Making headlines
I receive regular emails from the Barnabas Fund which provide news about persecuted Christians around the world, particularly in Muslim countries. The most recent one (which you can read here) caught my attention with the provocative subject headline, “Cross defined as non-essential to Christian faith”.
As an evangelical, I was immediately alarmed: how could anyone suggest that the cross of Christ is anything other than central to Christian faith? So I was, in one sense, relieved to discover that the headline was really about the wearing of a cross as a piece of jewellery: a British Christian named Nadia Eweida was told by her employer, British Airways, to remove (or cover up) the cross she was wearing as a necklace because the wearing of religious symbols was against their staff dress code—unless that symbol is “an essential part” of the person's religious beliefs.
We ought to pray for Nadia and the Christians (the Barnabas Fund included) that are supporting her. In her attempts to have the airline allow her to express her faith in this way, she walks a very fine line. She should not be heard to be saying that the wearing of a cross is “an essential part” of her faith. Yet she should not be denied the right to express her faith in a visible way. (Whatever happened to religious tolerance?)
Even in the Barnabus Fund story, this fine line is dangerously apparent:
Many Christians wear the cross in order to publicly declare their faith. During the grievance hearing Miss Eweida quoted “Jesus said if you deny me on earth I will deny you before my Father in heaven”. Miss Eweida is of Anglo-Egyptian roots, and in her culture the cross is deeply important. Many Egyptian Christians will tattoo the cross on to their wrists, even though this will bring them increased persecution, as it defines them as a Christian. To Miss Eweida displaying her cross is as essentially part of her faith as the hijab and turban are to Muslims and Sikhs.
Yes, we should be allowed to declare our faith publicly—especially if the way in which we do so is low-key. But, no, I do not think that any Christian—regardless of their Christian culture or background—should be concerned that by not wearing a cross around their neck, they are “denying Jesus”. And I must admit I have concerns about any Christian saying that the wearing of a cross is “as essentially part of her faith as the hijab and turban are to Muslims and Sikhs”. I take it that Muslims and Sikhs wear those items because they believe they are essential to their being right with, or at one with, their god. This cannot be true for a Christian: nothing we do is essential for our salvation; it's only what Jesus has done.
I'm sure Nadia places her faith in what Christ has done for her, and I hope she is not in any doubt as to the fact that her salvation will remain assured, even if she loses her right to wear the cross at work. May the good news of the cross be upheld in all that transpires in this matter.