Am I prepared to go to prison for the Gospel?

For most of my life Christians have thanked God for our free society and the freedom we enjoy to live, witness and preach openly. Today this freedom is not just at risk, it has gone!

In what is the biggest social change in my lifetime freedom has been replaced by authoritarianism. Traditional Christian statements of belief are described as hate speech and Christian values preclude one from many normal activities of life.

The term “hate speech” was first used by the old USSR when negotiating the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights in the 1940’s. They were concerned that certain wordings might be held against them. Today “hate speech” is a concept recognised in legislation across Europe and the Developed world.

Different countries have slightly different legislation, but it is noticeable that in some countries e.g. Austria, it applies to speech within the family. In others e.g. Cyprus it applies to speech outside the home and also if that speech is overheard outside the home. In all cases it is deliberately loosely drafted providing a powerful weapon in the hand of any complainant.

What is the problem?

 1.  We note that the term “hate speech” is never defined in legislation, whilst the Metropolitan               Police have a working definition saying that it is  'Any criminal offence which is perceived by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by hostility or prejudice based on a person's race or perceived race; religion or perceived religion; sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation; disability or perceived disability and any crime motivated by hostility or prejudice against a person who is transgender or perceived to be transgender.' 

The Metropolitan Police guidelines go on to state that: “A hate incident is any incident which the victim, or anyone else, thinks is based on someone’s prejudice towards them because of their           race, religion, sexual orientation, disability or because they are transgender. Evidence of the hate             element is not a requirement.”

This emphasis on victimhood being based on perception of a crime is outside our usual perception of law which we would expect to be based on fact and the actual demonstrable committing of the criminal act.

So, anyone, honest or vexatious, may accuse any other person of a hate crime, without any objective evidence, merely an expression of perceived hurt or offence.

2. This effectively establishes a right “not to be offended”, a right not established by any International Treaty.

3. This legislation is in direct conflict with the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights which           establishes a right to “free speech.”

4. Democracy is undermined when discussion is restricted. “In a free state every man may think what he likes and say what he thinks” Spinoza. It is only when ideas are discussed that democracy can function and society can come to a reasoned opinion on an issue.

5. Hate speech legislation protects only certain people – people in certain protected groups who are granted additional political power. There is no protection for “red-heads”, “the obese” or even “the elderly”.

6. The investigation for “hate speech” has a massive effect on the accused inevitably leading to an immediate suspension of employment.  Even when unproven it casts a cloud over a career, can result in business failure and frequent financial loss.

Application of Legislation

If the outworking of legislation matched its expressed intention, we might have fewer problems, however experience throughout Europe over the last decade has thrown up many examples which are a threat not only to free speech but also to the Christian church. Let’s look at some examples:

• A debate on Abortion at Oxford University in 2014 was banned due to “the damage it could do to emotional and the mental wellbeing of the students”
• A Swedish pastor was imprisoned for one month for condemning sexual immorality from the pulpit.
• Pastor was convicted for preaching from the Bible on sexual sin including homosexuality. He was told that he should not have preached from Leviticus ch 20 (which gives the penalties for sexual sin) but should have preached from Leviticus ch 18 which had a softer message!
• Street preachers in the UK were convicted in 2017 of using offensive statements against LGBT member communities.
• In 2014 a UK church was sanctioned as it had displayed a poster on its noticeboard showing a picture of flames with the slogan “If you think there is no God – you had better be right”
• In 2009 an Austrian MP was convicted for saying “In today’s system, Mohammad would be considered a child molester. Why? Because he married his wife when she was 6 or 7 and consummated the relationship when she was 9 years old.”
• Harry Miller, a former police officer, won a court victory against Humberside Police after the force investigated him over 'transphobic tweets'. The police were criticised by High Court judge Julian Knowles, who said Mr Miller's tweets should not have been categorised as a 'hate incident' and said officers had acted like the 'Gestapo or Stasi' by turning up at his work to quiz him about them.

Whilst not all readers would feel comfortable repeating the actions above, it is clear that the application of “hate speech” legislation has restricted debate on issues that need to be explored within our society. Indeed, the answer to the conflict of ideas in our society is surely not less speech but more speech so that ideas are more fully explored.

The effect of having to be subject to Police investigation with the possibility of a court appearance and sanctions has a chilling effect on all public speakers. In the case of Harry Miller above, the High Court judge stated that “The claimant's tweets were lawful and that there was not the slightest risk that he would commit a criminal offence by continuing to tweet.” However, for thirteen months he lived with the pressure of criminal investigation, and his details are retained along with details of what is now considered a “non-crime hate incident” and will show up if a DBS report is required, possibly restricting employment opportunities.

Confused Morality

For generations Christians have been used to living in a society where, though not completely Christian, there has been a general acceptance of Christian morality as “good”, even if difficult to live up to.

So, the Amateur Christian finds it difficult to come to terms with the fact that along with secularisation has come a new morality. This is most definitely not no-morality, it is actually a new and different morality, without God as its focus, replacing him with self.

To get a feel for modern day morality I searched Wikipedia for “Modern 10 Commandments” and found several lists.

These are the ten winning beliefs of the Rethink Prize, a crowdsourcing competition to rethink the Ten Commandments. The contest drew more than 2,800 submissions from 18 countries and 27 U.S. states. Winners were selected by a panel of judges.

1. Be open-minded and be willing to alter your beliefs with new evidence.

2. Strive to understand what is most likely to be true, not to believe what you wish to be true.

3. The scientific method is the most reliable way of understanding the natural world.

4. Every person has the right to control of their body.

5. God is not necessary to be a good person or to live a full and meaningful life.

6. Be mindful of the consequences of all your actions and recognize that you must take responsibility for them.

7. Treat others as you would want them to treat you and can reasonably expect them to want to be treated. Think about their perspective.

8. We have the responsibility to consider others, including future generations.

9. There is no one right way to live.

10. Leave the world a better place than you found it.

I wonder what you think about this list. Immediately I noticed it left out all requirement for a relationship with God, but I suppose this is not surprising as it is providing The Atheists 10 Commandments.

Command 3 says that “The scientific method is the most reliable way of understanding the natural world.” Whilst this might at first glance have credibility, it omits space for God to reveal himself to us, through his Word, the indwelling Holy Spirit or other “non-scientific” forms of revelation, without which our relationship with God might cease.

This list gives moral superiority to the suggestion that “There is no one right way to live” whilst we as Christians understand that God, the creator and owner of the universe has both told us and shown us, in Jesus, the only right way to live.

Atheist commandment 4 says that “Every person has the right to control of their body” whilst God’s word tells us that “You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore, honour God with your bodies.” 1 Cor 6:20. This has enormous implications for both our sexual and medical ethics.

The problem is that we now have competing worldviews, which seek to impose legal structures to reinforce their way of belief and living. This is a new threat to us as believers in Jesus Christ as Lord of the universe and of our personal lives.

What can we do?

We recognise that Authoritarian states enforcing beliefs is not a recent problem. George Orwell wrote about it in “1984” (written in 1948). We also recognise that this is not an exclusively Christian issue. Secular commentators such as Brendon O’Neill, Jordon Peterson and Toby Young, who earlier this year founded the “Free Speech Union” to defend the rights of those who are having their speech restricted by authoritarian legislation, have all spoken out from a concern to protect Human Rights. We might have a concern to protect Christian Rights.

Christian organisations such as CARE (Christian Action Research and Education) lobby politicians and lead campaigns in the UK on issues of concern to Christians, including Abortion, Pornography and Human trafficking. They have a long record of influencing Governments.

Also, in the UK organisations Christian Concern and The Christian Institute have both supported Christians under threat with legal advice and assistance. This seeks to limit the extent to which the law is used against Christian belief and practice.

The Example of Rome

In 303 AD the Roman Emperor Diocletian commenced the largest and bloodiest persecution of Christianity in Rome’s history. Over 9 years Christians were purged from army service, had their rights removed and were required to offer sacrifices to pagan gods. Many lost their lives as the empire sought to restore its “moral fabric” i.e. to pagan values. The Emperor’s edict prohibited Christians from assembling for worship, and ordered the destruction of their scriptures, liturgical books, and places of worship across the empire. They were also prohibited from petitioning the courts.

The Great Persecution soon lost impetus, Diocletian resigned in May 305AD and just 8 years later his successors signed the Edict of Milan, stating that: “we have given to those Christians free and unrestricted opportunity of religious worship. When you see that this has been granted to them by us, your Worship will know that we have also conceded to other religions the right of open and free observance of their worship for the sake of the peace of our times, that each one may have the free opportunity to worship as he pleases; this regulation is made that we may not seem to detract from any dignity or any religion.”

Within a further 20 years a new emperor, Constantine would make Christianity the religion of the Roman Empire. The cross would lead them into battle and places of worship would be built. Christianity had moved from being a pariah cult to become a foundation of the Roman state.

I tell this story, not to suggest that we pray for a resumption of Christendom, but to show how things may change in a short period of time. The changes of attitude in Rome over such a short time period were remarkable and can happen again today.

Others would point out changes in attitude in formerly iron curtain countries. I was recently reminded when viewing pictures of President Putin lighting a candle in a Moscow church.

God changes things. He uses men who will take a stand and he brings renewal. He responds when his people turn to him in prayer.

The Amateur Christian feels that standing up to the current influence of “hate speech” ideology is difficult but vital if Christians are to continue to have a voice in our society. To restrict our speech to areas permitted by the “hate speech” Stasi will result in failure to confront our secular society with Gods values. Am I brave enough?

If you liked this article, remember to like and share with others.