Stop using the Cross to fuel a cultural row, Christians advised

-24/11/06

The row over whether British Airways (BA) staff can wear religious costume jewellery trivialises the real issues highlighted by the Cross ñ turning it into a club badge rather than a symbol of liberation, claims a leading Christian commentator today.

The Rev Dr Giles Fraser ñ who is vicar of Putney, an Oxford philosophy lecturer and founder of Inclusive Church ñ said on BBC Radio 4ís Thought for the Day slot this morning that ìmany Christians like me remain deeply uneasy that the way the cross is being defended by some is transforming it into a symbol of cultural identity.î

Dr Fraser, also an associate of the think tank Ekklesia, points out that the Christian Cross started life as an anti-imperial symbol, because Jesus was killed by the political and religious powers-that-be.

But its meaning was reversed when Christianity allied with Empire, and since then ìthe cross has been all too easily conscripted by various forms of objectionable propagandaî, such as that developed to justify the Crusades, says Dr Fraser.

Now a symbol which is actually about ìGodís act of solidarity with the disgraced and the powerlessî is being distorted again.

For some, says Dr Fraser, ìdefending the cross is about defending something called ëChristian Englandí. Those on the extreme right, for instance, seem to be using the defence of Christianity as cover for an attack upon multiculturalism in general and Islam in particular.î

ìFor such as these, the cross has nothing to do the brutality of empire and, bizarrely, everything to do with the cultural politics of a little country that Jesus had never heard ofî, he explains.

Giles Fraser is a contributor to the book Consuming Passion: Why the killing of Jesus really matters, published by Ekklesia through Darton, Longman and Todd last year.

Edited by the think tankís co-directors, Simon Barrow and Jonathan Bartley, the book examines the link between certain popular Christian understandings of the Cross and issues of violence, domination and social justice.

ìThere are difficult questions about freedom of expression at stake in the British Airways rowî, says Simon Barrow, ìbut the turning of the incident into a major drama involving angry politicians and protesting church leaders does Christianity little credit. It looks like a sign of cultural anxiety not faith.î
“At the same time, we all have to learn that there are cultural anxieties in a changing society ñ and find ways of talking about them,” added Barrow.

ìChristians urgently need to offer a better account of the cross than simply that itís a badge of identityî, says Dr Fraser.

The contributors to Consuming Passion ñ writers, scholars and clergy from Britain, Australia and the USA ñ look at the meaning of Jesus death in terms of absorbing rather than inflicting violence, and as an expression of non-coercive sacrifice rather than imperial religion.

ìIt would be good if we could accept a diversity of symbolism in a plural society, but using political power to enforce the display of the Cross spectacularly misses what it is really aboutî, says Simon Barrow.

British Airways insists that its policy on costume jewellery is about company identity and safety, and applies to people of all religions and none.

Cross-wearing is entirely voluntary in Christianity, it points out. But it would not stop someone from wearing a turban if dress was part of a core religious identity, and the aim of the policy is equal treatment.

BA permits all items of jewellery, including crosses, to be worn underneath its uniform.

The company has been put under pressure by MPs and by Archbishop of York John Sentamu. Home Secretary Jack Straw has also backed the wearing of crosses, in spite of his criticisms of the Muslim veil.

Heathrow check-in worker Nadia Eweida, aged 55, of Twickenham, London, lost her appeal against BA’s policy on Monday. BA pointed out that it had not banned the wearing of crosses and said Ms Eweida had a right to a second appeal.

The incident has caused a huge public row, with Tory MP Ann Widdecombe saying she would boycott British Airways if they did not change their policy.

See: We preach Christ in an electric chair? (Nov 24, 2006) – Giles Fraser says the BA row misses the real offence of the Cross.

The row over whether British Airways (BA) staff can wear religious costume jewellery trivialises the real issues highlighted by the Cross ñ turning it into a club badge rather than a symbol of liberation, claims a leading Christian commentator today.

The Rev Dr Giles Fraser ñ who is vicar of Putney, an Oxford philosophy lecturer and founder of Inclusive Church ñ said on BBC Radio 4ís Thought for the Day slot this morning that ìmany Christians like me remain deeply uneasy that the way the cross is being defended by some is transforming it into a symbol of cultural identity.î

Dr Fraser, also an associate of the think tank Ekklesia, points out that the Christian Cross started life as an anti-imperial symbol, because Jesus was killed by the political and religious powers-that-be.

But its meaning was reversed when Christianity allied with Empire, and since then ìthe cross has been all too easily conscripted by various forms of objectionable propagandaî, such as that developed to justify the Crusades, says Dr Fraser.

Now a symbol which is actually about ìGodís act of solidarity with the disgraced and the powerlessî is being distorted again.

For some, says Dr Fraser, ìdefending the cross is about defending something called ëChristian Englandí. Those on the extreme right, for instance, seem to be using the defence of Christianity as cover for an attack upon multiculturalism in general and Islam in particular.î

ìFor such as these, the cross has nothing to do the brutality of empire and, bizarrely, everything to do with the cultural politics of a little country that Jesus had never heard ofî, he explains.

Giles Fraser is a contributor to the book Consuming Passion: Why the killing of Jesus really matters, published by Ekklesia through Darton, Longman and Todd last year.

Edited by the think tankís co-directors, Simon Barrow and Jonathan Bartley, the book examines the link between certain popular Christian understandings of the Cross and issues of violence, domination and social justice.

ìThere are difficult questions about freedom of expression at stake in the British Airways rowî, says Simon Barrow, ìbut the turning of the incident into a major drama involving angry politicians and protesting church leaders does Christianity little credit. It looks like a sign of cultural anxiety not faith.î
“At the same time, we all have to learn that there are cultural anxieties in a changing society ñ and find ways of talking about them,” added Barrow.

ìChristians urgently need to offer a better account of the cross than simply that itís a badge of identityî, says Dr Fraser.

The contributors to Consuming Passion ñ writers, scholars and clergy from Britain, Australia and the USA ñ look at the meaning of Jesus death in terms of absorbing rather than inflicting violence, and as an expression of non-coercive sacrifice rather than imperial religion.

ìIt would be good if we could accept a diversity of symbolism in a plural society, but using political power to enforce the display of the Cross spectacularly misses what it is really aboutî, says Simon Barrow.

British Airways insists that its policy on costume jewellery is about company identity and safety, and applies to people of all religions and none.

Cross-wearing is entirely voluntary in Christianity, it points out. But it would not stop someone from wearing a turban if dress was part of a core religious identity, and the aim of the policy is equal treatment.

BA permits all items of jewellery, including crosses, to be worn underneath its uniform.

The company has been put under pressure by MPs and by Archbishop of York John Sentamu. Home Secretary Jack Straw has also backed the wearing of crosses, in spite of his criticisms of the Muslim veil.

Heathrow check-in worker Nadia Eweida, aged 55, of Twickenham, London, lost her appeal against BA’s policy on Monday. BA pointed out that it had not banned the wearing of crosses and said Ms Eweida had a right to a second appeal.

The incident has caused a huge public row, with Tory MP Ann Widdecombe saying she would boycott British Airways if they did not change their policy.

See: We preach Christ in an electric chair? (Nov 24, 2006) – Giles Fraser says the BA row misses the real offence of the Cross.