Persecution coming.
(first written in 2004 with additions in 2006 and 2009)

For years it has been the 'norm' for Christians to be persecuted in middle eastern countries, but in the west we have been left in relative comfort.

As you may have gathered from the editorials on this page, I have, for years, sought to warn the church in the United Kingdom that difficult days lie ahead, and for years, by and large, the warnings have gone unheeded. The cry of revival now! has all but closed ears to any other prospect on the horizon.

Praise God my teaching is well received almost everywhere I go. The only 'flack' I have had has been when, on a few occasions I have taught on the martyrs as a lead in to what I believe in one form or another is coming down the line towards us.  On some occasions to my surprise it has caused a measure of offence. "You're frightening people" has been a response put to me privately after the teaching.

A few years ago my understanding of the times that lie ahead was but a spiritual ear on the railroad track, hearing the rumbling of the train far away and out of sight.  But anyone with an eye to see and an ear to hear does not need to put their ear to the track anymore. Just observe where society is going and consider.

Let me give you several examples.

Birmingham University's Christian Union have been banned from using Student Union Guild rooms and facilities, and had their bank accounts frozen by Guild authorities because they refused to make politically-correct changes to their charitable constitution on religious grounds.

The Students Union wanted to place one of their own (non Christian) leaders onto the Christian Union Executive, and open membership to people of all faiths and beliefs and instructed the Christian fellowship to change its constitution from "men and women" to "people" to make it more inclusive for transsexual/transgender persons to become members.

A Christian Union spokesperson said, "The Guild insists our constitution must be amended to include 'mandatory clauses', insisting more control and more intrusion by the Guild and open membership to those who would not call themselves Christians".

Exeter and Edinburgh Universities also voted to suspend Christian groups from membership or use of premises. At Exeter the 50 year old Christian union was banned by the student's guild and barred from University rooms because it refused to withdraw rules which insisted that members believe in Jesus Christ.

Meanwhile at Millais school, an all girls comprehensive school in West Sussex, Christian girls were told to remove 'chastity vow' rings (with the Bible verse 1st Thessalonians 4: 3-4) which declared their intention to wait until marriage to enter into a sexual union. This was being enforced under the school's uniform policy. However Muslim girls are allowed to wear  head covering which is not part of the school uniform and Sikh girls are allowed to wear the bangle which of course is not part of the uniform either.

Years ago, in Great Britain, such things would have been unthinkable.

As a Daily Mail reporter wrote recently, "we are now living in post-Christian Britain"

In the spring of this year, Channel 4 aired a well advertised documentary entitled 'The New Fundamentalists'

This was not a neutrally biased documentary but a relentless attack on fundamental Christianity.

State schools where evolution was taught but presented as a faith option were particularly targeted, since the interviewer believed that science has left mankind with no option other than evolution. (note: he needs to hear the latest views of contemporary scientists who, - following new scientific discoveries - have switched their platform from evolution to 'intelligent design')

Christians who believe every word of the Bible, who would wish to have the blasphemous 'Jerry Springer - the opera' censored, who would not approve of homosexual activity and who would urge young people to abstain from pre-marital sex were all treated as evangelical extremists.

Yet these are not new views, nor extreme views, but simply traditional Christian views.

When Sikhs' aggressively protested about the contents of a play in a Birmingham theatre in December 2004 the show was cancelled. The protesters claimed that the play, which is set in a Sikh temple, mocked their faith. The theatre said it refused to censor the work but was abandoning the production on health and safety grounds.  I am fairly confident in predicting that the show is unlikely to reappear in any UK theatre or be aired on television.

Now see the difference when Christians are grossly offended.

A week or so later, the BBC brought the infamous 'Jerry Springer, the opera' to the nation.

It was not just the 200+ swear words (sadly we've all had to get used to that) but the blasphemous context in which many of them were used. For instance.. (and I quote from the BBC itself)

"always with the crucifixion"..why don't you get over it and give us all a f***ing break"

"Jesus grow up for Christ's sake and put some f***ing clothes on."

I quote, again from the BBC, that they received complaints regarding..

• the portrayal of "Jesus" as a man in nappies who wanted to "poop in his pants"
   
• the reference to "Jesus" being "a little bit gay"
   
• "Eve" attempting to fondle the genitals of "Jesus"
   
• the description of "Mary" as "raped by an angel, raped by God"
   
• the portrayal of "Mary" as accusing "Jesus" of neglect
   
• obscene language put into the mouths of members of the Holy Family
   
• the portrayal of "Jesus" as offering violence
   
• irreverent visual and verbal allusions to the crucifixion
   
• the portrayal of "God" as needing Jerry Springer's advice

However, that the show itself was blasphemous and deeply offensive to hundreds of thousands of Christians was the secondary issue. Life goes on.

The fact that the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC 2) chose to show it (not once, but twice) to the nation was the most telling and shocking sign of where Great Britain as a historically Christian nation had come to, and where as a post Christian nation it was intending to go. 

BBC Producer Antony Pitts resigned saying that .." a corner has been turned. I feel a corporate responsibility for what has happened " aggravated by the fact that we the BBC did not give sufficient attention to the overwhelming level of listener protest in advance.."

In his resignation he reminded the BBC that they were 'intended to be a beacon of inspiration to the country'

He said that the Director-General of the BBC was aware of the blasphemy laws, which can be summarised as follows..

"Every publication is said to be blasphemous which contains any contemptuous, reviling, scurrilous or ludicrous matter relating to God, Jesus Christ, or the Bible, or the formularies of the Church of England as by law established. It is not blasphemous to speak or publish opinions hostile to the Christian religion, or to deny the existence of God, if the publication is couched in decent and temperate language. The test to be applied is as to the manner in which the doctrines are advocated and not as to the substance of the doctrines themselves. Everyone who publishes any blasphemous document is guilty of the [offence] of publishing a blasphemous libel. Everyone who speaks blasphemous words is guilty of the [offence] of blasphemy." (article 214 of Stephen"s Digest of the Criminal Law, 9th ed., 1950 confirmed by Lord Scarman, 1979, and the European Court of Human Rights, 1996)

Interestingly, the BBC was founded on Christian principles. The inscription in the entrance hall of BBC Broadcasting House, Portland Place, London states..

"To Almighty God, this shrine of the arts, music and literature is dedicated by the first Governors in the year of our Lord 1931, John Reith being Director General. It is their prayer that good seed sown will produce a good harvest, that everything offensive to decency and hostile to peace will be expelled, and that the nation will incline its ear to those things which are lovely, pure and of good report and thus pursue that path of wisdom and virtue."

The shock of the nation's own broadcasting corporation giving the show air time was so unexpected, and so offensive, that for the first time in years Christians were roused to publicly protest in substantial numbers.

Around 1500 protested 'on the streets', and according to the BBC more than 65,000 people contacted them about about the show (a record number for one programme) and 96% were complaints.

Yet the BBC chose to ignore such a protest.

The BBC News quoted the controller of BBC Two, Roly Keating, as saying that the programme will 'push back the boundaries of taste and decency'.

The BBC Governors' Programme Complaints Committee acknowledged the massive backlash but concluded that they were right to show the programme. It was 'art' and the audience was well warned of its content.

I confess that I smiled when I read the committee's belief that that 'the BBC would broadcast a programme raising similar issues relating to another religion'

I await a similar televised 'artistic work of art' that treats Muslim, Sikh or Hindu beliefs to the same blasphemous ridicule.

In 2006 when the furore broke out over the Danish newspaper cartoons depicting Muslim prophet Muhammad, the BBC would not show the cartoons themselves in case they offended their Muslim audience. Instead they gave a very brief, non close-up picture of a newspaper displaying it.

These are extracts from their justification for not showing the offensive items themselves..

The BBC's guidelines on religion also commit us to "reflect an awareness of the religious sensitivity of references to, or uses of, names, images, the historic deities, rituals, scriptures and language at the heart of the different faiths and ensure that any use of, or verbal or visual reference to them are treated with care and editorially justified. Examples include the Crucifixion, Holy Communion, the Koran, and the Jewish Sabbath".

So a clear editorial justification is required if the BBC is going to trespass on the religious sensitivities of Muslims at home and abroad by showing the Danish newspapers' cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad or the reprinting of them elsewhere. ..

BBC News has a duty to report the world to its audience and had to report the story of the sudden eruption of protest across the Muslim world. We had to show our audiences what Muslims are reacting to. As it happens we could do that with the sensitive use of the cartoons as displayed in the newspapers that have published them whilst minimising the possibility of offence to our Muslim audience by showing them carefully and sensitively. We avoided close ups and detail.

At the same time BBC News Online has not reproduced the cartoons to prevent someone who might be offended stumbling across them on our site.

[full report]

(Incidentally, 'Jerry Springer, the opera' was given a government Arts Council grant of £300,000 to assist it in touring the country. Otherwise, by their own admission it was not financially viable)

In late December 2002 the BBC showed - despite the most protests of that year - and just days before Christmas, a documentary suggesting that the Virgin Mary's birth was nothing more than rape by a locally based Roman soldier.

A BBC spokesman said: 'We knew tackling the Virgin Mary was always going to be a sensitive subject, but we stand by the programme

The good news is that as the persecution ripens, the church will blossom. Persecution has always done this to the real church.

[2019 update: Persecution has greatly increased as mentioned in later editorials]

return to the top