I was thinking about commenting on the 'sacked' Christian supply teacher story, but it's still not entirely clear what the facts are. Someone somewhere has overreacted, but it's hard to say who. But if you want to join a comments thread, then try:
Tom Harris
Iain Dale
Tabloid Watch
Cranmer
Bristol Evening Post (if you want to engage with a completely different set of people to the blogosphere regulars.)
depending on your prejudices. I mean, convictions.
For the record:
- pushing your faith on other people when they're not interested is socially inept/insensitive, but people do that all the time with their interest in everything from trains to the fortunes of Manchester United. They don't get sacked for it.
- however, offering to pray for a seriously ill child is more than just droning on about Berbatov. Even with my dog collar on I'm very careful what I say in situations which call for a bit more pastoral sensistivity than the average. It would, however, be interesting to know if there's been any complaints about people who've extolled the virtues of Reiki or acupuncture.
- it would be nice if we lived in a world where people could say things to each others faces, rather than staying quiet and then going to the authorities. It's surely much healthier to deal with issues adult to adult, rather than adding to a culture of complaint and litigation.
- having a faith doesn't give you a right to 'share' it. The Bible is clear: be ready to give an answer to anyone who asks you to explain your faith, and do it with gentleness and respect (1 Peter, I think). Yes Christians are called to bear witness to their faith, but witnesses don't speak until they are called to the stand.
- there are a number of people who will assume that anyone who has engaged the services of the Christian Legal Centre is automatically wrong. There are others who assume that any story as reported by the Daily Mail is factually inaccurate. But nobody can be right 100% of the time.
You say that this might be another case of the facts not being fully clear, possibly correct, as we have only heard the teachers points.
ReplyDeleteWhat I find so sad is that people so easily take offence and are ready to exploit it and to complain. When did we stop being robust and able to carry out sensible conversations without recrimination and complaint?
The advisability or not of the teacher offering to pray for the child is not the real issue, it is the inability of people being unable to voice their faith views for fear of being misconstrued or being accused of some form of hate crime.
I find that having come to faith in a real way in the last couple of years, I am excited and ready to talk to anyone who wishes to ask about it. I have to say, that in this, I have never had a negative outcome, rather the opposite, I have found real support from many who I had no inkling of their Christian views or membership of churches as they hid it very well. This is asymptomatic of living in an aggressive secular environment where religion is derided and put away as something to be done in private.
While I do not advocate wearing a label, saying "I am a Christian - Treat me with Care" we must not be afraid to speak up or out when necessary as to my mind, silence is taken as complicity. (See the criticism levelled at Arch Bishop Rowan Williams over being slow to condemn the Ugandan situation).
The media such as the Mail will always sensationalise these cases, but we must be wary to not just dismiss them - they should be taken at face value until all of the facts are in the public domain and an informed opinion can arrived at.
"Having a faith doesn't give you a right to 'share' it."
ReplyDeleteHow can our faith but become a 'private' matter when one endorses statements such as these? Well I'm sure glad that the apostles and martyrs didn't feel the same way.
"Yes Christians are called to bear witness to their faith, but witnesses don't speak until they are called to the stand."
And until then shall we bury our talents in the sand? Why must our faith be explained on the defensive only? A deathknell for evalgelism surely.
There is a big difference between imposing your faith on someone and allowing them the freedom to reject it.
Thanks for a thoughtful article David. You're right, we don't know the facts which could range from a malicious complaint to actual bullying.
ReplyDeleteI don't think that anyone who employs the services of CLC are wrong (as for the Daily Mail - they do usually get the date right), but I would say that they are incredibly ill-advised. The CLC does seem to have an agenda which isn't about keeping their clients in employment and it's sad to see Olive Jones, like Caroline Petrie before her being used as a pawn in a bigger game.
Even as scared of Christians as I am, a union rep like me would be far better for Olive Jones than the CLC. Of course it wouldn't have made the papers like the CLC really want.
Andy - a union is an obvious answer, as it would prevent this kind of thing becoming so political.
ReplyDeleteJakian Thomist - 'share' can sometimes mean 'impose at the first opportunity', which doesn't do the gospel or the reputation of Christians any good at all. There's a difference between defensive and responsive: Peters sermon in Acts 2 is responsive, as is Philips 'witness' to the Ethiopian eunuch. It's possible to be entirely open about your faith without cornering people.
At the same time, entirely agree with UKViewer "What I find so sad is that people so easily take offence and are ready to exploit it and to complain. When did we stop being robust and able to carry out sensible conversations without recrimination and complaint?" Amen to that.