I don't know if you read the Times, as I do, but even if you don't, you can't have missed the recent uproar in the media regarding the case of Lydia Playfoot. If you do, you may, like me, have read a spiteful article in today's paper by Martin Samuel.
To summarise, she has taken her school (soon to be ex-school) to court for refusing to allow her to wear a silver ring as an outward symbol of her decision to refrain from having sex until she is married. The ring is supplied by The Silver Ring Thing (SRT), who are an evangelical Christian group who aim to promote this behaviour, and, as part of this, members make a declaration of their intention to remain celebate until they marry. Lydia claims her human rights have been breached, and that by refusing her wish to wear this ring, the school is discriminating against Christians. After all, Muslims are allowed to wear head-scarves, and Hindus can wear armbands. The school, on the other hand, are taking the stand that whilst such dress is compulsory for Hindus and Muslims, SRT rings are not compulsory for Christians (although if she choose to wear a crucifix, this would be allowed). As such, the SRT ring is nothing more than jewelry, and has no place in the school uniform.
Now, in my opinion, both parties have some basis for their arguments. The school is unquestionably correct that SRT rings, or indeed rings of any sort, are not commanded for Christians. Lydia has a point that her decision to wear such a ring is inspired by her Christian faith, and that for her it is an outward expression of her inward convictions. For what it's worth, it seems to me that an SRT ring has a similar level of necessity for an evangelical Christian as a cross or crucifix does - in other words it's not commanded, but I suppose that people like to express their faith in such a way. Maybe both should be allowed, or neither.
But this wrangling over what constitutes a necessary part of a Christian's dress is surely jeopardising an essential part of the Christian message - that salvation, necessary to every human being, is possible through, and only through, the blood of Jesus, shed on the Cross. Faith, not works. It's what one believes that matters, not whether or not one wears a ring.
So what should we conclude? It's unquestionably the case that, in this country, Christians are, increasingly, being stopped from doing things that just a few years ago would have been ignored. It's not hard to imagine a time when I would be breaking the law by writing this article (check out the paragraph above - now, that's not very "inclusive," is it - not as "tolerant" as we like to see here...). This persecution, albeit currently barely noticable compared to that faced by Christians in other parts of the world - China, North Korea, etc etc - is to be expected. God has told us, many, many times that we should expect it.
So should Lydia be fighting this case? Or should she accept her school's authority and let it go? I honestly don't know. At some point we have to stand up for our right to worship the God of the Bible, not the God of the people. Liberal Christianity will never be banned, becuase it has no solid position. In the face of opposition it shifts to fit in. Evangelical Christianity almost certainly won't be banned in the near future outright, rather I believe we should expect "salami tactics" - an attack to come one slice at a time. Is this the beginning? I doubt it. Is this one more slice in a process that's already started? Possibly. How should we respond? I honestly don't know. Apart from prayer.
One thought, which I offer without any theological basis, is as follows. The media has almost universally condemned Lydia's position. She's been portrayed as a misguided, foolish teenager, a victim of the latest "fad" (though I doubt it's one that will appeal to many non-Christians), a pawn in a game played by her hardly impartial parents (they are Director and secretary of SRT UK). If the world (that world which Christians are called to be in but not of) is so against her, my suspicion is that we should be aligning ourselves in support of her. It's not a gospel issue, so I don't think it should be the be-all and end-all. But should we side with those whom, although light had come to them, rejected it in favour of darkness, because their deeds were evil, or with someone who, possibly unwisely, is taking a stand for her right to worship God in a biblically principled way?
To summarise, she has taken her school (soon to be ex-school) to court for refusing to allow her to wear a silver ring as an outward symbol of her decision to refrain from having sex until she is married. The ring is supplied by The Silver Ring Thing (SRT), who are an evangelical Christian group who aim to promote this behaviour, and, as part of this, members make a declaration of their intention to remain celebate until they marry. Lydia claims her human rights have been breached, and that by refusing her wish to wear this ring, the school is discriminating against Christians. After all, Muslims are allowed to wear head-scarves, and Hindus can wear armbands. The school, on the other hand, are taking the stand that whilst such dress is compulsory for Hindus and Muslims, SRT rings are not compulsory for Christians (although if she choose to wear a crucifix, this would be allowed). As such, the SRT ring is nothing more than jewelry, and has no place in the school uniform.
Now, in my opinion, both parties have some basis for their arguments. The school is unquestionably correct that SRT rings, or indeed rings of any sort, are not commanded for Christians. Lydia has a point that her decision to wear such a ring is inspired by her Christian faith, and that for her it is an outward expression of her inward convictions. For what it's worth, it seems to me that an SRT ring has a similar level of necessity for an evangelical Christian as a cross or crucifix does - in other words it's not commanded, but I suppose that people like to express their faith in such a way. Maybe both should be allowed, or neither.
But this wrangling over what constitutes a necessary part of a Christian's dress is surely jeopardising an essential part of the Christian message - that salvation, necessary to every human being, is possible through, and only through, the blood of Jesus, shed on the Cross. Faith, not works. It's what one believes that matters, not whether or not one wears a ring.
So what should we conclude? It's unquestionably the case that, in this country, Christians are, increasingly, being stopped from doing things that just a few years ago would have been ignored. It's not hard to imagine a time when I would be breaking the law by writing this article (check out the paragraph above - now, that's not very "inclusive," is it - not as "tolerant" as we like to see here...). This persecution, albeit currently barely noticable compared to that faced by Christians in other parts of the world - China, North Korea, etc etc - is to be expected. God has told us, many, many times that we should expect it.
So should Lydia be fighting this case? Or should she accept her school's authority and let it go? I honestly don't know. At some point we have to stand up for our right to worship the God of the Bible, not the God of the people. Liberal Christianity will never be banned, becuase it has no solid position. In the face of opposition it shifts to fit in. Evangelical Christianity almost certainly won't be banned in the near future outright, rather I believe we should expect "salami tactics" - an attack to come one slice at a time. Is this the beginning? I doubt it. Is this one more slice in a process that's already started? Possibly. How should we respond? I honestly don't know. Apart from prayer.
One thought, which I offer without any theological basis, is as follows. The media has almost universally condemned Lydia's position. She's been portrayed as a misguided, foolish teenager, a victim of the latest "fad" (though I doubt it's one that will appeal to many non-Christians), a pawn in a game played by her hardly impartial parents (they are Director and secretary of SRT UK). If the world (that world which Christians are called to be in but not of) is so against her, my suspicion is that we should be aligning ourselves in support of her. It's not a gospel issue, so I don't think it should be the be-all and end-all. But should we side with those whom, although light had come to them, rejected it in favour of darkness, because their deeds were evil, or with someone who, possibly unwisely, is taking a stand for her right to worship God in a biblically principled way?
1 comment:
Post a Comment