麻豆社

Good morning. In November 2020, a street preacher was arrested in Swindon, accused of homophobia. His case has now been thrown out, but not before the Crown Prosecution Service reportedly made an interesting observation. Quote: 鈥渢here are references in the Bible which are simply no longer appropriate in modern society and which would be deemed offensive if stated in public.鈥�

Some commentators detected a threat to free speech from an institution going beyond its remit to comment on theology. Speaking as a Christian, however, I can鈥檛 deny the accuracy of what the CPS said. The Bible is considered the word of God but it鈥檚 also a historical document. By contemporary standards, parts of it are outrageous.

There鈥檚 a fierce debate over whether the Bible should be taken literally or figuratively, or the right way to translate it, but there鈥檚 no escaping that it is set in a society that practiced the death penalty, when women were of a lower status and men could own slaves.

Sometimes the Bible challenges these iniquities. Elsewhere, the modern reader, steeped in high-minded liberalism, might feel it falls drastically short.

For example: the other day I was stunned to read the following words in the book of Peter: 鈥渟ervants, be submissive to your masters with all respect, not only to the kind and gentle but also the overbearing.鈥�

Peter says that God has a special place in his heart for people who are punished for things they didn鈥檛 do and take their beating without complaint. The model is Jesus, for the son of God was crucified despite being innocence incarnate and he forgave the men who did it.

See, the book of Peter is not a political manifesto. It鈥檚 a religious testament. 21st century ethics tend to emphasise how the individual can contribute towards social progress, and religious people are of course very concerned with that, too - but for many of them, the Bible is chiefly about building a personal relationship with God. The focus isn鈥檛 upon fixing this world but finding a path to the next.

A secular, hyper-rational society, like ours, is always going to struggle with a theology that encourages self-denial, rejecting the material for the spiritual, or that says suffering and poverty can enrich the soul.

So, it's inevitable that some critics see religion as preserving the worst of the past. But if our goal is to build a tolerant society, I pose this challenge. Are we willing to tolerate religious perspectives that we find offensive? The alternative is to censor or silence people of faith and that would be highly illiberal.

Show less