Freedom Of Speech

“… Did not we straitly command you that ye should not teach in this name? and, behold, ye have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this man’s blood upon us. Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:28-29)

Preaching etc.

The First Amendment to the US Constitution, passed in 1791, reads “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” But what does this mean in the reality of our present society, with its other freedoms:

  • Freedom of same-sex marriage.
  • The freedom in our society to blaspheme the name of God.
  • In the USA, the Castle Doctrine: the apparent freedom to kill someone if he/she enters your house without permission (along with the freedom to own as many guns as you care to buy).
  • In both the USA and Canada, no public school can offer any sort of Christian religious prayer.1
  • On almost any topic, we see public protests and are asked to sign petitions: should we voice our opinions on such topics when asked, or not? One thinks of global warming, environmental affairs in general, petitions for or against same sex marriage — the list is endless.

And what about preaching? I know I personally would be reluctant to see a Christadelphian public lecture advertised as “homosexuality is condemned in the Bible” or “same sex marriage is against the commandments of Christ”. Or how about “You should use the bathroom of your biological sex, says the Bible”. In every case, I would suspect at least some of the local populace would object, and needless controversy ensue. But by being reluctant to address these topics, are we bowing down to what the United States Supreme Court says? Or just following the example of the apostles in the first century, who largely only objected to the rule of the authorities when commanded not to preach about Jesus Christ. They did not object to the cruelties of the Roman Rule, or preach against the immorality of the society outside the ecclesia. They commanded the disciples to follow the moral code of Christ, but did not protest against practices of the community of non-believers. Instead, they tried to turn individuals from the wicked practices of society by preaching. As the Apostle Peter said:

“Therefore submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake, whether to the king as supreme, or to governors, as to those who are sent by him for the punishment of evil-doers and for the praise of those who do good. For this is the will of God, that by doing good you may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men — as free, yet not using liberty as a cloak for vice, but as bondservants of God” (1Pet 2:13-16)

Of course, as “bondservants of God”, where there is a conflict of principle, the disciple “ought to obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29) — but this is no permit to protest through the political or legal system.

Defamation2

Both ecclesias and magazines should realize that individuals can be litigious. We have found that some who have conflict with ecclesias, and through them magazines, may be willing to turn to the law when they believe ecclesias have acted maliciously or inappropriately. It is for this reason that The Tidings only publish the bare facts of such situations as withdrawal or transfer. There is a risk that in our normal ecclesial life we might publish defamatory material, such as:

  • The making of platform announcements, the circulation of letters or the publication of news items in magazines, that name brothers or sisters as having done or said certain things;
  • Giving lectures or publishing magazine articles that refer to particular nations, ethnic or religious groups (e.g. lectures on Prophecy), or homosexuality; and
  • The making of statements or publishing material (e.g. photographs) on Twitter, Facebook and other forms of online social media.

It is somewhat unlikely for ecclesias or individuals to be sued in the USA, but the situation in Canada is in fact more potentially troublesome. According to the article on “defamation” from Wikipedia:

At common law [in Canada], defamation covers any communication that tends to lower the esteem of the subject in the minds of ordinary members of the public… Where a communication is expressing a fact, it can still be found defamatory through innuendo suggested by the juxtaposition of the text or picture next to other pictures and words.

Whether this is troublesome just in theory I am not sure: I personally know of no related legal problems in Canada.

Internally

There is, however, another aspect of “Freedom of Speech” that is relevant. The Christadelphians often assert they are truly the “people of the Book”, and rely on the Bible to provide guidance in all our beliefs and actions. As such, we claim to study the Bible in an open manner, without pre-conceived notions, and indeed our early history is replete with vigorous open dialog. As the Bible says: “Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true” (Acts 17:11 NIV).

This trait has largely disappeared in our community. As I grew up in the 1960’s, there was a considerable amount of discussion about many topics, such as Biblical inspiration, the precise role of the Holy Spirit, attempts to reconcile the early chapters of Genesis with scientific observations, as well as much deep study of the text of the Bible, its message to the early Church, and its implications for today. I listened to Brethren AD Norris, Harry Whitaker, Len Richardson, Edward Whittaker, and many others of high intelligence, deep Biblical knowledge, and searching minds as they strove to answer deep questions. They were not afraid to be questioned by younger minds, they stood up ably in debates with academics, and they devoted their whole being to understanding the message of the Bible. And if you read the magazines of the time, you can see the debates about these topics echoing through the pages.

But I have to say that my impression of our community is that it has withdrawn somewhat from such activities of recent years. Many of the writings of that time have been, if not exactly put on a list of proscribed books, at least little referred to today, and sometimes even actively attacked. I must admit there is much in these writings I personally disagree with: but I would like to say they have the freedom to express their ideas. I might mention:

  • Balancing The Book: A Study Of Biblical Paradoxes by Bro. Len Richardson.
  • What is His Name by Bro. AD Norris.
  • The Drama of Creation by Bro. Alan Fowler.
  • The Last Days by Bro. Harry Whittaker (and many other of his books).
  • The Holy Spirit And The Believer Today by Bro. AD Norris.

Some of these are topics I am reluctant to address in the pages of this magazine, and there are other topics that almost invariably cause opposing views to be forcefully brought forth: some of the many aspects of the reconciling work of Christ,3or alternate views of some passages of Scripture.4

Questions from the young

Invariably, many young people, whether baptized or not, struggle with their understanding of God and His message in the Bible. Perhaps this is a topic I will deal with at another time, but we have to be very careful not to brush their concerns away, nor to supply answers without reflection or understanding, just because they are the ones that have been traditionally offered. After all, most of us can remember being disappointed in some of the answers in their youth: let us not perpetuate this!

  1. A somewhat simplified statement of an obviously complex legal situation, as can be seen by looking at the Wikipedia article on “School prayer”.
  2. There is an interesting paper, “Minimizing Liability for Defamation’ By the Australian AACE, which makes similar comments.
  3.  am reluctant to use “atonement”, its use in the New Testament is so rare (Rom 5:11 in the KJV, not at all in the RSV, rarely in the other modern translations).
  4. Does the reference to water in John 3:5 refer back to Isa 44:3-5, or to water baptism, for example?