Premier Radio in the UK, in response to the The National Secular Society encouraging 100,000 people to sign a certificate to “debaptise” themselves are asking 100,000 people to publicly stand up and declare that they are Christians.
I won’t be signing the declaration, despite my disquiet about living in a secular country that believes my faith should be relegated to the realm of the private.
The statement I am asked by premier to declare is:
“I affirm publicly that I believe in the life, teaching, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ as recorded in scripture and expressed in the historic creeds of the Christian faith.”
I like the idea of encouraging Christians to connect their belief to public life, but wonder why it reduces christianity to beliefs, and not practices. To be a christian in public, is more than stating your private beliefs in public.
One of the many problems with the secularism is that it doesn’t care what we believe, as long as we practice it in private (and take offense at the mention of it in public, like breaking wind in a restaurant). But what it hates the most is the practice of faith, at work, and the world, shaped by a church community. For it alone believes it can practice belief in public from it’s own standpoint, able to relegate everyone else beneath it’s own beliefs and public practice.
Our belief in truths as Christians only make sense when they are practice, and lived, publicly with others, through the church. Reducing Christianity to a statement of beliefs about Christianity, is to play the game on the terms set by others. To argue about ‘truth’, within the framework secularists have set for keeping Christian beliefs private and out of the realm of practice, is part of the problem.
So what kind of declaration would I sign, or join up to on facebook?
“I affirm publicly that I try to believe and practice the life, teaching, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ as recorded in scripture and expressed in the historic creeds of the Christian faith, within the Church to bring God’s salvation, to myself, my home, my family, my work and community, my world, and that this way of life is worth living and dying for”
And even then it would be one aimed at Christians, calling each other to faithful public living, and not a truth statement response to secularists.
25 comments
Trackback
Comment by Marc
10.55 am on 3 Apr 2009
I saw this in the press and have had a good few discussions about so here’s the conclusion I have reached:
1. De-baptism, if people wish to de-baptise themselves they are welcome to, however if only the church has the power from God to Baptise I would’ve thought the only person who can de-baptise you would be the church?
2. If those who are baptised (and is seems generally to be child baptisms) maybe they should consider suing their parents as it was they, not the church that chose to have them baptised.
3. Of course there is no such thing as de-baptism and at £3 to download a ‘certificate’ someone is making a mint.
4. And of course, if you don’t believe in God what does it matter in the first place.
5. It’s really just another gimmick and fad by those who are anti-theist and anti-religion and in my opinion is best ignored. After all I have been baptised and that was my public declaration of my faith.
Reply to this comment
Comment by Becky
1.03 pm on 3 Apr 2009
^^^ What he said
I’ll sign up to your statement Jase – have you contacted Premier to suggest it?
Reply to this comment
Comment by Jason Clark
1.49 pm on 3 Apr 2009
No modesty precludes me, but of course my friends are free to do so
Reply to this comment
Comment by Alan Mann
11.35 am on 3 Apr 2009
I agree with Marc’s rather well expressed summing up.
Though of course, your point is also rather well made Jason.
Personally, I think the Christian community does far too much ‘responding’ to agendas being set by others, which gives the impression that we are irrelevant and lacking in originality – which of course, is far from the truth.
Reply to this comment
Comment by rodney neill
11.59 am on 3 Apr 2009
Sometimes it feels important to do some form of ritual or symbolic act to signify a major rite of passage episode in an individuals life – maybe for some the debaptising certificate represents this….I believe that the historic creeds need to be reinterpreted for a modern age so I would have some difficulty in signing Jasons declaration athough I sympathise/resonate with the spirit of it.
Rodney
Reply to this comment
Pingback by The Practicing Church » Why I won’t declare I am a Christian
1.13 pm on 3 Apr 2009
[...] post was first posted here at Deep Church and is shared here with Jason’s [...]
Reply to this comment
Comment by jeff
2.24 pm on 3 Apr 2009
This is a little simplistic, but please allow me some leeway as I think this through…
Instead of confessing our beliefs, why not confess our relationship?
As a married man, I have an organic relationship with my wife. And although I haven’t thought this all the way through, I believe I could potentially have actions toward my wife that are in her best interests, and still be opposed to my personal beliefs.
In a similar vein, my actions, with regard to God, are less about belief, and more about my love for Him and His love for me. I do what I do & live how I live, based on my affections toward Him, not my belief in Him.
I don’t think I’d sign anything short of:
“I love God. And I love you, too.”
Reply to this comment
Comment by stephan s
2.46 pm on 3 Apr 2009
this is good stuff bruthuh…
“our belief in truths as Christians only make sense when they are practiced, and lived, publicly with others, through the church.” – whats nice about this quote is its less than 140 characters.
of course i also enjoyed the comparison about faith in public.
Reply to this comment
Comment by Joe
2.47 pm on 3 Apr 2009
The sad thing is how many Christians spend so much time worrying about creeds and so little time living them. I once went to a meeting to ‘learn’ how to give a testimony in 30 seconds. What circumstance could be imagined where an individual needs to learn a spiritual truth in 30 seconds?
What possible use is it to sign a statement of faith on facebook? Some huge number of people have signed it… well, big deal. How many of those did it because all their friends did? At least the secularist is unlikely to have done it under peer pressure and has probably made the decision for themselves.
The real truth is that if we actually behaved as the children of the light we so grandly profess, we’d be making such great changes in our society that we probably wouldn’t need to make statements like this in the first place.
Reply to this comment
Comment by Sylvia
1.41 pm on 6 Apr 2009
Good points, Joe! Let us SHOW what we believe, behave as “children of the Light” – for a change.
Reply to this comment
Comment by Scott
5.10 am on 4 Apr 2009
thank you for your thoughtful post.
Reply to this comment
Comment by James Prescott
5.18 pm on 4 Apr 2009
Yet again the world seems to be getting caught up in the use of labels. To me, it doesn’t matter what doctorine you subscribe to – what’s important, and what’s important to God, is how you live.
If you limit yourself to denominational or relgious doctorine, which can get very legalistic, then you are limiting God.
To me whats important is finding out how God wants us to live in each area of our lives, what basic values He wants us to live by, and living those out in the context we are placed in.
To call oneself a Christian today, to a non-Christian, automatically means you believe certain things, don’t do certain things and act certain ways according to society’s pre-conceived ideas of what Christianity is and Christians are.
Jason has this spot on – its a way of living, its not a religion at all. And to stand for Jesus doesn’t mean we should have to sign up for anything. Ultimately our character and lifestyle will reflect what we really live by.
As Alan says Christians need to be setting the agenda, not following it – on the issues that matter, not ones of religion and legalism.
Reply to this comment
Comment by Benjamin Ady
5.58 pm on 5 Apr 2009
Was no one else here at all bothered by the mischaracterization of secularism? Feels like secularism was reduced to a set of beliefs which are fairly easy to villify, while at the same time the author was insisting that christianity not be thusly reduced.
I bet a lot of christians would feel at least a bit defensive if a secularist described christianity in such straw man, unkind terms. Its fairly easy to homogenize the outgroup and call them bad, while insisting that ‘we’ here in the ingroup are much more nuanced and diverse. yes, there are bad secularists, and there are bad christians, both of whom make others miserable and make the world a worse place. but they don’t represent the broad array of people from either viewpoint.
that’s my two cents worth.
Reply to this comment
Comment by Jason
6.39 am on 6 Apr 2009
Hi Benjamin, that your talking about my post, as a mis-characterization?
I’m sure it is in some ways. Firstly a blog post is short by nature and not a detailed critique, and they all tend to become characterizations. Second, I am talking about secularism as a school of thought, and do stand by my comments. Having studied ’secularism’, it does want us to keep faith in private, as it’s explicit aims. Again there isn’t room here to detail those sources and and references.
So I’m left wondering how have I vilified secularism? It does insist that religion be kept private and out of public life, and politics, that is the reason for secularism? If you think you can bring religion into public life you aren’t a secularist by definition.
And I don’t think I resorted to any ad hominem arguments, I didn’t label secularists as bad? I was talking about ’secularism’, the beliefs and assumptions behind that school of thought/philosophy, which I do think is incoherent.
So just trying to clarify with you, as I’ve re-read what I wrote and I didn’t call anyone bad, or better or used any straw men. Warmly, Jason
Reply to this comment
Comment by Paul
7.40 am on 6 Apr 2009
I suppose for me this is just a Q of “i believe” actually means – it can be short hand for belief that has practice embedded in it, afterall if i wasn’t practicing i wouldn’t bother to sign, what would be the point. Faith has to have an outward vent and for some people this will be it
How explicit or implicit the practice of that belief is expressed is neither here nor there.
I won’t be signing up as I beleive I am too apathetic lol
Reply to this comment
Comment by Benjamin Ady
7.47 am on 6 Apr 2009
Jason,
thank you so much for responding. you rock.
Just to be fair I responded at somewhat more length to the repost of your article at thepracticingchurch.com http://thepracticingchurch.com/2009/04/03/why-i-wont-declare-i-am-a-christian/ I came to the article from over there, and responded there first =)
I mean to be fair to me =). It’s kind of weird to have this conversation going on at two places at once. Ah well. =)
Yes, I was talking about your post as a mischaracterization.
I apologize for using the term “vilify”. It was unnecessary at best. I didn’t mean to attack you. I apologize.
Now on to the question at hand =).
You originally said, regarding secularism,
“One of the many problems with the secularism is that it doesn’t care what we believe, as long as we practice it in private (and take offense at the mention of it in public, like breaking wind in a restaurant). But what it hates the most is the practice of faith, at work, and the world, shaped by a church community. For it alone believes it can practice belief in public from it’s own standpoint, able to relegate everyone else beneath it’s own beliefs and public practice.”
It just seems to me that you would want others to approach *your* viewpoint, “christianity”, with an allowance for more nuance and diversity and tension between equally true and yet opposite things.
For instance. From the secular website you reference, which belongs to the UK secular organization, they say of themselves:
“We campaign for a society where everyone is free to practise their faith, change it or not have one.”
Of course they go on to say
“Religion should be a private matter, for the home and place of worship; it must not have privileged influence in the public and political arenas where it can too easily become an excuse for conflict, inequality and injustice.”
Can you see how even though these two things *are* in tension, they can still both be true? To represent secularism as “hating the practice of faith” is at *best*, it seems to me, caricaturing this particular half of the antinomy which they hold.
It … diminishes them. In much the same way it diminishes Christians or anyone else when someone emphasizes that they believe one half of an antinomy and fail to mention that they are complex, thoughtful individuals who also hold to the *other* half of the antinomy
by which I mean to say–do you *know* any secularists? Is it possible that there are *some* secularists who hate *certain types* of public practice of faith which you *also* hate? Like for instance practicing faith by starting wars, blowing people up, calling people nasty names, and so forth. And yet they still greatly love and admire certain other public practices of faith, like helping the poor, or … doing litter pickup in the neighborhood, and so forth?
I ask again if you would want to be characterized as you’ve characterized secularists? Christianity could very easily be called “incoherent”, or characterized as hating things which are actually good, if we chose to look at the worst elements or people in Christianity.
I mean surely you can see that your tone toward secularists is incredibly negative?
“For it alone believes it can practice belief in public from it’s own standpoint, able to relegate everyone else beneath it’s own beliefs and public practice.”
This sort of accusation could *so* easily be leveled against “Christiniaty”, if we’re just talking about fundamentalist Christians. So if there are fundamentalist Christians, *and* there are somewhat kinder, easier to talk to Christians, then … maybe there are *also* fundamentalist secularists, *and* there are somewhat kinder, easier to talk to secularists.
…
I don’t mean to carry on. What if we choose to form our image about a group based on the very *best* people and ideas within that group? Isn’t that how we want *our* group treated? I imagine Christians want the image of their group which outsiders have to be formed around characters like Mother Theresa and Jim Henderson, and ideas that everyone admires like …
like treating others the way we want to be treated.
Your thoughts?
Reply to this comment
Comment by Jason Clark
8.07 am on 6 Apr 2009
Hi Benjamin, thanks for a considered reply to my comments
Here are my thoughts as a start:
1. Secularism: I stand by my critique, it allows the practice of religion as long as it is in private, the qoutes you provide back that up, and yet it alone is allowed to practice it’s own position on faith in public. No one asks a secularist to restrict their beliefs to the private realm. In that sense it’s incoherent, it allows that only it can be privileged in public. And I am in no way arguing for Christianity to be privileged in public against other belief systems.
2. Religious wars: That’s a huge leap from what I was talking about. I didn’t suggest for one minute that all the concerns of secularism are invalid, and never stated that. I tried to carefully keep to one of it’s main tenants the privatization of faith. Again I was not critiquing the whole of secularism in this post, just critiquing the premier radio response, and the issue within secularism that it relates to, or at least that I think it does.
3. Secularism wars: More people have been killed in secular nation state wards than religious wars, and at another time and post, we could argue about how it was secularism that led to some of the worst atrocities, that we have seen and still do. That does not mean Christianity has an unblemished past, far from it, and I have been very willing to talk about that. Again I at no time pitted Christianity against secularism in terms of this area in my post.
4. Characterization: I like you do not like crude stereotypes and characterization. However I still don’t think I did what you think I did in my post
I talk about secularism, and one aspect that is central to being a secularist, of the privatization of faith, and how that is incoherent to it’s own practices. If you claim I painted secularists as bad, you’ll need to show me how, because I can’t see any support for that claim in what I said?
5. Nuance: I could have nuanced my post with some caveats, and one thing I’ll take away from our interaction is how when critiquing an idea or belief from a group/philosophy it’s easy to perceive that as an attack on the people..which was not my intent, and I still think I didn’t do that.
6. Hating: I did use that word, and I could have used another one. But where I live, in secular london, speaking, practicing, and even talking about your faith in public is frowned upon. I kid you not, talking with friends in a pub, restaurant about our lives and what God is doing, draws glares and requests to talk about something else…and I think secularism and the privatization of faith is behind that.
7. Short Hand: Blogs are not only brief by rely on using short hand for readers, I’m sure a blog for secularism would be so loaded with claims that are condensed that I would struggle to decode them if I visited. My blog is in the context of a 5 year conversation and many other posts that regular readers would have been reading and know about, that would surface the elements above, or at least I hope they would
Thanks for being gracious and interacting and helping me learn,
Warmly, Jason
Reply to this comment
Comment by Graham
9.46 am on 6 Apr 2009
I’ve been reading this blog alongside Thiselton’s ‘The Hermeneutics of Doctrine’ in which Thiselton makes the strong point that faith-belief is not merely a ’statement’ but much more action-oriented and situation-related and embedded in space-time contingencies (p21). As such, the context in which an argument develops is a vital component in determining whether or not the believing community (which means it cannot be a private response alone) takes ownership and possession of the ‘answer’. As Thiselton put is nicely (p37) – ‘a dispositional account of belief suggests that belief becomes articulated precisely when someone denies it, distorts it, or attacks it in the hearing of Christian believers’. In light of Jason’s point – that our Christian belief is being marginalised by a wider secular media/public – perhaps Premier is picking up the tab which the institutional churches of the land have neglected and trying to be heard. Premier is, however, only a hand picking up that tab – it requires the muscle of the ‘arm’ of the ‘church’ in order to make any real impact.
Reply to this comment
Comment by sarah
11.57 am on 6 Apr 2009
Is anyone familar with Leslie Newbigin’s idea that secularism is a direct result of the Gospel itself? In the presence of the Gospel in society we become free from tribal, family, societal ties and take seriously individual responsibility. In other words, we become individuals (Christ died for me, human rights evolve, but if we do not chose God with our freedom we become enslaved to something else, namely, and most often, materialism/consumerism. (I am reminded of Jesus stark reminder there is only God or mammon.)
The Secularist problem to me, is that of a massive identity crisis. They are able to ‘be’, do and say pretty much whatever they like within the law, whenever they want to because of what has come to them through Western Culture, which I see as having arisen directly from a Christian world view.
I see Secularism not as something people choose instead of God, they chose it because of God. In no way would they be able to make such a choice without the Gospel in operation, past or present.
A response to secularist, inclusing a bit of history, pointing out their roots, would be, hmmm … interesting? I think that this unacknowledged truth/perspective causes the contradition in secularism … and eventually leads to a kind of totalitarianism which will not see another point of view.
What do individuals with persistant and unresolved identity issues often become? Controlling, dogmatic, empty, driven …
Just a few wide-ranging thoughts.
Reply to this comment
Comment by JG
12.50 pm on 6 Apr 2009
This discussion raises interesting points. The argument seems to be between declaration of faith (“beliefs”) on the one hand and the way faith is lived out and experienced (“practices”) on the other. “but wonder why it reduces christianity to beliefs, and not practices.”
Why does it need to be one or the other? Can’t it be both? Shouldn’t we be able to both declare our faith and practice it?
I strongly support Benjamin comments about where “someone emphasizes that [another person] believe[s] one half of an antinomy and fail[s] to mention that they are complex, thoughtful individuals who also hold to the *other* half of the antinomy.”
What makes declaration of faith difficult is the way in which it carries so much baggage. Mention to someone that you are a Christian and sometimes all sorts of pre conconceived ideas and assumptions arise and you can be pigeon holed into a certain category of person. Benjamin makes this point about secularists – tell someone you are a secularist or atheist and again all sorts of pre conceived ideas and assumptions arise.
Therefore as Jason indicates, it is often better to let actions speak louder than words. This doesn’t mean that declarations of faith are wrong, merely that it is not always the best way of proceeding.
If you are a Christian and Christians are being mocked or attacked, do you hide your faith or speak out?
If you are an atheist and atheists are being mocked or attacked, do you hide your atheism or speak out?
Indeed, whatever faith or no faith you have, when you see someone mocked or attacked do you a) walk on the other side and pretend not to notice b) join in the attack or c) come to the aid of the person being attacked even though it may mean you are attacked yourself perhaps even more viciously than the person you are assisting?
For me it should be c) every time and this involves both declaration and practice.
Reply to this comment
Comment by Nick Wood
2.50 pm on 6 Apr 2009
Dear Jason,
This is my first post although I’ve read you’re stuff here for a few months now.
I whole-heartedly agree with your sentiments about the Premier statement. I read it and thought, “Big deal!” There is no cost (at least in much of the Western world) to professing this kind of individual belief. It seems to me that the discipleship that Jesus challenged people to (and still challenges people to) is a much more demanding, practical and wholistic experience than simply giving intellectual assent to a series of propositions.
I like your words “I try to believe and practice”. I think this just about says it for me. I’ve believed in Jesus for many years now but I feel as if I’m only just starting to really get to grips with what it means for me to actually LIVE like a follower of Jesus.
I sometimes wonder why it took me so long and why I didn’t see it sooner. Better late than never though!
Thanks very much for your thought-provoking writings.
All the best,
Nick
Reply to this comment
Comment by Graham Richards
3.35 pm on 6 Apr 2009
It appears that custard Christians (and secularists) get upset over trifles!
Reply to this comment
Comment by Philip
6.18 pm on 6 Apr 2009
I’ve just started looking into some of the stuff you put up on your blog Jason and thanks for stimulating some thought. For what it’s worth, here is my contribution.
First, I think we’re in danger of getting a little precious about the subject of publicly making a declaration based on this statement. As has been observed already, society has largely relegated the christian ‘Voice’ to the box marked ‘irrelevant minority opinion’ and I have some sympathy with this view. But we must not forget that most people don’t have the time or interest to have their views informed by serious thought or research and rely on tabloid-style headlines to keep them up to date with what is happening in the world.
I also understand that the purpose of this site is not to engage in banner headline motivated thought or discussion, but to go a little deeper. But here’s the problem: that kind of behaviour is a minority sport! Most people want “Dog kills cat eats budgie” headlines over their Cornflakes and coffee at breakfast time and they are not going to spend hours struggling with every possible nuance of interpretation that might lie behind making this kind of statement. In the same way they are not going to spend time with the Premier statement wondering whether we have a faith or works emphasis, or most of the time, whether the statement is even true or not.
We’re talking apples and pears here. If signing the petition means Premier can honestly say there are people willing to state that they are ‘Christians’ then they have a headline that counters the equally dismal headlines that the National Secular Society use to great effect to convince everyone that the Church is in terminal decline. To get a bit biblical Paul was quite happy to say some things about the population of Crete (Titus 1:12) which, it is to be hoped, he did not actually believe but which wound up in the Bible anyway. I wonder whether he had much internal debate about putting this statement on paper – or was he using a modern journalistic style to grab their attention and make a point they could actually grasp? His purpose was the communication of a greater truth and his statement was a vehicle to that end. Whether or not he personally embraced the statement of the Cretan prophet we shall never know!
Second, statements of this sort, while not perfect by any means, are not wrong either. As I understand it, the Greek word for ‘belief’ used in the New Testament has wrapped up in it the meaning of practical dependance. If I consider a rope bridge I may say “I believe it can carry my weight” but this is not biblical belief. Biblical ‘belief’ involves stepping out onto the bridge and demonstrating that my belief is backed up by my actions. There is no scope for saying ‘ I will try and believe is bears my weight’ If I view the Premier statement in this light I have less problem signing up to it.
Finally, the marriage service makes statements that we have to give assent to. I promised to remain “faithful to my wife, foresaking all others”, not “Well I’ll do my best to do that, but hey, I may mess up occasionally”.
Making a statement of belief, credal or otherwise, raises the bar and when we fail we know we can approach the throne of grace for forgiveness. Saying “I affirm publicly that I try to believe and practice the life, teaching, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ as recorded in scripture and expressed in the historic creeds of the Christian faith.” sounds a bit lame to me. Surely the great thing about being a Christian is that we know the high calling we have but we have the opportunity to mess up, receive forgiveness and still not get disqualified from the race.
I hope this posts because it’s taken me all afternoon to put together and probably reflects the disjointed manner of its assembly!
Philip
Reply to this comment
Comment by brunettekoala
11.21 am on 7 Apr 2009
If people want to de-baptise themselves, I kind of think…well if you don’t believe it, why would you have to?
And then there’s your statement Jason….well, yes. precisely. Let’s live out our faith by actions rather than just words. Words mean nothing without action.
Reply to this comment
Pingback by Sabbatical, Day 70, Holy Saturday: Jesus’ Body Lies In A Tomb « Big Circumstance
11.04 pm on 11 Apr 2009
[...] Christians to sign up online to declare they are Christians. I first read about this a week ago on Jason Clark’s blog, where he expressed reservations about the [...]
Reply to this comment