Making Sense of the Social Signals

Making Sense of the Social Signals Towards the end of February 2011, a British court ruled that a Christian couple could not adopt children while holding to their traditional Christian views about homosexuality and the teaching of the Bible against a homosexual lifestyle. In the view of the judge, British law in the field of gender equality takes precedence over the rights of individuals to hold particular religious convictions. There has been a howl of protest from Christians and from some columnists in right of centre newspapers but the judgement against that Christian couple will certainly stand and will also help to shape case law, or precedence in other similar related areas. Christine Odone, writing in the Daily Telegraph, made the helpful point that the judge in question was not reflecting the views of the majority and she is almost certainly correct in her observation. But making laws, (and the process of shaping the social climate), is rarely in the hands of the majority. Christians need to think long and hard about how they respond to a situation where significant numbers of opinion makers, in the legal world, the world of politics and possibly the worlds of media and education are likely to take a markedly different perspective from that of traditional Christian morality on a whole range of issues in the fields of family, gender, and other strands of personal morality. We are in danger of being sidelined, being thought narrow minded, marginalized and even silenced if we react in a superficial way, no matter how wronged we might feel or right we might be. At this point we need some lessons in history. The last time that Christians (particularly conservative evangelical Christians) felt on the back foot with regard to public opinion to the same extent was probably the last half of the 18th century. Some of the same issues were around: the idea that market forces must rule our lives, the unbridled freedom of banks and other financial institutions to act as they wish, the selling of peerages, corruption in parliament, a lack of public morals, immorality regularly portrayed in public entertainment (then the theatre not the cinema), the creation of a national lottery and much more besides. The parallels between then and now are astonishing. The first reaction of Christians was to go to law. Rather like Mary Whitehouse in the 1970’s they tried to fight immorality on the stage through the courts. They lost in the law courts and more importantly they lost in the court of public opinion. It took almost a generation for Christians to figure out how to lead public opinion rather than being punished by it. In the 18th century the single most important cause seized upon by Christians of many persuasions as the foremost issue around which a new vision of society and humanity might be shaped, was originally a radical left wing cause. That campaign was eventually picked up by right wing Christian politicians as well as those from other political streams. The cause was the anti-slavery movement. As we think about how we respond to cases in the courts which seem to target and discriminate against traditional Christian beliefs we might do well to take a step back and think about how we re-engage with society on a completely different basis. Some Christians both on the left and right are beginning to do that. Christian think tanks are engaged in valuable work helping to create a new vision of community and society. In addition to all this enterprise some Christians have picked up the banner of freedom in relation to a celebration in 2013 in Milan. Their slogan and campaign – Believe in the freedom to believe - is a powerful one and we will return to it again a number of times in the run up to 2013.