Sign in Subscribe
The Discerner

The List With 117 Names On It

The List With 117 Names On It

I have been thinking all week about a list with 117 names on it.

On July 8, Amnesty International UK published a report titled "A growing threat: the anti-rights movement in the UK." It named 117 organizations as part of what it called an ecosystem sharing values, goals, strategy and tactics. Among them were Christian charities most British believers would recognize: the Evangelical Alliance, CARE, the Christian Institute, the Christian Medical Fellowship, Premier Christian Media Trust. Their offense, as the signatories of a later protest letter put it, was disagreeing with Amnesty on contested questions like preborn life, sexuality, and biological sex.

Then something unusual happened. Amnesty took the report down.

By the end of July, eleven Christian organizations had written to the Charity Commission, the UK's charity regulator, asking it to affirm that faith based groups may engage in public moral debate without being branded a threat. The Commission confirmed it has opened a compliance case into Amnesty International UK's charitable trust. Amnesty, for its part, expressed regret and said the report's language does not reflect its position. JK Rowling, whose gender critical allies were also on the list, had threatened legal action of her own.

I want to be careful here, because the temptation in writing about this story is to gloat, and gloating is a spiritual dead end.

Here is what I actually felt when I read the list: a small, cold drop in the stomach. Because a label like anti-rights is not an argument. It is a verdict. It does not say you are wrong about when life begins or what marriage is. It says you are the kind of person who takes rights away, and decent people do not debate with such a person. They exclude him. The report even floated reviewing the charity status of some listed groups. That is the quiet machinery of exclusion beginning to turn.

And I had to sit with an uncomfortable question: what do I do when the label lands on me?

Jesus told us to expect this. Blessed are you when others revile you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. But I notice the word falsely, and I notice on my account. The blessing is not for being obnoxious and getting called obnoxious. It is for being faithful and getting called dangerous. Which means the first discipline, when the label comes, is honest self examination. Is any of it true? Do I hold my convictions about life and marriage with contempt for the people who disagree? Sometimes, if I am honest, I have. The label is wrong about the faith. It is not always wrong about me.

The second discipline is the one the eleven organizations modeled, and it is the reason I wanted to write about this story. They did not rage. They did not launch a boycott or flood anyone's mentions. They wrote a letter. A patient, specific, almost boring letter to the appropriate regulator, pointing out that 117 wildly different organizations cannot honestly be described as one coordinated movement, and asking the Commission to say plainly that Christians arguing their convictions in public are participating in civic life, not attacking it. To speak of these organisations collectively, the letter said, constitutes at best a lazy generalisation.

That is what meekness looks like in an institutional age. Not weakness. Precision without venom.

And here is the part I keep returning to: it worked, at least partly, before the letter was even sent. The report came down. A human rights organization looked again at its own work and withdrew it. I do not know the internal story, and I will not pretend to. But I know that outcomes like this are why we are told not to repay reviling with reviling. The withdrawal of a bad report is a small mercy. It is also a reminder that institutions are made of people, and people can think again.

The lesson I am taking into Sunday is this. The world will sometimes hand you a label instead of an argument. You cannot control that. You can control whether the label is false, and you can control what you reach for in response: the flamethrower or the letter. One of these is a witness.

The believers on that list spent July being called a threat to human rights. They answered by quietly defending the idea that everyone, including their opponents, benefits when moral questions can be debated in the open. That is not anti-rights. That is what keeping the light looks like.

Sources

Read next

Comments ()