The Gospel According to the Police?
Definitions of ‘appropriate' evangelistic methods vary among believers. Some, for example, may consider taking to the streets with megaphones and signs too ‘aggressive'-too likely to intimidate people, to scare them off the Gospel message rather than draw them in. Others, however, may see such methods as not only appropriate, but essential in fulfilling the call to proclaim the gospel.
So, are Christians only to be concerned when believers who share their definition ‘appropriate' evangelism come under fire for their faith? This question arose in my mind this week as I read a news story about two Christian missionaries recently arrested in Norway. (Videos of the incident are available on You Tube -- Part 1 and Part 2).
The missionaries, Larry Keefer and Petar Keseljevic, were arrested in Norway while witnessing on the street during a parade celebrating the birthday of the nation's constitution in Oslo in late May. Police asked them to take their message elsewhere-out of sight of the palace of the nation's reigning Monarch. Also, several of the Oslo citizens present accused the missionaries of showing "disrespect to Norway" by spreading their religion on a national holiday. The men were eventually arrested and then detained for several hours.
This week it was reported that Keefer and Keseljevic had been found guilty by a trial court of "falling to obeying police." Both face serious fines.
I believe that all Christians, whether they cringe at or admire the ministry methods of these brothers, should be concerned by their case and what it says about the state of religious freedom in Norway. The fact is, they were prevented from, then penalized for, sharing their faith.
For me, a comment made by the President of The International Human Rights Group, Joel Thornton, crystallized this case as a matter of religious freedom. He said, "The Norwegians have a police law that is absolute, meaning that there is no discretion when you are participating in a legitimate activity and the police ask you to leave." He pointed out also that if the sentence is upheld "[I]t will, in effect, mean that Articles 9, freedom of religion, and Article 10, freedom of expression, of the European Convention on Human Rights are only valid if the police in Norway approve of your speech."
Even if all Christians cannot agree on how the gospel is to be preached, we should all be concerned when fellow believers are told they can only speak ‘the gospel according to the police.'
Posts
18 comments:
Perhaps true. However, I do wonder how any other country would feel if someone broke out megaphones and started proclaiming their message (regardless of what it might be) in the middle of a parade. Disturbing the peace would be one charge. Or, as was the case here, resisting the authorities. They were asked to move and they refused. Several other similar charges could also apply in any nation around the world.
If protesters came into a church picnic with megaphones and proclaimed gay rights, would we complain to the authorities or applaude their right to proclaim their message? Perhaps not quite the same but if not at a church picnic, why at a national celebration parade?
And while Joel Thornton has certainly been active in several similar cases through this organization, his is just one man's opinion. I'm not sure I would take his as the final authority on such matters. Yes, he's a lawyer but ... well, no lawyer jokes right now :)
Jesus said to be wise as serpents and harmless as doves. Wisdom is hard to determine sometimes, so I am just raising questions to think about in this regard. I can see both sides of this incident. I'm not sure it is quite as cut-and-dry as Thornton sees it.
AP
Yes, but as Adele said, is the method really the issue here?
Based upon the charges, yes, the method would appear to be the issue. They were not charged for their message; they were charged for their method; resisting the authorities.
The videos (along with the rest of Keefer's video publicity stunts from around the world found on YouTube) clearly demonstrate that authorities are generally antagonized until they respond and then they are accused of harassment. Note that it isn't just Norway ... there are similar videos there where they managed to stir up "harassment" in Britain, USA, etc. In those cases, they weren't necessarily charged, but they did accuse the authorities of harassment.
While I agree with defending the right to be wrong, there's a line where the method destroys the message. When the method goes against the norms and/or laws of a nation and the messenger faces opposition for their method, we cannot say they are being opposed for their message. That seems to be the case here (and in the many other videos of Keefer online).
AP
Interesting points, AP. I am going to take a closer look at some of this information you are referring to in other countries. Can you give me a hint as to where you found some of this?
But giving this some thought, it occurs to me that if, as I understand it, the method these guys used was not actually illegal and neither was the message that they were proclaiming, then their only crime was failing to obey a police order that the police really had no right to give in the first place! The police cannot order you to stop doing something that is legal and then charge you for doing it, can they, unless the police are no longer technically under the rule of law? These evangelists, as over the top as they might be, it seems to me, were under no real obligation to obey such an order to stop doing and saying that which was actually not against the law in the first place. A case can be made that this fills the criteria of lawful and justifiable civil disobedience. Authorities must be submit to the rule of law just as much as everyone else. Lex Rex, not Rex Lex.
As to your last paragraph, surely you do not suggest that the only proper way to do evangelism is a lawful one, especially in countries where any method is illegal.
Certainly I wasn't suggesting no evangelism where everything is illegal. But certainly this is not the case in Norway. I was suggesting that we need to work within culture, where it is not directly opposed to the Gospel. There is no mandate saying "Thou shalt use a megaphone during a national parade." If, as Joel Thornton says in his blog, "The problem was that we were in Norway and peace on the streets is the rule at all costs," then people taking offense is to be expected. Why deliberately go out to cause offense, just because you legally can? Why not work within that culture as much as possible?
Instead, there was an attitude shown in the videos that insisted that the police speak in English and even suggesting he should get an audience with the king. Why? Was it because of his country of origin? I certainly hope not, but that's the way it came across to me.
That being said, I suppose a person should have the right not only to be wrong, but also to be obnoxious and culturally insensitive. It seems this issue has less to do with religious rights and more to do with the right to step outside the norms of society and make a scene. That's why I suggested it was not really religious persecution in the first place; it is more of a person getting arrested for loudly proclaiming a message (any message) in the middle of a national celebration.
As far as the other videos, I looked up the person submitting the video: Preacher717. Keefer's profile is http://www.youtube.com/user/Preacher717
AP
Now, we are talking the same language, AP. I was speaking from a legal, human rights perspective, which is the perspective, I believe, Adele was trying to drive at. From this perspective, the method was really not the issue. The charges theselves are a dangerous precendent and, it is to be hoped, should be thrown out.
You are speaking primarily from amissiological and biblical perspective. And from that perspective, you are quite right.
So, it seems to me, from a human rights perspective, these guys would be persecuted. From a biblical/theological perspective, this is less certain, however.
I am enjoying this discussion, AP. Thanks a lot
It is not an easy question to deal with: this idea of rights.
Should a church have the right to loudly broadcast music in the middle of the night? And if they do, should they be charged if the neighbors complain? Should Fred Phelps and company have the right to stand outside the funeral of a gay man and gleefully proclaim his eternal destiny? Should gay-rights demonstrators have the right to holler their message in a church service? Muslims demonstrating outside a church service get reported as persecutors. But Christians demonstrating outside? Not so much. They have rights.
And then there is our initial incident: Norwegian people aren't able to hear the bands playing in the parade because someone is hollering about somthing behind them in a language they can't understand.
Eventually a line has to be drawn. And at that time, someone will be "persecuted", either the person instigating or those at the receiving end. It all depends on which side of the coin you are on. And so we have Christians "persecuting" as well as being "persecuted." Some are charged for causing the disturbance while others are the victims of the disturbance. But both can be seen from their own perspective as the recipients of persecution.
AP
AP. You say that a line has to be drawn eventually. Why? Is there a justifiable limit on free expression if no one's life or liberty is threatened? Is not being disturbed a basic human right? I don't justify these guys' tactics. I find them ridiculous, to be truthful. But worthy of criminal prosecution? Hardly.
You have a line; we all do. What is it for you? At what point does verbal confrontation become wrong? Does it require physical violence before it is wrong? Can words ever be "persecution" (another word for "wrong"). I used your search engine (very handy actually). I found reports on Jews protesting and sluring Christians in Israel classified as persecution. Just thought I would mention it.
That being said, I have no idea where I would draw my line.
AP
I didn't say that it slurring others, etc. wasn't persecution from a biblical/theological perspective. I am saying that unless it is calling for violence, discrimination,and the like, it is not a crime or a human rights abuse.
Very good, Glenn. Thank you. I was not separating persecution per se from a human rights abuse worthy of punishment.
That being said, authorities in free countries around the world are continuing to struggle with the limitations to free speech. Ultimately some type of limitations are placed, at least in certain contexts. Children in school classrooms must eventually be told to be the quiet. Sounds over a certain decible are restricted at certain times of the day. And, of course, there is the old stand-by of yelling "Fire" in a crowded room. The examples are many and the ideas for restrictions are varied, as we see in this case in Norway.
If either of us can find the perfect balance, I am sure the leaders of the world would be thrilled to consult us. Perhaps some day!
Thank you for a very enjoyable discussion.
AP
I, too, have enjoyed this discussion very much. AP. You keep giving me new things to think about. I like it! Thanks. God bless!
I just got tuned into the conversations here. Excellent! So good to have discussions without all the mud slinging and so forth.
I tend to be one who sees both sides of things.
While this guy maybe shouldn't be prosecuted for what he did, just where does 'disturbing the peace' types of things step in.
Many good illustrations have already been given. There truly does need to be a senstivity to when to preach...we all know the gospel was not meant to be like a hammer, nor Christians to be like a noisy gong or clanging cymbal. We have enough of those in society.
I picture that National celebration with all the variety of people on megaphones that there could be if we are talking 'free speech.' There could be 20, 30, 40 or more people groups on megaphones. What a carnival that would be when trying to celbrate something specific.
We hold our church picnic in a public park and are able to have amplified (not too loudly, of course) music for our praise and worship time. If people complained, I suppose we would have to resort to unplugged, or have to remain silent (wouldn't that be an interesting specatle of a public gather - silence.)But at the same time, if I were there enjoying the park and there was some group of which I really don't approve of ranting under one of the shelters, I don't want to hear them either, regardless of their 'right.'
It's a tricky thing at times, I believe
Jo g, you said: "There truly does need to be a senstivity to when to preach...we all know the gospel was not meant to be like a hammer, nor Christians to be like a noisy gong or clanging cymbal. We have enough of those in society."
I'm curious. Do you think this idea of sensitivity as to when to preach the gospel is a scriptural concept? If so what scripture do you think teaches this idea?
I can think of some pretty significant counterexamples to this idea of constraining preaching in the name of sensitivity (cultural or otherwise). Jesus went out of his way to present his message in a way that was culturally offensive to his hearers (you see this especially when you read the gospels and consider the Jewish perspective). For example, why did Jesus insist that Jews must "eat his flesh and drink his blood" knowing that this was one of the most offensive ideas that could be presented to a Jew of his day? He was a Jew and certainly understood that the multitude of taboos (many of them instituted by Yahweh) around eating blood. His healing of the man born blind with saliva and mud (which was specifically forbidden by the Rabbis) on the Sabbath is another example. Why didn't he just touch the many and heal him? He even calls attention to his healing on the Sabbath, knowing that it will be offensive. His repeated antagonism of the ruling authorities is another example (e.g. in John 6: "I know that you do not have the love of God in your hearts"). Look at John 8. Calling your hearers, who have always known themselves as God's chosen children, children of the devil is hardly culturally sensitive. Consider Jesus' words in the synagogue in Nazareth in Luke 4.
Then consider Stephen before the Sanhedrin. He choose to lash out against the Jewish leaders with great intensity. Was he wrong or unwise to do that given that his own stoning was the result?
Consider John the Baptist, Peter, John, and Paul who all showed significant indifference to cultures around them as to when and what they preached. Interestingly, preaching in the NT and especially in Acts is almost always accompanied by conflict of some sort (some of which could have easily been avoided).
I think that love needs to infuse everything we say and direct how we say it as followers of Jesus but I don't think sensitivity (at least in terms of avoiding annoying people) is a necessary component of that given the example I see in scripture.
Joel
Glad to see the discussion continuing!
I was going to step back, but just ran across this and thought I'd stir up the pot again. In light of our discussion, what do you think? Should this guy have been convicted? (Click here)
Oops, forgot. That last one was from AP again.
This case seems a little more clear cut in that he attacked people in the church. Acting violent is not a right. But to be honest, I feel sorry for the guy and if I were the pastor, I wouldn't press charges. The guy needs help more than he needs jail.
Would love to see people respond to Joel Hawhorter's comments too. Great stuff!
Post a Comment