I wait with interest to see what happens in the case of these four Christians. I thank the BBC for covering it. I am not sure whether it is really a ‘watershed’ moment. For me, too many of those have passed without comment for this to be that important. However, I recognize the outcome of this case is likely to have repercussions. I have some reservations about the cases that have been chosen.
I feel, yet again, that we are making issues of the wrong things and all this is likely to do is get people’s backs up. I do not believe the wearing of the symbol of the cross is of central importance for two reasons: 1) What we do with Jesus is far more important 2) we can live in other, more meaningful ways that bring more honour and glory to Christ than the wearing of a symbol around our necks… We ought instead to “take UP our crosses, and follow HIM.
Also I do not believe either Gary McFarlane (relate counselor) or Lilian Ladele (registrar) have valid cases to bring. Around about the time McFarlane’s case was first brought, I was on a counselling skills course at college. I agree wholeheartedly with the opinion of my Muslim tutor, that if he has such objections he should work for a Christian organisation. In working for relate, he has brought the problems upon himself because relate have a policy of not restricting their counselling services, so neither should Mr Macfarlane.
As for Lilian Ladele, my opinion is similar to that above; she does not have a case to bring in working for the state, and should have changed vocation when the legislation was brought in. This may be far too simplistic a view, but I feel both those cases will do more harm than good, and just look like the church is banging the same old drum, rather than reaching out in love.
Over to you…