Until relatively recently most Christians in Europe
thought that their beliefs could be imposed on others. There were religious
wars between Catholics and Protestants in order to do this. At times the law
said I had to practice Christianity in this way, at times it said I had to
practice it in that way. There were fanatics who were willing to burn at the
stake someone who disagreed with them over matters which today seem trivial.
What does it really matter if there are bishops or if there are not? What does
it matter how you interpret a clause in the Nicene Creed, given that the whole
matter is impossible to determine one way or another?
Imagine if there were in the world, once more,
Christian fanatics, who wished to impose their religious views on other people.
Imagine if they described ordinary Christians like me as being apostates for
failing to live up to the true ideals of Christianity. Imagine if they wanted
to rule Britain such that everyone had to follow their way of living a
Christian life and wished to persecute those they disagreed with. They might,
for instance, argue that homosexuals had to be punished. They might consider
that adultery should lead to prison or worse. They might think that women should
be condemned for dressing immodestly or not having their head covered in church. This is not so very far-fetched. The vast majority of Christians thought
like this only a few centuries ago. Most Christians until very recently
favoured some form of theocracy. They thought that everyone should more or less
be compelled to go to church and that the law should reflect their
interpretation of Christianity and this should be imposed on everybody.
How would I as a Christian respond to such people if
they existed today? I would respond in exactly the same way as I respond to the
existence of Christian fanatics in the past. I would say that they have misunderstood the
Gospels. The Christian Kingdom is not of this world. To try to impose it is
simply to misunderstand it. Christianity is not a religion of law. Christ came
to this world to break the law. He did so frequently and for this reason he was
killed. Christian faith is a matter of choice. It has nothing to do with
numbers. It matters not one little bit if only one person believes the truth.
Truth, after all, is not democratic.
But imagine if somewhere in the world today there
were a country that had a medieval, fanatical view of Christianity. Imagine if
that country wished to expand and spread its version of Christianity. Imagine
if it were called the Christian State. How would I as a Christian respond?
If this Christian State were willing to remain
within its own borders, if it were no threat whatsoever to my way of life, or
the life of my friends and allies, I might be inclined to leave it alone. But
what if the Christian State used its fanatical version of Christianity in order
to take over other countries? What if it used this form of Christianity to do
great evil both in its own country and elsewhere? What if it encouraged
moderate Christians all around the world to be fanatics? What would I do then?
Imagine if virtually every terrorist act around the
world was done in the name of Christianity by people who thought of themselves
as Christian to the highest degree possible. Would I as a Christian say that
this has nothing to do with Christianity? No, for that would be to deny that a
problem exists and that this problem concerns me? If Christianity is not about
truth, then what is it about? Instead of living in denial I would instead use
Christianity as my weapon of choice to attack those who misrepresent the
Gospels. But above all else I would no more deny that these fanatics were
Christians than I would deny Tomás de Torquemada was a Christian or that
Rodrigo Borgia was a Pope.
How would I respond to this Christian State that
exported terrorism. I would firstly
recognise that the Christian State was Christian. I would not try to come up
with ways of disguising this fact, because I would recognise that facing up to
facts no matter how unpleasant or uncomfortable was the only way to address the
problem. To deny that the Christian
State was Christian would mean that I would logically have to deny that Spain,
or Britain or France had been Christian during the Middle Ages when they too at
times had behaved in barbarous ways. Only by understanding that the Christian
State is Christian, could I point out that it is a version of Christianity
that I despise. How can I persuade a Christian that he has misunderstood the
Gospels if I deny that he is a Christian?
How would I respond if a certain proportion of
Christians living in the UK were fanatics who wanted the Christian State to
succeed in bringing theocracy to Britain?
Well obviously I would try to find out who they were, I would then try
to persuade them of their error and convince, or even compel, them to cease. I
would do this precisely because I am a Christian.
What if things became so bad in the Christian State
that millions of people living there wanted to escape? I would naturally be
concerned for their welfare. I would try to help, but I would also be very
careful. The conditions that gave rise to the Christian State were that the
people living there were at an historical stage which led to Christian
fanaticism. After all, we burned heretics in Britain because that was how people in
Britain thought at that point in history.
They thought burning was the correct response
to heresy. It took centuries of historical development before we learned not to
think in this way. Well imagine if there were a Christian State today where
there was burning of heretics. What if millions of people wanted to escape that
Christian State and live here? Should we let them all come? This is our problem
however. We know that some people in the Christian State support fanaticism. No doubt most do not, but some do. The people
of the Christian State, in general, would be at an historical stage which still saw burning
at the stake and theocracy as the way to respond to differences of opinion on
religious matters. After all, those Protestants who fled persecution during the reign of Mary Tudor, thought it correct to burn Catholics in response during the reign of Elizabeth the First. It was the intolerance of people in general whether Catholic or Protestant that placed the wood around the stake.
It would therefore be the historical stage of the people as a whole that gave rise to the Christian State. It wouldn't just happen accidently. But then how are we supposed to tell who is the fanatic and who is not? What if five or perhaps even ten percent were fanatics and we allowed one million refugees from the Christian State to come here? Would that make our country safer or more dangerous? I think we would quite rightly, very carefully, scrutinise everyone who wanted to come and for our own safety we would set strict limits, even though we felt compassion and also wanted to help. The Christian State would be desperate to export its fanatical version of Christianity around the world. Above all, we would not want to help them to do this.
It would therefore be the historical stage of the people as a whole that gave rise to the Christian State. It wouldn't just happen accidently. But then how are we supposed to tell who is the fanatic and who is not? What if five or perhaps even ten percent were fanatics and we allowed one million refugees from the Christian State to come here? Would that make our country safer or more dangerous? I think we would quite rightly, very carefully, scrutinise everyone who wanted to come and for our own safety we would set strict limits, even though we felt compassion and also wanted to help. The Christian State would be desperate to export its fanatical version of Christianity around the world. Above all, we would not want to help them to do this.
If the Christian State became a threat to the way of
life of people of all faiths living in Britain how would I respond? Would I
decide that it was wrong to fight against other Christians? Well we have in the
past been more than willing to fight against other Christians. Germany, after
all, was a Christian country and we fought a world war against them twice in
one century. If an ideology is wrong or if it does great evil, it matters not
one little bit to me that the people who follow that ideology are Christians. What if it became necessary for Britain and
other countries to fight the Christian State? This might happen because people
were carrying out acts of Christian terrorism in the name of Christianity. If that were to happen I wouldn't try to hide behind words like "militant", nor would I turn Christian into "Christianism" as if that in any way changed either the meaning or the reality. It might also be necessary to fight if ever more Christians in Britain were travelling to the Christian
State in order to learn how to kill and maim. Would I as a Christian oppose
such military action? No of course not. I would be grateful that something was
being done against these fanatics who had so misunderstood the Gospels.
