Friday Night Theology

Respect, compromise and the pursuit of religious liberty

12 February 2010

When Davender Ghai, a devout Hindu, dies, he wants to be cremated on an open funeral pyre in accordance to his beliefs. Four years ago Newcastle City Council ruled that this would be illegal. Last year the High Court upheld this ruling. But this week the Court of Appeal has overturned these rulings, meaning that Ghai is a significant step closer to having his dying wishes become a reality.

For Ghai, this week's ruling is about much more than how his body is disposed of after his death. It's more about life than death. He believes that an open-air cremation will ensure an unhindered path to reincarnation. He wants to be prepared for the afterlife. In itself, that's something to think about and discuss this weekend!

What's interesting about this case is that it highlights the question of how we go about living out our beliefs, in what many would describe as an increasingly secular society. Should we be upfront or subversive?

Ghai could have been subversive. He could have asked his relatives to arrange an open-air cremation without informing the authorities. However, he decided to go through legal channels to confirm what an unclear law on cremation actually permitted. In one of his letters, Paul instructs his recipients to submit to the governing authorities (Romans 13:1-7). These verses have been the subject of much debate. However, the key value that Paul appears to be encouraging is one of respect. Whether we agree or disagree with those in authority we should approach them in a respectful manner.

But what should we do if there is conflict between the laws established by the authorities and our beliefs? It would appear that Ghai, in his pursuit of religious liberty, was not only respectful of authority; he was also prepared to compromise. During his latest court appearance he emphasised that he was happy to be cremated within a walled structure, with a roof, as long as the roof can open to ensure that sunlight falls onto his body. With the exact nature of his request clarified, the Court of Appeal ruled in his favour. Respect can be a catalyst for compromise, and compromise can be a positive outcome. The challenge for Christians, as it is for all those who hold strong beliefs, is to establish when compromise is acceptable and when compromise is not an option.

This week the supporters of religious liberty are celebrating a victory. I would suggest it is a victory that has occurred as a result of respect and compromise. This was also the approach taken by the Evangelical Alliance in its recent work on the equality bill. But what happens when we respectfully cannot compromise because to do so would be to deny our call to "hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught" (Titus 1:9)?

Phil Green, Public Theology Research Assistant