http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19472438
Here is a report about 4 British Christians who lost their jobs because of their faith in seperate cases.
Do you think should we go to the courts to defend our rights/liberty? If not, should we just allow anti-Christ(ian) rule to surpress the truth?
Do you think should we go to the courts to defend our rights/liberty? If not, should we just allow anti-Christ(ian) rule to surpress the truth?
brother Dave, this is JUST ME, but no, i would have nothing to do with any secular court in such matters.
these courts, whether here in the US, or in the UK, have provided ample demonstration, that they are of the world, they pervert justice, they take bribes, they ignore the case of the widow's and orphans, they are wholly of "babylon" , unclean and a haunt of demons.
i once saw, where a pastor, a dear man of God who i love this very day, stumble in this regard, for quite a few years i lived in a california exurban canyon, it was a hotbed of new-ageism, and just outright satanic worship...actual covens, but there was this tiny church, been there for 60 years, and it was a "board run".
it was not my 'home' church as God told me "NO", but i still fellowshipped with the pastor, and some of the saints as God the Holy Spirit led us to conduct a thursday eve intercessory prayer meeting, which none of the board members attended...that was a small indicator.
long story short, the devil got up into the board, and they fired this dear man. He did NOTHING wrong, or out of line in Jesus, quite the contrary in fact.
so a meeting was held in the parsonage...no board member was there and this pastor indicated he was going to sue the board....in my spirit i felt this was ill-advised, and one sister actually quoted from 1st Corthinians 6.
Now the board was completely in the wrong and undoubtably backslidden and bound by the flesh and the devil, my fear was that in a secular court, in this small community, satan would use this as ammo for the new-agers, the atheists, and other lost sheep to point a finger and say, 'see? just a den of hypocrites!'
...and tragically, that is exactly what happened, it turned into a widely reported 6 year long 'circus', where the board actually counter-sued this dear man, who i love very much, but this ill thought out move, tore apart his public ministry.
to this day, there is no coherent Church in this community, plenty of buddhas, plenty of 'healing crystal" shops.....this building called a 'church' is still up, and i think you'll find the few board members still there, and whatever dear young itinerant, just out of seminary 'pastor', thay can lure in, to play church...they still have their 501c3 status, which is what i suspect was the main onus for this mess, as the board members are all well heeled, and might use the 'church' as a way to lessen their tax burden and do some financial machinations to get their money back.
i pray i'm wrong, because such a sin would give any saint with any sense a new meaning of the Words, "Fear God".
in conclusion, we can't in own weak flesh "allow" or "prevent" the god of this age to do anything it wants, except get on our knees and implore Jesus to fight the battle. they can have this body, but my soul belongs to Jesus.
if you decide to storm "Jericho" in your flesh, you'll be steam rolled, crushed and discredited, i've seen it.
much love, neil
Hi Neil,
Thanks for your thoughts on this.
I think I would agree with the case you presented. I don't think as Christians we should take individuals to court if it is a personal thing, in particular never should a Christian take another Christian (even just a professor) to court.
However is it maybe the case in the news story that they are not seeking personal vindication, but want to establish religious freedom in law in regard to Christians as a whole in the country? Is there a case for this? That is more what I was thinking about.
Dave,
You are raising a very interesting question - an issue I do not recall seeing discussed here on SI.
Personally, I like to see justice prevail - the bad guys lose and the good ones win, but what does the WORD say? This should be our our touchstone on this issue as well as others.
Lawsuits by its very nature is working to force someone to do something they do not want to do. And how often does it work? It angers people who are on both sides of the issue...this does not work to bring about peace for anyone, does it? This must be why Paul talks against it, don't you think? We are to be as sheep being led to the slaughter. From our perspective this is not a beautiful sight - at least the slaughtering is not.
Neil, thanks for sharing your testimony...lots of food for thought there.
Hi Dave,
I think its the right of those christians to seek justice in court and they dont do any wrong if they decide to go to court. Paul used his rights as a roman citizen when they put him to jail but I believe it was the wisdome of God and the guide of the Holy Spirit that lead him in that direction because all the time he was persecuted, beaten etc., he endured whatever suffering with dignity and courage.
Often God wants us to crucify even our rights and instead of seeking justice, leave it to God the whole matter. Just think about the early christians of the apostolic and post apostolic age, when they were persecuted often for the sake of Christ. How many of them lost their own properties, possessions or even houses, not to say about the unjust tribulations they had to go through and even die for the sake of Christ in the arena.
Roman government was often the orchestrator of massive persecution against early christians. We know from Bible prophecy that we are living not only in the last days but in the last hour before antichrist comes to rule over the world and we know that the consequence of that will be massive persecution for all those who believe and are faithful to Jesus.
This time of "peace" whould be a time of preparation for christians. If anti-christian sentiment is on the rise in public or even the government, this should not caught us by surprise as if we have not been warned by the Scriptures.
The saying, "history repeats itself" its true in the context that christians will soon go through persecutions similiar to what the early church had to suffer during the Roman Empire but this time it will be more intense and even worse than the first time.
- edited
Ginnyrose, Yes I agree with your general point. However by going to the European Court of Human Rights they are appealing to what is already law to be upheld. Also by doing this it also raises the awareness among people of what is going on.
Elected, I was thinking just the same thing about Paul appealing to Ceaser, which was using the law of that time.
In the UK there is a major battle going on with those who want to see all outward expression to Christ removed. The comment in the article from the guy from the National Secular Society is very illuminating and reveals the battle. They are a very vocal group in the UK.
Now we should obey God and not man when it comes to anything that conflicts, this is clear and if that means laying down our lives as a consequence, so be it. But I'm not sure we should just 'give in'.
I suspect this issue does defy an absolute answer.
We do see how Paul did appeal to Caesar. Neither do we read of any success in his appeal. However, we do read how he did witness to those in power where it was said "thou almost persuadest me to be a Christian." This would be in fulfillment of the LORD informing Ananias how he will appear before kings. We do not read that Paul hired the services of an attorney but worked as his own. Whether people used lawyers to defend them in court back then, I am not sure but could assume they did.
But to sue as a matter of course for rights being violated - this should give one pause.
In my community it is common for people to sue another for imagined wrongs. It is also well-known that some churches will post forms in them alleging they were victims of an wrong and if won they would be entitled to some financial settlement.
My opinion...
To be honest as a Britisher I am disgusted that two of the cases is only to do with the wearing a necklace with a cross on. One a british Airways employee (which has been going on for more years than it deserves the attention for) and the other a nurse.
This has nothing to do with religious persecution as is being claimed by them but they are both in violation of uniform codes in place for many many years which as a Christian they should have set even more of an example in honouring.
Having done work experience on a surgical ward and also been a carer in a nursing home the wearing of jewellery is strictly forbidden for your own safety!
Patients do grab at you, hair pulled, arms bruised, clothing grabbed, head locks etc.
Can you imagine being in such a position of having a necklace grabbed at by a adgitated person.
We were warned of nurses having dangly earrings ripped out and ending up needing plastic surgery because of the 'cauliflower ears' that then developed.
To be honest I am disgusted at the fuss they have made when the bible clearly states we do not hold onto graven images - our faith is not in the outward adorning - we worship in Spirit and in truth not by holding onto an item of jewellery, we do not need to wear a crucifix to prove our faith! These two cases are giving Christians a bad name and needlessly so when there are genuine cases that do deserve our prayer.
The fact is the persecuted in places like Eritrea, China, Iran, N. Korea, or other restricted nations do not have the luxury to petition a political court. All to often it will be the courts handing down the sentences of imprisonment or death. This being for one's faith in Christ.
It is only in the west we cry foul and run to the courts and demand our freedom to be free from persecution. In actuality Christ said if they persecuted me they will persecute those who follow Christ. Also the courts, at least in America, are shifting to a hostle attitude toward believers who bring redress of grievances to them.
We in the west need to quit whining when persecution comes. Embrace. And let God use it for its intended purpose in our lives.
Just my thoughts.
Bearmaster.
It seems that the weight of opinion in the posts is that it is wrong for these people to take their cases to the european Court and maybe that is the right way for us to lean. Better to be wronged than to do wrong in trying to get justice should probably be our thinking.
Ceri, I take your point about the wearing of crosses being not that important and or course it is not really 'persucution' in any sense. However I'm not sure anyone is claiming persecution, but rather discrimination. If it is the case that it was a blanket prohibition on all employees then they have no case to argue. However I'm not convinced that it was, particularly with an arline check-in clerk...but I may be wrong.
I know of many Christians that wear a symbol of some sort (I don't) like a fish or a cross with a dove, etc. I don't think these are considered 'graven images', but rather a way of giving an outward sign that they are a believer. Obviously our lives and how we live and what we say is a much more important witness to Christ than any symbol, but I know God has used such things to open up opportunities to witness. Each one should be led to do what they believe is right in this regard and we should not judge wrongly a persons motive in doing this.
A crucifix is a whole different thing! It is a Roman Catholic superstitious icon and it seems that this is what the nurse was wearing.
Maybe putting all these four cases together confuses the issues and it does seem strange that the organisation, 'Christian Concern', which is by it's statement of faith evangelical, mixes togther evangelical and liberal/nominal christians as one entity.
After praying for these cases last night on our persecution watch call. I have had to rethink this issue.. One brother pointed out that the cases represent an attempt in Great Britain to force Christians to practice their faith in private and keep it out of the public. I suppose it is not the magnitude of the case itself. But as to what the cases are representing. That is the prevailing hostile demonic attitude toward the things of Christ.
I would agree that this may be more religious discrimination than persecution. But we are seeing a political correctness taking root in Western Europe and developing in this country. Moslems and other faiths are allowed to express their faiths but Christians are being marginalized out of the public sector. And this being in the West.
Again it is not so much the wearing of crosses or displaying Christian symbols that is the issue. But the hostile attitude behind it. We are certainly seeing that displayed in this country.
On further reflection I would support these sisters taking their redress to the EU court. Not so much to gain justice for their cause. But to bring attention to the discrimination of Christians around the world. In o words to expose the devil's plot. Even if the sisters lose their case. World attention may be focussed on the hostility being shown to Christians by western governments.
Just my thoughts.
Bearmaster.
It has saddened me, as a Brit, that the media focus on Christians, already unsavoury enough, has picked up on these cases. When you hear Wurmbrand it pales into insignificance.
Are the biggest concerns of God's people today their right to wear certain things? I personally wouldn't involve the courts - let life be a witness, and if that loses us our jobs then so be it, but only for God, not for something we think we have a right to.
Ginnyrose - I agree this may defy an absolute answer. My concern is that this may divert the attention of His children when we ought to be dealing with things closer to His heart.
I am in agreement that the wearing of crosses is pretty trivial in and of itself. And personally I do not see that a Christian can get redress from secular courts. But the hostility of western governments toward Christians needs to be exposed.
I agree that persecution is coming and we cannot escape it. But let the light be shed on what the enemy is doing. If they are going to persecute us by jail and death. Then let it be done in the light as a public witness of Jesus Christ.
Just my thoughts.
Bearmaster.
Again I am reminded of Daniel. There was a command that prayer would not be done in public. Daniel could have prayed in private. But he opened his window toward Jerusalem and prayed where everybody saw him. And you know the rest of the story.
The early disciples were commanded to not preach Jesus in public. But they chose to obey God rather than men.
Just reflecting on these truths.
Bearmaster.
We seemed to have focused on the two cross wearing cases, but let's not forget the other two persons.
One, a marriage councilor refused to give marriage council to a homosexual couple and the other a registrar of marriages refused to marry same sex marriages. So the outcome is that Christians cannot work in certain employments because they will be forced to do things they just cannot. When you put this together with other things like adoption agencies and foster carers having to accept and even encourage homosexuality then you can see this is a much bigger picture we are looking at.
Bearmaster: I'm not sure that Daniel praying in Babylon or the disciples continuing to preach is an example of the same thing. They chose to continue to obey God and accept the consequenses. They did not appeal to a government court to allow them to continue...they appealed to the highest authority, which is God.
I think it is a good point that these people are at least taking a stand and being seen.
One other thought I had was about people such as Richard Wurmbrand. We regard him rightly as a Christian who suffered greatly for His Lord. However in Romania at that time most people (apart from the Christians) would have considered him a criminal of the state, because that is how it would have been seen. It will be the same for us if we suffer persecution. The world won't look at us and say 'look at Him suffering for Christ'. They will consider us to be the refuse of society, intolerant, biggots, and enimies of (what they consider) good.
This discussion is locked.
