All people are equal — but not all behaviour is
Gay men's parade Photo: PDX Pixels
Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali has always been courageous. In a Church better known for its mild manners and timid stances, he has struck Anglicans and others as a bold voice. His response to David Cameron’s statement that Britain is still a Christian nation confirms this. His speech (reproduced in edited form by the Sunday Telegraph) touches upon many of the issues facing Christians in this country today: the moral challenges of scientific progress, the muddy waters of multiculturalism and the religious illiteracy that permeates the “corridors of power” certainly play a role in the marginalisation of the majority religion. But even more central to the Christian today is the question: if everyone is equal, is all behaviour equal too? is every relationship ?
For many Christians the answer is “no”. Homosexual relationships are not the same as heterosexual ones; traditional families are not the same as chaotic ones; mothers who sacrifice all for their children are not the same as mothers who don’t. This value judgement does not validate hostility towards those involved in such relationships — but it does draw a line between what Christians find acceptable and what they do not.
This pits them against those who embrace alternative (non-Christian) lifestyles — from the gay woman who wants to marry er partner to the man ready to swap his wife for a younger model. And it exposes Christians to the anger and mockery of secularists. Hence the private comments by Tesco’s head of research and development, Nick Lansley – that he would campaign “against evil Christians (that’s not all Christians, just bad ones)“, who oppose equal marriage rights. Lansley was reacting to a protest spearheaded by the Christian Institute against Tesco’s participation in the gay Pride London march next year.
The row over Tesco is but the most recent to highlight the culture clash that threatens Britain’s much-cherished tolerance. Most of the other incidents have focused on gay vs Christian rights; many have fuelled legal battles. The Christian position is clear: we may be equal in the eyes of the law, but what we do is not equally acceptable in the eyes of believers; complicity with such behaviour should not be forced upon Christians.
Freedom of conscience means freedom from odious complicity. Bishop Nazir-Ali understands this; does David Cameron?
I agree with this article, but the important thing to understand is that those who practice homosexuality identify who and what they are by what they do. By this logic they believe that all people including homosexuals should be treated as equal. This is one of the core principals of the homosexual philosophy.
er should be her in the third paragraph. The first link is broken.
Joe
January 6, 2012 at 16:12
We have virtually ceased to shop at Yesco following their particilation and will not return until they apologise for that participation. We urge all our friends to shop elsewhere is at all possible.
Douglas R Allen
January 6, 2012 at 17:07
I would have to say that the given examples from the Bible do not hold any lrietal theological significance for Christians. Jesus has dissolved all the requirements of the OT laws and ritiuals by his passion work. As a result the Mosiac law has been superseded by Jesus which Paul clear relates in Galatians. I wonder if some better hermeneutical methods are required in order to have a better understanding of the issues involved in the texts and their broader context, the historical and cultural context also. The common arguments about strange laws like not sowing different seeds in the same field’ and the above example of blended cloth’ had important significance in within their proper cultural and theological understanding. One simple reason then behaved like this was it made the people of Isreal different because many of the religious practices of the nations around them had some of types of things as part of the cults practices. God wanted them to show who then belonged to by doing the opposite. Don’t NZ’rs like to wear certain coloured clothing to show where their loyalty resides? Why then can’t they wear unblended cloth for the same reasons? Also if I read it as a 21st century secular person then without any background then one can come up with a weaker interpretation of the text. Yet we read different types of genre for example and have different expectations and interpretations of them. Do I read the news paper in the same way a comic book? Of course not. The Bible is a challenging book and needs some homework being done when interpreting it. The issue of lrietalism needs to be addressed. It seems to be used because the culture has been conditioned to view it as something associated with ignorance and to be feared. The Bible does have lrietal statements, but the content and context will aid one with where the meaning lies. It is not full of lrietal statements, but this type of thinking seems to show the type of presupposition might need to be reevaluated.
Batiste
March 11, 2012 at 23:01