Comment by Eskil
11.01 am on 17 Nov 2007
“..you can’t just go changing the meaning of a word to suit your own agenda…”
Why not? Is a dictionary the infallible word of man?
If Lyn feels a definition does not reflect the true meaning of an issue, she should most certainly redefine it!
Comment by Colleen
11.40 am on 9 Nov 2007
The reason many non-Christians have bolstered at his appointment to the EHRC is because the organisation is committed to promoting human rights. He has spoken out against human rights for homosexuals and campaigned against some of the laws he will now be charged with enforcing.
Christians, as well as other organised religions, are entitled to a voice within the EHRC and public life. But no one is entitled to infringe the rights as others or prevent them from accessing their rights.
Comment by Jason
5.36 pm on 9 Nov 2007
I have never heard or read Joel Edwards speak out against human rights for homosexuals, do you have some actual examples of that.
He does a religious conviction than sex outside marriage, heterosexual, or homosexual is not god’s plan for human relationships. It is another step to conflate that into claims that he is against human rights for homsexuals.
In fact on reading his public EA statement: http://tinyurl.com/yvx3k2, he speaks strongly many times of the need for human rights and the wrongness of christians who deny those rights.
He does however want to talk about the right of religious groups, and how they may have their rights denied by and automatic discrimination against them, because of the beliefs they hold.
Comment by D.G. Hollums
2.10 pm on 9 Nov 2007
Wow, sounds like there needs to be set up a lot of breakfasts, lunches, and suppers so that both groups and get to know one another and develop relationships. It is hard to hate an enemy that you eat with on a regular basis…and then speak about another of a different opinion, becomes a difference of opinions and not filled with ignorant hate or distaste.
But then again…. I say these words with a small amount of hope that something like this could happen, but then again I serve God, heh heh… yall are in our thoughts and prayers!
Comment by Colleen
10.08 pm on 9 Nov 2007
Hi Jason – the Evangelical Alliance is opposed to the Sexual Orientation Regulations and would rather Christian services close than offer those services to gay and lesbian people. The Evangelical Alliance would prefer that Christians should be allowed to deny services to lesbian and gay people, which is about the most un-Christlike thing there could ever be.
Comment by Timothy Wright
10.34 pm on 9 Nov 2007
Hi Colleen,
Love is not pleasing people with everything that they want. The body of Christ has the responsibility and joy of following the commands of Jesus. Unlike the people who take the Hippocratic oath of “Do no harm” while doing abortion which I believe the bible calls murder. We are to be people of Justice. Abortion is not an expression of justice or mercy or compassion.
This is the same situation with participating in the freedom of practicing homosexuals to adopt children. This society says that practicing homosexuals may adopt children. Love says that I will not participate in facilitating this situation to occur.
The body of Christ needs to affirm the value of people regardless of their behaviour, but we do not enable people to express their behaviour. We are called to love, not harm.
Tim
Comment by Jason
10.04 am on 10 Nov 2007
Colleen, did you read the actual EA statement by Joel Edwards, with questions about the bill, I posted the link above?
It would be great to refer the claims your making to actual statements by the EA.
Comment by Colleen
4.18 pm on 10 Nov 2007
Hi Tim – did Jesus ever say there was anything wrong with homosexual behaviour?
And I disagree that abortion is murder, but that’s a whole different kettle of fish.
Jason – I did refer directly to the EA. I didn’t read your link because their statement is massive. So I read their numerous press releases on this issue, where they urged Christians to continue providing services until the law forced them to stop. I took that to mean that once they were obliged to provide services to LGB people, they should stop providing them.
Comment by Jason
5.55 pm on 10 Nov 2007
Hi Colleen. It is slightly long, but it represents something to actually refer to over what are some serious allegations.
The EA statement says something very different to what you are wanting to assert. I’m not saying your wrong, and btw I’m not expressing an opinion about service to LGB people.
What I am asking is that with regards to accusations that Joel Edwards/EA is anti human rights for LGB people, I’d like to see something to refer to that supports that assertion.
Comment by Colleen
7.17 pm on 10 Nov 2007
Access to services are human rights for LGB people.
Comments won’t nest below this level.
Comment by Jason Clark
8.11 pm on 10 Nov 2007
I also think that they are.
However that’s still leaves your assertions about Joe Edwards and the EA without a reference.
Comment by Colleen
9.27 pm on 10 Nov 2007
I’m not sure where you’ve got muddled, because that is my substantive point. Access to services for LGB people are human rights. Joe Edwards, as representative of the EA, campaigned against the introduction of this law. The EA is opposed to the extension of rights in this area, ergo, anti human rights for LGB people.
Reply here
Comment by Jonathan Brink
5.47 am on 10 Nov 2007
In facebook there is an app called Ask A Question. You can make one or ask for a suggestion. So I was flipping through the questions and one said, “Should religious people be banned from positions of power?”
Comment by Timothy Wright
7.34 pm on 10 Nov 2007
Hi Colleen,
I believe that Jesus laid down what is the context for sexual relationships.
Matthew 19:4-6
4″Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’[a] 5and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’[b]? 6So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.”
Jesus did not say anything against incest or bestiality . Probably like you I also
think they are do not contribute to the Kingdom of God.
Tim
Comment by Jason
9.42 pm on 10 Nov 2007
Colleen you said:
“I’m not sure where you’ve got muddled, because that is my substantive point. Access to services for LGB people are human rights. Joe Edwards, as representative of the EA, campaigned against the introduction of this law. The EA is opposed to the extension of rights in this area, ergo, anti human rights for LGB people.”
I don’t think I am muddled at all :-) I think I hear you and have reflected/understood that you think access to services for LGB is a human right. However you keep claiming the EA and Joel Edwards believe otherwise, and I have posted a document from them that would show something different than you have stated.
All I am asking, is for you to reference/provide a text/link that supports your claim, or to let me know that you don’t have one if you can’t locate it.
Your claim may be correct, I have just been asking, and am still asking for something from you that supports your accusation/assertion.
Comment by Colleen
11.42 pm on 13 Nov 2007
http://www.eauk.org/media/equality-act-decision.cfm
You may also be interested in this article: http://www.thefword.org.uk/blog/2007/11/i_thought_the_p
Comment by Jason
11.52 am on 14 Nov 2007
Thanks Colleen. Read against the longer statement I posted for you, and now this press release from Joel Edwards warning evangelicals about what he won’t be doing (EA statement), I still think Joel Edwards and the EA are not the anti human rights monsters portrayed by certain groups.
Comment by James Prescott
9.49 pm on 18 Nov 2007
I think its really important to take a stand, but to do so in a way which is in love. A way which shows respect for others opinions and lifestyles, but isn’t afraid to be different.
This world is apathetic and thinks that we’re doomed to live in a negative, cyncial, painful world and we have to get on with it.
Jesus says that’s not the case. He is a symbol of hope, that there is something bigger, better and more powerful than the world and cutlure we live in. That points towards a different, better kind of life. Jesus wants us to live life and have it in all its fullness – and that’s what being a Christian does.
We don’t have to alienate ourselves. Being a Christian is about taking a stand for the things Jesus did, in love and not being afraid to share that with the world.
Jesus doesn’t make life easier – it just makes it easier to deal with.
That’s all the ideal of course. The practical is different, becuase the church is divided. What one Christian/denomination/group/church/teacher says is truth, another says is almost heresy. How can the church take a stand when its divided against itself?
Comments are now closed.