Satire and sacrilege

Dear Sir,

The article ‘Satire and Sacrilege’ in the March issue of en seems to miss the point of free speech. The right to free speech means nothing without the right to offend. Both Evangelicals and secularists teamed up in the Reform Section 5 campaign a few years ago and your February edition included a link to Jay Smith explaining why the Charlie Hebdo should have the right to publish material that offended him.

Offence is subjective and has been the basis of police action against several open-air preachers in recent years. If there is no right to offend, such police intervention is not only acceptable but entirely appropriate. If there is no right to ‘intentionally offend’, the very preaching of the gospel itself is verboten (cf. Romans 9.33; 1 Corinthians. 1.23; 1 Peter 2.8) knowing, as we do, the likelihood of it causing grave offence.

There may be inconsistency from governments banning Holocaust denial whilst permitting the Charlie Hebdo cartoons. But I truly struggle to see how the answer to such inconsistency is to ban more speech so as to level the playing field. Surely it makes more sense to simply permit what should never have been banned in the first place?

Freedom of speech is vital if the gospel is to be proclaimed. It is central that we be allowed to offend if the gospel is to go out. The gospel is a cause of offence and offence is a subjective measure. If evangelical Christians demand the right to offend with the gospel (as well we should), then we must accept that others have the right to offend us.

Yours sincerely,