Twice over the past few days I've had conversations with committed Christians that both amazed and disturbed me.
Each time I was told that it would be good if President Assad manages to crush the rebels who are fighting so bravely against the forces of the Syrian state.
I hadn't given much thought to the consequences of a victory for the rebels, or what might happen if Syria descends into a full-scale civil war. But I had assumed that any decent human being would have been appalled by the ferocity with which the Syrian state is attempting to crush the revolt.
What I was told, in these two chats with people I respect, is that if the rebels prevail and the Assad regime collapses, life will certainly become intolerable for Christians in Syria. A hard-line Islamic state would emerge, and Christians would be at best marginalised, at worse persecuted. I was uneasy, partly because the implication was that it is acceptable for Christians to be protected by what is a manifestly odious regime.
It is certainly true that in both Iraq and Egypt the toppling of dictators has led to very bad times for Christians. Indeed many thousands of them, possibly hundreds of thousands, have had to flee from both countries.
And it is also true that all over the world, Christianity is under attack. Here in western Europe it is under attack from the forces of secularism and aggressive atheism. Elsewhere, for instance in northern Nigeria, it is under much more alarming attack of a most brutal and vicious nature.
In many countries there is persistent, state-backed anti-Christianity. In Saudi Arabia, a long-time ally of the UK, the penalty for converting to Christianity is death. Few outsiders know what is going on in North Korea, but there are reputedly around 250,000 people imprisoned in horrific labour camps – simply for professing Christianity.
And yet Christianity is by far the world's largest religion, with well over two billion adherents – coming on for a third of the entire global population. In many parts of our planet, Christianity is still growing fast, particularly where Pentecostal versions of the religion, both Catholic and Protestant, are to the fore.
Despite this numerical strength, Christianity does not seem to know how to defend itself. There seems, in the West anyway, remarkably little outrage at the atrocities that are visited elsewhere on Christians day in, day out. In the face of constant attack, Christianity seems weak and soft.
On the other hand, in much of the world you have to be very brave to be a Christian, and millions upon millions are prepared to show such bravery. There's nothing soft about that. Maybe the fact that so many human beings are making it clear that they are Christians while not fighting back in any aggressive way is a sign of strength rather than weakness.
Writing as a Christian, I think it is important to be very cautious in this situation. This is certainly no time for militancy to counter militancy. It would be reckless and utterly irresponsible to invoke anything that might suggest the spirit of the crusades. I like to think of Christianity as a gentle and tolerant religion. And it could be argued that as it is the most popular religion in the world, and by that significant criterion the most successful, it is inevitably going to be the most persecuted.
Also, Jesus Christ was careful to warn his follows that they might be arrested, punished and killed. "Because of me, you will be hated by all nations," he said. Absolutely nothing in what he said suggested that Christianity would ever be an easy way of life. Maybe Christianity should never be regarded as a religion of comfort, ease and security, but rather a religion for people prepared to be on the margins, bereft of power and attacked on all sides.
Christianity is manifestly not in decline. But it could be that in most parts of the world, to be a Christian will become an ever tougher option.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article