Christian Citizenship Bulletin No. 52
Christian Citizenship Bulletin No. 52
CHRISTIAN CITIZENSHIP BULLETIN
No. 52 November 2002
Contents
Baroness Young, 1926 - 2002
by Sharon James
Sex Selection: Choice and Responsibility in Human Reproduction
by John R. Ling
The Challenge of Disability Issues for the Local Church
by Gerald Tanner
Rock Music - An Alternative View
by Nigel Halliday
Domestic Violence and the Church
by Sharon James
Employment Discrimination and the Christian
by Rod Badams
Which is the Dumbest Religion in the World?
by Rod Badams
BARONESS YOUNG, 1926-2002
We pay tribute to Baroness Young of Farnworth, who died on 6 September 2002, aged 75. Over a number of years she demonstrated great courage and determination in campaigning for Christian family values. Some consider that she was single-handedly responsible for Labour’s failure to abolish Section 28, the law prohibiting local authorities promoting homosexuality. During that time, she was vilified by the gay lobby, yet, in 2001, she was also chosen as Channel 4’s Peer of the Year - an indication that there is more ‘grass roots’ support for traditional values than is commonly thought. She had also been described as ‘a Mary Whitehouse with political clout’.
Janet Mary Baker was born in 1926. She went to schools in Oxford, where she excelled at rugby and cricket, and then, during the war, in the United States. After studying Politics, Philosophy and Economics at St Anne’s College, Oxford she married Geoffrey Young, who was to become a Fellow of Jesus College. They had three daughters. As a staunch Anglican, and as a mother, Janet Young was convinced that a stand should be taken against the steady erosion of morality in society. She knew, realistically, that this would mean an involvement in politics, and thus she became a member of Oxford City Council, a post she held for fifteen years. Yet she dreamed of a career in the House of Commons. She put herself forward as a Parliamentary candidate in 1960, but she was not selected. When asked why she made only the one attempt, she admitted that her duty to her children came first. But another political door unexpectedly opened. In 1971, Edward Heath invited her to become a member of the House of Lords, as a life peer. She became a junior whip, a parliamentary under-secretary, vice-chairman and deputy chairman of the Conservative Party. She was the only woman ever to serve in a Thatcher cabinet - Mrs Thatcher appointed her as a junior minister in the Department of Education, and from 1981 until 1983 she rose to become Leader of the House of Lords, the first woman ever to hold that position. It seemed as though her political career had peaked early. However, she continued to use her position in the Lords to campaign on moral isues.
She was implacably opposed to Lord Mackay’s proposals to introduce ‘no fault’ divorce. And after the Conservative defeat in 1997, Lady Young increasingly devoted her energies to resisting the promotion of permissive amorality. She worked in conjunction with, and became a patron of, the Christian Institute in Newcastle, and built up an impressive cross-bench alliance to defend Section 28. She gave forthright speeches, and put on an exhibition at the House of Lords of publicly-funded ‘progay’ literature for young people. She maintained that to draw up a code of morality without God at the centre was futile - you were left with a smorgasbord of choices and no absolutes. Unsurprisingly, some ridiculed and reviled her - her home was the target for many obscene letters and publications, but ultimately the Government gave way and withdrew the amendment to Section 28.
Baroness Young opposed the selling of the morning-after-pill ‘over the counter’ by chemists, she resisted the move to allow unmarried couples to adopt children, and she also led opposition to the lowering of the age of homosexual consent. This latter campaign was unsuccessful, although the Government had to resort to the Parliament Act to get the legislation through.
Janet Young worked throughout her married life. Her commitment to her family could be seen in that she refused to attend any council meetings between 5 and 7 pm. when she was looking after her daughters. She resolutely maintained that women should have the right to stay at home to look after their families without feeling guilty. It was concern for her children’s welfare that initially moved her to get involved in politics - she believed in the Christian family, and was determined to resist the slide into a totally secular society.
Baroness Young was a wonderful example of a Christian citizen who was willing to use her gifts and energy for the good of others, and one who put her faith into practice. She was courageous, perceptive and gracious. We are grateful to God for her life and work.
SHARON JAMES
SEX SELECTION: CHOICE AND RESPONSIBILITY IN HUMAN REPRODUCTION
This is the title of the latest public consultation exercise from the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA). It is asking whether embryo sex selection techniques should be made available for nonmedical purposes. The public was last consulted on this issue in 1993, when such non-medical sex selection was rejected.
Sex Selection - The Methods Used
Sex selection of children is not new. Some societies, for example, especially in India and China, currently practise it by infanticide - that is, they kill their newborns, usually girls, within the first few days of their birth, either deliberately by smothering or poisoning them, or by simple abandonment. That is horribly crude, but effective. Other societies use the less primitive method of ultrasound scanning to determine the sex of the unborn child and then use abortion to ‘get rid of it’. That is a rough and ready, process but it works, mostly.
Now, we, in the West, have become far more sophisticated. We can use techniques like preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD), or sperm sorting. PGD is a fairly recent development in a series of methods used to check on the health of the unborn - it joins amniocentesis and chorion villus sampling in seeking out those with genetic abnormalities that may lead to disability, who are then typically destroyed by abortion. All three methods are part of the ‘search and destroy’ mentality of prenatal screening. The newcomer, PGD has to be used in combination with in vitro fertilisation - one cell from an early human embryo is removed, sent for chromosomal analysis and if it fails the quality control test, that is, it is of the unwanted sex, then the rest of the embryo is simply squashed.
Sex Selection - The Previous Consultation
In 1999, the HFEA held a public consultation exercise on the use of PGD. The FIEC responded and the full text can be obtained from the FIEC office. The following is one pertinent paragraph from that response. The fear expressed in the penultimate sentence is now upon us, big time.
The Slippery Slope Argument
In some bioethical circles this is a much-maligned concept; we disagree. We remember the legal changes made in the 1967 Abortion Act, which gave permission, under limited circumstances, to women seeking termination of their pregnancies. That initial permission has since become an expectation with hundreds of thousands using the poorlydefined grounds. Legalisation creates a demand. Furthermore, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act (1990) initially appeared to be the basis for strict regulation in some areas. Yet, additional techniques, some novel, if not bizarre, circumstances, a lack of public awareness and an inability to legislate for a fast-moving technology from a clear and solid ethical framework have shown this piece of legislation to be repeatedly ineffective. We fear the same for PGD. Once approved it will be impossible to maintain boundaries. It will be impossible to define “severe” and “significant” with respect to genetic disorders. “Severity creep” will undoubtedly occur. And whose assessment of severity will count? It clearly will not be the patient’s, so will it be the doctor’s, the parent’s, or society’s? Within a few years screening for more and more potential diseases, as well as sex determination, will be widespread with the consequence of more and more genetic discrimination. Eventually, other genetic aspects, such as behavioural disorders, that commissioning parents find unacceptable will also have to be included in such testing.
The upshot of that 1999 consultation was that, despite the opposition by many, Parliament approved the use of PGD in the UK for medical reasons, such as the avoidance of X-linked diseases, like haemophilia and Duchenne’s
muscular dystrophy.
So sex selection, via PGD, is already happening in a limited way, but it could soon be on a grander scale. This is because of the advent of a new technique for sperm sorting - it is the cause of the latest bioethical commotion. But sperm sorting itself is not new. In 1993, it was brought to this country by the London Gender Clinic. However, its technique was not very efficient, about seventy per cent, and expensive, about £650 a go. The Clinic closed down fairly rapidly.
Sex Selection - The New Challenge
Enter MicroSort - this is the new, more reliable and cheaper method of sperm sorting. It has been pioneered by The Genetics and IVF Institute in Virginia. This Institute has helped at least 300 couples choose the sex of their babies before fertilisation. And apparently six UK couples have already gone to Virginia to have either a boy or a girl of their choice, well almost - MicroSort is claimed to be ninety-one per cent accurate. The two genes that determine a child’s sex come from the mother’s ovum (which is always an X chromosome) plus the father’s sperm (which can be either an X or a Y chromosome). If the ovum is fertilised by an X-carrying sperm, the result will be a daughter. If a Y-carrying sperm fertilises the ovum, a son will be conceived. Sperm sorting works because the possession of an X or a Y chromosome affects the amount of DNA that a particular sperm contains. On this basis, ‘male’ and ‘female’ sperm can be separated because the latter are ‘heavier’, or they can be sorted with the aid of a fluorescent dye and a laser. Either a son or a daughter can then be ‘created’ using the appropriate Y or X sperm.
With the imminent arrival of MicroSort, and other similar procedures, into the UK, the HFEA has arranged this latest consultation to consider the rights and wrongs of selecting the sex of future children for nonmedical reasons. It often goes under the euphemism of ‘family balancing’. A couple already have two sons, why can they not be guaranteed a daughter next time round? Currently, there is nothing to stop MicroSort, or similar methods, being used in the UK. The 1990 Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act covered aspects of assisted reproduction using only frozen or donated sperm, but not fresh sperm. Does the law need changing?
If we already allow sex selection on medical grounds, then why not on non-medical grounds? Do these techniques declare that the disabled are inferior people? If used in conjunction with IVF, what happens to embryos of the ‘wrong’ sex? Is this a further step down the eugenics road? Is choosing the sex of children who do not yet exist a weird enterprise? Does it amount to control and design, rather than nurture, by parents? Is it not blatant sex discrimination? These are the sorts of questions that need to be considered.
Sex Selection - What Do You Think?
So this is your chance to make your mind up and respond to the HFEA document. This is what responding to the culture of death is all about! The HFEA Consultation Document can be found at www.hfea.gov.uk, click on ‘Consultations’. Then you have a choice of either the whole 39-page Document plus the questionnaire (in pdf), or just the online questionnaire. It will take only about two hours to read the full document and begin to think about the issues. A good strategy might be to then discuss it with others from your fellowship, either formally, or informally. Then there are a mere eight questions to answer.
You have until 22 January 2003 to reply. This is an excellent opportunity to clarify your thinking and formulate a coherent response. Just imagine what would happen if all FIEC churches and a few hundred individual Christians replied - the HFEA would be jolted. If you sit on your hands, nothing will change. So, go on, go on, go on!
JOHN R. LING
THE CHALLENGE OF DISABILITY ISSUES FOR THE LOCAL CHURCH
The Disability Discrimination Act became law in 1995 and was introduced with the intention of ending the discrimination which many disabled people face. This included both active and passive discrimination giving disabled people rights in a number of areas, including the provision of services and in the matter of employment. It is in these two particular areas that the Act will have an impact on local churches.
What it Means to Churches
Some of these rights became operational from 2 December 1996, and others are being introduced over a period of time. For service providers and employers (churches can come into both of these categories) the following requirements will apply:
1. Since December 1996, it has been unlawful to treat disabled people less favourably than other people for a reason related to their disability.
2. Since 1 October 1999, it has been obligatory to make ‘reasonable adjustments’ for disabled people, such as providing extra help or making changes to the way, the time, or the venue (for example, using a ground floor instead of a first floor room) where church activities occur.
3. From 2004, churches will have to consider making reasonable adjustments to the physical features of their premises to overcome any physical barriers to access.
How Does the Act Define Those Who Are Disabled?
A disabled person is one whose disability makes it difficult for them to carry out normal day-to-day activities. The disability must be more than temporary. It has to have lasted a year, or be likely to last at least a year, for it to count. For example, the Act includes those who,
1. Use wheelchairs, or have difficulty in walking.
2. Are deaf, or have significantly impaired speech.
3. Are blind, or partially sighted.
4. Have continuing treatment for diabetes, or suffer from epilepsy.
5. Have a learning disability.
6. Have a mental illness or who have recently recovered from a mental illness.
The Act also protects any who have a severe disfigurement. Those whose condition might initially have only a slight effect on their day-to-day activities, but is likely to get worse, such as people with cancer, HIV infection or multiple sclerosis are also included.
How Do We Make Sure We Do Not Discriminate?
Churches need to consider carefully and thoughtfully their approach towards people with a disability. The responsibility rests not just with the leaders, or with a designated person, but with the whole church. A church is more likely to comply with the Act if,
1. Church members know that it is both dishonouring to God our Maker as well as unlawful to discriminate against disabled people.
2. The church establishes a positive policy of accessibility to all its activities for all disabled people, ensuring that all church members and attenders are familiar with the content and implementation of this policy.
3. The church monitors that policy to make sure it is working in practice.
4. All the church members, but especially the leaders, receive disability awareness training.
5. The church leaders make sure that those with a disability, and where appropriate disability organisations, provide feedback about the church’s accessibility provision. The watchword is to be ‘Nothing about us without us’. Disabled people are entitled to be asked about how they might be best served and given opportunity to make the same choices as the rest of us.
What Changes Do Churches Have To Make?
All churches, whether large or small, have a duty to make every reasonable change and provision for disabled people to enable them to access the church’s activities. The Act is imprecise as to what is ‘reasonable’. Generally speaking a large, well-attended, town or city centre church would be required to do more than a small rural church. Good accessibility benefits everyone, whatever the size of the church building.
Thoughtfulness towards those with any kind of disability is a winsome evidence of Christ’s compassion in our lives.
All churches should perform an accessibility audit to identify physical and non-physical barriers to access for disabled people. An excellent resource to help churches in this matter has been produced jointly by Through the Roof, Causeway PROSPECTS and The Evangelical Alliance. Entitled Churches for All, it provides objective, measurable access standards and guidelines for good practice so that people with disabilities, elderly people and their families may be fully included in the life of the church.
The Churches for All pack, available from Through the Roof for £25, contains everything a church needs to apply for accreditation at the lower, bronze standard, by self-assessment. The pack includes an introductory
video, definitions of the Churches for All standards at bronze, silver and gold, a self-assessment questionnaire for the bronze standard, the ‘Good Practice’ guide and the Policy Statement. For those churches that prefer, it is possible to request an independent assessment for the bronze standard for a supplementary fee of £50. Independent assessment is a requirement for the silver and gold standards.
Through the Roof also produces some very helpful Roofbreaker Guides that offer straightforward advice on how to make your church welcoming to disabled people. Guides covering five main areas of disability are available as a composite document along with four other key issues and a list of helpful Christian organisations involved in disability ministry. These cost £1.50. This information and much more can be accessed at www.throughtheroof.org
The Disabled - A Substantial Group
According to Government statistics there are in excess of 6 million disabled people in Britain - more than one in ten of the population. It is, therefore, inevitable that at some time or other, even a small rural church will encounter people with a disability wanting to access their activities. It might be someone with severe arthritis and in a wheelchair wanting to attend a Sunday service, a child with a learning disability wanting to join the children’s club, or the spouse of a member who develops a mental illness. In the relatively small rural church with which I am involved we have people with all three of the disabilities mentioned and a number of others besides. We are neither exceptional nor unfortunate in this respect. It is mainly because we actively reach out to those that the rest of society would rather avoid. As Jesus said in the parable of the banquet (Luke 14:21), ‘Go out quickly into the streets and alleys of the town and bring in the poor, the crippled, the blind and the lame.’
The Disabled - A Scriptural Responsibility
There are not many other references in the Bible to disability, however it does speak clearly on several themes that are directly and crucially important. We are commanded to ‘Love our neighbour as ourselves’ and Jesus applies this command using the parable of the Good Samaritan. This parable has aspects that are so relevant to those with a disability. How many of them have experienced what it is like for others to walk by on the ‘other side’? The Bible impresses upon God’s people their responsibility for those who are vulnerable and subject to injustice within our society, who cannot speak up for themselves. The Bible grants us all the dignity of being made in the image of God and able by God’s grace to have a relationship with Him. Because all have sinned and fallen short, all have the need to hear the saving gospel. God has said that He ‘wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all men’ (1 Timothy 2:4-5). This ‘all’ is of every ethnic group, every social stratum, and every degree of ability. There are to be no exceptions. ‘All’ therefore includes the mentally ill and the learning disabled, the blind and the deaf.
The Disabled - A Significant Ministry
In the parable of the banquet the man who prepared the great feast invited many guests, ‘But they all alike began to make excuses.’ I wonder if you are experiencing a discouraging indifference and resistance to your attempts to reach out with the gospel. Do the majority have no time for the gospel? In such times perhaps the Lord is asking us to make a deliberate attempt to reach those who are marginalized and despised in our society to ‘make them come in, so that my house will be full.’ If He is, then we must make sure that the ‘house’ is accessible. It will be no good getting them through the door only to find that they are still shut out by our activities and attitudes.
The Disabled - A Significant Challenge
A further issue, which should be of real concern to local churches, is the matter of care home provision. Many with mental health problems and learning disabilities are now cared for in the community. Many are cared for by their family but some, especially if they have challenging behaviour problems, have to be cared for in specialist homes. Many of those living ‘in care’ live in ordinary houses in the community that have been adapted to their needs and where they receive an appropriate level of support. This situation raises two particular challenges for Christians. First, how do we support the families caring for someone with a disability? Second, how do we ensure that instinctively Christian care homes can be provided? In respect of the first challenge, CARE has launched a new initiative in conjunction with Causeway PROSPECTS to boost the quality of life for adults with a learning disability and their carers. The project aims to help Christians befriend adults with learning disabilities and so provide appropriate help. Karen Hobbs, Project Co-ordinator says, ‘One of the main needs appears to be for practical support in the shape of short breaks from the caring role - whether for an afternoon, weekend or a couple of weeks.’ For further details of this initiative, call Karen on 01380 728 434, or contact CARE, or PROSPECTS direct.
In respect to the second challenge, the situation is more searching. As a result of the EU employment directive Christian organisations are having to review and, in many cases, tighten-up their employment policy. Many evangelically-based organisations are seeking to ensure that they retain their distinctive Christian ethos by having a clear policy to employ only Christians who are active members of their local church. The EU directive does make it possible to establish such a policy. The problems arise when the definition of ‘Christian’ in the policy is insufficiently clear and, therefore, open to challenge.
An organisation like Living PROSPECTS seeks to provide Christian care for people with learning disabilities in small units, typically three to five, in the community. There is a demand for such provision because local authorities are bound to respond to parental and individual choice.
Where a group of disabled people specifically request Christian care this choice has to be taken seriously and all reasonable efforts made to respond. The general guiding principle, ‘Nothing about us without us’ definitely works in the favour of Christians looking for Christian care and Christian organisations seeking to provide that care.
This more promising situation, however, produces its own difficulty. Christian organisations like PROSPECTS have more requests for help than they can respond to. This is because having established a clear policy to employ only Christians, there are not always sufficient Christians willing to work in the care sector. This situation has become sufficiently serious for PROSPECTS to issue ‘A Call to Prayer’ to their supporters. The challenge to local church members is to consider whether this kind of work, which is demanding and absorbing, and requires patience and compassion, is an area of ministry in which they can serve the Lord. More details of PROSPECTS and ‘A Call to Prayer’ can be obtained from their website www.prospects.org.uk or by phoning 0118 950 8781.
The Disabled - A Specific Commitment
The evangelical churches have a distinguished history in demonstrating an innovative and practical compassionate response to situations of great need. We have also been at the forefront of those prepared to speak out for those who have no voice or whose voice cannot be heard. This generation is facing the challenge of championing the cause of disabled and elderly people and of providing progressive and professional responses in the areas of need that are so easily marginalized by our society. For Jesus’ sake and the sake of the gospel, we must not be found wanting.
GERALD TANNER
ROCK MUSIC - AN ALTERNATIVE VIEW
Perhaps you imagine that the meetings of the Social Issues Team are all homogeneous and harmonious. Not so - we are always keen to wrangle. What’s the point of having a committee that always agrees? Here, in writing, one of our Team members argues with another.
In the last issue of the Citizenship Bulletin (July 2002) Ted Williams argued that rock music is, ‘by any reasonable standard of taste bad, ugly music’, and that through its associations with sex, drugs, the occult and social rebellion, it is a bad influence against which our children should be warned.
And yet, I thought to myself, I have enjoyed Led Zeppelin, The Who, Cream - several of the bands that Ted singled out - for most of my life, without indulging in extramarital sex, drug-taking, the occult, or even, compared to most teenagers, social rebellion.
Are we simply to dismiss the band that gave us ‘Stairway to Heaven’, one of the great performances of our age? Are we to ignore Pete Townshend just because he smashed more guitars than the rest of us have owned between us, and deny his gift of melodic invention in both ‘Tommy’ and ‘Quadrophenia’? Should we discourage our children from appreciating the extraordinary and varied talents of Eric Clapton, or the provocative observations of U2?
Evangelicals have not had a terribly happy engagement with popular culture for the last century or more. Years of pietistic withdrawal have led to crude battle-lines being drawn up, most notoriously the blanket ban among some evangelicals against theatre and cinema. I fear that the condemnation of rock music is in much the same mould.
One of the dangers with this approach - quite apart from the errors and injustice which such simplistic judgements lead to - is that when your children grow up and find these things are not the places of unmitigated depravity
that you made out, they decide that Christianity has misled them and must therefore be abandoned. Another danger - and in my view it is even worse - is that, in condemning one musical genre, we imply that there exist other
musical genres which can be appreciated safely and uncritically.
If rock and pop music are out of bounds, what music do we think is OK? Classical music, for instance? You do not have to read far into Francis Schaeffer to learn that 20th-century atonal music is entirely committed to the existentialist view of the world as random and meaningless. John Cage and others express a basically Buddhist worldview. Stravinsky wrote music to evoke pagan rites. Extramarital sex is fundamental to the story of Daphnis et Chlo set to music by Ravel. The Bacchanalian rhythms in Beethoven’s Ninth remind us that he was not exactly an evangelical himself. Is it better to be Mozart, a musical genius who gilds the elegant path to hell, or a member of After The Fire, a Christian rock band who briefly broke into the big time in the 1980s, roaring out, ‘God is right! Check it out!’?
One of the purposes of this article is to argue that no music is ‘safe’, nothing can be listened to uncritically. One of the key problems with sin is that it makes a mess of things; it twists and distorts and subverts. Blanket condemnations do not help us to negotiate the sinful world. We need a more subtle critique which is able to pick its way through the morass of our culture and help us to be ‘in the world but not of it.’ We need to provide our children with the tools by which to understand and engage with our culture, without indulging in wholesale condemnation of the good with the bad, and without fooling ourselves that there is some kind of music that is intrinsically good and safe. In the last forty years, the work of Francis Schaeffer, Hans Rookmaaker and their followers has helped us see that the culture around us is something to engage with, understand, and participate in. Nevertheless, the long influence of pietism has denied us a tradition of such engagement, so we are still short of models and thought-patterns to follow. We need to work at it, not flee from it.
Rock’s Associations
Ted argues that rock is dangerous because it is associated with sex, drugs, the occult and teenage rebellion. Let’s look at these.
1. Rock and sex
Sex undoubtedly looms large in a lot of rock music. But, as I have said, blanket condemnations of particular areas of culture distract our attention from problems in other areas. Sex may often be in the frame of rock music, but so it is too with pop, and jazz, and the tango, and even the waltz! Music and sex have always gone together, from the day Pan first played his pipes. Pictures of Bacchus always show him accompanied by musicians. The waltz was originally a scandalous development, because it involved the man putting his leg between the legs of his partner, and it presumably grew in popularity for precisely that reason.
But if music, as per Shakespeare, is the food of love, that is all it is, it may feed an urge that is there - but it does not cause it. Rock music may encourage those who are inclined towards promiscuous sex, but it does not compel people to engage in it who do not wish to. I sometimes listen to Led Zeppelin when doing the ironing. Countless teenagers listen to rock music when doing their homework (how they manage to concentrate is a different matter). Some Led Zeppelin tracks are explicitly about sex, but many are not. The ones which are about sex are no more alluring than many of the adverts which adorn our streets, and probably less likely to lead to extramarital sex than the clothes our daughters are offered in Miss Selfridge. To condemn Led Zeppelin because they play rock music is to miss the musical brilliance of its members. ‘Stairway to Heaven’ remains one of the greatest tracks ever laid down, building from the gentlest start on the recorders to Jimmy Page’s climactic guitar solo, driven on by the breathtaking drumming of John Bonham. There is nothing sexually stimulating about this track - it does not induce drug taking. Indeed, the more clear-minded your concentration, the greater your enjoyment of the skill and creative genius in the music.
Again, a blanket condemnation of rock music distracts from the, in my view, far more pernicious influence of mainstream pop music. The music, lyrics, style of (un)dress, videos and magazine gossip surrounding the Spice Girls, All Saints, S Club 7, and many more, seem all geared to encourage the early sexualisation of pre-teens and premarital, and probably casual, sex. Where rock music deals with sex, it is at least honest about what it is up to - pop music is much more seductive.
2. Rock and drugs
In much the same way, the connection between rock music and drugs is hardly grounds to proscribe it as a musical form. Drugs have been associated with most musical forms throughout the last century, as much with jazz and pop as that of rock performers. While rock is the music of choice among some who take drugs, rock also fits well with sobriety - there are subtleties to much rock music which, I assume, you do not appreciate if you are in a drugged haze. Enjoying rock music will not ipso facto incline you to taking drugs. Sadly, our children today are far more likely to encounter drugs by going to school rather than by listening to rock music.
If you are worried about music and drugs, you should be much more concerned with ‘rave’ music. Clinical trials have shown how rave music, deliberately stripped of melodic components, fits perfectly with the effects of Ecstasy on the brain. However, even here, I am advised by Christian friends, that some kinds of rave music have genuine musical characteristics, although they have so far escaped my ear.
3. Rock and the occult
Ted also warns against rock because of the explicit occult and anti-Christian references by several bands. While there are a few bands which produce music glorifying death and Satanism, they generally appeal only to certain niches of our culture, especially those inclined towards neo-nazism. Other bands seem only to have adopted the pose of occultism as a marketing gimmick. This may be the perfect opportunity to teach our children about the exploitative nature of the pop music industry. And while you are at it, tell your children about the latter-day lives of Ozzy Osbourne and Alice Cooper. They are quite reformed characters. If there is any singing in Hell, which seems unlikely, I doubt that they will be singing either pop or rock. They are far more likely to be crooning along with Frank Sinatra, ‘I did it my way.’’
4. Rock and teenage rebellion
At this point I find the argument has lost the plot. Jesus gave us values which subvert the social order. Jesus says he came to put the sword between father and son, to turn mother against daughter. If we condemn rock music for fomenting teenage rebellion - again, much of it being exploitative rather than serious - we put ourselves four-square with the rationalism, materialism and stultifying middle-class conformism against which they are rebelling. Why would we want to do that?
This argument also misses the fact that much rock music today is not about rebellion at all. Grunge music, such as that of Nirvana, is about loss, brokenness and longing. This is often honest, heartfelt music whose rawness obviously connects with the experience of many young people. A friend of mine goes so far as to suggest that the music, sex, drugs and crowd-mentality at rock gigs is actually a form of self-medication, as young people try to deal with their deep-seated sense of alienation - they know that something is missing, but they do not know what. Rather than disapproving of the music and the culture, Christians, who have the answer to the often unformed question, should be engaging with the music constructively.
Is Rock Music Intrinsically Evil?
But Ted is also critical of Christians who try to play a form of Christianised rock music. The evil, he argues, is the form of the music, and cannot be countered just with Christian lyrics. In my view, the problem with Christian rock music is indeed with the musical form - not that it is intrinsically evil, but just that it is extremely limited as to the content it can carry.
All artistic media have their own nature, and any artist has to recognise and work with that nature and within its limitations. An Abstract Expressionist could not work in mosaic because the medium of mosaic does not lend itself to Expressionistic gesture. The ‘Hitch-Hiker’s Guide to the Galaxy’ works far better on radio than on television, because the fantastic images which it conjures up are far better suited to the imaginative nature of radio than the literal nature of TV.
So, too, music genres have their own strengths and limitations. The problem with many Christians playing rock music is that they have not recognised the severe limitations which rock music imposes on its verbal content. The nature of rock music suits simple, emotional images, not extended passages of consecutive reasoning. This does not mean that Christians cannot use rock music, only that they have to respect these limitations.
A good example of this is the American group POD (which stands for Payable On Death), one of a number of Christian bands that have recently broken into the secular market. POD are emphatic that they are not a ‘Christian rock band’, but rather a rock band whose members are all Christians. Their first priority is to play really good rock music. This they do, and through it they have won an audience among non-Christians.
But they also use the medium to convey a good message. Their recent single ‘Alive’ respected the art form in that it had a very simple message, but that message was highly unusual in rock music - it was the positive, life-affirming celebration, ‘It’s good to be alive.’ The accompanying video shows a man suffering an horrendous car accident, and the range of images that flash through his mind as he thinks he is about to die. Then at the end, miraculously perhaps, he steps unharmed from the wreckage of the vehicle, and blinks around at the world, as the band sings, ‘I feel so alive!’
This is, of course, not the stuff by which the heathen are instantly converted, but that is not the aim. POD, as obedient Christians, are setting out to do well what they do, and do it in a way which is consistent with their faith.
Another interesting example of how Christians can work within, and affect, musical form is in hip-hop. Again, here, the musical form is adept at being used for sexual suggestion, and the lyrics are often in that same ballpark. But then one of its great exponents, Mary J. Blige, is wonderfully converted. What does she do? Study Bach and sing an oratorio? No, she continues in her chosen art form, but seeking now to redeem it for the Lord. The album ‘No More Drama’ is good, enjoyable music in which she repeatedly sings, ‘No more drama in my life’, that is, no more drugs and no more busted relationships. The song where the music is most sexually-suggestive is one about anticipation of the joys of sex once she and her lover are married. Towards the end of the album she reads a poem, which frankly tells of her changed life, and ends by thanking God for ‘giving me back me.’ It is heart-warming stuff.
Contrast this with Rick Wakeman, the phenomenally gifted composer and exciting keyboard player with the rock band, Yes. He became a Christian, for which we praise God, but his music since then, involving Welsh chapel choirs, is just plain boring. At Greenbelt in 2000, he played some excerpts from his pre-conversion ‘Six Wives of Henry VIII’. It was wonderful to hear, but underlined the fact that he has not written anything nearly as good since his conversion.
The Need For A Christian Critique
Any cultural critique must be carried out within the framework of a Christian worldview of creation, fall and redemption. Our doctrine of creation includes the view that, ‘For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving’ (1 Timothy 4:4). Even food offered to idols can be eaten and enjoyed in good faith. Everything is shot through with sin, and distorted by it. The purpose of God, and of his people, is to redeem and renew.
Rock music is certainly attractive to many who are inclined to bad lifestyle choices, but it is also possible to discern and enjoy what is good in the music without sharing those lifestyles, and like POD, to introduce redemptive features into the music.
That we need is a critical ability to discern what is good, and to affirm it, while recognising what is evil, and rejecting that. This should be part of the programme of all our youth work - encouraging our children to bring in examples of music that they like, and helping them to gain the conceptual framework and vocabulary to understand more deeply what the music is about and how to enjoy it without being seduced by it. You could listen to Alanis Morisette, howling out her distress, ‘It’s not fair’, she sings, ‘that you have left me in this mess, and I am suffering but you are not.’ That’s a great discussion starter. Then there are the poignant, painful songs of Tracey Chapman, or the socially and provocative songs of U2. There are other Christian bands too, such as Creed. Additional discussions you could have include: If you took the swearing out of Sum 41, would there be anything left? What’s the difference between Black Sabbath’s Satanist pose appealing to the illconsidered instincts of its teenage audience, and Classic FM exploiting its audience by constantly telling us how tired we are, and how we need
to relax by buying its latest three-CD compilation? Give up on the blanket condemnations. Instead, teach your children to listen critically and discern what is good as well as what is bad. That way, you give them the skills, the concepts, the vocabulary with which to negotiate not just the music, but the whole of the culture around them; and to engage in it redemptively.
NIGEL HALLIDAY
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND THE CHURCH
Domestic Violence - The Reality
In August 2002, the British Medical Journal published an article on domestic violence, in which it asserted that around one quarter of women in the UK have been physically assaulted by a current, or former, male partner (BMJ, vol. 325, p. 317). Other commonly-quoted figures are that two women are killed every week by their partner or ex-partner; that an incident of domestic violence is reported to the police every six seconds, but that only an estimated two per cent of incidents are ever reported to the police.
It is actually notoriously difficult to get accurate statistics regarding a problem, which, by definition, goes on behind closed doors. Certainly some radical feminist groups have hijacked the domestic violence issue, and grossly exaggerated the statistics.1 Such groups have implied that domestic violence is only a male problem, whereas the reality is that some men are battered by their partners,2 and when it comes to the violent abuse of children, women are just as likely to be responsible as men. But, having made these qualifications, domestic violence (whether against spouse/partner, children, or the elderly; whether one-directional, or mutual, or whether battery, and/or sexual assault/abuse) is an ugly reality and, tragically, Christian homes are not immune.
Domestic Violence - The Response Of Conservative Evangelical Churches
Various research projects have investigated the level of domestic violence presented to evangelical pastors in America and Canada, and how they have responded. We should not assume that the situation in evangelical
churches in the UK is identical, but there may well be lessons to learn. It would be wise at least to be aware of this research until similar surveys have been conducted here. The following points are a broad-brush summary of these American/Canadian surveys.
From the perspective of the pastor
1. The majority of pastors are confronted with a victim/victims of domestic violence at some point in their ministry - usually a wife suffering violent abuse from her husband, who may also be violent towards their children.
2. The majority of pastors have not received any training about counselling in situations of family violence, but they feel fairly confident about their ability to deal with the situation. They are unlikely to seek outside advice, either from other pastors, or from denominational agencies, or from secular agencies. This reluctance to seek outside help can be problematic, as pastors are often unawar of the local shelter provision. They may offer temporary refuge with church members, which can cause difficulties. They are commonly unaware of the victim’s legal rights.
3. Many conservative pastors adopt the Westminster Confession view of divorce - that divorce is only permissible in cases of adultery or desertion. If the husband has not committed adultery or deserted his family they may advise a short-term separation if the wife/children’s life/lives are in danger, but are reluctant to counsel long-term separation, which is regarded as de facto divorce. One fifth of pastors in the Alsdurfs’ survey said that ‘no amount’ of violence could justify a wife leaving her husband.
4. Many pastors begin their counselling by asking what the wife has done to provoke the violence. They are often unaware of the typical pattern of abuse in which domestic tension mounts and is only relieved when violence breaks out, to be followed by penitence, and often, professed affection. Many victims testify that the terror experienced during the build-up of tension is as bad/worse than the attack itself, so there is sometimes the sense that an attack is ‘provoked’ simply to get the inevitable over with.
5. Many pastors counsel women to ‘go back’ and ‘submit’ and ‘pray more’.
6. Many pastors view domestic violence in church families as primarily a ‘spiritual problem’ to be addressed spiritually, that is, they focus on challenging the devotional life of the abuser and they do not always take on board other factors, such as, family, social, economic and psychological aspects.
7. With hindsight, many pastors admit that on their first encounter with domestic violence their emphasis is on reconciliation, and they are eager to ‘believe the best’ when the abuser professes repentance. When they continue involvement on a long-term basis they realise that professed repentance is not necessarily to be taken seriously. Next time round they are more reluctant to send a spouse back into a violent situation until there has been real evidence of change. Pearson’s survey found that, ‘The major problem area is that clergy are quite optimistic that violent men want to and can change their abusive behaviour. In their desire to bring reconciliation and healing to the life of an abused woman, many clergy offer premature forgiveness to a temporarily repentant man and suggest that the woman victim do likewise.’
8. In America, the ‘daddy’s daughter’ syndrome has been noted. Conservative pastors may hold a very firm line on divorce through their ministries, but if their own daughter suffers violent abuse, they realise the impossibility of sending her back to an abusive situation, and subsequently feel deep remorse about how they were willing to send other women back into violent situations.
9. Even in situations where the spouse is counselled to separate/divorce, the emphasis is on escaping the situation rather than confronting the violence and seeking long-term change. Often the cycle is then repeated, with the abuser then abusing another partner/spouse.
From the perspective of the victim
1. In church situations, women are very reluctant to seek help. They find approaching a male elder about their ‘problem’ quite difficult.
2. Many victims of abuse tend to blame themselves anyway. When the first question is often, ‘What have you done to provoke the violence?’ this tends to feed that assumption.
3. Submissiveness and passivity do not prevent the abuser being violent - they can actually increase the likelihood of violent abuse. Two thirds of abused women in the Alsdurf’s survey thought it was their ‘Christian duty’ to endure abuse from their husband.
4. Victims find that if they separate/divorce, they commonly are stigmatised by the church. One survey in America showed that seventy per cent of victims left the church for this reason.
Domestic Violence - Issues That Need To Be Addressed
Among some social workers and shelter co-ordinators, conservative Christians have a bad name. They have come across Christian husbands abusing their wives and/or children and demanding that they submit, and they have come across pastors who expect wives to return to situations of abuse. Some conservative evangelicals accept commonly-repeated myths about abuse, such as ‘women enjoy it really’, ‘women provoke it to draw attention to themselves’, and that ‘if they submitted more it wouldn’t happen’. Serious research disproves all of these myths. As evangelicals, I would suggest that at every opportunity we need to make it clear that:
1. Biblical teaching on male leadership in no way condones a man’s domination or abuse of his wife.
2. We are against all forms of physical, sexual and/or verbal abuse.
3. Abuse is sin and is in direct opposition to the purposes of God. Abuse ought not to be tolerated in the Christian community.
4. The Christian community has a responsibility to confront abusers lovingly and to protect the abused.
5. In cases where abusers are unrepentant and/or unwilling to make significant steps towards change, the Christian community must respond with firm discipline of the abuser and advocacy, support and protection of the abused.
What Model Of Marriage Are We Teaching?
The traditional view of marriage (headship and submission) has all too often been distorted, to produce a rigidly hierarchical or ‘chain-ofcommand’ model (A in the Figure), whereby husbands are seen as the ‘boss’ and the wife’s duty is simply to obey. The mutuality pictured in the Song of Songs, and taught in 1 Corinthians 7 is minimised. Sadly, there are all too many testimonies of godly women being violently abused by Christian men who are in positions of leadership (elders, pastors, missionaries) and being told that it is their duty to submit. In reaction against this, many have rejected the whole concept of leadership and submission in marriage. Ephesians 5 is seen as conditioned by the patriarchal context in which Paul ministered, and the distinctive teaching for wives and husbands is minimised by a call for ‘mutual submission.’ Furthermore, much of the best literature on domestic violence has been written by evangelical feminists who believe that any authority structure within marriage is likely to be abused by sinful men, and that therefore total, interchangeable, mutuality should be the Christian pattern (C in the Figure).
The middle way is the ‘complementarian’ view of marriage (B in the Figure). Husbands have a distinctive leadership role, namely, taking responsibility for the well-being of the family. Wives affirm (submit to) their husband’s leadership. But this submission is not absolute - it is ‘in the Lord’. Jesus is Lord, not the husband, which means they do not have to obey if it involves sin, for example, if their husband wants them to join in abusing the children. Nor do they have to go on passively enduring abuse - which is ‘enabling’ the husband to go on sinning. It is irresponsible to preach on submission without making it clear that there are limits to that submission.
A Chain-of-command model
Husband seen as boss
Wife’s primary role seen as submission
Stresses Eph. 5:22-24; downplays 1 Cor. 7:4-5 (mutuality)
B Complementarian model
Husband’s calling that of servant-leader
Husband takes responsibility for well-being of wife and family
Wife’s prime calling is helper-lover (nurturing)
Submission is not her role, but her response to her husband’s calling
Acceptance of mutuality (1 Cor. 7:4-5)
AND leadership/submission (Eph. 5:22ff)
C Egalitarian model
Complete equality: interchangeable callings
Husband not the leader in the relationship
Great stress on 1 Cor. 7:4-5 (mutuality)
Eph 5:21ff seen as mutual submission
(or else dismissed as culturally hidebound)
What Model Of Community Are We Demonstrating?
Do we take seriously the church as family? Or do we say that ‘what goes on behind closed doors’ is not our concern?
Male leadership in the family is for the purpose of protection and provision. And by extension, the male leaders in the church have a responsibility to protect the vulnerable. If violence is going on, then the leadership has a responsibility to confront that violence. If male elders send an abused wife back into a violent situation and tell her to ‘pray and submit’, I believe that they will be held accountable for the results. I have seen a situation where a tiny woman was being terribly and regularly beaten by a violent man, who had serious problems of his own (both were church members), and rather than confronting the man, four out of five elders said she should ‘go on submitting’. What if that woman had been their daughter, their sister, or their mother? We are to treat each other with the honour and respect we would show to family members. And if on occasions a male eldership seems insensitive to the pain endure by a woman who is suffering violence, other women of the church should speak up on her behalf to ensure that her voice is heard.
What Attitude To Divorce Do We Take?
There are genuine differences of biblical interpretation here, which is not particularly the remit of this article. On the one hand, there is the ‘Heth and Wenham’ view of the indissolubility of marriage. Then there is the Westminster Confession view of divorce on the grounds of adultery/desertion and re-marriage permitted for the innocent party. Many other pastors are convinced that cruelty and abuse breaks the marriage bond just as certainly as adultery or abuse. Perhaps the most helpful recent book is that by Stephen Clark (Putting Asunder: Divorce and Remarriage in Biblical and Pastoral Perspective, Bryntirion Press, 1999). David Instone Brewer has also done very helpful work in this area. It is a subject that demands careful study and thought and prayer, before the difficult cases ever arise.
Domestic Violence - Some Practical Suggestions
Some estimate that in conservative churches, for every sixty families, there are likely to be two in which abuse is a reality. How should we respond?
Suggestions for pastors
1. Address the issue of domestic violence in the preaching ministry. Make it clear (regularly) that violence is never acceptable, so that if any in the congregation are suffering abuse they can be confident that if they seek help the violence will be confronted, not excused. Interestingly, many pastors in the surveys said that they had preached against domestic violence, but many parishioners reported that they had never heard a sermon against domestic violence. This seems to show that something needs to be repeated several times before it is noticed!
2. Where possible appoint a female church worker, whatever her title. Abused women may be reluctant to approach male church leaders.
3. Address issues of domestic violence in ministers’ fraternals, so that (without breaching confidentiality on individual cases) experience, expertise and information about relevant local agencies can be shared. Similarly, the whole issue of divorce could be studied and discussed in fraternals.
4. Be prepared. If you have not yet encountered any cases of domestic violence, this could change at any time. Read one or more of the books recommended below to be alert to the issues.
5. Have a child protection protocol in place, so that if issues of sexual abuse, etc., do arise, the church is prepared.
6. Do not promise more assistance than you can actually deliver.
7. In counselling situations make it clear that the person (husband or wife) inflicting violence is responsible for his/her actions, rather than placing the blame first on the victim. Violence is a choice, it is not an ‘inevitable’ response.
8. Rather than ‘damage limitation’ (escape) being emphasised, the emphasis, where possible, should be on confronting the abuser with the need to change behaviour patterns. This will involve spiritual factors, but it will involve other factors too - in America some structured programmes for abusers have proved very successful.
Suggestions for church members
1. Be aware that abuse does go on. Sunday school teachers should be cautious about over-emphasising unquestioning obedience to parents, teachers and other grown ups. Such emphasis on authority is classically used by abusers to enforce secrecy. Be alert to signs that abuse might be going on.
2. Do not engage in verbal voyeurism by spreading details of abuse through a prayer, or other meeting, group.
3. Be careful about opening your home to victims without thinking through issues of privacy and the possible dangers from the abusive spouse.
Suggestions for victims
1. Battery is illegal. Do not be intimidated. Boundaries must be set and adhered to. If your spouse is violent, do not conceal it, do not make excuses. Seek help.
2. If you are a wife, remember that submission is not ‘absolute’ - it is ‘in the Lord’. Sin must be confronted, not enabled. You must seek help in confronting the sin of the abuser. If your elders limit help to telling you to ‘submit and pray’ and do not confront the violence, seek help elsewhere.
3. Do not stay in a situation where you/your children are at risk of physical or sexual abuse. ‘You do not have to be a victim. Your role has nothing to do with accepting abuse or irresponsibility in your husband. If he physically, sexually or emotionally mistreats [you or] the children, you need help ... The worst thing you can do is to deny that your husband is abusing you or keep quiet about it If you do nothing, you are actually encouraging the abuse ‘ (Rocking the Roles, p.166).
Domestic Violence - Some Further Resources
Alsdurf, James and Phyllis Alsdurf (1989). Battered into Submission. Highland, Guildford, UK.
This good introduction to the subject is the result of eight years of research into abuse in Christian homes. The authors give many examples of abusive husbands misusing the command for wives to submit. Although they advocate an egalitarian, rather than a complementarian, model of marriage, this book is recommended as a wake-up call, showing how abuse does go on in seemingly Christian homes.
Chapman, Gary (1998). Loving Solutions: Overcoming Barriers in Your Marriage. Moody Press, Chicago.
Chapman gives strategies to confront, not enable, abuse.
Conway, Helen L. (1998). Domestic Violence and the Church. Paternoster Press, Carlisle, UK.
Helen Conway is a Christian lawyer, and this book is excellent on legal and practical aspects as well as suggesting ways forward for the church. She has written a book at a more popular level entitled, Picking up the Pieces.
Fitzpatrick, Elyse and Carol Cornish (1997). Women Helping Women: A Biblical Guide to the Major Issues Women Face. Harvest House Publishers, Eugene, Oregon.
Includes sections on helping women in abusive marriages, and helping women who suffered abuse as children.
Catherine Clark Kroeger and James R. Beck (1998). Women, Abuse and the Bible: How Scripture Can Be Used to Hurt or to Heal. Paternoster, Carlisle, UK.
The authors share a conviction that violence is common in conservative Christian circles, and that belief in headship and submission is a major factor. They use both personal anecdotes and some recent surveys to explore issues of domestic, verbal and clergy violence; sexual harassment, child abuse and rape. While I profoundly disagree with the conclusions of this book, there is material to help church leaders to be more sensitive to issues relating to abuse.
Lewis, Robert and William Hendricks (1991). Rocking the Roles. NavPress, Colorado Springs.
A very helpful ‘complementarian’ treatment of marriage. Chapter 21 explains that ‘helper’ does not mean ‘enabler’. Chapter 23 is a case study of a church intervening to protect a woman from an irresponsible husband.
Martin, Grant L. (1987). Counseling for Family Violence and Abuse. Word Books, Waco.
A comprehensive ‘text book’ on the subject.
SHARON JAMES
EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION AND THE CHRISTIAN
The Government has published its latest thinking with regard to forthcoming legislation that will outlaw discrimination by employers on the grounds of religion or belief, or sexual orientation.
The legislation, which stems from a European directive, has to be in place by 2 December 2003. Draft proposed regulations were published in October 2002 and will now be subject to a consultation period, which ends on 24 January 2003.
As a general rule, no discrimination is permitted by the draft regulations. But there is an exception for employers when the employment of someone with a particular religious ethos is ‘a genuine occupational requirement’.
Churches and Christian organisations will be giving most attention to Section 7 - (3) which states, ‘This paragraph applies where an employer has an ethos based on religion or belief and, having regard to that ethos and to the nature of the employment or the context in which it is carried out -
a. being of a particular religion or belief is a genuine occupational requirement for the job; and
b. it is proportionate to apply that requirement in the particular case. There will be no difficulty in demonstrating that a church or Christian organisation has an ethos based on religion or belief. It will be possible to argue that employing Christians is a genuine occupational requirement. What is less certain is how the issue of proportionality will be interpreted. For proportionality to be an issue at all, it must imply that there are some jobs for which it would be disproportionate to insist on a particular religion or belief in the candidate for a job. But churches in particular will rely heavily on the ‘context’ exception to make their case for employing Christians.
In connection with partnerships, the draft regulations make it unlawful to discriminate in the arrangements made for the purpose of determining to whom the firm should offer a partnership; in the terms on which a partnership is offered; and by refusing to offer a partnership. This will make it much more difficult to sustain an all-Christian partnership. Similar wording applies to the proposed regulations on sexual orientation. The only exception is where being of a particular sexual orientation is a genuine and determining occupational requirement, and it is proportionate to apply that exception in the particular case. In connection with the sexual orientation regulations, there is no
reference at all to the employer’s ethos, which means that an organisation cannot rely on its overall beliefs about sexual orientation as a basis for its employment policy. The only apparent exception would be on the basis that a particular sexual orientation was a ‘genuine and determining occupational requirement.’ If the draft regulations are confirmed into law, there would be certain to be test cases in the courts to resolve what constituted a ‘genuine and determining occupational requirement’ on the issue of sexual orientation.
Over the next three months of consultation, there will be a major campaign by evangelicals to strengthen the ‘ethos’ exception in the case of religion and belief, and to seek an ethos exception in the case of sexual orientation. Evangelicals will also want greater certainty and clarity over what is meant by ‘genuine occupational requirement’ and ‘proportionality’. The Christian Institute has promised to contend for improvements that take account of the special circumstances of churches and Christian organisations.
The Government is leaving most of the interpretation to the courts and tribunals, rather than including definitions in the legislation. Even the question of what is a religion or belief system is being left to the courts!
ROD BADAMS
WHICH IS THE DUMBEST RELIGION IN THE WORLD?
If there were 50 religions, or 500, or even 50,000, one of them would have to be the dumbest. In our Western democracies, obsessed by the twin fears of intolerance and discrimination, the right to express an opinion about which religion might be the dumbest seems to be in doubt. The French writer, Michel Houellebecq, was quoted in a Parisian magazine last year as believing that Islam was the dumbest religion in the world; and in September this year he ended up in a Paris court. He could have faced the prospect of a year’s imprisonment if convicted, but thankfully he was acquitted, the court ruling that his views did no more than ‘lack subtlety in their expression.’
At a time when a House of Lords Select Committee at Westminster is considering whether Britain needs some new religious offences legislation - it is due to report early next year - the issues raised by the French case are hugely significant.
Michel Houellebecq told the Paris court, ‘I have never shown the slightest contempt for Muslims, but I have always held Islam in contempt.’ There is the nub of the issue. There is a world of difference between ‘I despise Muslims’ and ‘I despise Islam.’
But that difference, vast though it is, was lost on the Imams of Paris and Lyons whose compl
