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.

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.