THERE is amazement around the world, and particularly in the United States, at the erosion of free speech taking place in the UK. One of the most useful barometers to measure freedom of speech is what happens to Christian ministers and evangelists when preaching in the open air. As the pastor of a church, and looking at the state of the nation, lost in a sea of anti-Christian woke ideology, I make regular open-air preaching a key aspect of my work.
I am based in Buckinghamshire, and last week I was preaching in the market square of one of the county’s major towns. It is relevant to mention that I do not use any amplification and do not have a particularly strong voice, and so I could not be described as a nuisance in terms of noise levels. The witness in this town comprises just myself and a lady helper, who like me, is in her 70s.
Immediately upon concluding our session last week, we went into a coffee shop for some refreshments. We were followed in by a police officer, who told us that a complaint had been received about our activity, and that he was concerned about the public order implications of our presence.
The officer asked to see the Christian leaflets which had been distributed and the posters which had been on display. One of the posters in particular was at the root of the complaint. It reads,‘What happens when society ignores the Bible? Drug-taking, knife crime, shoplifting, Sunday’s special character ignored, forced acceptance of LGBT agenda, abortion, gender confusion, needless climate change fears, national decline’.
This poster is often employed, because it has the effect of generating conversations which enable good opportunities for Christian input. Its wording is direct, but I suggest very accurate, and it is reasonable and temperate. It is the duty of Christians to be salt and light in this dark and corrupted world, and to apply the Bible’s teachings to the issues of the age.
The complaint was made after a young woman had looked at the poster and laughed. I naturally asked her why she was laughing. Surely it is a very serious poster. I suspected that the reason for the laughter was incredulity that in this ‘enlightened’ day and age anyone could still possibly question the legitimacy of all things LGBT.
The young woman was indeed objecting to the LGBT element in the sign on display. I explained that the Bible teaches that homosexuality is sinful. The Scriptures are God’s word, and man cannot claim to be wiser than His Maker. This is exactly what I have said on numerous previous occasions in many locations. I spoke in the spirit of having a reasonable conversation, not nastily or aggressively, but I was firm, because I am not going to compromise on a fundamental moral issue as so many churches have felt compelled to do in recent years.
The whole point of going into town centres is to reach those who currently reject the Christian message, which is of course the majority of people. The very reason for being there is to enter into robust exchanges (but not unpleasant or uncivilised ones) with those for whom Christian truth is totally alien. In support of this approach, I refer to the apostle Paul preaching in idol-worshipping Athens: ‘Therefore disputed he in the synagogue with the Jews, and with the devout persons, and in the market daily with them that met with him’ (Acts 17:17).
The police officer asked for my name and contact details, but the one who lodged the complaint was allowed to remain anonymous in her dealings with the police. Having nothing to hide, I obliged with my details. However, why am I asked to give my name and phone number, whereas the one making the complaint can remain anonymous, even though her complaint could lead to a prosecution for a public order offence?
What is disturbing about this incident is that I was going about my lawful business as a Christian minister, upholding the established faith of the land and which is according to the nation’s constitution, yet in the eyes of the police I was deemed to be a potential threat to public order by causing distress to members of the public.
Three days later a police officer telephoned quite late in the evening to discuss the complaint. He described the person who made it as ‘the victim’, to which I objected. To call her such is surely to take sides concerning the incident, rather than to be impartial. If the police are approaching the matter in the context of offender and victim, that automatically puts me at a disadvantage. The officer was polite, but wanted to point out that it was his responsibility to avoid any kind of disorder arising in the town centre by the expression of viewpoints which could cause alarm. Therefore I should take due care as to how I express myself.
What does this mean? Must I in future avoid publicly stating what the Bible teaches, if it happens to be controversial? I replied to the officer that as a Christian I was personally offended by the holding of Pride parades each year in town centres up and down the land, but the police would not take the slightest interest in what I felt in such instances. Surely this represents double standards.
On being asked about what would happen next, the police officer said that the complainant did not wish to press charges, as long as the police warned me about the need to avoid causing offence. This suggests to me that if the young woman had wanted to press charges the police would have willingly gone along with it. Surely the issue of a deciding whether or not a crime has been committed should not be left to the complainant, who is obviously not impartial in assessing what happened between the two parties.
To many, this whole matter might sound somewhat trivial in the great scheme of things, but please be assured that what happens in these minor, local conflicts is in fact indicative of the far greater malaise afflicting our nation concerning the curtailment of basic freedoms to express opinions contrary to the establishment narrative. What if I preach, as I must, that Jesus Christ is the only way to heaven, and therefore that other religions are false, will I then be accused of hate speech and of stirring up community tensions?
