Tim Farron, illiberalism, bigotry and Evangelicals

This last week I have been on my yearly pilgrimage to Llandudno. It's not so much a site of religious interest as an opportunity for me to serve with United Beach Missions. It is my nearest Beach Mission centre and it is one of very few with the sort of facilities that mean I can bring my family with me too. 

I have spent the last week standing on Llandudno promenade doing public interviews with people about their faith, asking them to share their stories and pressing them to answer questions and objections people may have about the Christian faith. I have also been engaging with non-Christian holidaymakers (NB: only those who actually want to talk, we're happy enough being told to push off) and sharing with them the Christian message of salvation in Jesus Christ. We've also been out delivering short gospel presentations in open air meetings and engaging in public apologetics.

None of that is to say bully for me. Rather, it is to set in context how truly odd such things have become in modern British society. For, as I reacquainted myself with social media and online news output, one particular news item - or one particular angle that kept reappearing in several different stories - seemed prevalent. The story, insofar as it is newsworthy, was the fact that Tim Farron, newly elected leader of the Liberal Democrats, is a Christian. Not only a Christian, but an Evangelical Christian. Not only an Evangelical Christian, but one who is actually prepared to speak about his faith in public.

Gillan Scott, at the Archbishop Cranmer blog, has given a good summary of how several of these interviews have focused not only on Farron's faith but have pressed particular presumed outworkings of his religious beliefs. Specifically, a Channel 4 News interview with Cathy Newman pushed Farron repeatedly on whether he viewed homosexual sex as sinful. Since then, Labour MP and deputy-leadership hopeful Ben Bradshaw has called Farron's approach to gay rights illiberal. Beyond these, The Times has referred to him as an "illiberal democrat", based on little more than the fact he is an Evangelical, and John Humphries pressed him on his Radio 4 Today programme about whether he prayed about different aspects of his job. Some of this interrogation is legitimate - private views will affect what we do in public (unless, of course, you're happy with a Magic FM in the Chilterns kind of faith) - but several things ought to be said.

First, these interviews have only been conducted and focused this way because Farron is an Evangelical. Although occasionally Tony Blair was asked about his faith, very little was ever made of it. David Cameron likewise is asked very little about his Christian beliefs, such as they exist. Moving away from those who identify as Christian in any regard, can you imagine Sajid Javid being asked for his views on particular Qur'anic suras which advocate less than liberal approaches to homosexuals or non-muslim believers? Would Clive Lewis, as chairman of the All Party Parliamentary Humanist Group, be pressed this hard on how his non-belief in a God would affect his moral compass? It is telling that perceptions of what Evangelicalism is persist (1) and such views are often held to a different standard than almost any other view, even among those in parliament.

Second, Tim Farron has been labelled illiberal by those who themselves are being illiberal. Regardless of the rights and wrongs of his position, and despite what Tim Farron's actual views on the sinfulness or otherwise of homosexual sex may be (we may infer what he believes but he hasn't actually said anything about it), Farron has repeatedly stated that he defends equal gay rights. Either, he doesn't think homosexual sex is sinful and he defends gay rights or he does think homosexual sex is sinful but he nevertheless defends gay rights. The first of those may or may not be a liberal position - we all obviously find it easy to make legal or illegal all those things we personally think are right and wrong respectively - but the latter view certainly is liberal. 

At the heart of the liberalism is the view that we don't have to agree, we don't have to be the same, but we can co-exist and defend the rights of one another. It is telling that Ben Bradshaw claims Farron is illiberal for not daring to affirm the moral eminence of homosexuality. In other words, Bradshaw argues you cannot do any other than affirm the moral zeitgeist, all contrary views are verboten. Hardly the words of a thoroughgoing liberal. Farron, on the other hand, defends equality for gay people despite (potentially) personally disagreeing with them. That is surely the same sort of liberal position as anyone who is not a Muslim, and disagrees with swathes of Islamic theology and praxis, yet doesn't believe Islam must be forcibly renounced by legal dictate. True Liberalism defends your entitlement to your view, it defends your equality in law, despite our disagreeing over the issue at hand. It is utterly wrong to suggest Tim Farron is illiberal for (potentially) disagreeing with homosexuality but defending homosexual rights in law. It is surely illiberal to say he cannot hold such a view. 

Farron was absolutely clear that "to understand the Christian faith is to understand we're all sinners". It is evidently not his view that, as we're all sinners, we should all go to prison. It is clearly not his view that, as we're all sinners, none of us should have any rights in law. Even if his view on homosexual sex (yet to be stated) is that it is sinful, it is evidently not the case such a view necessarily means he would do anything other than defend the rights of gay people in law. Even the Conservative American Evangelical writer Tim Keller, some while ago now, argued "you could believe homosexuality is a sin and still believe that same-sex marriage should be legal". Whilst that is not his own view, Keller reported that while many Christians "still believe homosexuality to be a sin, they don’t think the government should put that belief into law for the nation." There is every reason to presume Tim Farron holds to something akin to this Anabaptist position as described by Keller.

It is interesting to me that Farron has been pilloried, not even so much for his views (though that is certainly illiberal) but for his presumed position. The media have decided what they believe Evangelicalism stands for - regardless of the range of views even within this subset of Protestantism - and are gunning for a man based upon their own presumption rather than his actual position. This position is not necessarily the position of the man on the street. It is one pressed by media outlets.

As I was out on the streets of Llandudno, as an openly Evangelical Christian, we were generally not received with complete scorn. Those who didn't want to talk, didn't talk. Those who did, spoke politely and often disagreed with us (which is to be expected, those are the people we are generally trying to reach). When we disagreed, we spoke together about why and we had a reasonable discussion about the issues. Some people seemed to move closer to our view, some people didn't. At the end of each discussion, nobody fell out, many were glad to have the conversation (even if we didn't end up agreeing together) and nobody was forced to say, believe or do anything. We sometimes engaged with Atheists at the opposing end of the believing spectrum to us. It was a triumph for liberalism. Two opposing views who could, in the end, disagree strongly and yet remain genial. Nobody forcing anyone else to believe what they don't believe and nobody taking such offence at opposing views that police involvement or legal proceedings had anything to do with either one of us.

It seems to me that illiberalism is a charge thrown around whenever somebody voices a view that someone else doesn't like. It is incredible that someone can suggest, as Cathy Newman in her Channel 4 interview tried to infer, it is impossible for a Christian to be a liberal because they may hold illiberal values. But the essence of liberalism is defending such views even as we may disagree with them. If Newman is correct, then liberalism is not about defending alternative views but rather about insisting on the affirmation of prescribed state orthodoxy. For Newman, liberalism is authoritarianism. Up is down. Good is bad. It is Newspeak in every conceivable way. Beware the charge of illiberalism. One may be a bit more illiberal than our clarion cry suggests. 

I am not a Liberal Democrat but I can spot a witch-hunt when I see one. It doesn't take a genius to see that Tim Farron, irrespective of his political views, is being hounded for being an Evangelical Christian. It matters not whether he defends gay rights. It makes no difference if he upholds religious plurality. It is of no importance whether he has credible view on tax and spending. He is an Evangelical and has thus been branded a bigot. Much like the cry of illiberalism, we should be careful what we use as our rallying cry. If bigotry is defined as "intolerance of those who hold different opinions to oneself" [source: Google Dictionary], dismissing somebody politically as an Evangelical bigot - without engaging with what they say, think or do - rather, at best, smacks of the pot calling the kettle black.

Notes

1. The Times comment that Tim Farron believes "every word of the Bible is literal truth" is clearly misleading to those who do not understand the doctrines of infallibility or inerrancy. It shows a naive ignorance of how the Bible was written and the various types of literature it contains, grossly misinterpreting anything Farron has actually said. Nevertheless, because he's Evangelical and we all know what that means, it seems not to matter.

In defence of cold-contact evangelism

I was listening to the podcast at the Blazing Centre blog which included a snippet asking the question 'is cold-contact evangelism a good idea?' (the segment begins at 27:45). I could empathise with the general conflict the contributors were having. All seemed to agree that, on the one hand, folk who engage in cold-contact evangelism are actually out there doing something. On the other hand, nobody wants to be that person who, without so much as a how do you do, presses random strangers into answering the question 'if you die tonight, where will you spend eternity?'

Nonetheless, I was left a little cold by the discussion. There were lots of caveats about how the Lord can use any method if it is done prayerfully and with good intentions, how those doing cold-contact evangelism were trying to be faithful and how we should be slow to criticise methodology. Yet, the overall thrust of the conversation seemed to be that cold-contact evangelism was generally ineffective and, frankly, a bit weird. Excepting a few gifted individuals - and even then this was generally in response to questions and interactions in cafes and shops - all the contributors were skeptical.

I was especially disappointed at the closing comments of the segment. A dim view was taken of those who say 'if we don't go and tell people the gospel, who will?' The contributors argued such comments smack of arrogance and a sense in which gospel success depends upon us. Whilst none of us should be arrogant, and of course we must rely on the Lord going before us, it strikes me the 'if we don't, who will' line is precisely the argument of Rom 10:14f. Though it is a work of the Lord, He has appointed the means by which people will hear and graciously includes us in his work of salvation. The context in which the contributors made these comments sounded like the argument of hyper-calvinism and those seeking excuses to avoid evangelism altogether.

Church attendance figures for the UK suggest only 6% of the population attend church regularly. When one considers that not every church included in that 6% will be gospel-centred or bible-believing, we are left with an even lower number of people hearing the gospel inside church buildings. At best, we must conclude that 94% of the population are not coming into church with any regularity nor sitting under the sound of the gospel in church meetings. Inside our own buildings, we are primarily preaching to the converted. Most Christians agree, if we are going reach the world with the gospel, we must go to where the people are and it is evident they are not in church.

There are a variety of ways for us to reach people. We can put on events and services to try and attract people into the church. Though this is becoming increasingly difficult, and it is often hard for the church to attract people with things the world can usually offer without the gospel input, there are still those can be attracted to what the church can offer. It is also worth remembering that godly, gospel-centred community - our love for one another and our unity with one another - are specifically things scripture says will attract the world. Alternatively, we can begin to join clubs and societies in order to build friendships with those we meet. Over shared passions and interests, we can build bridges and share our faith in natural ways with those we meet.

All those things are great and each have a place in the mission of the church. But, if we limit ourselves to these things we essentially only reach those prepared to come into a church (which is, nowadays, very few) or those people like us who share our interests or with whom we are already friends. We are still left asking who will reach the people Romans 10 talks about? Paul isn't talking about those with whom we're friends or those we are in contact with already, he asks who will go to those who have nobody to tell them the gospel? In modern UK society, with only 6% of people coming into any sort of church regularly, most people reside in this Romans 10 bracket.

It strikes me that cold-contact evangelism is one of few ways we can meaningfully reach these people. I do not mean accosting people in the street apropos of nothing, I mean pointed and intentional evangelistic activity taking place outside of our church buildings. That may be open airs, doing questionnaires, distributing evangelistic leaflets or any number of things. Whatever it is, it will involve an intentional desire to share the gospel with those who would not otherwise come into church and with whom we would not otherwise come into contact. That is what I mean by cold-contact evangelism.

There are, no doubt, good and bad ways to do cold-contact evangelism. But asking people in town to do a questionnaire on their beliefs or their understanding of the Christian faith doesn't strike me as any more weird than market researchers or charity fundraisers doing the same. Equally, an open air speaker is no more intrusive and odd than any other street act in a city centre. It is no more unnatural to offer a tract to someone who has listened to part of an open air than it is to offer them a leaflet explaining more about some goods they just looked at in the shop window.

Again, nobody wants to be obnoxious or arrogant. Most people want to avoid becoming a weirdo wearing a sandwich board proclaiming judgment and shouting at people through a loud-hailer. Very few people want to be so crass as to accost people with questions that are not particularly pertinent in the most unnatural way. Even the majority of Christians, who probably think about these things more than most, do not spend every waking moment thinking about where they will spend eternity when they die. To expect a stranger to meaningfully engage with that question as they are caught on the hoof is unlikely to bring them into a relationship with Christ. But, of course, when we talk about cold-contact evangelism these are really not the things we are talking about.

I think the question of how we will reach those people with whom we wouldn't ordinarily have any contact is one of the most pressing for churches today. Folk are simply not walking into church buildings with any regularity anymore. Christians - like everybody else - have always engaged their passions and interests and shared their faith with whomever asks them about it. So the people in church, and the people in our clubs and societies, are the people we have always been reaching on some level. The question remains: how will we reach those we don't know? 

I think cold-contact evangelism - that is meeting and talking to people whom we wouldn't ordinarily engage with the specific intention of sharing the gospel with them - is a means we can credibly do this. The burden of proof is on those who wish to reject cold-contact evangelism to provide a credible alternative for reaching people we wouldn't otherwise meet. Organisations such as United Beach Missions, Open Air Mission, Campus Crusade for Christ and others would all speak against the idea that cold-contact evangelism is ineffective. Even if we wish to argue that some of these missions are not 'cold-contact' per se, seeking to establish relationships for gospel work, they nonetheless aim meet people we wouldn't ordinarily meet with the expressed purpose of sharing the gospel with them. It is at least 'cold-contact' during the time we are beginning to establish relationships and we are building those bridges with a clear sense that we are Christian workers sharing our faith.

It is often the case that we are too timorous with the gospel and we hide behind an ethereal sense of what is, or is not, culturally appropriate in order to shy away from the great commission. We must ask ourselves honestly, are we really avoiding cold-contact evangelism because it's ineffective or is it because we're too scared to engage people with their need of Christ? The evidence points to cold-contact evangelism - as with every form of evangelism - being effective when it is done well and with the right people. If the method is effective in winning souls for Christ - the great awakening, the work of C.H. Spurgeon, the work of Billy Graham, multiple mission organisations and my own personal experience of open air evangelism all suggest that it is - we must have a really solid reason to say we're not going to do it. 

To be honest, 'it might come across weird' may not cut it.

If we say we most love Jesus...

It cannot be that there is a high appreciation of Jesus and a totally silent tongue about him - C.H. Spurgeon

I was recently reminded of the above quote by Spurgeon. Having refreshed my memory, I came across this article by Rico Tice at the Desiring God website. Few were as vocal about the need to speak frequently about Jesus Christ, especially outside of our church buildings, as Spurgeon. Few have done as much as Rico Tice to press the vital importance of evangelism, advance its cause and provide practical ways for all Christian people to do the same in the modern church of the last decade or two.

Both Spurgeon and Tice recognise that we will talk about whatever it is we most love. The theologian Jonathan Edwards advanced a similar case in respect to the things we do. We essentially do all the things, and talk about all the things, that most capture our hearts. Whatever we spend our time doing is what we most love. Whatever we love to talk about gives away where our hearts lie altogether.

If our conversation is littered with references to going out, sport, work, family or whatever it may be, it suggests those things are what we love most. If our conversation, and whatever we do throughout the week, rarely focuses on Jesus Christ, it suggests we don't love him as much as we might want others to think. Before I go further, let me be clear: there is nothing wrong with enjoying and talking about things other than Jesus Christ. But it rather says something if we talk a lot, and spend our time pursuing, these things more than we talk about, and spend our time pursuing, Jesus Christ.

So, here is a simple challenge: how much do you talk about Jesus? How often to you spend time pursuing Christ? How much time do you dedicate to Christ in comparison to other things you enjoy?

If we claim to love Jesus above all else that will surely be reflected in the things we say and do. A high appreciation of Jesus cannot lead to a silent tongue about him

British values, EDOs and whether we'll keep our church buildings

Now they are free of their Liberal Democrat shackle, the Conservative government will press ahead with plans to scrap the human rights act and introduce Extremism Disruptions Orders (EDOs) based upon "British Values" (whatever those are supposed to be). I previously commented on EDOs here. However, there are a few new features that warrant comment.

David Cameron states:

For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens: as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone. It’s often meant we have stood neutral between different values. And that’s helped foster a narrative of extremism and grievance.

This government will conclusively turn the page on this failed approach. As the party of one nation, we will govern as one nation and bring our country together. That means actively promoting certain values. (Source: Guardian)

It is, therefore, apt for Politics Home to state 'David Cameron is promising to introduce a bill in his first Queen’s Speech that will give authorities stronger powers to clamp down on radical groups and individuals – even if they have not broken the law.'

The Guardian claims the measures are intended to give the police 'power to apply to the high court for an order to limit the “harmful activities” of an extremist individual'. Harmful is defined as a risk of public disorder, a risk of harassment, alarm or distress. The measures will allow for bans on broadcasting and requirements to submit to the police in advance any proposed speech and any web, social media, or print publications. Extremist organisations which seek to undermine democracy or use hate speech in public places are also in view. The bill will also contain new powers to close premises "where extremists seek to influence others".

All of this is done in the name of promoting the heretofore undefined concept of "British values". When pressed on this idea, we are told British values incorporate such novelties as freedom of speech and tolerance of others. This either means we have our British values mixed-up or such measures are not really in the name of British values. For, it seems strange to defend free speech and tolerance by denying free speech and tolerance to all views but state prescribed orthodoxies. If free speech and tolerance are truly British values, that should surely extend to speech we find hateful and unpleasant. Indeed, what room is there for the exercise of tolerance if we are never faced with opposing views we must tolerate? Throwing people in prison for expressing unorthodox views - whatever they may be - is a strange approach to tolerance and free speech. Dare I say, it isn't really tolerant at all.

The major problem with these limits on free speech is that they are the slippery slope to repression and authoritarianism. Though judgment may begin at the house of radicalised Islamist terrorists and sympathisers, it very quickly narrows in to those who hold a whole raft of views outside of mainstream thought. Theresa May has already alighted upon those who oppose gay equality legislation as "extremist". Whatever your views on that particular issue, it is surely not right to criminalise those who disagree (unless they have violent thoughts towards those who don't share their views and plan to act upon them). It has political ramifications too. Judgment will begin with those archetypal extremists in the BNP but will soon narrow to take in UKIP, the hard-right of the conservative party any number of "extremist" left-wing parties and the hard-left of the Labour party. 

The rhetoric being employed in favour of this legislation is precisely the same as that used to try and suppress those movements most people today see as vital moments in history. At one time, the Chartists, the Suffragettes, the Labour movement, the Civil Rights movements of America and Northern Ireland, those fighting apartheid in South Africa, those asking for Home Rule for Ireland, just about any independence movement and any number of other significant historical movements have been labelled "extremist" or some similar epithet. 

I am not suggesting those being radicalised by Islamists sit within this same company. However, two things should be said. First, it is the unstated consequences of this legislation that will inevitably impact the newer movements that could potentially sit amongst such historic company. Secondly, some of these historical movements - often church-based dissenting movements - sought to enshrine the rights to freedom of religion and freedom of speech in British law. For several hundred years those rights have been broadly recognised. It is, therefore, immense folly to claim to uphold British values - especially the values of freedom of speech and religion that were won primarily by dissenting churchmen - whilst simultaneously eroding the freedom of those very people to exercise those rights. Threatening prosecution and the removal of buildings for stating views that do not accord with state orthodoxy is a return to medieval rule whereby the governing religion is not Protestant or Catholic but a secularism that isn't fully realised and still hides behind a veneer of the more palatable facets and labels of Christendom.

The way in which the limits on free speech have been applied over recent years is well documented. Street preachers have been the ones who faced the brunt of these pernicious laws and the militancy of those who are desperate to find offence in the things of faith being presented in the public square. Unfortunately, street preaching has fallen out of favour in many Christian circles. I don't know whether it is out of fear of man, embarrassment of the mode, a lack of belief in the power of the gospel and the folly of preaching or something else altogether. Whatever the reason, it sometimes felt as though many unwilling to engage in such public proclamation sat idly by whilst those brave enough to do it faced the ire of the law. It was as though many viewed police involvement as the comeuppance of those foolish enough to engage in such outmoded practices.

As I have argued throughout my posts on free speech, what was being done to evangelists on the street was soon to come home to roost in church buildings. And such is coming to pass. EDOs are specifically designed to root out "extremism in all its forms" and grants powers to close down buildings and venues in which "hate speech" (as yet to be properly defined) is propagated. This was a potential Martin Niemöller moment, and I'll leave it to you to decide how we fared on that front. The offence being taken on the street is now going to be taken in the church. In fact, offence needn't even be taken in the church. Sermons and studies placed online, or even "extremist" views being taught in principle could spell the end of our church buildings and venues and/or the vetting of our sermons and studies.

One can only hope the government sees sense and changes course. If not, this may be an issue on which the church will have to suffer if it is to remain faithful to the word of God. We can nevertheless rest assured that the church of Jesus Christ was not built on the back of state sponsorship and nice church buildings. The early church did quite well without well disposed primary schools offering them a nice venue on a Sunday. What we need, as much now as then, is a work of the Holy Spirit and deep belief in sufficiency of the scriptures. It takes God's word and a work of his Spirit to bring revival. Perhaps we need to lose some of our buildings before we fully realise that.

How do you sell God in the 21st Century? More Heaven; less Hell

I came across this article in today's Guardian online. The piece recounts a conservative Evangelical journey away from their faith. It outlines the story of somebody growing up in an Evangelical baptist family, going to Moody Bible Institute (a conservative, Evangelical seminary), engaged in evangelism and yet becoming increasingly disaffected with theodicy and theology of Hell. In many ways, it is a common story of an Evangelical unable to square what they see in scripture, the apologetic arguments and theology they are taught and their own internal sense of what is just, fair, moral and right. Though lengthy, the article is certainly worth reading.

Nevertheless, the article's emphasis isn't really autobiographical. The writer isn't ultimately trying to share how they became disaffected with Evangelicalism (though they do share that and do so - in my view - in a way that still exhibits fondness for Evangelicals if not for Evangelicalism nor Evangelical theology.) Rather, the writer is trying to address why the perception of Hell - and certainly the formulation of the doctrine of Hell at a popular level - has changed over time.

The article contends that 30 years ago - whilst the writer was growing up in Evangelical baptist circles - Hell was taught in, what would now be considered, an anachronistic way. It was all fire and brimstone, eternal torment and attempts to scare folk into Heaven. It notes a shift in emphasis, focusing on the preaching and writing of Bill Hybels, toward less of a focus on Hell itself. Certainly when Hell was mentioned, it was brought into focus by empathetic appeals to sin and evil existing in all people. The writer then considers how this has changed again, focusing on the writing of Rob Bell. It argues Hell is now either (a) something to be experienced here on Earth; or, (b) a purgatorial refinement leading to ultimate, universal reconciliation and the end of Hell itself.

The article misses the mark in various respects. Principally, it argues the way to avoid Hell, according to protestant Evangelical theology, is to say the sinner's prayer. It states "For contemporary evangelicals, it’s solely this act that separates the sheep from the goats." Though there are undoubtedly people who hold this view, most at a personal level, it is not mainstream Evangelical belief. 

Paul Washer, a well-known conservative Evangelical couldn't be clearer when he states "We call men to repent and believe. And if they repent and believe, truly in that moment they are saved in that moment. But the evidence is more than just the sincerity of a prayer. It is a continuation of the working of God in their life through sanctification." He has also argued "We have taken that truth [that if you truly believe and you confess Christ, even if it costs you your life, you will be saved]… we have taken that beautiful truth and reduced it down to, “If you pray a little prayer before a bunch of people in a church in America, you can be guaranteed you were saved if you think you were sincere.”"

Denny Burk - Professor of Biblical Studies at Boyce College (Southern Baptist seminary) and associate pastor at Kenwood Baptist Church - has published this comment by David Platt - president of the International Missions Board, the mission agency of the Southern Baptists (a conservative Evangelical denomination). Platt states:

Do I believe it is “wrong” for someone to pray a “prayer of salvation”? Certainly not. Calling out to God in prayer with repentant faith is fundamental to being saved (Romans 10:9-10). Yet as I pastor a local church and serve alongside pastors of other local churches, I sense reasonably serious concern about the relatively large number of baptisms in our churches that are “re-baptisms”—often representing people who thought they were saved because they prayed a certain prayer, but they lacked a biblical understanding of salvation and were in reality not saved. This, in addition to a rampant easy believism that marks cultural Christianity in our context (and in other parts of the world), leads me to urge us, as we go to all people among all nations with the good news of God’s love, to be both evangelistically zealous and biblically clear at the same time (Matthew 28:18-20).

Plenty of other conservative Evangelicals can be found stating categorically that nobody is saved simply because they prayed a "sinner's prayer". Though a prayer of repentance may be an outward expression of the repentance that has already taken place in the heart of a believer, it is this ongoing state of repentance and trust in Christ's atoning work that saves.

However, the article is helpful in pinpointing where the boundaries of belief lie. It quite rightly sees the arguments advanced by Rob Bell as demonstrating "the potential pitfalls of the church’s desire to distance itself too quickly from fire and brimstone." As the writer comments:

Bell claims to address the exact theological problem that motivated me to leave the faith, but rather than offer a new understanding of the doctrine, he offers up a Disneyesque vision of humanity, one that is wholly incompatible with the language biblical authors use to speak about good and evil. Along with hell, the new evangelical leaders threaten to jettison the very notion of human depravity – a fundamental Christian truth upon which the entire salvation narrative hinges.

The issues for the writer were plain enough. The Bible teaches the doctrine of Hell. An internal sense of that which is just and merciful couldn't accept the doctrine of Hell. One either accepts the teaching of the Bible or rejects it. Bell's attempts at "disneyfying" the doctrine seemed too hollow and shallow for credible belief.

What the article helpfully states in the clearest terms is the following:

what made church such a powerful experience for me as a child and a young adult was that it was the one place where my own faults and failings were recognised and accepted, where people referred to themselves affectionately as “sinners”, where it was taken as a given that the person standing in the pews beside you was morally fallible, but still you held hands and lifted your voice with hers as you worshipped in song. This camaraderie came from a collective understanding of evil – a belief that each person harboured within them a potential for sin and deserved, despite it, divine grace. It’s this notion of shared fallibility that lent Hybels’s 9/11 sermon its power, as he suggested that his own longing for revenge was only a difference of degree – not of kind – from the acts of the terrorists.

Without a clear and defined understanding of the doctrine of Hell the message of the gospel is liable to be lost. No amount of rebranding is going to help. For a reformulation of the doctrine of Hell means the gospel, the message of salvation in Christ, ultimately loses its power. No Hell soon leads to a watered down, or non-existent, statement of sin. No sin means no need of salvation. No need of salvation means no need of Christ. No need of Christ makes Jesus a pitiable character indeed.

Efforts to rebrand Hell, or to push it to the sidelines, are misguided at best. That is not to say our preaching must be fire and brimstone every week. Nor is it to say Hell must be the centre of all our gospel presentations. It is to say, that to pretend it doesn't exist or to speak of it in such ways as it seems little more than trifling irritant - like a small wart on God's created order - is to undermine the gospel.

A right view of sin - to see it as God sees it - lends credence to the existence of Hell. To do anything other than present Hell as scripture presents it damages our understanding of sin, salvation and the work of Christ. Whatever else the article made clear, it is apparent that changes to the doctrine of Hell were ultimately unconvincing and - despite the title of the piece - more Heaven and less Hell doesn't do much to win anybody. If anything, it undermines the achievement of Jesus on the cross and the reality of our standing before a holy God.

Willful misapplication of the law: a case in point

Three days ago, I commented on the Home Secretary's troubling new proposal to introduce Extremism Disruption Orders. You can see my comments here. My central concern was the stifling of free speech and free debate coupled with the almost certain willful misapplication of the law. Such proposals will have grave knock-on effects, not only for those whose faith is lived out in the public square, but also those who proclaim their faith from the heretofore safety of their own religious building.

For those who doubt the heavy-handed application of the law, an interesting case in point can be viewed here and here. A gentleman who went to Taunton town centre to share his faith has been specifically targeted by police. Market traders have been encouraged to film his street preaching in order to "prove" his words are offensive. Having encouraged locals to aid their evidence-gathering exercise, the evangelist in question is now being prosecuted under Section 5 of the Public Order Act (the very section that has since been amended due to such policing, as you can see here).

The fact the police encouraged market traders to film the man in question is not particularly troubling. Anybody can decide to film anyone else. If anything, it may even help his evangelistic efforts knowing that several market traders are intently listening to his message and, better yet, are keeping it for posterity. Even better again, they are probably passing it on to police as "evidence" meaning his message is being spread further than he could ever have hoped. All of that is to say the filming is not really the problem.

The real issue is that the police predetermined the level of offence and the extent to which Mr Overd was likely to breach the peace and then sought to incite the public themselves gather evidence to prove how offensive he was being. It also seems apparent that those listening were not all that incensed, given a number of complainants "failing to remember what he had said or forgetting when the alleged offensive remarks had taken place". Worse still, Mr Overd is now being prosecuted for a factually-based comparison of the lives of Jesus and Mohammad based upon historical evidence as Mr Overd understood and interpreted it.

Whatever one may feel about his mode of evangelism or the wisdom of making such comparisons, it is undoubtedly beyond question that Mr Overd should be free to do so without police intervention. Muslims, market traders and the multitudes should be free to tell Mr Overd that they don't care for his comments with equal freedom. Those same people should be free to agree and support his comments should they choose to do so. This really isn't a matter for police involvement. There was no danger of violence and certainly no call to arms.

This issue is pertinent because anybody doubting that proposed Extremism Disruption Orders will be misapplied to shut down evangelical street preachers, or even less vocal expressions of evangelicalism, need only look to the application of existing laws. Stories abound, not least this case in point, of such things using existing legislation never intended to be used in this way. The Home Secretary makes no bones about intending to permit the application of the law to people such as Mr Overd. If current legislation, never intended in this way, can be used to stifle free debate and inhibit free speech, what will come of such freedoms when the expressed position of the legislation is to inhibit in precisely these ways?

Know that this is a real issue. An issue that no longer only impacts upon evangelicals brave enough to share their faith in public ways but will affect all those who are evangelical on a Sunday morning, within their own buildings, preaching orthodoxy to their own congregations. We may have spent much time thinking they are coming for the street preachers but I'm not a street preacher so I did nothing. Well, as ever, our inactivity because it doesn't affect us means our comfortable position inside our own church buildings is likely to be next.

Extremist Disruption Orders and ill-judged legislation

Forcing through ill-judged legislation to solve a particular mischief seems to be an unfortunate recurring theme for governments of all stripes. We have already endured a raft of New Labour anti-terror legislation that, whilst primarily aimed at those who espouse violent extremism, was so haphazardly applied (or, mischievously, depending on your predilection) that "extremism" and "hate crimes" were interpreted to include anyone proclaiming anything other than banal, state-approved views. Nonetheless, though over zealously applied, it is probably fair to say the central mischief in mind was genuinely the primary target of the proposed law.

This is what makes the new Extremist Disruption Orders posited by the Home Secretary, Theresa May, so concerning. Not only have past lessons of anti-terror efforts not been heeded, May now goes one step further. In her conference speech, she states outright:

..to live in a modern liberal state is not to live in a moral vacuum. We have to stand up for our values as a nation. There will, I know, be some who say that what I describe as extremism is merely social conservatism. But if others described a woman’s intellect as “deficient”, denounced people on the basis of their religious beliefs, or rejected the democratic process, we would quite rightly condemn their bigotry. And there will be others who say I am wrong to link these kinds of beliefs with the violent extremism we agree we must confront. To them I say, yes, not all extremism leads to violence. And not all extremists are violent. But the damage extremists cause to our society is reason enough to act. And there is, undoubtedly, a thread that binds the kind of extremism that promotes intolerance, hatred and a sense of superiority over others to the actions of those who want to impose their values on us through violence.

And there we have it. Not only "extremism" that leads to violence but "extremism" of all forms. And how do we define such a nebulous term? Though evidently not an exhaustive list, the Home Secretary considers those who believe women to be intellectually "deficient" and those who "denounce" others on the basis of their religious beliefs should be included. Is it offensive to state such things? Almost certainly. Are such views worthy of police intervention? Almost certainly not. More to the point, are those who face the force of the law likely to have done either of those things? In many cases, probably not.

As the Cranmer blog rightly points out "the policy is reasoned and moderate in expression, but the legislation will be almost Marxist in its application as it is wilfully misinterpreted and misapplied to Evangelical Christians (ie those who publicly proclaim the Good News) in exactly the same manner as anti-terror legislation has been invoked to eject a disgruntled pensioner from a Labour Party conference".

The central problem with outlawing "extremism in all its forms" (as the Home Secretary went on to promise) is that such a vacuous subjective term is patently open to abuse. It simply ought not to be illegal to voice an opinion or view that may be deemed "extremist" based upon some undisclosed, subjective assessment. The sad truth is, there are an inordinate number of pressure groups and hyper-sensitive people just waiting to be offended. Worse, they use such attacks on their sensibilities, now bolstered by this egregious law, to see the miscreant removed from the public square for their, often unintentionally, offensive statement. It has also been known for some to actively elicit "offensive" comments (suggesting the view cannot be so unpalatable if questions are being asked for the purpose of obtaining the comment itself) simply so they can involve police in a matter they shouldn't even entertain. As Cranmer correctly states, "For the secular state to seek to define “extremist views” reduces freedom of speech and freedom of religion to the lawful expression of culturally orthodox utterances".

Many Evangelical Christians may think this is an abstract problem that doesn't affect most of us. Surely it only affects street preachers with "offensive" views, those passing out irrelevant literature and others engaged in dated modes of evangelism. But even the central target of this legislation, so-called Islamist "hate preachers", are predominantly not addressing people out in town but inside mosques. They are not ramming their views down people's throats out on the street, they are stating their views on the internet for those who care to listen. That is not to say such views - if they are genuinely those that cause and incite violence - shouldn't be addressed. It is simply to say that such views are being addressed without being in the public domain in the way a street preacher or literature distributor happens to be.

If Evangelicalism is now lumped into the same category as Radical Islamism in the minds of many (not least, the UK government), the idea that only those engaged in active, public evangelism will be affected is cloud-cuckoo land. Most evangelicals still hold views that may be deemed "offensive" by some, state them inside their church buildings and put them up on websites for those who care to listen. Though the clampdown on nebulous "extremist" views begins with Islam, we can be in little doubt that it will extend to Christianity and will not only include those public enough to do their evangelism outside their building. For, if an offensive or "extremist" view in the mosque can lead to legislation and police action, the church is unlikely to fare any better.

The reality is there is no universal human right against being offended. As Cranmer correctly notes, "Extremist opinion that does not involve a call to arms or incite people to acts of terrorism ought to be tolerated by the liberal democratic state. Otherwise those who seek to undermine our liberty and overthrow democracy have won". One can only hope the divergent, yet unerringly consistent, voices of David Davies, Peter Tatchell and many others are finally heeded on this matter.

Mark Steel is half right... nobody will abandon religion simply because an atheist bangs on about science

I generally like Mark Steel. He is usually funny and happens to take a political stance in his comedy that appeals to such as me. I was interested to read his piece in today's Independent in which he (rightly) argued nobody is going to abandon religion simply because "some atheist is banging on at them about science".

Steel is apt to recognise religious belief - as with almost any other firmly held position - is more than a mere matter of assent to facts/ideas (delete according to your predisposition). He comments, "dealing with the intricacies of people’s ideas requires more than yelling science at them" and offers the example of the anorexic who believes they are fat to underline the point. What passes as obvious for one may seem totally irrational to another specifically because of the intricacy of belief and the presumed facts each one of us deems "properly basic".

He correctly points out the issue with the modern atheist appeal to heinous acts committed by those who profess religious belief. He states: 

isn’t it the actions of these people that are vile, not the religion itself? Unless your attitude is: “Those priests are a disgrace. They sexually abused children, covered it up for decades, then to top it all they give out stupid wafers in their service. How sick can you get”?

This point rather hits at the heart of the issue. Richard Dawkins has argued the heinous acts of several atheist dictators had nothing to do with their atheism whilst simultaneously wishing to maintain the heinous acts committed by Roman Catholic priests were somehow prompted by their religion. For many of the New Atheists (cf. Christopher Hitchens' God is not great: how religion poisons everything), the attitude is precisely the one stated above.

Nevertheless, it is nice to see Steel observe "I spent a morning at a Sikh temple recently, where 4,000 free meals are provided for anyone who wants one" whilst pointedly remarking "if you turned up at Richard Dawkins’s house with 4,000 mates, I’d be surprised if you all got a meal out of him".

For all that, Steel's piece is to be commended. It is funny, endearing and recognises the truth that religious belief - in fact, belief of any sort - is more complex than simply assenting to a series of ideas. Somebody once remarked (and I forget who it was now, so I can't honestly credit it), the means by which we reach conclusions is a convoluted and intricate exercise influenced by many things. Reason is merely the device we use to convince others we are right. Often, we expect others to conclude  by reason alone when, for most of us, it is but one of many tools we use to reach conclusions.

Here, however, is where I think Steel is a little unfair. The very title of his piece presumes that the religious are scientifically deficient. Equally fallaciously, he tacitly gives rise to the view that science is the primary form of knowledge (as opposed to other areas that handle issues science cannot and upon which science is often based e.g. philosophy). For all his denunciation of Richard Dawkins, his concern is more that Dawkins patronises believers, has a problem in principle with all religion and clearly ignores the good that many religious believers do. This rather conveys the belief that atheists are the guardians of science and reason whilst believers - who should nevertheless be entertained in their fanciful views so long as they do no harm to others - are not. Steel's concern is not the specific beliefs of Richard Dawkins but the patronising and/or aggressive rhetoric he employs. It is not his views with which Steel finds a problem but the tactics Dawkins uses to convey them. Ironically, this is rather patronising.

Steel says he finds the "contradictions of religion" confusing - as well he should! The example he cites of a guru continuing to fight a battle having had his head chopped off plays directly to our Western, post-enlightenment sense of that which is "properly basic". Of course that could never happen, says Steel, but look at the good these Sikhs are doing in a community setting, offering meals to people. It's the as-long-as-they're-doing-no-harm form of patronage; "yes, their views are ridiculous but look at the lovely things they do as a result"! At least Dawkins doesn't patronise like that.

It is true that belief is a complex thing and represents more than mere assent to a set of ideas. It is also true that reason is but one of many tools we use to reach conclusions. However, that does not mean religion itself is baseless and one must park one's reason to be a believer. I equally don't believe a guru fought a battle after his head was chopped off. That's not because I simply dismiss it as something that could never happen (a position Philosophical Naturalism and Atheism are forced to hold). Rather, if there are good grounds to believe in a God (and, without rehearsing them all here, I believe there are) all sorts of possibilities are open to us. Nevertheless, I don't believe this did happen because of the positive reasons to reject it (again, all of which I will not rehearse here).

By contrast, Christianity is not a religion beget by presumption and story-telling. Scripture itself records God inviting us to "reason together" and the very basis of Christianity - the spark that ignited it as a movement - was based on the evidence for the resurrected Jesus Christ. Throughout the New Testament, the Apostles argued that their hope - and the whole basis of Christianity - stood or fell on the proof of that one fact. Establish the resurrection as a fraud (as many have tried) and Christianity dies overnight. Establish it as fact (in my view, the historical facts are extraordinarily compelling) and Christianity is based on far more than presumption. It compels us reasonably, philosophically and historically.

Where Steel is undoubtedly correct, it will take much more than atheists banging on about science to convince religious believers to abandon their beliefs. Interestingly, Christians recognised this fact long ago. Whatever the compelling reasons for Christianity (and I believe there are many), Blaise Pascal noted nearly 400 years ago, in his Pensées, that reason was but one step (and not even the first one) on the road to belief. No doubt this is where New Atheism is going wrong, merely "banging on about science", but is probably where a lot of modern evangelical Christianity gets it wrong too.

Freedom to be annoying

It is broadly accepted that for a society to be deemed 'free' it must protect individual rights to free speech and expression. Over recent years, however, such rights have been incrementally eroding, one restriction at a time. Now, our current government has determined to further undermine these basic freedoms. 

Not content with restricting freedom of the press, the Home Secretary has unveiled government plans to replace Anti-Social Behaviour Orders (ASBOs) with a series of new civil injunctions that will clamp down on anything likely to cause "annoyance".

As John Bingham writes in the Telegraph: 

Christian preachers, buskers and peaceful protesters could effectively be driven off the streets under draconian new powers designed to clamp on anyone deemed “annoying”, according to a former Director of Public Prosecutions.

Lord Macdonald QC said Theresa May, the Home Secretary’s plans for a new civil injunctions to replace Anti-Social Behaviour Orders (Asbos) amount to “gross state interference” with people’s private lives and basic freedoms.

In a formal legal opinion being circulated to peers, he savages the proposals as opening the way for the outright “suppression” of anything deemed “potentially annoying” with only “vague” justification.

Lord MacDonald QC, writing in a legal opinion commission drafted for the Christian Institute, states:

The danger in this Bill is that it potentially empowers State interference against such activities in the face of shockingly low safeguards and little apparent acknowledgement of the potential effect of its provisions on the ability of citizens to exercise core rights without undue interference... A lone individual standing outside the entrance to a bank holding a sign objecting to its role in the financial crisis, a busker outside a shopping centre, or a street preacher proclaiming the end of days to passers-by may all be capable of causing nuisance and annoyance to some person, but the question is whether they should be subject to such broad legislative intervention as is proposed in this bill.

As I have commented here, here and here, offense routinely appears to be interpreted by police and other authorities as a justification for investigation under the Public Order Act. Despite a reform to Section 5 of the Public Order Act (see here), such continues to occur. Bizarrely, despite changing this law so as not to criminalise "insulting" words or behaviour, the government are now seeking to outlaw "annoying" words or behaviour on even more spurious grounds.

As I highlighted here, this will affect many more Christians than just those engaged in street preaching and tracting (and, whatever our views on these modes of evangelism, the restrictions on such work should still cause us concern). If "offense", the previous watchword, has been replaced with "annoyance", we can guarantee what begins as a clampdown on those doing evangelism outside the church will surely end up impinging on that which goes on inside the church (not least if we "do mission" inside the church and/or bill our services as "public meetings"). How long before a person "annoyed" on the street enters a church building only to be equally annoyed there? What about those parts of scripture that may be considered "offensive"; the public reading of which, and almost certainly the exposition of which, will soon be deemed both offensive and annoying?

Personally, I do not share Cranmer's view of where he "draws the line" regarding free speech. It is my view that we already have sufficient laws against offensive and obnoxious behaviours - and that is quite right. Offensive, obnoxious or annoying words - unpleasant though they may be - should not be subject to controls. Prejudice, discrimination and incitement - whatever danger they pose - are not the heart of the issue. Individuals should be free to spout prejudice and discrimination, whatever form it takes, just as the rest of us should be free to explain in no uncertain terms why such views are vile and repugnant. Individuals should not be free to discriminate or act prejudicially but there should be no bar on these views being aired. How else can we rebuff such incoherent nonsense but for it being spoken? Similarly, incitement is not the issue. We may want to say the words of those who incite violence are so dangerous they must be curbed. But it is not the words that do the violence but those who act upon them - nobody makes anyone else do anything. If we have sufficient controls on behaviour there is no reason to place further controls upon speech.

Some may well find the activities of Christian people offensive, annoying, contentious, eccentric, heretical, unwelcome and provocative just as many Christian people may find the same of others. Surely that is the price we pay for a free society and society is all the richer for such expressions. As the Cranmer blog put it: "freedom reigns while people are at liberty to spout their views."

Could you go on a beach mission this year?

United Beach Missions (UBM) work in Britain, Ireland and Continental Europe to take the good news of Jesus Christ to those who would otherwise never hear it. For many of the people we meet, UBM is their first and only encounter with the gospel.

The missions have been up and running for 4 weeks and we have already heard of at least 3 people who have trusted the Lord through this work. We expect to hear of many more over the course of the summer.

UBM wouldn't be able to operate without team members. The organisation require c. 1000 volunteers to man around 90 weeks of mission throughout the summer. This year, bookings have been down and many of the missions are in need of support.

Anyone who has trusted Jesus Christ as Saviour and Lord, and believes the Bible to be the word of God, the final authority in all matters of faith and conduct is welcome to apply. Previous experience or special abilities are not necessary. There is a place on a Beach Team no matter what your previous experience has been.

Clearly, as even just the early weeks of missions this year have shown, UBM really does work. Ask yourself, could you be a part of it? Could you give just one week this year and take the gospel to those who sorely need to hear it?

For more information visit http://www.ubm.org.uk.

Tony Miano arrested for 'hate' speech - full video and police transcript

Yesterday, I posted a link regarding the recent arrest of Tony Miano - an American street evangelist preaching outside Wimbledon.

Since then, a full video of the incident and police transcripts of the subsequent interview have been made available. These have been published on the Cranmer blog. Calvin Smith has responded to the story and posted his reaction here.

Having read the transcript and viewed the video, it appears Mr Miano doesn't do himself any favours on occasion. The officer admitted and exhibited theological illiteracy several times yet Mr Miano continued to explain sin in such a way that the officer misunderstood Miano's view. Nothing he said thereafter did anything to divest the officer of this misconception. Only once did he identify himself as 'a sinner', though not really with clarity. This can't have helped the officer move from his view that 'sinners' are bad people for doing x, y and z whilst the preacher is not such a one. Similarly, it took some pointed questions from his legal counsel to even come close to drawing out the points that (a) he was not intending to offend anybody and; (b) he was not intending to convey the idea that he is good whilst everyone else is sinful (though, as I mentioned, even this was not spoken of with clarity).

Similarly, Cranmer rightly points out that Mr Miano's own version of events are not entirely borne out by the police transcript. He notes '[Mr Miano] specifically stated that the police asked him if he would be prepared to feed a hungry homosexual (corroborated in Christian Concern's press release). This transcript establishes that these words were, in fact, Mr Miano's own; not those of the interrogating police officer. This sort of misinformation or exaggeration really doesn't aid a person's credibility'. Although these were specifically Mr Miano's words, they were a specific example used in direct response to the officer's question 'if someone you knew as a homosexual came up to you and asked you for a favor [sic], you'd quite happily offer them that favor [sic] would you?'.

Nevertheless, Calvin Smith is apt to comment: 'Whatever your view of street preaching, or the style or approach of this particular preacher... we have indeed reached a sinister stage in our country where a single individual who is "offended" can result in the arrest, fingerprinting, DNA sampling and interrogation of another individual'.

Two separate and independent thoughts on freedom in Britain

Here are two interesting posts on freedom in Britain:

The first, from Andy's Study, discusses the ongoing Edward Snowden saga and how the British  government seem equally intent on prolific data collection.

The second, from Cranmer, discusses the recent arrest of Tony Miano - an American street evangelist arrested outside Wimbledon. Whatever one feels about Mr Miano's view, such treatment seems heavy-handed to say the least. At least Section 5 of the Public order Act will be reformed (see here).

Anyway, two interesting posts worth some reflection, wherever such reflections may lead.

Edit: Full video and Police transcripts of the Tony Miano arrest have now been made available and can be viewed here.

When logical actions are culturally defined and appear absurdly illogical

I was recently given a copy of The Briefing which contained an article on the Islamic protests against a film, made in the USA, which depicted Muhammad in a less than complimentary light. The article, 'Marching for Allah', considers questions related to why a group of Muslims in Australia would bother to march and protest against a film created in the USA. What were they hoping to achieve and why did this seem like a logical response to the issue?

The article goes on to outline three types of cultural rationalities: guilt-based rationality; shame-based rationality and fear-based rationality. The Western, Judeo-Christian world leans strongly toward guilt-based rationality which "relies on an internal conviction of right and wrong". The article comments, "western people often think that the right thing to do is the righteous thing, even if it hurts other people. Western people often value personal integrity, sometimes at the expense of relationships. We value truth, honesty, and justice".

By contrast, much of the Middle East and Asia leans toward shame-based rationality.The article states:

In a shame-based culture, people often value relationship and the preservation of community over a personal sense of righteousness. In other words, people from these cultures often think that the right thing to do is the thing that honours the other people in their life, particularly family, but also nation, ancestors and God. People value and rationalize in terms of loyalty, community and friendship, and right action is about satisfaction, rather than justification.

When we consider these differing approaches to rationality, we come to understand something of why these protests took place. Those marching were not concerned with censorship and stopping the film. Instead, the protest was about sending a message to the world that this sort of depiction of Muhammad was not alright with them. As the articles comments:

Muslims care about the way you think about Allah, even if you aren't Muslim. They care about the way you think about Muhammad, who had been publicly shamed. Many of them would prefer to defend the honour of Muhammad by any means rather than sit idly by while he is profaned. And so the protest was what rational action demanded of them.

Understanding differing rationalities may help us comprehend the underlying reasons for the recent Islamic protests, however, it should also have the most profound impact upon how we engage with Muslims.

On one level, this may mean framing the gospel less in terms of guilt and personal righteousness and more in terms of shame and exaltation. Certainly the Bible itself does this on occasion (e.g. Ps 25:3; Isa 53:3; Rom 9:33; 1 Pet 2:6). However, this doesn't mean we need to throw out the penal substitutionary view of atonement when discussing scripture with Islamic friends. Instead, it means carefully explaining "the righteousness of God wasn't about God’s own righteousness: God’s intrinsic honour and glory. It was about a righteousness imputed to us; our sin condemned us, but in Christ we stand justified because Christ has dealt with our guilt".

Our culture, in many ways, determines the way we will do theology. However, the reverse of this is also true: "Much of our culture depends on the way we think about God". As the article comments:

In Islamic theology Allah is unknowable. He is utterly transcendent, and it is impossible to penetrate the inside of God to enter into any kind of relationship. The best we can do is know his will for our lives, and then honour him by doing it. It isn’t a religion of relationship, it’s about submission—which is what the word Muslim means. This idea of God shapes every area of Islamic culture. The task of the government is to ensure that Allah is honoured by society and that society conforms to his will. Because of this, Islamic culture will always tend towards social uniformity and political totalitarianism. The concept of dhimmitude also makes complete sense, because non-Muslims also must be seen to honour Allah, even if they don’t believe. Life becomes about conformity and obedience. The good life is one where Allah is seen to be honoured.

But consider the difference that Christian theology makes—the Christian church in its better, more self-consistent moments. Consider that the Father of Jesus Christ would humble his own son; that Christ would become man so that we might penetrate the unknowable God and discover the inner nature of the Father. We think about reality differently because of this. All of a sudden, true power is power to serve others self-sacrificially, just as the Son of Man came not to be served, but to serve. True being is in relationship: existence for another, just as Christ loved us and gave himself for us. Consider how much changes when you see God not through the lens of glory, but through a theology of the cross—that God would be humbled and shamed, cast into the despair of a grieving parent. What might it mean for our dialogue with Islam that God the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ doesn't always have to be seen to win?

When we respond to and engage with Muslims, the way we respond is important. The message of Islam is triumphalist, couched in the language of victory. Allah will suffer no rivals and, above all else, he must be honoured. Whilst it is right for Christians to speak up and respond to Islam, we are not called to shout louder nor to make sure our God is seen to win. It is not incumbent on us to make everybody honour Christ with the dignity due to him.

Whilst a time will come when every knee will bow and confess Christ as Lord to the glory of God the Father (Rom 4:11), this is something God will do himself and does not require from us. When speaking with Muslim friends, perhaps we must acknowledge there is nothing rational we can say, and then should say it nonetheless (1 Cor. 1:18). "Allah may have his day, while Christians continue to meekly proclaim a nonsensical Trinitarian God, a dishonoured and crucified saviour, while we love our enemies, and pray for those who persecute us... We aren't going to be able to boisterously commend a crucified God".

Allah’s day is Friday. But it is only one day, and you can’t tell on Friday who wins. Allah may be honoured by all and Christ may be in the grave, but the true God doesn't always need to appear victorious. The victor will only be known three days later. We live on that Saturday in between. We do not yet see all things subjected to Jesus. Rather we worship, proclaim and honour a crucified God, who bore our sin—and shame—in his own body on the tree. He did it to show us the inner heart of the God who suffers with us. He did it to win forgiveness for the meek and humble, and for those that hunger and thirst for a righteousness that they didn’t see in the placards of the protest march. If it is a message that is foolish, then so be it: we will be foolish. For vindication we must wait. But we wait with altered rationality, with a hidden wisdom. We wait with patience and eager expectation, for Sunday.

Clearly, such a view impacts in the most direct way on how we engage with our Muslim friends. However, this should also cause us to consider which, if any, 'protests' are truly worthwhile. Our God and saviour has already suffered the ignominy of the cross. In his humiliation, God shamed himself in the most public and terrible way. When he is derided and mocked today, what is that compared to the shame of the cross? Moreover, though he in no way appeared victorious on the Friday, it is to the resurrection that the apostles continuously point. 

Where people seek to shame our God and saviour, are they really going to do any worse than the cross? When our Lord appears to be shamed, must we defend his honour? His dignity, by his own volition, was given up in the most public way on the cross. The Lord will ultimately triumph and everyone will give the honour due to him. However, this is something he will do and for which he needs no help. Why concern ourselves protesting against trifling attempts to shame Christ when he already shamed himself in the most humiliating of ways? Our calling is not to defend God's honour, he will see to that himself, but to commend a God who so loves the world that he shamed himself to bring people into a relationship with Him.