Making Me Cross

I am a Christian, and I have been since 1966, but I don’t wear a cross. Never have done. Wearing a cross is not a requirement of the Christian Faith. In fact, Christianity is not concerned with the wearing of certain garments or jewellery as a symbol of that faith. We need to be clear, before moving forward, that Faith and Religion (in its many Christian forms), are not the same thing, and much of the religious trappings of garments, vestments, etc., which surround Christianity are man-made and therefore irrelevant to this argument.

What is relevant, in the UK especially, is that there is a clear, deliberate, cowardly and mendacious policy emerging within both personal, corporate and governmental society, to marginalise and undermine the Christian Faith and those who hold to that faith. This is currently focussing on the wearing of crosses as a symbol of a person’s faith.

Now we have already said that wearing a cross is not a requirement of the Christian Faith, so where is the conflict? The conflict is occurring because, whilst the wearing of the cross is not a faith requirement, it is a tradition that goes back more than 2000 years to the very heart of the Christian Faith; the Crucifixion of Christ. From that time the cross, as a symbol of Christianity, was forever implanted within the heart of believers. It became the prime, the foremost and most important icon of everything that Christianity means, of what the Christian faith is, at its heart, and what it will always be about both philosophically, religiously, ideologically and personally.

Which brings us back to the argument. If a Christian chooses to wear a cross, whether as a necklace, badge, brooch perhaps even as a tattoo, they do so as a testimony to what they personally believe, as a testimony to their faith; the Christian Faith. That it is not a requirement has no bearing on the fact that the cross is what it is; a 2000 year old, deeply rooted symbol of Christian Faith, and to strike at its significance, to say that the wearing of the cross means nothing because it is a not requirement of the faith, is to insult 2000 years (and counting!) of Christian tradition, 2000 years of faith and 2000 years of deep, deep significance.

Those who dismiss the cross thus, are insulting 2000 years of Christian faith, all those who would call themselves Christians and the basic belief of Christianity; that Christ died on a cross for the redemption of the human race.

Do We Live In A Christian Country?

Do We Live In A Christian Country?

I have a confession to make: along with a significant number of others, I have for a number of years accepted a premise. That premise is this: that because we have become an increasingly secular society, that because only a minority of our citizens regularly attend a place of Christian worship and that because a significant number of those people who have come to live in this country share non-Christian belief systems, we have become a non-Christian Country.

It is understandable that we have fallen into this premise.

Since the mid-1960s, when there were huge cultural shifts in our nation, and the established church system in the UK began loosing its way, we have become, as a nation, far more secularly orientated.

Also, over the last 50 years, large numbers of people have come to live in the UK who do not have a Christian belief, but have beliefs that are totally non-Christian. These communities have grown not only in number, but in political and social power, to the point where our traditional lifestyle is now lived in the context of the opinions of these other beliefs.

So it is understandable that we have accepted the premise. It is, however, a false premise. It is a false premise because who we are as a country is not based solely on how many people go to church regularly, not on how many citizens have no belief, not on how many people have different beliefs.

Our whole way of life in the UK; our laws, our justice system, our democratic style of Government, our ethical beliefs, are based on traditional Judeo-Christian belief and have been for hundreds of years. This may not be a country where enormous amounts of people still attend church regularly, but we are a Christian based country.

What, therefore, are the implications of this?

In a nutshell, those of us who do share a Christian belief should not, any longer, accept that we now live in a non-Christian country. We should not accept that, increasingly, our society will devolve into a totally secular society, nor that we are going to evolve into a society where Christian belief becomes marginalized beyond other beliefs simply because they shout louder or because they instil fear of opposition into their fellow citizens via threats of orchestrated violence.

Rather, we should remind ourselves what the Christian mission truly is: to go into all the world and make disciples, to live our lives as Christ wants us to live them, and that sometimes that may involve turning over metaphorical tables in metaphorical temples and driving the metaphorical money-changers away.

How those metaphors work out in actuality has yet to be seen, but if we surrender the Christian legacy of this country too easily, we, or our children, or their children, may regret this, deeply.

Victims of Consensus

Question: What is the purpose of national government?
Answer: To know how to best serve the people for whom they are their elected representatives, and to then serve them.

At least that is probably what the answer should be..... if only!

Are you aware that those who govern us are in a continual struggle for our hearts and minds? The answer you would probably give is, 'yes of course I am. Every political statement I hear or read is a mix of truth, lie, misdirection and propaganda', and of course this is true. However, despite the fact that those who govern us, our elected representatives, are supposed to be our 'humble servants', the truth of the matter is that they are engaged in a constant war of attrition which seeks to continually persuade us that everything they do, propose, suggest, think, is right and that we must be persuaded to fall in line with it; whether higher taxes, lower wages, military action, etc. To do this they must ensure that their citizens should not think too deeply about such matters, should not engage too deeply in the debate, should not oppose the leaderships' rationale. In other words, we should not think for ourselves.

But do we want to be concerned with such matters? It is extremely important that we are.

Modern history offers us a prime example of what can happen when a population, apparently unable or unwilling, to think for itself and engage in the political processes of its Government, allows it's Government to carry out atrocities that, many decades later, still fill people with horror.

I am of course talking about the German Nazi party's extermination of millions of Jews, Poles and Gypsies during the course of the Second World War. Although there were many factors involved; severe financial breakdown and national racism being just two, the result was that the German population stood aside while its own citizens were first persecuted, scapegoated, ghettoised and then systematically exterminated. Shamefully, whilst this was going on, even the German Church turned the other cheek; the one body of people whom you would hope would stand against such evil, did not do so.

There were or two exceptions, and history records their bravery, and in some situations, their executions.

How did this happen? It happened because a consensus was reached within the population that what their Government was doing was right and in the best interests of its citizens.

There are a number of varied and complicated psychological and sociological processes involved for this to happen within a population. Malcolm Gladwell, author of, The Tipping Point, has shown that when something new appears on the horizon, be it philosophical, ideological or socialogical, there is a period of time when this new idea germinates. A period of time when, albeit slowly, the new idea gains a foothold, perhaps through active promotion, i.e. media advertising, televised propaganda, TV, Radio, Internet, Film, public promotion, debate, etc. But eventually the 'tipping point' is reached when the acceptance of this new idea cascades into the public consciousness, and almost overnight, or so it seems, a majority of the population find themselves agreeing with the new idea for no other reason than the common belief that, 'everyone believes that....', and thus it becomes, in sort, a self-fulfilling prophecy. Once this tipping point is reached, the promoters of the new idea can push ahead because it has reached consensus.

Take, for example, the global warming debate. Despite enormous scientific evidence in opposition to the basic premise, a consensus seems to have been reached that human produced CO2 is the prime cause of global warming.

Once consensus has been reached, it becomes more and more difficult for anyone to stand opposed to that consensus. They will find that their voice is increasingly isolated, their opinion increasingly marginalised, and that the consensus is less and less willing to bear with such opposition.

So how does a Government effectively persuade its citizens towards this tipping point? Of course, different Governments use different methods; terror, oppression, fear, reasoned argument, debate, democratic process, etc. The danger is that, within a democratic process, there is always the possibility that the population might be swayed to an opposing, undesired opinion. One way to deal with this would be to remove the opposition. That raises the question as to whether the democratic process is also removed at the same time. One other way to limit the rise of opposing argument is to reduced the ability of the population to engage in reasoned debate; to remove the populations' ability to reason out the arguments, to reach a decision based on intellectual effort; in other words, to think for itself. But how does a Government thus reduce a population's ability?

One way would be to, over a period, 'dumb down' the population, reducing the ability of that population to think for themselves; to form opinions based on reasoned argument, philosophical or religious ethical ideology. This could lead to a situation where the Government of a country can more easily persuade a population, or the majority of a population, along a course of its own choosing, to consensus, without the danger of that population raising serious objection.

So, is the British population being dumbed down? It's a question which merits consideration. Universities report that increasingly, entrants display the lack of adequate literacy and numeracy skills. Our school system has been systematically pulled apart since the introduction of the comprehensive education system, and certain governments have all but destroyed Grammar schools. Add to that the apparent goal of our state owned broadcasting system to rot our brains with a diet of 'reality TV' and 'celebrity' led opinion. All of which, despite the apparent increase in 'A' Level results, may be leading to a generation less able to truly think for itself.

It is vital that we retain the ability to think for ourselves. If we do not, we are in danger of becoming victims of consensus, victims of a non-intellectual mob-rule that may see some of us swimming against the stream of majority opinion.

Remember, what is popular is not always right, and what is right is not always popular.

Makes you think, doesn't it?