Is interfaith ideology cancelling true Christianity?

Prime Minister Rishi Sunak wears a Hindu bracelet known as a kautuka or kalava, a symbol of good luck, protection and allegiance to Hinduism. The thread is traditionally worn on the right wrist or arm of men, symbolising the god Vishnu, and on the left by women, for the goddess Lakshmi. No one I know is suggesting he is not allowed to go public with his faith. As Christians, we may believe his religion is wrong and idolatrous, but we would not wish to prevent him from wearing the symbols of his belief. Neither would I presume to give him spiritual advice about Hinduism or pray with him, other than to the God of the Bible in the name of his Son. And if I decided to wear a cross in his presence – not that I own one myself – I don’t think he would have a legitimate reason to object.

Which makes it rather surprising that Derek Timms, a chaplain at a Marie Curie home was asked to remove his cross and told he would face ‘consequences’ and would need ‘re-training’ if he did not remove a half-inch badge pin with a cross on it from his jumper.

Mr Timms, 73, was told by a Methodist minister at the charity’s Solihull branch, that he must not wear the cross as it might ‘offend’ and create ‘barriers’ with patients. Later he was told that unless he took his cross off, he could not work at Marie Curie as a chaplain.

The title ‘chaplain’ had recently been changed to ‘spiritual advisor’. Perhaps in line with this change in emphasis, a new Methodist minister began leading this group and after meeting Mr Timms told him in an email that she was ‘surprised’ he was wearing crosses and that he should ‘refrain’. She went on to say ‘we should appear neutral and that enables a spiritual encounter that is about what the person we are visiting needs… if you would like to have a cross out of sight in your pocket and put it on when you know for sure that you are going into the room of a person of Christian faith, that would be acceptable, but also not particularly necessary.’

Mr Timms objected on the basis that there was nothing in the codes of conduct used for chaplains that prohibited the wearing of crosses or indeed other religious symbols. It also greatly helped his case to be able to refer to a recent legal precedent set by the European Court of Human Rights which ruled that: ‘It is a fundamental right to be able to manifest one’s faith by wearing a cross or other religious jewellery in the workplace.’

So in the event, Marie Curie backed down and issued an unreserved apology. 

This might seem like an everyday story of religious discrimination by people who are not sympathetic to Christianity. But it’s worse than that. We can be thankful that Mr Timms was vindicated and able to continue wearing the cross in carrying out his duties, but what about the friendly fire here? 

Neutralising the Christian faith

Regardless of the more general right to wear a cross in the workplace, how did we get to a position where someone who was explicitly a religious person, a ‘spiritual advisor’ (not a train driver, or a shop assistant) was asked to camouflage their fundamental beliefs in order to keep their job, by someone who apparently shares their Christian beliefs? 

As Mr Timm says, it seemed to him that the ‘message that the Christian faith needs to be neutralised or removed entirely from a chaplaincy front line service. Interfaith ideology is becoming so firmly embedded throughout the Christian faith that it is essentially cancelling itself.’

And that is the most shocking part of the story: A Christian minister was instructing a Christian chaplain to remove a Christian symbol. Now, I don’t want to critique this person as an individual – she may in good conscience have felt this was the best way to fulfil her duty to all the patients. But is this really a duty that any one of us as Christians should be comfortable accepting? Is it a sign of a broader problem in some sections of the church that they are embracing or at the least encouraging a view that all religions are equal and indistinct – that spirituality exists outside of truth? How can a Christian, whilst truly tolerating and respecting all faiths essentially in a role that is explicitly religious, hide or sanitise their faith? Furthermore, would anyone really want a spiritual advisor with no authority to give spiritual advice and no opinions on where comfort or hope can be found outside of ourselves? 

It is true that someone from another faith or strongly against all religions might object to a Christian giving them spiritual counsel, but no one is forcing it on them. 

There is an offence to the cross but that’s not to do with physical symbols people might wear but about the offence of the message that we needed the death of Jesus Christ to pay the price for our sins. Christian, let’s not go out of our way to give offence but neither let us give up the distinct message of the good Christian gospel.