ing aim at the “systematic erosion” of Christianity in British public life. He objected to these things:1. The official refusal to acknowledge Christmas for fear of offending other faiths.
2. The official government Christmas cards which merely wish “Seasons Greetings”.
3. Santa on stamps instead of Jesus Christ.
4. The official documents that now invite people to write their “first name” rather than “Christian name”.
5. The decision by the local council in Plymouth to end free parking on Sundays in case it offended people who worship on other days.
6. The decision by Birmingham City Council 8 years ago to rename Christmas as “Winterval” to avoid offending others.
*Quotations taken from The Sun, Monday, 13th November 2006, Page 14.
My thoughts on the 6 objections made by John Sentamu:
Objection #1: If other faiths can have their religious celebrations, what is so offensive for Christmas to be acknowledged? It is not as though unbelievers are forced to celebrate Christmas in a “religious manner”. If one acts consistently with his Christian beliefs, then Christmas should be acknowledged, even if its acknowledgement implies a certain level of exclusivity towards other faiths. A good move.
Objection #2: If a certain religious celebration is being acknowledged in the making of a card, then it is only logical to acknowledge its spiritual significance completely. Why make a card to acknowledge the season, if you refuse to acknowledge its significance? It won't make any sense. Either make the card, or don’t make it at all. A good move.
Objection #3: Well, I guess arguing whether or not fictional characters like Santa should be on stamps is the same as arguing whether or not other fictional characters like Spiderman or Doraemon should be on stamps. Having Jesus Christ on stamps will not make any more difference than having a graven image of Him in every town. Go ahead and make Jesus stamps if you want. But even if you don’t, it’s still cool.
Objection #4: I think there should be no distinction between “first name” and “Christian name” in the first place. A Christian name does not make a person any more Christian than the guy next door. Neither does a person that goes by the name of Joey is any more Christian than the guy named Jehoshaphat. I am not in agreement of any form of implied status of a person’s faith by the mere christening of a person’s name alone. So this is a non issue.
Objection #5: I disagree with Sentamu on this one. Christians, of all people, should not expect special privileges just so that we can “practice our religion”. We all know how it is like to see roads triple-parked and people riding motorbikes without helmets on a certain day of the week. Christians will be no different from this hypocrisy if we allow our faith to be the license to be exempted from the law.
Objection #6: Same as the Christmas card issue; either fully acknowledge the holiday, or don’t acknowledge it at all. It is redundant to acknowledge any kind of holiday if the community refuses to recognize its true significance in the first place. Why celebrate Guy Fawkes’ day if we don’t want to accept that Guy Fawkes exists?
Generally, I think Sentamu is trying to do a good thing. Three cheers to him for holding the lines in London!
13 comments:
Hip Hip! HooRAY!
Hip Hip! HooRAY!
Hip Hip! HooRay!
See where "human rights" is getting us?
I dont think Christianity should be accorded Public status, because it was never meant to be in the Public sphere, like how Islam encompasses the Public and the Private. I am inclined to think that the Archbishop of York was speaking as a clergy of the Church of England, the official religion of the state of England, which was born not from the Reformation movement, but from the rejection by the Roman Catholic Church of King Henry VIII's annullment to Catherine of Aragon and the subsequent assumption of the King as the Supreme Head of the Church of England. In other words, the Archbishop was speaking from a false position.
4 questions:
1. Is Christianity meant to be private, but never public?
2. Is it better for Christians to not interfere at all in the affairs of state, or to have a acknowledgable voice in it?
3. If Sentamu was not an Anglican, would what he said be more acceptable?
4. Is the Anglican church of no value at all to the universal body of Christ just because it was not "properly born" out from the Reformation?
Write on, Joshua!
And I just don't understand why people like being anonymous... =/
1. Christianity, when it was born, was much of a private affair (eg, Pentecost). It gained momentum, perceived to be a threat by the Roman Empire, but it was never mobilised as a political force, making demands and etc. Paul was presented before the Roman Emperor, but he was defending himself, not making demands/making a case for the Christians. So, base on history, is Christianity Public? No. Christianity was, is and never will be a political entity. It was not born to be a political force, or it will ever be. If Christianity was a political force, Jesus would have accepted the offer to be the King of the Jews. Instead, He did not. It was only during the Dark Ages that Christianity became the 'official religion' of the Roman Empire, and that it became a political force.
2. To advocate what is right in the affairs of the State is alright; to use Christianity as a political tool is not right. If a State wants to choose abortion, legalise homosexuality, let it be, coz it is their choice, and who are we to interfere with people's choice? As Christian, we can advocate, and should we be in a position of power, then we can legislate according to Christian principles. If we are not in power, and people does not want to listen to us, so be it; it's their choice.
3. It does not matter if Sentamu is an Anglican, or from other denominations. The basic premise is already wrong. As stated, Christianity was never meant to be a political entity, with precepts covering national administration. Christianity is not Islam.
4. The Anglican Church, as an entity, is of no more value, just like the Roman Catholic Church. Individuals within the Anglican Church, or the Roman Catholic Church, if they follow and believe in Jesus only, and take the Bible as the sole authority of the Christian faith, then it is good. John Stott is an Anglican, but his merit rest on his position as a Christian, not an Anglican. The Anglican Church, as an entity, is of no value, unless God, in His grace, still wants to use the Anglican Church for His work.
1. If championing truth publicly can affect government administration for the better good, must it stop being publicly proclaimed just because it can come across as political?
Do the principles of the Kingdom of God apply only to individual believers, or to the community? Do Kingdom values apply only among the Christian community, or to all humanity?
The Lion of Judah roars for all people to repent, for the kindgom of heaven is at hand. Whether or not that roar is heard in governance or in private lives, whether or not it is seen as political mileage or a sincere call to national repentance... The Lion will not be silenced.
2. "Who are we to interfere with people's choice?" The postmodernist man has spoken.
3. You've just contradicted yourself with (2). You said "should we be in a position of power, then we can legislate according to Christian principles". Now, you say Christianity's precepts is not meant to cover national administration.
4. You've contradicted yourself again in (3). You said it does not not matter if Sentamu is Anglican. Now, Anglican-ism suddenly matters to you, and you shoot down the Anglican church as though it is of no value at all.
Then you go on and quote John Stott as an example. How different is John Stott from Sentamu, in their practice of their faith as Christians to impact the world? Sentamu is disqualified because of his day job as a clergy for a "wrongly-born faction" of Protestanism?
A question for you, out of curiosity. How then, is a church "properly born" from the Reformation before it can be respectfully recognized? The Brethren movement was a breakaway from the Anglican church. Is the Brethren church born out of Reformation wedlock then? Luther was not the Brethrens' father, although Luther was the father of the Reformation.
I am coming from a different angle, so I will not go on further, safe for no 2:
'Who are we to interfere with people's choice' is not just a postmodernist view, it is a Biblical view as well. Just one example to illustrate this: When God asked Noah to build the ark and the people around him to repent, the people did not repent. Did God, or Noah, force them to repent? No. Did God punish them? Yes. Conclusion? Even God did not interfere with the choice of His creation; instead, He punished them for making the wrong choice, for not following Him. Did Jesus force his disciples, and to the extent, us, to follow Him? No. Did God force Adam and Eve to obey Him? No.
If God did not interfere even with the choices of His created creatures, who are we to interfere with other people's choice? What is right and wrong is already established. Should people choose to go against it, as individuals we can only tell them what is right. If they still choose to go against it, then there is nothing we can do as individuals. Should the State refuse to acknowledge Christmas, or choose to legalise abortion, drugs and homosexuality, we, either as individuals or statesmen in power, can only point out what should be right and wield whatever power that we have to make what is right stay as it is. If they still refuse to rectify what is wrong, then there is nothing we can do, after all we did. In the end, God will execute His judgment fairly and sternly, just like during the times of Noah, when people refused to repent.
You concede that non-intervention of values is a postmodernist view. And you go on further to claim that non-intervention is a biblical view as well. In essence, you are saying that even the biblical view is a postmodernist one. That is very grave.
What about the prophetic calls to national repentance? What about the reforms that the good kings of Israel and Judah made? What about the millenial reign of Christ? Will that reign be a private affair?
When we know truth and don't act on it, then it is the same as knowing nothing at all. If truth is never applied outside our private sphere, then what does it mean to be the salt of the earth? What does it mean to be a light of the world? What becomes of our cultural mandate to rule over all creation? I believe by being merely good examples is not sufficient. Seeing wrong and doing nothing about it while being self-righteous is hypocrisy.
What meaning is there in preaching the gospel, if we do not interfere with people's choices? The gospel means nothing when it is preached among believers. Who needs the gospel? Who needs the truth? Believers or unbelievers?
You say that we "can only point out what should be right". So all we can do is use our finger to point things out? You also said we should "wield whatever power that we have to make what is right stay as it is." So all we can do is maintain status quo? What if there is only an infinitesimal amount of right that is going on? Isn't it more important to change what is WRONG to make it RIGHT?
Going along your logic, if all we can do is maintain what is right to stay as it is... What if one day, what was once right starts to go wrong? Do we just hang on to the remainder of whatever is right, and do nothing to rectify the wrong? Isn't that what corrosion of Christianity all about, where things are going wrong one by one?
The greatest danger is when more and more wrong seems right. And Christians think there's nothing wrong with that. And soon, nothing is wrong, everything is right. Then there will be no difference between right and wrong.
So if we are in a position of power to legislate, and abortion, drugs, prostitution, and homosexuality are already legalized, what should we do? Your line of reasoning implies we maintain status quo. Your line of reasoning always point to "they". It is always "they" who refuse to rectify what is wrong. But you fail to realize that saying "they" is only a convenient escape from saying "we". What are WE doing about it?
You've mentioned faulty analogies, from Noah to God to Jesus. Noah was in a position of authority to proclaim truth, and to rectify the wrong. He tried. People didn't listen. The judgment rested on the people's heads. Same applies for God, same applies for Jesus' modus operandi. True and granted.
However, your reasoning is, we must not be like Noah. We should not and cannot do what Noah does, because we are not Noah. We can only point at Noah. But if we do have a position like Noah, we should not rectify the things that are wrong. Maybe it's because we are helpless. We can only maintain the things that are right to stay as it is.
If that is so, it means two things.
1. Noah's message has no meaning.
2. When the people perish, the judgment rests on Noah's head.
You have your context, and I have mine, but please do not take written ideas, jumble it, roll and explode it like a snowball, and try to suggest lines of reasoning that is not even there.
This is the premise: we do everything that we can to tell others what is right and what is wrong, and will do everything in our power to do what is right and what is wrong, and make sure what is right stays as it is, and rectify what is wrong. If they accept what is right, good; if they do not accept what is right, then let it be, coz it is their choice. But we will continue to tell what is right and what is wrong, just as we will continue to tell the world about the Gospel, and let the world decide whether to accept or reject it.
I'm sorry if I've misinterpreted your context.
Back to the original discussion.
Taking from your latest premise, with Anglican prejudices aside...
If you were in a position to influence the country's recognition of Christmas, will you maintain it as Winterval, or will you change it into the day of remembrance of Christ's Birth?
Fight to keep Christmas as a rememberance of Christ's Birth.
Josh,
JAIS, JAKIM, PAS, etc. Ring any bells?
Post a Comment