6th January, 2005

"Freedom of speech is essential to a free society, and we are entitled, indeed one might say obliged, to exercise it and to fight for it, both for ourselves and for people we disagree with. The fact that some issues are both complex and fraught with emotion for different populations must not be allowed to prevent rigorous examination and debate. The idea that one can confidently identify a point at which a critique constitutes an incitement to hatred is surely open to the gravest doubt."

TOM SLATER

The judgement against Catch the Fire Ministries in the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal has ignited a debate about free speech in Australia. I’m not competent to comment on the historical and legal dimensions of the issue. But I do have some experience of speaking about Christian faith in public places.

The notions of tolerance, which the legislation is intended to promote, and of vilification, which it is intended to proscribe, are manifestly slippery concepts. Such legislation might be high-minded, but it is not clear to this lay person that it is well-founded. The fact that people in high places are asserting some sort of ‘right’ not to be offended illustrates the potential for fuzziness, utopianism and spurious litigation in such matters. And the fact that Catch the Fire Ministries have, by implication at least, been vilified freely in newspaper editorials and other statements since the judgement was brought down illustrates just how problematic the whole thing is. The irony of this seems to be completely lost on such commentators.

Freedom of speech is essential to a free society, and we are entitled, indeed one might say obliged, to exercise it and to fight for it, both for ourselves and for people we disagree with. The fact that some issues are both complex and fraught with emotion for different populations must not be allowed to prevent rigorous examination and debate. The idea that one can confidently identify a point at which a critique constitutes an incitement to hatred is surely open to the gravest doubt.

At the same time the belief that people in general and minority groups in particular should not be abused and made objects of hatred is morally compelling. Christians ought to be the first to say so. But legislation intended to impose that standard is a double-edged sword, and a very blunt instrument at that.

For Christians, though, there is a far more powerful motivation for treating people with respect. It is the example and command of Jesus to love our neighbour. This does not mean compromising our beliefs or refusing to assert them. We may continue to believe in the truth of the gospel, and by implication, the differences and sometimes contradictions between our beliefs and those of other people. But our attitude towards other people should reflect the graciousness of God.

After years of evangelism and teaching in the voluntary context of Christian camps I became involved years ago in programs dealing with values and beliefs in the ‘compulsory’ context of both government and private schools. Certain considerations suddenly jumped sharply into focus. It was clearly important to first of all win the confidence and respect of both students and teachers, and to give proper consideration to contrary views and affirm what one could in them, as well as offering a Christian view. The ability to connect with and engage people was a necessary basis for effective communication.

This had always come easily in the more relaxed and relational Christian contexts I had been working in. But in the more sceptical and occasionally even hostile secular environment it was a much more demanding requirement. It soon occurred to me though that we should be just as careful about respecting dissenters in the ‘safer’ voluntary context.

If the ability to engage people is fundamental to communicating what we believe, we can add wisdom to love, as an essential ingredient in our relationships with people with whom we want to share our faith. Zeal is not just insufficient, it is counterproductive unless it is moderated by love and wisdom. The apostle Peter urged us, when giving an account of the hope that is in us, to ‘do so with gentleness and respect’. This, incidentally, is in the context of opposition and potential suffering.

Christians are under obligation to share the good news about Jesus, and this involves assertions about the uniqueness of Jesus which are ‘offensive’ to some people. Perhaps this is why that other great apostle and ‘missionary’ Paul speaks of being ‘Christ’s ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us’.

So the language of diplomacy and respect, as well as wisdom and love, is Biblical. We have an obligation to God not just to bear witness to the truth, but to do so in a manner that commends it to others.

Tom Slater is the national director of the Australian Evangelical Alliance Inc.