In her blog at The Daily Telegraph today, Christina Odone suggests that Christians ought not to be so passive in the face of increasing persecution for their faith. Her post is entitled: "In face of persecution from the chattering classes, Christians need to be as strident as Muslims."
"Afraid to be a Christian? Who can blame you? The authorities, the media and the chattering classes are forever trying to run you down. We don’t have to brave the Colosseum, with its rapacious lions; we don’t have to wear an identifying badge; or meet in secret – yet.
But there is no doubt that many are afraid to be Christian. They will watch anxiously today as Shirley Chaplin will fight the NHS in an employment tribunal. Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Trust has tried to ban Mrs. Chaplin’s wearing a cross, claiming it was dangerous. (Who staffs this Trust? Vampires?)
Mrs. Chaplin refused to take off the cross and is now battling for her right to wear a symbol of her faith. Some of the highest ranking Christians in the land have come out in her favour – and widened the debate to the persecution of all Christians in this country.High time, too. Prejudice against the majority faith is everywhere: from the BA check-in counter to the school, from the hospital ward to the Town Hall. In fact, it’s even in church. When I was invited to speak at St Martin in the Fields for a Christmas Carol Service two years ago, my speech was banned as deeply offensive. I had written about persecution, injustice and fear.
Had I been describing the suffering of blacks during segregation in America, or the unfair treatment of Indians under the Raj,or the plight of British Muslims after the Britain’s 7 July bombings I would have been welcome. But I was describing anti-Christian bias.
Our culture has grown increasingly hostile to God and his followers. Support for a minority faith – Judaism, say, or Islam – is justified when that faith is regarded as essential to ethnic identity. But when that faith is the majority faith, the faith, predominantly, of the white middle classes, then the standard reaction is of hostility.
The same liberal chattering classes who will spring to your support if you are campaigning on behalf of gays, Muslims or women will turn a deaf ear or worse, issue abuse, if you are agitating on behalf of Christian rights. This explains why even high-profile figures like Tony Blair and Jeremy Vine have admitted they were wary of coming out as Christians.
When even these people think twice before revealing their links, what hope is there for the rest of us ?
Perhaps there is a solution. We should be more like Muslims, who are self confident, strident and constantly haranguing authorities if they suspect an anti-Muslim bias. No one dares mess with them."
Cristina Odone is a journalist, novelist and broadcaster specialising in the relationship between society, families and faith. She is a Research Fellow at the Centre for Policy Studies and is a former editor of the Catholic Herald and deputy editor of the New Statesman. She is married and lives in west London with her husband, two stepsons and a daughter.
8 comments:
Christian nurse Shirley Chaplin has had her cross banned when working with patients because it might scratch them, while Muslim workers will be exempted from hygiene rules which stipulate their forearms must not be covered.
This, according to their religion, is to preserve their modesty – despite long sleeves being blamed for spreading superbugs in hospital wards.
I’m all for compromise and flexibility. But when the only obvious interpretation of this Department of Health ruling is that it’s one rule for Christians and another for other faiths it’s hard to disagree with the former Archbishop of Canterbury Lord Carey when he says: “We can only deduce that the hostility aimed at her is because she is a Christian.’’
Remind me, what country am I living in?
Sue Carroll
'Now is the time for us to march upon the land
Into our hands He will give the ground we claim
He rides in majesty to lead us into victory
The world shall see that Christ is Lord'
Not if we sit back and do nothing - Much easier to sing than put into action. Maybe those military SA songs are coming back into their own and it is time for us to enlist. This is spiritual warfare - will I fight?
Former UKT
I think we're completely missing the point here.
Tell me.... How many Christians would be killed by the church if they chose not to wear a cross? How many Christians would be divorced or ex-communicated or mutilated because they did not wear a particular symble of their faith?
But this is the case for muslims. Strict muslims will kill a women of their faith who has revealed part of her skin - this is part of their faith. It is not a matter of different rules for different religions - it's a pragmatic thing - preserving life, preserving dignity.
Salvationists should know better than others that our faith is not bound up in symbles. Our cross does not have Christ on it because we do not worship the crucifix. We (like Luther) got rid of all symbles that would cause us a stumbling block and distract our focus from God. We have a living faith that is not bound to symbles.
What's the problem with not wearing a cross? It has nothing to do with our faith. God is the centre of our faith - not a piece of wood or a dead Jew. We should be proud to put away such symbles so that we can prove that our faith is beyond such trifles and that we have a living faith.
The essence of our salvation is the resurrection of Christ. The cross was just the means for his death so that he could be resurrected and give us victory over death. For the Jews, there were symbolic reasons why a cross was used, but for us who are more enlightened, Christ's death could have been caused any number of ways - so long as he died so that he could be resurrected.
I think we are fighting for and worshiping idols rather than for God.
Yours in CHRIST (not a symble)
Graeme Randall
Former Australian East
My stepdaughter had to take off her necklace with a tiny cross on before the school dentist would start to treat her. Next time she wore a t-shirt with a huge "Jesus-fish" on. He did not understand what it meant. Next time she wore the cross and was told to take it off. The local school board didn´t care when she reported this to them, but when she contacted a local newspaper he said "this must be a misunderstanding". He is still working at the clinic but as far as we know, he has to accept necklaces with crosses - who under the treatment is hidden behind the napkin...
Former Sweden
For the record- from the Lutheran website
The history of Lutheranism demonstrates that the crucifix was a regular and routine feature of Lutheran worship and devotional life during Luther’s lifetime and during the period of Lutheran Orthdoxy. It was also the case among the founding fathers of the Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod. If you were to visit most of the original congregations of the LCMS here in the United States you would find lovely crucifixes adorning their altars, and in addition, beautiful statues on the altar of Christ and the four evangelists, or other such scenes. There is nothing uniquely Roman Catholic about this. Many Lutherans and Lutheran congregations use crucifixes. Crucifixes are used in the chapels of both of our seminaries.
Lutheranism has always considered the crucifix to be a powerful reminder of the sacrifice our Lord Jesus made for us and our salvation, on the cross. A crucifix vividly brings to mind the Apostle Paul’s divinely inspired words, “We preach Christ and Him crucified” (1 Cor. 1:23).
Interestingly enough, while there is certainly nothing “wrong” with an “empty” cross, the practice of using an “empty cross” on a Lutheran congregation’s altar comes more from non-Lutheran sources. At the time of the Reformation there was conflict between Lutherans and Reformed Christians over the proper place of pictures, images, statues and the like in the church. Lutherans stood with historic Christendom in realizing that such art in the church was not wrong, and was a great aid for helping to focus devotional thoughts on the truths of the Word of God, no greater truth can be found that the death of Jesus Christ our Lord for the world’s salvation.
The “empty cross” is not a symbol of Christ’s resurrection, as some say, for the fact is that the cross would have been empty regardless of whether or not Christ had risen from the grave. The point to be kept clear here is that both an “empty cross” and a crucifix, symbolize the same thing: the death of Christ our Lord for the salvation of the world. Many feel that the crucifix symbolizes this truth more clearly and strikingly. That has been the traditional opinion of historic Lutheranism, until the last fifty years ago, due to the influence we will now mention.
-------
The crucifix is still used in many SA halls in Northern Europe and Scandinavia
Former
Sweden
Graeme,
I am sorry to say but I think it is you who has missed the point here. I don't think anyone is saying we worship the symbol of the cross, we don't but in free 'Christian' countries we too should have the right to wear a symbol of our faith as a witness. Fortunately we are not in a position of our lives being at risk if we don't wear such things but should we simply remain silent and do nothing until our lives are at risk for wearing items that identify us as Christians?
Former UKT
The uniform was to be a witness also. The "S" for salvation.
USA East former
When I was in grade school the Episcopal church my family attended built a new and very modern sanctuary in stark contrast to the earlier very Gothic facility. One of the new items was the new cross. In this case it did have Jesus but he was dressed in blue robes and had a crown (not of thorns). My dad told me, and remember this from being like 8 or 10 that was because we worshiped the risen Jesus in resplendent glory. Funny how odd little memories like that stay with you, eh?
Post a Comment