Nadia Eweida - a Christian stand?

 

BA's handling of the cross wearing Nadia Eweida has raised several questions about their personnel procedures, and it has perhaps turned into a PR disaster.

Whatever the rights and wrongs of the situation I wonder whether it doesn't raise questions for Christians about what it is we are asking for,  - and whether this really is the kind of case which Archbishops and others should be supporting. Can I emphasise that this is not to question Nadia Eweida's sincerity - everything I have heard and read from her seems to speak of a deep and genuine conviction and she comes across as a person of admirable integrity.

My questions for the wider Church are:

1. Are we arguing for parity with other faiths in the right to express religious convictions in the workplace OR we resorting to the idea that England/Britain is a Christian country and therefore we have higher right (which it has to be admitted we might have neglected in recent decades) to display our symbols?
2. I have to question the similarity which is being claimed between a cross necklace, and the veil or turban of other faiths. The latter two can claim a religious heritage which a cross necklace cannot - ie in no sense is it widely accepted by the mainstream Christian denominations that the wearing of a cross is an obligation - or if a freely chosen option is a recognised practice.
3. A cross necklace is also a much wider choice of simply jewelry for people who would eschew any religious conviction - so BA might legitimately ask what test might apply in order for granting permission to wear such an item of jewelry on the basis of religious conviction.
4. I really do wonder whether attempts to ban the cross or other Christian symbols or words by the loony PC fringe of local Government ( banning "Christmas" etc) in order to avoid "offence" to other faiths  [and leaders of other faith communities often deny that any such offence is taken and the wiser ones can see the writing on the wall from the more avidly secularist of the decision makers] - does tend to lull the Church back into a Christendom type mindset where all we can say is "this is a Christian country and we should be allowed maintain our "heritage"." ( - often with reference to entirely spurious 75% of people who claimed to be " Christian" at the last census while neatly forgetting that 34% of respondents didn't answer that religious question at all!)

I guess the basic question is what kind of place do we as Christians want in society - one earned by our involvement and "witnessed" to by who we are - or one demanded from a position of authority and on the basis of a dubious interpretation of what we mean by "Christian country".

Comments

[hopefulamphibian]

Really well put Tom - and good questions.

[Stewart]

I don't think her case would ever have got as far as it did without the surrounding 'discussion' about Muslim women wearing veils. The whole thing seems a creation of the kind of Christians who think everyone should be Christian, or at least recognise Christianity's supremacy in this 'Christian' country. As you point out there is no obligation on Christians to wear anything that identifies them, and in particular I wonder at the theological dichotomy of her cross of precious metal! I always thought we should be known for our actions, not our bling.

[Tom]

Thanks for the comments and emails. To the latter which are abusive and question my Christian commitment on the basis of this post - I would point out that I am not doubting Ms Eweida's sincerity - I wonder if the it misplaced.

[Tom]

Among the intelligent emails that I have received (as opposed to those which slag and abuse!)is this one which I post as a comment to add to the discussion, and to which I will respond in a future post because it summarises most of the points that others have made in emails:

Hi Tom

I just found your blog about BA and Nadia Eweida. Thanks for raising thoughtful questions.

I totally agree that we must avoid relying on the "Christendom" mindset as a convincing argument. On the other hand, I don't think we should totally discount that argument when dealing with the national "Flag Carrier" airline of a nation with a Christian heritage and an established church.

I wanted to pick up on the point you made in your second paragraph, where you contrast the obligations under other faiths to wear a veil, with the absence of an obligation for Christians to wear a cross. To my mind, that only makes sense if you accept that each religion has some ultimate authority with the right to make policy on these issues. My understanding is that neither the Islam world nor Christianity has such an authority (no I am not an RC). Muslims disagree about the veil. Within each faith there are clearly local traditions concerning the display of religious symbols on one's person and they surely must be respected

For Nadia, wearing her cross is a public declaration of her faith—as it is in many parts of the world. As an Anglo-Egyptian Christian, a visual, Christian identity has special importance; in Egypt, where Christians are heavily persecuted, many Christians have a cross tattooed to their wrist as an irrevocable, public statement of their faith in a society hostile to Christianity — even though this very act may increase the discrimination against them. The cross symbol has power, meaning, and consequences. Those of us who choose not to wear a visual symbol of our faith should remember that for others, the practice is an intensely personal act of worship. http://www.human-rights-and-christian-persecution.org/christian-news-november-2006.html

I think it is perfectly justifiable for her to claim that the cross is as important to her as a veil is to a Muslim.

Best wishes

Steve Pendray

[Simon Barrow]

A sensitive and thoughtful piece, Tom. And good comments, too. It is important, as you say, to avoid making judgments about the individual at the centre of all this. Here's the take that Giles Fraser (and Ekklesia) had on the question of what is being symbolised and embodied: http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/content/news_syndication/article_061124crossly.shtml. I was rather astonished to see that one recent media report of the archbishops' intervention declared "BA made to bow before the cross". The point of "every knee shall bow" in a biblical sense is that it is about free and joyful eschatological recognition, of course. Incidentally, one BA employee I spoke to last week said that they were shocked at the angry and hateful letters they had received from what she called "self-styled Christians" on this issue. A very sad counter-witness which those who have been getting very 'militant' about this just don't seem to get.

[Tom]

Thanks for the comment and for the link. I couldn't get the link to the Giles Frasers comment to work so I have reposted it here:
http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/content/fraser/article_061124crosses.shtml

[Paul]

I don't think the government should inhibit someones religious beliefs. Our nation was founded on Christian prinicples and it seems we are getting away from that and are promoting diversity in religion while silencing Christians.

[Coach Outlet Online]

The nomination of the winner depends on the capability and spirit of the personality to finish the race.I liske the post very much as it contain informative in knowledge.I like pics of Chelsea shares of the beauty of running in Madison, Wisconsin.I want to congratulate the winner for the nomination race.I want to know suggestion from others.