There is so much wrong with this mentality that in denouncing it, it is difficult to know where to begin. It is one thing to regard events such as 9/11 as crises that in some sense bring us into judgement and cause us to reflect upon ourselves and our values. In many ways such self-critical stock-taking is appropriate. It is quite another to take such events and use them to victimise one group or another that we happen not to like – or even to hate. And to attribute all this to God in order to absolutise our position and allow us to feel self-righteous about it is not Christian faith but the depths of religious corruption. It needs to be exposed as such.
Of course, in the US such displays are not only not banned by religious hatred legislation, they are actively protected under the freedom of expression clause of the Constitution. All of this goes to show what a blunt instrument legislation is and how it can be used for purposes which were never intended or envisaged by those who originally framed it. The law has its place both in restraining wrongdoing and in setting out a kind of behaviour to which we might rightly aspire. But there is no substitute for a law which is written on the heart, for a public morality which operates within a culture of respect and civility which does not need to be compelled by the power of the state. This is surely where Christians should most of all be active is seeking to shape the public realm.In opposing the religious hatred legislation I do not for one moment believe that Christians were wanting to leave room for religious hatred to be endorsed. The concern was to do with means rather than ends. Christians stand solidly against any kind of hatred. The best way to combat hatred is by nurturing different habits of the heart, to create a climate of virtuous behaviour in which people learn the habits of civility and consideration. Secularists and others will have their own ethic and ways of proceeding. But Christians need by means of public statement and personal behaviour to denounce attitudes struck by religiously-minded people which fall short of an ethic of love. To take responsibility for opposing the legislative route in combating hatred they need to be in the vanguard of those who believe there is a better way. They need to model instincts in which differences of ideas and conviction can be expressed while acknowledging we are all made in the image of a gracious God who does not hate but loves humankind, and hates only those things which diminish their humanity.
Dr Nigel G. Wright
Dr Nigel G Wright is the Principal of Spurgeon’s College, London. He was also President of the Baptist Union of Great Britain from 2002 – 2003. Currently a Council Member of the Baptist Union & former Moderator of its Doctrine and Worship Committee, Council Member of the Baptist World Alliance & he has previously chaired its Study Commission on Christian Ethics from 2000-2005. Dr Wright is a Council Member of the Evangelical Alliance, and is a Board Member of Moscow Theological Seminary.
