Churches in Lockdown: State Christophobia?

It came as a surprise to many people when religious leaders in England and Wales issued a challenge to the government about the closure of churches during the Autumn ‘firebreak’ lockdowns. Similar challenges are currently working their way through the Scottish court system due to the blanket ‘Tier 4’ restrictions which have been in place since Boxing Day 2020. Some churches did continue to meet, with social distancing measures in place, choosing not to comply with government guidance (guidance not law - contrary to some exaggerated news reports). 

A conversation with a friend yesterday set me thinking about this issue of religious freedom again. Let me tell you a bit about him.

‘Malcolm’

My friend Malcom (not his real name) lives in an Asian country where Christians are a minority. In recent years they have known active opposition from a nationalist government which aligns with the majority religion. The country has no ‘welfare state’ to fall back on so if you lose your job or cannot go out to work the impact is devastating. During the Coronavirus lockdown, Malcolm’s church provided regular cooked meals and other essentials, not just to Christian families who are struggling, but also to to poor families from the majority religious group. As Christians we consider it an act of worship to share some of our own money to help finance the teaching and charitable work of our churches. Most people in Malcolm’s church have no access to ‘internet banking’ or ‘direct debits’. In normal times the Christians bring whatever they feel able to donate to the church meetings as cash gifts. However, cash transactions have been banned for fear that the virus could be transmitted on the coins. With many regular meetings cancelled and Christians losing their jobs, the church is facing difficult financial pressures.

Malcom shared that, in line with the government hostility at a national level, some local officials have used these lockdown rules to deliberately hinder and discriminate against churches. Sometimes this has been overt. For example, a church meeting was taking place at the same time as a rally supporting the government, about a mile or two away. The police used the virus restrictions to close the church meeting whilst ignoring infringements of the law at the political demonstration. At other times it has been more subtle. A church was issued a fine for a minor infringement of regulations. They are not allowed to reopen until the fine is paid but, each time they take the money to the office, the administrator tells them to come back the next day. In this way, the church is deliberately prevented from meeting.

The wonderful thing about talking with Malcom is how upbeat he is. These difficulties are not getting the Christians down. On the contrary, in this time of need many of the Christians have seen their prayers answered in remarkable ways. Christians who wandered away from the church years ago have been drawn back to seek God again. Through practical compassion, they have won friends from among their ‘majority’ neighbours, some of whom are now considering Christianity as a plausible faith.

How might this help us think about religious freedom in the UK?

(1) Identity. 

Identity plays a significant role in politics. The current trend in Western politics is to give increased representation to minority groups claiming a history of oppression. When people ‘identify’ as LGBT they are not just expressing a choice of sexuality or gender, they are also aligning with a political movement and a narrative in which minority sexual identities have been the victims of institutional suppression. Identities linked to race, gender, and sexuality are consistency given weight in the media. The treatment of religious identities is less reliable because, in the popular narrative, historical institutions are portrayed as the oppressors.

Malcom’s story challenges that narrative by putting it in a broader perspective. In his country Christians are the oppressed, not the oppressors. Indigenous churches do not see Christianity as a colonial imposition to be thrown off. They make a daily choice - a costly choice - to hold onto Christian beliefs in the face of institutional hostility. They live their beliefs out in practical ways which benefit their wider communities, at personal expense.

This should cause us to reflect on the identity categories and narratives which dominate Western liberal political discussion. It reminds us that today’s recognised categories do not have universal status. They are merely local, historical phenomena. It seems so obvious to us that these ideas are ‘right’ that we take them for granted. In fact, they only make sense because we are also products of the same historical, philosophical, and cultural context from which modern liberal ideas arose. In other places - like Malcom’s home - roles are reversed so that our oppressor is their oppressed, and vice versa.

(2) Belief.

How are identities formed? In the Western liberal model, identity is something personal, individual, and natural which we express or realise in an authentic way only as we make our own free choices. Demands made by external authorities are perceived as taking away choice and therefore forcing us to act in ways which we may feel are inauthentic. The typical liberal view of religion is that all human beings share a common (‘authentic’) spiritual experience. Religious institutions and religious orthodoxy are viewed as, at their best, superficial ways of expressing personal spirituality and, at their worse, oppressive restrictions on freedom which force people into an inauthentic spirituality. Religion is a power game which dominant identities use to suppress minority identities.

Again, by broadening our perspective Malcom’s situation challenges this view. For him to be a Christian is a choice made over and against the institutional and nationalistic claims of another religion. There is no power play in associating with the church. The prevalent political pressure is not pro- but anti-Christian. There is no widespread assumption that suffering minorities should be protected. They are under no illusion that their beliefs are superficial and non-essential because they see first hand the differences that beliefs make in their lives and the lives of their neighbours. Christian believers could cease to be ‘victims’ if they held their doctrines loosely but in doing that they would also be surrendering the freedom to chose their own identity. People are being drawn to the Christian faith, not because it exercises an oppressive political dominance, but because it presents hope, compassion, and joy in the face of disaster.

It is only in the Western world, and only by some people in the Western world, that beliefs are isolated from identity. Modern Western liberals seem to have forgotten how much their own view of the world rests on beliefs and assumptions. School RE classes propagate the narrative that religious doctrines are merely superficial, external expressions of a spiritual experience which is common to all - but that narrative is itself an unproven (and unprovable) doctrine. We are not all liberals at heart regardless of our doctrines. Forcing that liberal doctrine on to someone whose identity is built on different beliefs can be subjected to the same power-dynamics critique that secular liberalism has applied to religious institutions: if my freely chosen doctrinal beliefs are an authentic expression of my identity, pressing me to identify myself in relation to, for example, modern gender or sexuality categories is an act of political oppression just as much as a Muslim forcing a Buddhist, or a Hindu forcing a Sikh to convert.

(3) Consistency.

The challenges which Malcolm and his church have faced are rooted in political identities derived from incompatible, contrary beliefs systems. There is no rational way to downplay the conflict. In their local political struggles, race, gender, and sexuality are completely irrelevant as identity categories. Differing religious beliefs work out in observable political oppression. Likewise, I would suggest that it is impossible to explain the reaction of UK churches to government restrictions on worship without recognising that contemporary secular liberalism is a belief system which, at many points, stands in direct contradiction to religious faiths.

This comes across in the way religion is treated in the media. For example, expressing prejudice against Muslims (as a minority political grouping) will be labelled as Islamophobia but expressing prejudice against Muslim beliefs will not. If a Muslim lady is verbally abused on a bus in Birmingham the newspapers will report it as an ‘Islamophobic’ attack but if the same person objects to the local school teaching a liberal view of sexuality, the newspapers will label her as ‘homophobic’. What these simplistic categorisations miss is the extent to which beliefs create identity. From a liberal point of view you can be a Muslim without Muslim beliefs; but from a Muslim point of view that is completely nonsensical. Imposing liberal sex education in schools represents an attack on Muslim identity (‘islamophobia’) just as much as imposing Muslim morality would represent an attack on gender identity (‘homophobia, transphobia’).

I am yet to see any media reports labelling religious oppression as ‘Christophobia’ - though I think it must exist. That is, if the ‘phobia’ labels are meaningful and consistent, then bigoted, ignorant, prejudice against Christians should be called out in the same manner as bigoted, ignorant prejudice against women or black people. Let’s call it what it is: in contemporary Western terminology, Malcolm and his friends are experiencing institutional Christophobia.

Is there Christophobia in the West too? I would argue yes. It comes across in TV entertainment where presenters use the name ‘Christ’ as an expletive but would never dare use the name Muhammad! I am not arguing that they should - just pointing out the inconsistency. It also comes across in the way Christianity is frequently misrepresented in education and ignored or dismissed in media news reports. ‘Hate Speech’ laws have the potential to be applied with prejudice against religious faiths, criminalising the free exchange and expression of ideas which have been the bedrock of religious freedom and political debate. The rubber really hits the road in legal developments, particularly around the definition of marriage and the unquestioned assertion of liberal ideals and ethics in schools. The case of the Christian bakers who refused to ice a cake with a pro-gay marriage message went to the highest courts before it was resolved, amid massive media interest. If a gay baker refused to ice a cake with bible verses about sin and judgment, it is hard to imagine the case getting off the ground.

All of these things have helped create tensions between Christians in the UK and political leaders employing increasingly secular approaches to government. In recent years a string of traditionally Christian institutions (marriage, Sunday worship, the family etc) have been progressively undermined, even overthrown, in complete disregard for concerns raised by Christian voices. Against this backdrop, when the government broke with hundreds of years of historical precedent by telling churches to close, it was bound to provoke a reaction. 

They made the mistake of treating Churches as though they were the same as sports teams, social clubs, theatres, and shopping centres. This is a false equivalency, for the simple reason that to be a Christian is not a hobby; it is an identity. To draw an uncomfortable comparison, those who identify by sexuality demand that others recognise their identity whether that be in organised ‘Pride’ marches or open displays of sexuality in public places. To be Christian is an identity; it is an identity which is displayed through gathering “in the name of Jesus Christ” in order to worship “the one true and living God”; and the government have no more right to confine that religious identity to the privacy of the home, than they have to tell a homosexual couple to ‘get a room’.

(4) Realism.

I have been arguing that there are tensions between different world views and identities in affluent Western countries, just as there are in poorer Asian countries. People of religious faith are beginning to feel that pinch in the UK. Whether through ignorance or prejudice, Christians are often asked to compromise their chosen beliefs and identity, in order to give unreciprocated legitimisation and recognition to other people’s chosen beliefs, identities, and behaviours even when these stand utterly contrary to the Christian faith.

However, Malcolm’s story demands that we apply a healthy dose of realism. Churches in the UK are not being fined. There were a handful of situations where officers were unreasonably heavy-handed, but in most situations policing has been moderate. There has been minimal confrontation and I am not aware that any church is facing further legal action. Several notable Members of Parliament spoke out on behalf of religious freedom and their concerns appear to have been heeded, in England and Wales at least. We have law courts where we can lodge appeals and expect to be heard. In several cases, the European Court of Human Rights has already ruled against State infringement of religious freedom. There are tensions and challenges and it is possible that, given time, living as a Christian in the West could become even more difficult. But be real too! We are not in North Korea! There are really no grounds for Christians to align with some of the absurd, anti-State conspiracies that have been circulating online.

Malcom and his friends do not have all of the privileges which we enjoy. That gives us a responsibility to use what we have, and to engage peacefully in the political process where we have a voice. This is why the joint letters from Christian ministers and petitions to government are vitally important, even for Christian churches which have opted to comply fully with restrictions. In Scotland, the restrictions are likely to lift before the case passes through the courts but it will establish long term precedent. However, this is not the only important issue and if we have a voice we should use it to speak out against repression and injustice. Why should your MP listen if we give the impression of only being concerned for ourselves?! The point is, if we do not exercise political freedoms when we have them, it will not be a surprise if those freedoms are gone when we need them.

(5) Victimhood.

Perhaps the most challenging thing about chatting with Malcolm was his positive outlook. With our political emphasis on oppressed minorities we have become accustomed to thinking in terms of victimhood - all the time enjoying levels of affluence and freedom which are unknown to large swathes of humanity! Malcolm and his friends do not have our money or our liberty but they do have hope and joy. One reason seems to be that they desire to see God at work and are thrilled when He does! A pandemic may bring all kinds of trouble to us but nothing can restrict God. They do not have a victim complex.

As Christians in the West we need to learn this lesson. If our hearts are set on health, affluence, freedom, influence, success and so on, we will find that they fail us. God did not promise us political liberty or cultural dominance. He promises suffering and struggle, a life in which we should be prepared for daily crucifixion (‘take up your cross and follow me’) and expect to be treated as expendable (‘I send you out as lambs among wolves’). If our joy comes from the one who ‘is anointed with joy above and beyond all his brothers’ we need never run out. If our hope is in ‘the God of all hope’ we need never be discouraged. If our hearts are truly set on God, we will find that He never fails. And if Jesus has already conquered sin, death, and hell, and is one day returning to judge the world with perfect justice, His people can never be victims in the ultimate sense. Where Christophobia does exist it should not produce a victim mentality in us; it should produce compassion for those who hate us.

“But thanks be to God, who in Christ always leads us in 

triumphal procession, and through us spreads the fragrance 

of the knowledge of him everywhere”. (2 Corinthians 2:14)