Nurse loses battle to wear crucifix at work

I think that it was always going to end like this, when all was said and done -and I am wondering about the advice she may have been receiving. I have a great respect for Shirley Chaplin, but I suspect that she may have been misadvised and drawn into a battle that while helpful for deciding how the rules do or don't apply, probably doesn't advance the Christian cause very greatly. The final judgement was always going to contain a phrase like this: "and noted that wearing a crucifix was not a requirement of the Christian faith." and rule against her on this basis. There is no doubt that there are other issues involved in this case which need considering: the citing of health and safety to argue against her by the HA does sit ill with some of some of the allowed manifestations, for example. However, this is all trumped by the 'requirement of religion' issue. Wearing a crucifix is not a requirement of Christian faith; it's a choice, one that sometimes has very deep personal significance, but it's a choice not a requirement.

The price we Christians pay for a faith that has a great deal of cultural adaptability is that we have few equivalents to Muslim, Sikh or Hindu signs and symbols. Praying is part of our faith but it is not legislated as a sine qua non of faithfulness exactly how or when; we are left to make grown-up decisions about how to organise it. We are enjoined to share our faith but we have no particular dress codes (except whatever is appropriate and modest) or particular items of clothing to mark us out. Do we really wish to submit to commands and regulations of humans ...? (see Paul in Galatians)

The problem for Christian fans, is that they want to display their faith and not cede the public display to faiths which do require these things. Actually, I have a great sympathy, actually, for the desire to have ones faith recognised in the workplace in a way analogous to Muslims or Sikhs, say. However, we have to confront the fact that because we don't have dress or behaviour codes that impact the workplace in that kind of way, we have to recognise that we can't 'go and do likewise'. What's more, these kinds of attempts to do so run the risk of bringing Christian faith into disrepute because they do smack of 'me too'-ism. Can't we celebrate the freedom our faith has rather than seek strictures and markers to make us like other nations -sorry- religions?

What we could, perhaps, argue is that workplaces should make access to Christian chaplains or somesuch possible because the flexibility of Christian faith means that Christians need to consider more carefully the way that they integrate their faith and their work ... but I'm not sure that really works. It is probably the only kind of approach that has any chance of sitting with the 'essential to faith' clause in equality and diversity legislation. The difficulty would be that this is probably something that other faiths would also wish to argue: on tap advice on how shariah applies, or what might be kosher ... And would we really want to outsource Christian theological reflection to 'experts'? Don't we want to develop Christian reflective practice in the whole of life? Only if chaplains would encourage 'self-theologising' on the part of workplace Christians can they be justified in Christian terms.

It ought to be our concern for the welfare of our co-workers and for justice, peace and right-doing that marks us out, not the ability to make demands of our employers or be paid up members of the awkward squad. That way, when something important comes up, we aren't simply dismissed but have a reservoir of respect and good will to draw on.
Christian nurse loses battle to wear crucifix at work | UK news | guardian.co.uk: