Archive for the ‘Apologetics’ category

Newer Entries »

Discrimination against British Christians: Update 1

May 30th, 2012

This article is an update to my main paper “Discrimination against British Christian” which is on our Christian Teaching Resources website at

http://www.christianteaching.org.uk/DiscriminationAgainstBritishChristians.pdf

The EHRC Human Rights Review 2012

 

It was not until the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA) that legislation recognised a general legal right to religious freedom. This allows religious organisations to discriminate over employment and provision of services in specific circumstances. For example, a synagogue can have separate seating for men and women at a reception following a religious service; the Catholic Church can require that a Catholic priest be an unmarried man; and a Muslim faith school can require for a successful applicant for a headship which includes a religious role to, be a Muslim.

 

The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) produced its Human Rights Review 2012 entitled “How fair is Britain?” and included comment on Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights “The right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.”

 

Article 9:2 states that “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.”

 

This immediately raises important questions. Who defines the term “morals”? Many Christians would claim that in disapproving of homosexual practice they are protecting morals. Others would strongly disagree.

 

Even more important is when there is a clash of rights and freedoms, who decides which rights and freedoms take precedence? This issue is a main cause of concern to Christians who see their religious rights and freedoms being curtailed because of the rights and freedoms of those who disagree with them.

 

The EHRC Review refers to these issues: “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. Indirect discrimination provisions in domestic law covering protection for individual beliefs may not be consistent with Article 9.” It quotes Lord Nicholls comments in the Williamson case (2005): “Religious and other beliefs and convictions are part of the humanity of every individual. They are an integral part of his personality and individuality. In a civilised society individuals respect each other’s beliefs.”

 

The Review accepts that manifestation of religion “can occur through worship, teaching and proselytism, observation by wearing symbols or special clothes, or by eating or avoiding certain foods.”  But it points out that the right to manifest a belief is a qualified, “for example, by uniform policies at work or school, or requirements to work at certain times or carry out certain tasks.”

 

It quoted the British Social Attitudes Survey 2009 which stated that just 2% of religious people in Britain said that they had experienced discrimination or harassment because of their religion or beliefs in the previous 12 months.

 

The Review acknowledges that “the recent 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.” But it comments: “This view does not appear to be widely held, however, among the representatives of different religious groups” and that some secular groups believe religious groups enjoy more protection than they do.

 

The Review recorded that “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 EHRC believes that British courts have taken the appropriate approach in cases balancing competing interests and states: “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.” However it goes on to state: “The Commission believes that domestic courts are setting too high a threshold for the preliminary question whether there has been an interference with the right to manifest a religion or belief and that, as a result, they are too often failing to consider the question of justification.”

 

The Review records a new approach in the European Court of Human Rights: “That Court has become more ready to accept claims of interference with applicants’ rights to manifest belief, and to focus on the question of justification. This is an approach the Equality and Human Rights Commission welcomes.”

 

The EHRC also refers to indirect discrimination where a rule or practice applicable to everyone has a disproportionate adverse effect on a particular group of people, such as people sharing a specific religious belief. It comments: “The European Court of Human Rights has, until recently, tended to take the view that a practice amounted to the ‘manifestation’ of a religion or belief only if required by the particular religion or philosophical belief. In recent judgments, however, the Court has found that Article 9 protects religious practices not prescribed by a religion, thus suggesting that personal rather than group belief is protected.”

 

Finally, the Commission says that British courts “should comply with the obligation imposed by the Human Rights Act 1998 to interpret equality legislation compatibly with the Convention. The Convention should be followed to ensure that the requirement to demonstrate group disadvantage does not overwhelm an individual right to manifest a belief. The question of justification would still remain for the courts to determine.”

 

This is relevant to a cases like Nadia Eweida, the British Airways employee who was asked to cover up a necklace which included a cross, and Shirley Chaplin, the nurse who was banned from working on hospital wards after she refused to remove a cross from her neck, because wearing a cross is a personal preference, not something required by Christianity.

BBC Director: Christianity treated with less sensitivity

 

Mark Thompson, Director of the BBC, stated in February 2012 that other faiths tend to receive more sensitive treatment by the BBC because they have “very close identity with ethnic minorities.” This seems a valid policy, within reason. However, the BBC does seem to go beyond the line at times and to treat Christianity with contempt. Fair criticism is acceptable but extensive ridicule is not. For example it is rather wearisome that in TV drama clergy are all too often portrayed as hypocrites, weirdos or criminals.

 

He stated that he was a “practising Catholic” and added: “One of the mistakes secularists make is not to understand the character of what blasphemy feels like to someone who is a realist in their religious belief.”

Maleiha Malik, Professor of Law, on Religious Freedom

 

Maleiha Malik is Professor of Law at King’s College, London. In the Westminster faith Debates held in April, she pleads for an approach to religious freedom based on tolerance rather than rights. She said:

 

“I want to suggest that current framings of the issue in relation to the right to religious freedom, or in terms of equality and non-discrimination, have led us into an impasse. The debate collapses into a clash of rights or a clash of equalities – ‘my right to religious freedom or equality versus your right to equality on the grounds of sexual orientation’. My view is that the principle of tolerance does more useful work.

 

“The speech/conduct distinction also becomes crucial. Those with strong religious beliefs about women, gays and lesbians can hold that view or express that view; BUT they cannot act on their belief in ways that constitute discriminatory harassment (via speech) or discriminatory acts (via conduct).”

 

Professor Malik points out that the law already allows religious people “significant exemptions to discriminate against gays and lesbians. As a society, we’ve reached an agreement about the balance between the rights of the religious and equality for women, gays and lesbians enshrined in our recent legislation. If the religious want to rebalance this, then they should join with their fellow citizens for reform of the Equality Act 2010.”

 

She believes the Ladele judgment (the former registrar, disciplined by Islington Council for refusing to conduct same-sex civil partnership ceremonies) was correct because “it would be a significant step backward if, having won the fight for the right to same-sex civil partnerships, gay and lesbian couples could be shunned by the very people charged by us as a society with solemnizing.” She added: “There should be no accommodation for the religious where the exemption is from a key ‘constitutional’/human rights or equality value. Individuals cannot expect to directly influence the provision of public services to the general public to conform with their personal religious where that accommodation constitutes a breach of the constitutional/human right of another citizen.”

 

However, we repeat the argument outlined above in the main paper: The law helpfully already allows religious organisations to discriminate when they appoint staff whose work clearly requires them to follow a particular religion. Also, churches and similar religious bodies have been given the option of not celebrating civil relationships (the main issue being homosexual civil relationships). It follows that the law also could and should allow registrars the option of not conducting same-sex civil partnership ceremonies (the clients being dealt with by other colleagues happy to do so).

Christian radio station loses legal battle over advert

 

Premier Radio wanted to broadcast an advert asking Christians to report their experiences of marginalisation in the workplace but the courts have supported the Radio Advertising Clearance Centre (RACC) refusing to approve the advert. It is claimed that the advert had a political aim and so was contrary to broadcasting prohibitions on political advertising.

 

Peter Kerridge of Premier Radio claimed that the decision was a direct threat to freedom of speech and is “wholly reminiscent of a totalitarian state.”

Two different views of equality

 

It is obvious that a big issue facing British Christians today is the relationship between Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights about the right to freedom of religious practice and Article 14 about the prohibition of discrimination. Megan Pearson, a doctoral researcher at the London School of Economics specialising in the clash between articles 9 and 14, refers to the clash of two different world views. Pearson says that the modern western mindset is dominated by the Enlightenment concept of the individual; a non-gender-specific, autonomous body with personal rights and freedoms. “But the Christian view is that we are not individuals. We are persons in relationships and as you try to build stable community bodies there is a differentiation of roles.”  Men and women are equal but different and that difference is important to the functioning of our society.

 

Pearson claims that for the secular modern world justice is justice for the individual (and equality the way to achieve that), but for the Christian it is communal and is achieved by fulfilling the needs of others. He suggests that any interference with an individual’s rights should be proportionate to the interests of society. This could be interpreted as balancing justice for the individual against justice for the community.

An unlikely alliance

 

The National Secular Society and the Christian Institute, with others, have formed ‘Reform Section 5’ which is calling on the Home Secretary to amend the Public Order Act, which outlaws ‘insulting words or behaviour’. Section 5 of the Act states:

Harassment, alarm or distress.

1. A person is guilty of an offence if he-
(a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
(b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting, within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby.

 

They argue that the word ‘insulting’ is unclear, and allows for controversial arrests. So, for example, Dale McAlpine, a Christian street preacher was arrested simply for saying homosexual practice is a sin and a student was arrested for holding a placard saying “Scientology is a cult”. Christians (and others) could easily be arrested for making reasonable critical comments about other views or behaviour. Keith Porteous of the National Secular Society was surely correct when he said: “Freedom only to say what others find acceptable is no freedom at all.”

Conclusion

 

In the main paper I concluded:

 

  • That recent high profile cases of Christians being penalised for wearing Christian symbols (including in hospitals where people of other faiths are allowed to do the equivalent), for sensitively praying (as a health professional) with or sharing their faith with patients, for refusing (even as professionals) certain involvement with homosexuals should not have happened.

 

  • That the new legislation on equality needs to be reassessed so that religious freedom is not undermined.

 

  • Both judges and employers sadly have accepted the propaganda that Britain is no longer a Christian country in terms of public opinion.

 

  • That some people in the pro-gay lobby are using the gay issue not just to seek respect and equality for homosexuals but to use the issue (quite effectively) as a Trojan horse to marginalize orthodox Christians and the church. It is proving very effective.

 

  • That Christianity is being marginalised in judicial proceedings, employment, as well as in parts of the media.

 

Finally, I wrote: “Are British Christians being “persecuted”? Well …. no, not yet. But some are being discriminated against and oppressed, including by well-meaning but misled people, and the future is likely to be even more difficult for them.”

 

This update shows that:

 

  • The Equality and Human Rights Commission is critiquing the courts’ approach to religious freedom, particularly to manifest a religion or belief, and particularly the rights of the individual in this respect. It clearly thinks the courts have sometimes got this wrong. But the EHRC (and some legal experts) still upholds some of the judgments which I believe are not justified.

 

  • The BBC accepts it discriminates against Christianity because it is not associated with an ethnic minority.

 

  • One of the problems is modern western individualism with its over-emphasis on the rights of the individual (a non-gender-specific, autonomous body with personal rights and freedoms) as opposed to the Christian view which values the individual but also emphasizes community where people are equal but different and that difference is important to the functioning of our society.

 

  • Both Christian and secular groups are working together to remove the very unhelpful use of the word “insulting” in section 5 of the Public Order Act which has been used to curb proper freedom of expression.

 

No comments »

Posted in Apologetics, Justice

Tags:

A response to Stephen Hawking’s atheism

December 12th, 2011

I love science, especially astronomy and cosmology, and read it daily. I was aware all of the information contained in the recent TV programme featuring Stephen Hawking “Did God create the universe?”

 

Initially he described the ways the church had opposed scientist such as Galileo. He then described how subatomic particles appear, disappear and reappear at random out of nothing. He went on to say that, similarly, the universe originally was very small – a singularity – hence it too could come into existence out of nothing without violating the known laws of physics. It was originally an infinitesimally small black hole which exploded in the Big Bang ultimately to form the universe as we know it. He asked whether God created the quantum laws governing this and commented that science has a more compelling explanation. His main thesis was that there was no time before the Big Bang so, said Hawking, it doesn’t have a cause. In fact there was no time in which a cause could exist. He concluded that the question “Did God create the universe?” was therefore a question that doesn’t make sense. Then he added that there is probably no heaven and no afterlife.

 

I was both surprised and disappointed that the programme, and Hawking’s thesis, was so superficial. In passing, let me say that yes, the church did maltreat scientists at one time. But he didn’t mention that Protestantism facilitated growth of science and that many scientists have been or are Christians. Nor did he mention that science has perpetrated some evils too. Take Eugenics which was popular in the early 20th century and called for the sterilization of the mentally ill, the blind, the deaf, the disabled, etc., and led to enforced “racial hygiene.” Are we to write science off because of such disgraceful aberrations? Yet Hawking appeared to be implying religion should be written off because of the malpractice mentioned.

 

Hawking described creation ex nihilo (out of nothing), which Christians have always believed, then made a leap of faith to state that there is no divine being behind it. This is as much a statement of faith as saying God is behind it. What evidence does he have to prove there is no God? He said there was no time in which a cause of the Big Bang could exist, ignoring the concept that God is outside of time.

 

And yet theoretical physicists believe in dark matter, dark energy and dark flow without being able to prove they exist. They also hold that there could be many universes (the multiverse theory). These beliefs are purely theoretical because they work and fit in with the maths. I have no problem in principle in believing in these things. They appear to be required because of anomalies in the universe which cannot be explained by normal matter and energy. But they are statements of faith

 

By the same token, Christians argue that a divine creator is also required because that alone can answer the fundamental questions: Why is there anything at all? Granted everything came from nothing but why did that happen? Granted there was no time ‘before’ the Big Bang but why does that exclude an eternal creator?

 

Hawking might argue that there is no scientific evidence for a divine creator. But who ordained that scientific evidence is the only allowable evidence. Can science disprove my religious experience is actually of God. It is part of my evidence for believing in God. It is a quality of experience transcending any other. It is an experience of numinous. Rudolph Otto said the numinous experience has two aspects: mysterium tremendum, a tendency to invoke fear and trembling; and mysterium fascinans, a tendency to attract, fascinate and compel. There is also a sense of being in communion with a wholly other, a sense of supernatural presence. It is a sublime, awe-inspiring experience which is beyond comprehension.

 

Some people have tried to separate the numinous from religion, for example Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens etc. It is clear that, for instance, some astronomers have a sense of awe as they contemplate the universe, and I share that. In so far as that is the same as my religious experience (and that can legitimately be debated) it is evidence that human beings are worshipping creatures. Some may ‘worship’ creation rather than a creator but the sense of worship/numinous is one evidence for God. The idea that such exalted experiences together with love, altruism, personality, art, music, poetry, etc., just emerged out of the Big Bang with no cause and no divine creator is not only a statement that cannot be verified but it stretches credulity. It is far more credible that they are evidences of a divine creator.

 

True, science may be able to describe physiological and psychological aspects of religious experience but how can it prove that those aspects are the only cause of religious experience?

 

Hawking seemed to be implying that religion was caused by human beings being unable in the past to explain fearful experiences such as eclipses. However it seems much more credible that since religion is universal, it caused religious reactions to phenomena like eclipses, rather than the other way round. Why should a religious reaction to some phenomena not be an evidence of the existence of a divine creator?  What evidence does Hawking have that, since seeing an eclipse as the wrath of God is mistaken, that means the concept of God is mistaken? That certainly does not follow.

 

Hawking is one of the many who see scientific proof as the only proof. But, as I asked above, who ordained that the world is only scientific or only scientific questions may be asked. This attitude is narrow-minded, arrogant, scientific fundamentalism.

 

We might add questions about Jesus who, on a careful reading of the NT, claimed to be God. As C S Lewis said: was he mad, bad or God? If Hawking and his atheistic colleagues believe Jesus was mad or bad they are really sticking their necks out (although Hawking did not mention Jesus in this programme).

 

Unfortunately, some scientists who are highly qualified in their field of expertise have a GCSE level of understanding of religion, yet feel qualified to pontificate about it.

 

Hawking and his atheistic colleagues may think, in their rather puerile understanding of Christianity, that religion has had its day. But I have to respond that the demise of religion/spirituality is consistently behind schedule.

No comments »

Posted in Apologetics

Tags:

Is the Church of England in terminal decline?

March 13th, 2011

The C of E has just published (yet another) report. It publishes many of them. During my 14 years on the General Synod I think the authorities must have destroyed half a rain forest to produce all the paperwork we were given.

This one is called “Challenges for the New Quinquennium” which, you must admit, is a catchy title. It was written by the Bishops of Birmingham and Derby with others. The bishops have realised that the future of the church is under threat. One great need, they say, “is to be explicit about the need to counter attempts to marginalise Christianity and to treat religious faith more generally as a social problem. This is partly about taking on the ‘new atheism’.”  It goes on “about challenging public bodies to understand that the proper avoidance of religious discrimination does not mean being suspicious of or hostile towards churches and other faith groups.”

That is indeed a major challenge. I’m not naive enough to hanker for the (allegedly) “good old days” but it is amazing and disturbing to see the change in our own society over the last few decades. We have changed from a society where religion (mainly Christianity) was respected to where it is treated as, at best, irrelevant and, at worst, anti-social and even dangerous. We have changed from where the church’s position and influence in society was accepted to where there is an increasing desire to marginalise and exclude it.

Yes, we need to take on the “new atheism” which is what I have sought to do in this website (see http://www.christianteaching.org.uk/apologetics.html).  But we also need to take on the more subtle attacks through politicians and society leaders who have let political correctness undermine their common sense, and through the constant secularist propaganda emanating from news, documentaries and drama in the media.

However, I think the church itself is significantly to blame. I note that the report does not refer to the church’s failings. As I read it various serious weaknesses in the church came to mind.

1. The clergy are not trained to do evangelism

“Challenges for the New Quinquennium” calls on the church “to take forward the spiritual and numerical growth of the Church of England.”  It adds: “Giving priority to the gifts and practice of evangelism will be an urgent challenge for the Church of England in this quinquennium.”

This sounds good and I’m glad evangelism is getting a mention, but in my view it is just words, rather like the Decade of Evangelism some years ago had little practical effect. The problem is that many clergy simply don’t know how to do evangelism. They don’t know how to put the gospel over simply and convincingly so that people want to commit their lives to Christ. They don’t know how to lead a person to Christ.  As far as I can tell, there is very often no practical training in evangelism in ordination courses and colleges. That’s because many of the trainers (including of clergy) don’t know how to do it themselves. Whilst this remains the case there is no hope of extensive numerical growth in the C of E.

I thank God for my background and training which gave me practical help as to how to do evangelism, how to lead people to Christ. Such help is available – but not in the average C of E ordination (or Readership) training.

2. “A growing and sustainable Christian witness in every local community” is a pipe dream

The report calls on the church “to re-shape or reimagine the Church’s ministry for the century coming, so as to make sure that there is a growing and sustainable Christian witness in every local community.”

This is a laudable aim but it is a pipe dream as things stand at present, partly because of the lack of evangelism and partly because of a lack of radical thinking about the role of stipendiary clergy. The report notes that “40% of the Church of England’s stipendiary clergy are due to retire in the next decade.”  This means that the remaining stipendiary clergy will be spread very thinly across the country. Already clergy have 8, 9, 10 or more parishes under their care, especially in rural areas. In practice this breeds a filling station approach to the church. The vicar rushes around filling up the tiny, dwindling congregations with bread and wine, liturgy and sermons. Eventually the vicar will be rushing around taking funerals and then there will be no more need to rush around with bread and wine, liturgy and sermons.

It is essential that the church uses local people, living permanently in the parish, as the mainstay of the church’s ministry to that parish. But again, the church has paid lip service to developing every member ministry. Many clergy simply don’t know how to do it.  It requires:

a.       Encouraging spirituality through prayer, fellowship and the teaching of Scripture. Sunday services are not in themselves adequate for this but without this spiritual growth and openness to the Holy Spirit there is no foundation for every member ministry.

b.      There is a need for practical teaching about the different gifts and a practical way of finding the individual’s gift(s).

c.       Then there is a need for encouragement and training to use that gift.

Leadership is important but it won’t be able to rely on stipendiary clergy. The church is lamenting the imminent retirement of 40% of the stipendiary clergy and yet many of those clergy, when retired, will be willing to take a practical lead especially in the parish where they live. The church appears to be very haphazard, inadequate and wasteful in its approach to the use of retired clergy who are willing to be used.

Then there are NSMs (non-stipendiary ministers) and OLM’s (Ordained Local Ministers) who can be helpful, although it appears that their training leaves a lot to be desired. Sometimes NSM’s and OLMs are attached to parishes well served by stipendiary clergy and that can be unhelpful. I had two OLMs in one parish alongside a stipendiary curate, two Readers and myself as Rector. A lot of the effort I put into planning worship was working out how to use the whole team adequately and fairly. We were overstaffed, yet other local parishes were understaffed. We need NSMs and OLMs in parishes where stipendiary clergy are not constantly available. We can also use Readers to take the lead in the local church. I’m not denying this happens in some situations but the C of E still seems too wed to the idea of the stipendiary cleric in every parish. And it won’t work.

3. There is a lack of corporate prayer

Here we are, facing perhaps the greatest challenge to the future of the church and you won’t find the word “prayer” anywhere in this official General Synod report. I heard a bishop say once: “When the church gets stuck it appoints a committee.”

Maybe the Lord won’t take our concern for the future of the church seriously until we all get down on our knees to ask him to do something about it. Oh yes, we pray in church – for a few minutes. But we follow someone who, despite a very busy timetable, spent nights of prayer and often withdrew to prayer.

The church which prays together will grow. Some traditions are not used to prayer meetings. Even amongst Evangelicals there seems a widespread lack of interest in them. No wonder the future looks bleak, the church is declining and in many communities will die of old age.

The real challenges for new quinquennium are:

1.      For clergy to learn how to do evangelism, to teach others to do evangelism and to engage in it.

2.      For churches to encourage spirituality through prayer, fellowship and the teaching of Scripture, to teach about and practically find the gifts of churchmembers and to use them.

3.      For the church to be more creative as to how it uses retired clergy, NSMs, OLMs and Readers to lead local congregations.

For the church to get down on its knees for extensive, regular prayer about the future and its challenges.

6 comments »

Posted in Apologetics, Church Issues

Tags:

Is Britain anti-Christian?

November 14th, 2010

Is Britain really marginalising Christianity or, worse still, developing an antagonism towards Christianity? Is this just paranoia on the part of “Disgusted of Tonbridge” who is an avid reader of the Daily Telegraph?  A recent ComRes poll found that 75% of churchgoers believe anti-Christian attitudes are growing and 66% believe there is more discrimination against Christianity than other faiths.

David Suchet said: “Christianity is being marginalised.” Cherie Blair said: “Christians are often being marginalised and faith is something few people like to discuss openly.” Baroness Warsi spoke of “a growing intolerance and illiberal attitude towards those who believe in God.”

What are the facts?

There is no doubt about it that there are a growing number of worrying trends:

1. Christians being disciplined or taken to court for expressing their faith.

  • A Christian nurse suspended for offering to pray for a patient’s recovery.
  • A Christian school receptionist disciplined for emailing church friends about her young daughter being reprimanded for conveying to a fellow-pupil that Christianity is true.
  • A Christian foster carer struck off for allowing a Muslim teenager in her care to convert to Christianity.
  • A Christian British Airways worker, disciplined for not hiding a cross she had on her necklace.
  • Christian hoteliers charged with a public order offence for criticising Islam.
  • And so on …. Although it took place in America, it is likely to happen here: a young single Christian woman advertised in her church for a Christian roommate and was taken to court for expressing “an illegal preference for a Christian roommate, thus excluding people of other faiths”.

2. Local councils preventing Christians advertising Christian events.

  • Brighton Christian prevented from advertising a Christian event in her local library because the council does “not accept any material promoting a particular religious view point.”
  • Sunderland church prevented from putting up a church poster because it may offend other faiths.
  • Sunderland church banned from advertising the Women’s World Day of Prayer in libraries. (Local Sunderland Muslims and Sikhs criticised both these bans).
  • Churches in two areas prevented from advertising a meeting about Religion and Climate Change in libraries unless they removed the words “Christian” and “God.”

3. Minimising major Christian festivals

  • For some time certain councils have tried to ban the use of the term “Christmas” and to replace it with some rather silly secular term. Communities Minister Eric Pickles commented:  “Can you honestly tell me someone has ever said to you ‘Merry Winter-ice’? No they have not. Winter festivals exist only in the minds of beanbag-sitting weirdos.”
  • A survey discovered that a third of schools were moving to a fixed Spring break, many of them not coinciding with Easter.
  • The C of E has recently launched The Real Easter Egg which bears a hill with three crosses and has an explanation that Jesus was crucified on Good Friday and resurrected on Easter Day. But they have discovered that supermarkets are reluctant to sell them.

It may be thought that these three examples are relatively superficial but I’ll return to this later.

4. The failure of schools to teach the Christian Faith

  • OFSTED has reported recently that schools are failing in RE. The teaching is superficial: “In many cases, the study of Jesus focused on an unsystematic collection of information about his life, with limited reference to his theological significance within the faith”.  The report was based on a study of  some 200 schools in 70 local authorities, which included attendance at over 600 RE lessons between 2006 and 2009.

  • The 2009 National Biblical Literacy Survey 2009 polled more than 900 people and found 60 per cent knew nothing about the Good Samaritan, and 57 per cent were ignorant of Joseph and his brothers.
  • Another survey, discovered that the Lord’s Prayer was no longer being taught in many primary schools.

Educationally, this does not make sense. A person cannot claim to be educated if s/he does not understand the major role Christianity played in the history and developing culture of this nation, quite apart from the fact that a person who does not have good grasp of religion cannot claim to be properly educated. Even to reject religion intelligently requires a good knowledge of what one is rejecting. Otherwise it is merely anti-religious prejudice or unthinking apathy.

5. The decline of religion on television

The General Synod of the Church of England recently expressed deep concern about this. It resulted from a private member’s motion from Nigel Holmes, an ex-BBC radio producer. He said that “in television, lack of innovation combined with marginalised scheduling” suggests TV controllers had largely “shunned” spiritual subjects. He added that over the past decade ITV had “virtually withdrawn” from religion whilst televised worship was “seldom” shown on the BBC.

6. The widespread apathy about Christianity

  • Christians frequently claim that the majority of the country, especially the young, are apathetic about Christianity. A recent book The Faith of Generation Y, a sociological study of 300 youngsters born after 1982 states that this age group are “benignly indiffer­ent to religion.”
  • · Claire Rayner once summed up this apathy to the British Humanist Association: “We don’t have to bother ourselves too much about what lies behind it all. It’s there. We are here. What is is. Our job is to get on with things, trying to make life better as we go.” She died recently, so no doubt she takes a different line now.

7. The views of political leaders

Our political leaders, like everyone else, have the freedom to choose their own religious views. Ed Miliband, although he comes from a Jewish background, has said: “I don’t believe in God personally but I have great respect for those people who do.”  Nick Clegg has said the same thing, but added: “I’m married to a Catholic and am committed to bringing my children up as Catholics. However, I myself am not an active believer, but the last thing I would do when talking or thinking about religion is approach it with a closed heart or a closed mind.”  David Cameron said in an interview: “I believe in God and I’m a Christian and I worship – not as regularly as I should – but I go to church. Do I drop to my knees and ask for guidance whenever an issue comes up? No, I don’t. But it’s part of who I am.”  However, their views will influence their opinions and actions in certain ways, try as they may to be objective. So, for example, Ed Miliband is against the free speech law which allows Christians and others to express the opinion that homosexual practice is wrong. Were the law to be changed, that could create real difficulties for many Christians.

On the other hand, Baroness Warsi, Conservative Party Chair, has criticised the previous Labour Government for marginalising faith and encouraging intellectuals who sustain “a vocabulary of secularist intolerance.”  She also criticised “secular fundamentalists” who claimed faith communities were intolerant and exclusive in their welfare provision.  She referred to recent research by York University which showed they were more open and inclusive than other agencies.

Labour leaders such as Andy Burnham have acknowledged that the previous government marginalized Christianity.

Other politicians take the view summed up by the Lord Mayor of Leicester who has written: “I am delighted to confirm that I …. will be exercising my discretion as Lord Mayor to abolish the outdated, unnecessary and intrusive practice [of prayers before the Council meetings]. I personally consider that religion, in whatever shape or form, has no role to play at all in the conduct of council business.”  The Lord Mayor is to be congratulated on showing his ignorance of what religion is and his total disregard for the historic culture of this country in such a succinct way.

GOOD NEWS

However, there is some good news to balance the negatives:

1. The majority of Britons consider themselves Christian

A 2010 survey found that 65% of the population consider themselves Christians. Nevertheless average weekly attendance in the Church of England fell from 1,160,000 in 2007 to 1,145,000 now.  However the average number of children and young people in services each week rose from 219,000 in 2007 to 225,000 now. Overall 10% of the UK population attend church regularly and a further 15% attend occasionally.

The Church’s head of Research and Sta­tistics, the Rev Lynda Barley, said: “We live in a society where people are reluctant to belong or become members of anything. Political parties have seen their membership fall by around 40 per cent in recent years. You could say that that phenomenon is true in all sorts of areas. I think the only member­ship organisation we found that was grow­ing was the National Trust.”

2. Record numbers choose to do RE

The number taking GCSE RE has increased for the 12th year running, with a 3.5 per cent growth from last year to 188,704 students. RE has entered the top 10 league table of subjects in terms of the number of candi­dates, and remains in the top five of grow­ing subjects.

For the last seven years the number of students taking Religious Studies A-level, has increased by 47.3%  overall.

In another survey 75% of respondents said they owned a Bible and 31% said the Bible was significant in their lives.

CONCLUSION

It is easy for Christians to become paranoid and imagine that things are worse than they are. If two thirds of the population claim to be Christians (whether or not they understand what that entails), three quarters own a Bible with a third saying it is significant in their lives, it is difficult to conclude that the whole country is deliberately marginalizing Christianity or even antagonistic towards it.

However, there are powerful anti-Christian forces at work.  I have long maintained that in the church there are liberal liberals (people who have liberal views but respect and tolerate conservatives) and illiberal liberals (those who are intolerant and antagonistic towards conservatives). Doubtless there is the same distinction in society with secularists. Liberal secularists are genuinely atheistic or agnostic but show respect and tolerance towards religious people. But there are also some very influential illiberal secularists – “secular fundamentalists” – who are antagonistic towards religion and are seeking to marginalize and exclude Christians. Some politicians, educationalists, journalists and other media people and even judges are secular fundamentalists, and they are have enormous and increasing influence in our nation which, although nominally Christian is in many ways post-Christian.

It does not help that many of those calling themselves Christians do not appreciate the essential corporate nature of Christianity which makes the church crucial. Without perhaps meaning to, these people can contribute to the marginalization of the church and of organized religion.

Is Britain anti-Christian? Most British people are not but the overall trend is increasing antagonism towards Christianity and Christians need to be aware of it. The church should not seek political power or to coerce individuals. Such power-seeking is alien to Christianity and has led to various evils in the past. But, Christians should take a stand to preserve freedom of religion and freedom to evangelize (respectfully and without pressure). However much we should respect other faiths, we must work to preserve the right to say (again respectfully and sensitively) that Jesus is the only Saviour.

2 comments »

Posted in Apologetics

Tags:

Has science squeezed God out?

November 14th, 2010

Julian Baggini, editor of ‘The Philosophers’ Magazine’ claims that “If science has not actually killed God, it has rendered Him unrecognisable.”  He refers to the Chief Rabbis opinion that science is about the how and religion the why of the universe. But he says that it is not as simple as that.

He accepts that science leaves room for a God who “kick-started the whole universe off in the first place.” But he adds that science “does leave presumed dead in the water anything like the God most people over history have believed in: one who is closely involved in his creation, who intervenes in our lives, and with whom we can have a personal relationship. In short, there is no room in the universe of Hawking or most other scientists for the activist God of the Bible.

He points out that Stephen Hawking said in Channel 4 “You can call the laws of science ‘God’ if you like,” he told Channel 4 earlier this year, “but it wouldn’t be a personal God that you could meet, and ask questions.” Also Antony Flew, a famous, life-long atheist who came to believe in God in his eighties, believed in a Deist God, i.e. one who started the universe then left it, and us, to get on with it without him.

Baggini concludes: “In the scientific universe, God is squeezed until his pips squeak. If he survives, then he can’t do so without changing his form. Only faith makes it possible to look at such a distorted, scientifically respectable deity and claim to recognise the same chap depicted on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. For those without faith, that God is clearly dead, and, yes, science helped to kill him.”

Well, I’m not going to defend the Sistine Chapel ceiling as literal! It illustrates the problem of Christians projecting caricatures of God, including the implication that God is some elderly Santa Claus figure sitting on a literal throne somewhere in a vertical direction from earth. Then there are creationists who claim God created the universe in six days 6000 years ago.  Some Christians have projected a “God of the gaps,” claiming God as the explanation for anything science can’t explain. This god retreats as science fills the gaps in its knowledge.

But I don’t believe for a moment that Baggini has proved his point. He is attacking a caricature of the God of the Bible. He accepts the idea of God initiating the universe. But he then bases his comments on a crude view of God’s sovereignty over and relationship with the world. God’s sovereignty is not human dictatorship and control writ large. It is much more sophisticated and subtle than that.

The New Testament states that the Son of God, incarnate as Jesus, was the one “through whom also he made the universe” (Heb 1:2).  Elsewhere Jesus is called the Word. “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.” (John 1:1-3).

The universe was created by God’s command – he spoke it into being through his infinite majesty and sovereignty. Scientifically, that involved the Big Bang and development over the last 13.7 billion years.

It adds: “The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word” (Heb 1:3). St Paul said: “The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by human hands. And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything. Rather, he himself gives everyone life and breath and everything else. ….. he is not far from any one of us. ‘For in him we live and move and have our being.’ (Acts 17:24-28).  Similarly Paul writes: “The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible …. all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together” (Col 1:15-17).

God sustains all things in existence by his word, otherwise they would be annihilated. He holds everything together in mutually beneficial relationship, otherwise the created order would fall apart.

However, God’s sovereignty is exercised subtly. He works through what we see as natural processes, just as he works out his purposes through the free choices of human beings. Paul writes to the Philippians: “Continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you to will and to act in order to fulfil his good purpose” (Php 2:12-13). In other words, God acts as people work on the process of “being saved.”

So the God of the Bible is not the caricature god of Baggini. He is not only the God who initiated the universe, but the one who subtly, but with infinite power, sustains everything in existence and holds everything together in mutually beneficial relationship. In addition, as the huge amount of evidence of religious experience indicates, he is a God who is love and who reaches out to individuals in that love, inviting a loving response.

Apparently, Richard Dawkins would like to start an atheist school which would teach children “to ask for evidence, to be sceptical, critical, open-minded”.  He adds: “If children understand that beliefs should be substantiated with evidence, as opposed to tradition, authority, revelation or faith, they will automatically work out for themselves that they are atheists.”  His school would teach about ancient Greek religions and Norse gods. Also he said: “The Bible should be taught, but emphatically not as reality. It is fiction, myth, poetry, anything but reality. As such it needs to be taught because it underlies so much of our literature and our culture.” I have no problem with children being critical and open-minded, but if they are not taught about the awesome concept of God described in the New Testament, the God constantly behind the existence and development of the universe, they will be impoverished, as, sadly, Dawkins is himself.

No comments »

Posted in Apologetics

Tags:

The wind could have parted Red Sea for Moses

November 14th, 2010

Many people have rejected the Exodus story of the miraculous crossing of the Red Sea by the Israelites as a myth. But recent scientific research has shown that the story does have a basis in physical laws.

The National Center for Atmospheric Research and the University of Colorado said that computer simulations show the wind could push water back at a point where a river bent to merge with a coastal lagoon. The leader of the research said: “The simulations match fairly closely with the account in Exodus.  The parting of the waters can be understood through fluid dynamics. The wind moves the water in a way that’s in accordance with physical laws, creating a safe passage with water on two sides and then abruptly allowing the water to rush back in.”

The research showed that a 63 mph wind, blowing for 12 hours, could have pushed back waters 6 feet deep. “This land bridge is 3-4 km (2 to 2.5 miles) long and 5 km (3 miles) wide, and it remains open for 4 hours.”

If this did in fact happen it was a miracle of timing, rather than an event transcending physical laws. At least it should make people think twice before they dismiss these old stories in the Bible.

No comments »

Posted in Apologetics

Tags:

Hawking finally disproves God – or does he?

November 4th, 2010

I am fascinated by cosmology and astronomy. They can be awesome subjects and sometimes provide real challenges to religious thinking. I also really enjoy dialoguing with atheists and agnostics.

Professor Stephen Hawking’s previous book “A Brief History of Time” was a best seller. Millions bought it, but I was one of the minority who actually read it! A friend told Hawking that the original draft was too complicated for the intelligent reader and had to be simplified. I read the “simplified” final version and it certainly taxed my brain which is predominantly theological, not scientific.

I’m not naive, I’ve written several books and I know that publishers like publicity. To lift a very controversial quotation – indicating that a very famous scientist disproves God, and to give that to the news-hungry media at the end of the August silly season is good PR. The book may prove to be much more reasonable than the media hype.

The book isn’t published at the time of writing but I’ve read a long extract. Hawking is saying that the universe could have created itself spontaneously out of nothing. But his reason is that he believes in the multiverse theory, namely that there are many universes, so one was bound to develop that suited creatures like us. Maybe so, but there is no proof of the multiverse theory. So Hawking is saying: ‘You don’t need belief in God which is an ‘unproven’ theory because of my unproven theory about the multiverse!’ The question remains: why is there something rather than nothing? As for spontaneous creation of the universe out of absolutely nothing, (without a divine agent) – that seems to me to be dangerously close to “believing what you know ain’t true.” Hawking seems to be saying it happened because there is a law of gravity. But why is there gravity? And so we can go on.

No comments »

Posted in Apologetics

Tags:

What about ‘gay marriage’?

March 4th, 2010

In the years when I was taking a public stand against the church accepting homosexual practice, I wished that some of the people who supported me would go and support someone else. Normally these were people who despised homosexuals, not just disapproved of homosexual behaviour. To despise homosexuals as people is wrong. The old saying is relevant: “Hate the sin, love the sinner.” And that applies to all sinners, including sexual sinners – heterosexual or homosexual.

 

I believe firmly that Britain is still a Christian country, despite secularisation and the serious decline of church involvement. Statistics and other factual evidence support this. But we are not a theocracy. My opposition to the church accepting homosexual behaviour was based on biblical teaching. The Bible and Christian Tradition consistently state that homosexual behaviour is wrong and, like the multitude of other sinful actions, most not related to sex, subject to God’s judgment. That was legitimate because I was addressing the church. But such an argument will have little weight in society, although there is a strong argument that the church has a moral and spiritual responsibility to warn people about sinful behaviour and its consequences, pointing out the path of forgiveness through faith and repentance. It is a very serious matter for the church to fail society by condoning or even to appear to condone sin.

 

The church has a perfect right to convey reasons why gay marriage is wrong. But it has to argue them on rational grounds in our democratic society. It can appeal to tradition – that the Christian Faith has always defined marriage as heterosexual and that argument has some weight.

 

The church also has a perfect right to regard gay marriage as invalid morally and to have nothing to do with it even if Parliament does approve it.

 

But we need arguments which will make sense to society. Simply to say that gay marriage will be bad for couples won’t make sense because people will say that if heterosexual marriage is commended by the church as beneficial to individuals and society, homosexual marriage will have the same good effects.

 

What are the arguments against gay marriage? They include the following:

1.      ‘Gay marriage’ is contrary to the fundamental meaning of marriage

 

It is obvious that marriage is related to procreation. Had human beings been creatures who reproduced asexually and had self-sufficient children there would have been no need for marriage. Marriage meets the human concern for the future of the race and so for the welfare of children. This concern includes the desire for the best context for the bringing up of children: a stable, committed family.

 

It is the nature of things that individual human beings are incomplete as far as reproduction is concerned. Male and female bodies are clearly complementary and reproduction is achieved in the context of a couple becoming one organically in sexual intercourse. This completeness is only possible with two sexually complementary individuals – male and female. It is a beautiful context for the conception of new life. No other sexual relationship can achieve this – only the union of a man and a woman.

 

It is because of this fundamental definition of marriage that it is legally only consummated by heterosexual intercourse, no other sexual activity.

 

This is the “givenness” of marriage which has been recognised by society and by all religions through the millennia. Neither the state nor the church can change what marriage is because of ill thought out concerns for homosexual equality. Homosexual relationships can never be marriage because they are incapable of procreation. If our government approves what it calls gay marriage we can only conclude that it isn’t marriage.

 

There will, of course, be arguments that all this is undermined by the existence of heterosexual couples who cannot or decide not to have children, or by the fact that same sex couples can adopt children or have children by AID etc. But these are special pleading. Human beings are clearly designed to be able to achieve procreation in heterosexual marriage

2.      Children need a father and a mother

 

This is an obvious implication from the fact that children are born to heterosexual parents. It is the nature of things that children are born into a heterosexual family. Of course, there are many single parent families where the parent does an excellent job but most people would think that is not the ideal situation. We need not deny that same sex couples might also make a good job of rearing children. But children need the input of both close, loving male and a female role models. That is the nature of things. That is how children are best brought up and best learn from their parents.

 

Research on the effect of homosexual parenting on children is at an early stage, particularly in the case of male same sex partners. However research does show that children benefit most from being in a family led by biological parents of both sexes who are in a loving relationship.

 

One factor is that statistically, same sex relationships are significantly less faithful than heterosexual couples and this could, of course, have a negative effect on children.

3.      Approval of ‘gay marriage’ will undermine the institution of marriage

 

It would re-define marriage as basically about emotional fulfilment of adults rather than about procreation and the care and nurture of children. Already the de facto definition of marital love as primarily emotional undermines marriage and encourages divorce. We ‘fall in love’ and we ‘fall out of love’ so we split up. If we regarded marital love as primarily a commitment of the will we would have a firmer foundation for marriage. It would be more likely to weather the storm of varying emotions.

 

Marriage, being about procreation and the care and nurture of children, has a profound effect on society, which is why there is a social and legal aspect to marriage. To undermine marriage would therefore be harmful socially.

4.      Approval of ‘gay marriage’ is likely to open the gates to other unhelpful practices

 

At this point, critics will groan at the “slippery slope” argument. But one would be very naive to believe that the approval of gay marriage would be an end of the liberalising trend. Already people are calling for multi-partner sexual relationships or “small group marriages.” There are people practising and advocating “polyamory [several/many loves], polygamy, polyandry, ….  multipartner relationships, sharing their mates with others, open marriage, and/or group marriage.” Carla Bruni in an interview with Figaro in 2007 (quoted in Guardian 28.03.08) said: “Monogamy bores me terribly … I am monogamous from time to time but I prefer polygamy and polyandry.”  Judith Stacey, Professor of Sociology and Streisand Professor of Contemporary Gender Studies at the University of Southern California advocates polyamory and group marriages (of any number or gender). If gay marriage is approved on the basis of removing discrimination, why should these other practices not be approved, to remove discrimination from those who want them? However they would not only harm society by undermining marriage and the family but they would also cause emotional and physical harm to individuals.

 

In working towards ‘gay marriage’ on the grounds of removing discrimination against homosexuals the government is thinking superficially and ignoring the harm to marriage, the family and society which will result from it.

No comments »

Posted in Apologetics, Sexual Morality

Tags: