The Bishop of Croydon, the Rt Revd Nick Baines, also countered the campaign’s arguments, speaking on Channel 4’s 4thought.tv. He said that Christians who could not carry out a particular job if it was in conflict with their faith had a choice whether to do it, but this did not amount to persecution.
Andrew Copson, chief executive of the British Humanist Association, said that the campaign was inÂdicative of “inÂcreasingly desperate attempts to work up a victim narrative of ”˜Christianophobia’”, which has “no basis in reality”.
But Andrea Minichiello Williams, director of Christian Concern, said that she daily encountered ChrisÂtians “who find themselves in trouble in the workplace as a result of living out their Christian faith”.
I’d agree that “persecution†may be a bit of a stretch, but I do believe there’s a degree of opression in some circumstances. It’s also in North America, although I acknowledge that the cultural role of the established church is an aggravating factor in the UK; it’s not just Christianity, but the Christian underpinnings of British culture that is under assault.
Imagine if a bishop had said…
… Rosa Parks had a choice whether to sit in the back of the bus or walk, but that’s not persecution.
… The “Little Rock Nine†had a choice whether to try to enter the “white†school, so it wasn’t persecution when they were spat upon.
… Bishops who have a low view of the Royals should find another line of work if they can’t keep their mouths shut; inhibiting them isn’t persecution.
… [Catholics]/[Protestants] have a choice to renounce their [popish]/[heretical] ways, so drawing and quartering is not persecution.
… Priests who cannot in conscience “marry†two men have a choice whether to be priests or not, so defrocking would not be persecution.
Really, ALL of us have “a choice†when it comes down to it; that doesn’t disprove persecution.
But while there’s room for quibbling about the precise boundaries of oppression or persecution, it’s sadly interesting that Christian leaders like +Baines and Mr. Barrow choose sides with the secular humanists. They might have suggested that while they find the language exaggerated, they nevertheless encourage more tolerance for the daily working out of the Christian faith, and expressed concern about the slow but steady marginalization of public faith in general, and Christianity in particular. They didn’t have to completely undercut and trivialize the “Not Ashamed†campaign.
RE: “He said that Christians who could not carry out a particular job if it was in conflict with their faith had a choice whether to do it, but this did not amount to persecution.”
Hah hah — what an unintentionally funny comment.
Of course, the point is that it is the *State* that has a “choice.” It can *force* a Christian to engage in certain behaviors in conflict with that person’s faith. Or it can not.
How richly ironic that the person who is being mandated *by the State* to take certain immoral actions is now somehow the person with “the choice” — rather like, I suppose, Christians in China have “a choice” not to attend certain churches, since the State mandates that they not, by force.