It’s a funny old world. Last night I had a two-minute TV spot on Channel 4 and today has seen a barrage of responses.
4thought.tv has a theme for the week and this week it asks whether Christians are being persecuted in Britain today. Readers of this blog will not be surprised to hear that I don’t think we are being persecuted. Some Christians have responded with anger at my betrayal of the cause and some atheists/humanists have commended what I said. The former think I should be more worried about what is going on out there and the latter think I can be recruited to their cause.
Inevitably, it is more complex than that. I recorded over an hour and a quarter and it was edited into two minutes. I have no complaints and they gave a fair representation of the sweep of matters we discussed. The producer asks questions, but the broadcast piece does not indicate to which questions the statements/views were given in answer. Again, I stress, I have no complaints. However, the one statement I wish had been included was along the lines of:
Being marginalised, misrepresented or misquoted is not the same as being persecuted. And it isn’t just a matter of semantics.
Christians are being persecuted in Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, parts of Africa and the Middle East. Being ridiculed a bit or misrepresented by the religiously illiterate in Britain is a pain and poses challenges – but it is not persecution. My point in the broadcast was to encourage Christians to stop seeing themselves as pathetic victims, recognise the amazing freedom we have in (and massive contribution we make to) British society both locally and nationally… and get out there more confidently with the unique gift of Christian faith, service and apologetics. As Liverpool keep discovering, playing defensively allows the opposition all the creative space to attack – and you don’t win football matches by playing that way.
The websites that are claiming me as an ally in the ‘secularist’ cause shouldn’t celebrate too soon. My stance yesterday does not mean that I don’t get fed up with (and argue against) the rather stupid anti-Christian or ignorant/irrational secularist stuff around in the public square. But, rather than bleat about it, I’d rather we took up the creative challenge and engaged seriously with it.
I had no idea about any ‘Not Ashamed’ campaign until I saw it today. Whatever I said yesterday was not an attack on it – hard to do when you don’t know it exists. In fact, you could argue that the point of my 4thought.tv piece was to encourage Christians to stop seeing themselves as victims, to be confident about their faith and its ability to stand in the public square, and to do the opposite of being ashamed.
Although flattered to be commended by the humanist commentariat, they should also be a little bit worried: this isn’t a cave-in to secularism; it is a call to get stuck in with a bit more nous and a bit more confidence in the Gospel.
December 1, 2010 at 7:04 pm
[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Nick Baines, cathryn brown. cathryn brown said: RT @nickbaines: Just blogged on Christian persecution complex (follow-up to 4thought.tv piece last night): http://bit.ly/fiygz2 […]
December 1, 2010 at 7:06 pm
Spot on.
December 1, 2010 at 7:14 pm
Hmmm. I comment as an atheist, but also as an individual. I think I commended you on your stance before your TV gig, but if so I did it because I think you’re very honest and positive about it.
I don’t think you can be “recruited to [my] cause”, and I wouldn’t try; I do think humanist secularism is necessary sometimes in the public sphere, and sometimes overly done and over the top. I’m not necessarily in favour of it, I just do things case-by-case.
And I am all in favour of Christians having a “a bit more nous and a bit more confidence in the Gospel” if they can then feel confident enough to seriously engage with atheists and humanists, and not just shut them out or attempt to shout them down (and yes, I’m all in favour of atheists engaging with Christians in a positive way too). There is of course shutting out and shouting down going on on both sides, daily. In fact, I am rather mystified at the inadequate response on the Anglican side to the New Atheism; I shall blog about that. As an atheist, I see the New Atheism movement as being in danger from all sorts of tendencies (such as merely acting handmaiden to Western neoliberal capitalism, for example), but I don’t see any really effective response from the churches on the whole as yet. And in case you’re wondering, I don’t see an effective response to New Atheism from the churches as being bad for atheism; I think a well-grounded critical cross-dialogue can only help all sides concerned.
I guess you might think I am trying to convert you to that particular cause, but actually, I’m only trying to take my own advice and engage in a positive manner where neither side needs to convert the other side, just mutual self-improvement, as it were.
December 1, 2010 at 7:18 pm
Gurdur,
I totally agree. I sometimes feel the real debate hasn’t actually begun – it gets crowded out by the noise…
December 1, 2010 at 7:45 pm
Bishop Nick
A well articulated piece, however, I feel like we’re being pulled in for the sucker punch on this issue.
Who exactly is claiming Christian persecution?
Certainly not Lord Carey, who has repeatedly made the point – for example he said,
“We should be careful however not to draw too many parallels between the experience of Christians in the UK and the plight of Christians abroad. As far as the UK is concerned Christians are rarely ‘persecuted’, and direct comparisons should be avoided. What is happening in Western Europe is not persecution but a marginalising of faith which seeks to portray it as a matter of personal conscience only. ”
The problem is that when people highlight instances of Christian marginalisation, they are reported in the press as claiming “persecution” – which invariably they are not. We then get drawn into a totally bogus debate about whether Christians are being persecuted or not.
This has happened with the Not Ashamed campaign today, which despite what some would have you believe does not mention persecution anywhere in its literature or website (that I can find), it has happened with Lord Carey, even though he made clear that he does not think Christians are being persecuted in Britain, and with Archbishop Sentamu, which even sparked a series of comments in the Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2009/feb/20/religion-christianity-persecution).
I agree completely with your conclusion, however, it seems odd that we have to frame the debate under a misconception.
December 1, 2010 at 7:48 pm
Mouse, I think the only way we get the message through is by repeating it – despite the illiterate shorthand of headline writers. I agree with you – and that is why I made the observation about the ‘Not Ashamed’ campaign (although doing it on World Aids Day wasn’t the greatest timing…).
December 1, 2010 at 8:03 pm
I saw the piece on TV and thought it was magnificent.
I love the way you articulate it further on this post. Both me and my ‘inner Newbigin’ (!) give a resounding ‘yes’.
Thank you
December 1, 2010 at 9:25 pm
Very good article, Nick. Ridicule and marginalisation is, indeed, not the same as persecution. And if you are being ridiculed? Surely you hold your head up high, and don’t be afraid of the storm?
December 1, 2010 at 9:33 pm
I agree with you wholeheartedly. The campaign highlights the small things (like not being able to wear a cross) while trying to make a case that Christianity is being pushed out of the public sphere by the secularists. The fact that Christianity is still in the public space getting column inches and publicity makes that case look silly.
I also believe that these cases of people who claim anti-Christian discrimination when they are sacked for not doing the job they signed up for are sad, but need a lot of unpicking. While a person does not have to check their Christianity at the door when they go to work, if they have a job which provides a public service they are required to give that service without regard to the personalities of those they are providing it to. If a BNP member were to be a registrar, and were to refuse to marry an interracial couple, most of the country would be up in arms. Marrying a couple (or registering a civil partnership) does not actually mean that the registrar approves of the union. It creates a public record of a contract between two people. If the registrar doesn’t believe that the couple are well-matched, s/he cannot refuse to witness the marriage just on that point alone.
The RCs shot themselves in the feet by giving up their adoption agencies rather than obey the law and offer services to same-sex couples. They now have no entry in the public arena around adoption, and can’t authoritatively make comments on it.
We need to clearly articulate our beliefs in the public sphere as well as show people how they can live their faith in public without discriminating against anyone else and being examples of faith put into practice. That campaign needs to be waged from pulpits and in media slots like Thought for the Day, and should show generosity of spirit rather than narrowness of mind.
December 1, 2010 at 11:13 pm
My persecution does not come from outside Christianity, but from others professing faith, but imposing their perception on how I should be with in their narrow views.
December 2, 2010 at 8:48 am
[…] in his blog, Nick wishes that this statement which he recorded was included in the broadcast also: Being […]
December 2, 2010 at 9:57 am
It is missing the point to say the UK isn’t Pakistan (especially when little enclaves of Pakistan exist in England!). The real issue is the chilling effect of anti-Christian secularism, almost all of it from the political left, which makes Christians shut up and keep their heads down, in short, to privatize their faith. They are meant to leave their faith at home. The Christians who do speak up on issues like homosexual partnerships or homosexual adoption, or even wearing a little cross – and risk losing their jobs – are increasingly those from Nigeria, Uganda and Egypt, who find little understanding or support from the official representatives of the Church of England, who too often seemed more interested in being well thought of by the gatekeepers of secular culture, especially the BBC. But the Church of England has little clout among the ethnic minority Christians in England.
December 2, 2010 at 10:40 am
Yet again, spot on Nick. I’m afraid former Archbishop Carey is being a meddling nuisance again; although I realise you can’t possibly comment
December 2, 2010 at 10:57 am
I do so agree on the confidence issue.
When we see a Bride we almost inevitably say how good she looks. This is broadly because she probably knows that with the care she has taken she is looking as good as she can – and it shows. Confidence is itself attractive. I use the illustration simply to be striking – not shallow.
Good sports teams fail though lack of confidence, poorer teams over perform, and Governments fall on votes of “No Confidence”.
When one hears Desmond Tutu or Jonathan Sachs speak, most people think that they might agree or disagree. but they have no doubt that they are in a serious discussion. It is not only the wise who radiate such confidence. I am sure we have all met people whose faith radiates to the degree that even the cynic feels respectful and more restrained than they might otherwise have been.
Where i thinks we may have to work harder however is to enable our young people in early adolescence ( those years where we all have to discover who we are) to have the strength to demand respect for their faith. It must be very hard to resist peer pressure in the schools of a secular society.
December 2, 2010 at 11:09 am
I am not entirely sure this has anything to do with the subject but knowing your catholic tastes in music, the idea of a Christmas song from a Hassidic Rapper who wants to give Jewish kids something at this time of the year appealed to me.
It made me smile on a rather bleak day – and it does show confidence!!
December 2, 2010 at 11:12 am
‘Not ashamed’ is the brain child of Christian Concern for our Nation and the Christian Legal Centre. Both of these (linked) groups are fundamentalist with a particular social and ethical agenda. This is not a value judgment but comes from an examination of their doctrinal basis and websites. They also get a big plug from groups like ‘Anglican Mainstream’ who seem to want to fight the American culture wars over here.
It is not so much that I disagree with their perspectives, though I do, but that they are fighting precisely the wrong battles and giving a picture of the christian faith that is completely misleading. ‘Not ashamed’ just gives the atheist lobby more cheap ammunition The God I worship is a God of love, whose Son’s most damning criticism was of self-righteous religious people. In short I am not ashamed of being a Christian, we have a gospel to proclaim. ‘Not ashamed’ just makes that task harder.
December 2, 2010 at 11:34 am
Thanks, Nick. Your Blog echoed something I raised in a sermon in the summer when there was a media stramash about someone being sacked for wearing a cross to work.
I thought this might be an issue that relates more to discrimination than persecution. It would depend on how folk of other faiths who wear or demonstrate an outward sign of that faith, are treated in their at workplace and how these can be accommodated. Alongside this there is the responsibility an employee agrees to in serving their colleagues and the public.
Let’s keep an intelligent, listening discussion going even if the tv, newspapers and other ‘official’ media struggel with that concept.
December 2, 2010 at 1:55 pm
Duncan Swann,
Thank you for puuting it so eloquently but so simply.
we need to be very aware of the cachet that Carey’s name gives to these UNTYPICAL views
December 2, 2010 at 3:06 pm
Neil, Lord Carey has every right to articulate his opinion – however helpful or otherwise – and everyone else is at liberty to differ from him. I think it is only fair to be clear that he does not flog the ‘persecution’ agenda, but does see ‘discrimination’ as the issue. Unfortunately, our headline writers didn’t study semantics at college and confuse the two words.
December 2, 2010 at 3:21 pm
Steve, you make a good point about the experience of Africans in a strange culture and that is an interesting contribution to the discussion. However, you undermine your case with statements that betray prejudice rather than fact. Secularism is an overblown concept and you credit it with too much: ‘chilling’ in what way? ‘Challenging’, maybe, but are we so feeble that mere challenge turns us into victims? Which Christians are ‘shutting up and keeping their heads down’? The fact that 4thought allows even extreme views to be broadcast would appear to suggest that Christians can voice their points without fear. I think you overstate the case – and I speak as one who has frequently been misrepresented and misquoted in the media (leading to ‘chilling’ communications from Christians – almost always from the political right – who (in several cases last year) tell me how to take my life and spare the world my disgraceful presence).
Your comments about the Church of England are misplaced. Have you any idea of the shape of the Church of England in London? And, if people like me are really ‘more interested in being well thought of by the gatekeepers of secular culture’, why would we bother to go through the grief of doing what we do and arguing for the faith in the places we have access to? Life would be easier if we did what you accuse us of.
I would be interested in you developing your point about the perception of minority ethnic Christians about their own confidence in being open about their faith – and how a different cultural context confuses cultural assumptions. That is something I am not sure we have considered thus far.
December 2, 2010 at 3:26 pm
Yesterday on Radio 5 the comedian Tim Minchin was on and he sang a harmless little ditty. In which he extoled the virtues of Christmas but expressed disbelief in the religious side of it. I quite liked the song it was really a secular hymn to Christmas.
A Christian emailed into complain about what he claimed was another BBC attack on Christianity. He said the BBC had an atheist agenda, of which allowing this chap to sing his song is another example of. . It is quite normal to listen to BBC radio and hear Christians complain that hearing any other opinions other than their own is a sure sign of BBC bias and an example of their atheist agenda or their Muslim agenda or their obsession with political correctness etc.. I have lost count of the number of Christians who get to say on BBC radio ‘Why doesn’t the BBC ever let people like me say something’ He/she then goes onto say that Abortion is murder homosexuality is a crime against God, the Muslims are taking over. This is a Christian country etc. etc. etc.
It seems to me that there is a paranoid strand in all religions that looks for offence and finds it where there is none. Indeed there seems to be a competition at the moment between religions to see who can be the most offended. Mind you they do set the offence bar very low. When Stephen Hawkin’s recent book came out. I heard a Christian critic(s) complain that Stephen Hawkin was another aggressive new atheist . Now Stephen Hawkin can barely move one eyelid, he is about as far from being aggressive as it is possible to be.
A correspondent on these pages referred (obliquely) to the case of the BA worker who was not allowed to wear a cross. This case attracted quite a lot of publicity and comment some time ago. I seem to recall the woman concerned saying “No one has suffered like me” she certainly seemed to effect the demeanour of someone who was just about to be thrown to the lions.
The thing is she wasn’t being prevented from wearing a crucifix she was banned from wearing a neck chain. If it had been just a plain neck chain the prohibition would still be the same. if she had a star of David on it the same result if it had been a crescent moon or even a peace sign, exactly the same result. The BA dress code was no necklaces neck chains etc. on the outside of her BA blouse. She chose and her supporters chose to misinterpret the BA dress code as an attack on Christianity. In my opinion this was a dishonest attempt to compete with another well known religion. In the who can find the most offense stakes.
December 2, 2010 at 4:51 pm
Nick, thank you for your reply. I don’t accept your term “prejudice”, and will try to explain. By “chilling” I mean of course legal and other ways of discouraging people from expressing their views openly so that they learn to censor themselves. People who hate public epressions of Christianity as “crude, unnuanced, insensitive” etc have learnt this lesson well! But maybe you’ve noticed that Africans don’t do nuance!🙂 Frequent talk of ‘hate speech’ from the left and policies adopted by the British police (visiting Christian critics of homosexuality in their homes) is one way this “chilling” has been happening in the UK, and I’m surprised you have never commented on this. Freedoms are rarely lost in one fell swoop but incrementally as people learn to censor themselves and accept the new raft of laws from the new commissars. I don’t like using that old image of the frog in the saucepan; I think it’s more a case of the water being slowly cooled (‘chilled’, even). The ratchet only seems to go in one way in this country, and I think the Church of England bishops have been rather weak camp followers of the ‘secular’ revolution: the way the Church of England Children’s Society accepted gay adoption while the Catholics didn’t is a case in point. So too is the way the Church of England accepted “gay partnerships” for clergy instead of adopting a godly, biblical discipline for the lives of its leaders. The Church of England is divided and compromised over homosexuality, especially in the London dioceses, where you have a lot of gay clergy. In general commentary, George Carey has only been echoing in a more populist way what the scholarly Michael Nazir-Ali has been saying for a long time in ‘The Spectator’ and ‘The Telegraph’, about the demise of Christian culture in its onetime heartland. Many Africans are grateful to Carey for standing by the Sudanese in their struggle for freedom and wish he had been more outspoken with the Americans while he was still Archbishop of Canterbury. Maybe the Anglican Communion wouldn’t be in such a mess if he had. As it is, most of African Anglicanism is now taking another road.
Channel 4 is interesting because while the overall tenor of its editorial policy is left-leaning (and this is very obvious from John Snow), it does allow populist rightwing commentary and exposes the conduct of jihadis in Birmingham mosques (to the anger of the West Midlands police) – something you never get on the BBC. (I stopped listening to the highly predictable ‘Thought for the Day’ about 2 years ago.) To that extent, Channel 4 is more nearly a genuninely liberal outlet of opinion – but very few people watch it.
By “secular” I don’t mean hostility to all religions but primarily the sidelining of Christian faith in public life by non-religious leftists, while Muslims and Sikhs may be courted – principally out of fear, I think, but maybe also because the left wants their votes. The previous British government certainly did this. It certainly didn’t know what to do about Muslims in Birmingham or Tower Hamlets.
Yes, I do know a lot about the Church of England in London, and the growth of independent African churches – which attract quite a few white people as well. To judge by your postings, if you don’t mind me saying, I think you have a good heart and a concern for spreading ‘the Gospel’ pretty much as I understand it, but your affection for old-fashioned leftist politics and ‘edgy’ music (is it cos you is a Scouser?) colours your judgment a lot of the time. But at least I don’t think you’re as thin-skinned about this as some others are!
December 2, 2010 at 5:03 pm
Steve, there’s too much here to debate in print, but I would happily meet to discuss your points. I don’t agree with some of your assumptions or interpretations, as you don’t agree with mine. For example, the growth of independent churches in London is based on a wide range of factors and cannot simply be allied to Church of England debates on sexuality.
The fact that I is a Scouser colours everything, mate!
December 2, 2010 at 5:16 pm
Thanks SteveH for clarifying the details of the ‘stramash’ I had remarked about in my comment.
I had to abide by my employer’s dress code (as did everyone else). Again, no neckchains. Not because they were out to get us but because it was for our own safety.
The version of the article I read some time back did not explain this at all. So people were left to think that the employer was being prejudiced at the very least.
So thanks again, SteveH, the info will help me the next time the issue is raised in the Parish.
December 2, 2010 at 7:28 pm
I like the comment about arguing in print, it’s a nightmare trying to express your entire mindset on the subject in a few paragraphs. Good starting point though. Some good points raised.
December 2, 2010 at 8:00 pm
What is it Christians are so scared of that they need to sign a petition asking for special protection? Are we afraid our arguments won’t stand up to public debate.
Let’s stop this pleading for a special hearing and get out there in the public square and argue our corner as Paul did. (In my case not with so much eloquence unfortunately)
We seem scared of our own shadow and frightened to talk to humanists, or those of other faiths. What is the matter with us retreating into our Sunday ghettos and beating each other up about things that don’t matter instead of getting on with the job of spreading the gospel through our lives and words in the real world.
Get real guys!
December 3, 2010 at 10:29 am
“What is it Christians are so scared of that they need to sign a petition asking for special protection?”
A “petition” or statement IS a public argument. Have you never heard of Wilberforce and his massive petition against slavery? Or William Booth and his petitions?
“Are we afraid our arguments won’t stand up to public debate.”
Those who want Christians to shut up for fear of ‘offending’ might feel that.
“Let’s stop this pleading for a special hearing and get out there in the public square and argue our corner as Paul did.”
OK, try some street preaching – only don’t say anything someone might not like or deem “insensitive”. Hmm, better stay at home. (‘Special hearing’? How about basic human rights?)
“We seem scared of our own shadow and frightened to talk to humanists, or those of other faiths.”
Then get out and debate them! Go into schools, colleges etc.
“What is the matter with us retreating into our Sunday ghettos and beating each other up about things that don’t matter instead of getting on with the job of spreading the gospel through our lives and words in the real world.”
Amen! And if some Anglicans can recover their lost courage, so much the better.
December 3, 2010 at 4:10 pm
Steve, Wilverforce and Booth organised petitions against soemthing they saw was wrong, not as a request to people to give Christians a special hearing.
I must say I have problems about street preaching too. Surely we need to go to where the public debate is being held, in politics, in think tanks, in the media etc and engage with others through intelligent debate, using terminology and logic with which the world can interface. That seems different from standing on a street corner shoutong at people who rush past trying not to get caught.
Yes we need to recover our lost courage and our belief that the gospel has something with which to inform a secular society, and we need to talk about it every place we can.
December 3, 2010 at 7:30 pm
c2dr1, the ‘Not Ashamed’ campaign people are not asking for a “special hearing”, they are trying to encourage people to be peacefully bold in public witness to their faith. I know the English don’t like doing this, because they are rather shy people embarrassed by public expressions of faith. But it’s OK if you’re Muslim or Sikh: your turban or hijab will be accepted by British Airways.
If you have studied Church history, you will know that Wilberforce and Booth were opposed by many in the Church of England for interfering with “natural” laws of trade and economics. And they didn’t like Anglican priest Wesley either!
trhrough the US website ‘Titusonenine’ I have now read Archbishop Carey’s words on the subject and commentary by Nick Baines, and Carey doesn’t talk about “persecution” but marginalization of Christians in Britsh public life and nurses being punished for things noone really took offence in just a few years ago, like offering to pray for someone. It’s because the Britsh have becoem so secularized and distanced from their Christian roots they find these things strange.
It’s important not to deflect discussion by raising and attacking straw men like “persecution” when nobody was using this word.
December 3, 2010 at 8:14 pm
This is what ‘Sarah’ said on Titusonenine:
“RE: “He [Bishop Baines] said that Christians who could not carry out a particular job if it was in conflict with their faith had a choice whether to do it, but this did not amount to persecution.”
Hah hah—what an unintentionally funny comment.
Of course, the point is that it is the *State* that has a “choice.” It can *force* a Christian to engage in certain behaviors in conflict with that person’s faith. Or it can not.
How richly ironic that the person who is being mandated *by the State* to take certain immoral actions is now somehow the person with “the choice”—rather like, I suppose, Christians in China have “a choice” not to attend certain churches, since the State mandates that they not, by force.”
Which jobs did you have in mind, Nick? Teaching (without the prior approval of Stonewall or a Peter Tatchell)? Nursing (without participating in abortions)? Gynaecology (also without abortions)? Adoption agency work (without gay adoption)?
December 4, 2010 at 5:01 am
[…] Bishop Nick Baines said this Being marginalised, misrepresented or misquoted is not the same as being persecuted. And it isn’t just a matter of semantics. […]
December 4, 2010 at 4:07 pm
Steve,
A couple of quick comments. First, I recorded the 4thought.tv piece over three weeks ago and didn’t know about ‘Not Ashamed’ until the day it was launched – so no conspiracy there. Second, if you read my responses to comments, you will see that I make a apoint of attributing ‘persecution’ to headline writers and not to Lord Carey. Third, the question I was responding to in the 4thought.tv piece was whether or not Christians are being ‘persecuted’, not ‘marginalised’ or ‘misrepresented’. Fourth, identifying faithfulness to the Gospel purely in terms of questions about sexuality is like making circumcision the deal-breaker in church ‘belonging’ – which Paul had something to say about.
If you read this blog over a period of time, you will see that I constantly pick up on the secularist agenda. I think much of what we see is down to ignorance rather than conspiracy and it needs to be tackled as such. But, the point of my 4thought.tv piece was to encourage Christians to be more confident in using the enormous space we do have in society and learning to speak a language people can actually hear. To concentrate on the few instances of ‘problem’ takes our energy away from constructive and positive representation of a Christian world view.
‘Sarah’ can comment here if she wishes – I don’t read titusonenine…
December 4, 2010 at 7:50 pm
Hi Nick – thanks for blog entry, and happy experience of filming with the 4thought.tv. I was wondering if you could link people to the website where the film is actually up and people can comment on it, rather than the 40d page
i.e. link through to here:
http://www.4thought.tv/4thoughts/0150-Bishop-Nick-Baines-Are-Christians-the-new-persecuted-
rather than here:
http://www.channel4.com/programmes/4thoughttv/4od#3141890
That would great, thanks so much, Rebecca
December 4, 2010 at 8:05 pm
Rebecca, it is done!
December 5, 2010 at 9:19 am
Thanks for your reply, Nick. ‘Sarah’ was commenting on how you are quoted in the Church Times, independent of the ‘Not Ashamed’ campaign. It is a distraction to argue about words like “persecution”. Sarah’s assertion, instead, is that you don’t really appreciate or understand how state power works through the instruments of law-making, employment and free speech. When something that was long legal and accepted starts to become liable to legal sanctions (including visits form the police or employment tribunals), then the rules have changed. You don’t seem to think this is happening, while Carey and Nazir-Ali think it is. But maybe if you worked for ‘Relate’ or as a nurse you might have a different view?
Titusonenine is well worth reading, especially for English Anglicans from an evangelical background who wish to understand the US Episcopal scene and how Nigerian and other African Anglicans have responded to this. Southwark Cathedral seems to have quite a bit to do with Tec.
December 5, 2010 at 3:48 pm
Hi Nick – heard you on radio (2 or 4?) this a.m. How do you always manage to talk such sense and in a way that ordinary people can understand – it’s a real gift you have there!
Anne.
December 8, 2010 at 10:20 am
I was abused by a RC school when I was ten.
When I became a Christian aged 38 I was a senior manager in various schools. I can tell Bishop Nick Baines that I can identify numerous occasions when fellow staff and LEA officials, through their actions, ridiculed my faith and saw my allegiance to the Christian faith as a threat, something weird and on three occasions [at **College School in Cambridge for instance] I had to refer my treatment to employment tribunals. By my own personal experience there is prejudice and benign latent persecution throughout Britain – if you dare to express your Christian affiliation in the workplace. Other Christians have told me the same of some employers wanting to engineer a person’s downfall or shame or embarassment. But then the Bible says this will be so; so there is nothing new under the sun.
December 8, 2010 at 4:36 pm
Mike, I am sorry about your school experience. I don’t share that, but I do share the experience of having been ridiculed, attacked and threatened on account of my faith. But this isn’t new – it was happening when I was at school in the 1970s. Prejudice, yes. Ridicule, yes. Misrepresented, yes. But none of that amounts to persecution and I have learned to get on with it. I get far more ridicule, misrepresentation and attack from Christians than I ever do from others – but that is part of life, too.
December 10, 2010 at 1:36 pm
Persecuted?
Answer – Rejoice!
Oh sorry I forgot, this IS the CofE…
December 12, 2010 at 2:08 pm
Steve Adeyemo – kudos to you! No wonder the C of E is going down the pan whilst the Anglican Church in Africa is burgeoning. Weak, weak, weak. What a betrayal of the saints and martyrs. The pale imitation of Christianity in the West is not what people are prepared to die for. I work among atheists and agnostics – they laugh at this kind of thing – why should they beleive, when clearly many of the Church heirarchy are not prepared to stand up for their own faith?