# Christian teacher



## Abaye

A story resurfaced in Ireland about a "*Christian teacher* who refused to use gender-neutral pronouns".
As nearly everyone in Ireland is Christian, the title "Christian" cannot merely refer to the teacher's religion.
The teacher teaches History and German, so "Christian" doesn't refer to the curriculum.

Therefore, does "Christian" here mean that the man is devoted to his religion, or anything else?


----------



## suzi br

It means he’s “claiming” his religion to justify his behaviour.


----------



## Abaye

suzi br said:


> It means he’s “claiming” his religion to justify his behaviour.


Are you saying it's a sarcastic title in the dailymail.co.uk that published it, or is it you who's sarcastic here?
(Honest question, sorry if it sounds dumb).


----------



## CaptainZero

Abaye said:


> Are you saying it's a sarcastic title in the dailymail.co.uk that published it, or is it you who's sarcastic here?
> (Honest question, sorry if it sounds dumb).


There's no sarcasm there. The teacher's Christianity seems only to be mentioned there because the news article is indicating the reason for the teacher's refusal to use gender-neutral pronouns. People who have strong Christian beliefs are more likely to refuse to use such pronouns.



Abaye said:


> As nearly everyone in Ireland is Christian


There's a difference between being nominally Christian and strongly, or devotedly Christian. Many people who may identify as Christian are only nominally Christian.

*Nominal*: (of a role or status) existing in name only (Oxford)


----------



## cidertree

The qualification that's missing from Christian, in this case, is "evangelical". The use of 'Christian' to describe the teacher comes from his own use of that label - he belongs to a family _"known for their conservative religious activism and involvement in high-profile legal cases and protests in Ireland."_ (Wikipedia)


----------



## suzi br

Abaye said:


> Are you saying it's a sarcastic title in the dailymail.co.uk that published it, or is it you who's sarcastic here?
> (Honest question, sorry if it sounds dumb).



The Daily mail is a rightwing paper and generally likely to be sympathetic to anything conservative. So no, not sarcastic. 
I am not sarcastic either. My comment is factual.


----------



## natkretep

The story is in the _Daily Mail_: Christian 'anti-transgenderism' teacher in jail for Christmas

It is also in the Christian magazine _Christianity Today_: Christian teacher who refused to use gender neutral pronouns jailed for contempt of court

It uses the same label 'Christian', and it is not to be read as sarcasm. There are no 'scare quotes'. It just refers to the teacher's self-profession.


----------



## Wordy McWordface

The majority of people in Ireland, and in the UK, _are_ nominally Christian, but they do not generally describe themselves as such. These people quietly go about their lives, attending church regularly, occasionally or rarely, but do not make a fuss about it or even refer to their Christianity. When asked to specify their religion when filling in a form, for example, people will define themselves as Roman Catholic, Anglican, Church of Scotland, Methodist or whatever denomination is relevant.

The term _Christian _sometimes tends to have a rather "holier than thou" connotation. In my experience, the only people who proclaim themselves publicly as _Christians _are the more fanatical ones - especially those who see fit to impose their beliefs on others.

This may be different in other English-speaking countries, of course.


----------



## cidertree

Wordy McWordface said:


> The term _Christian _sometimes tends to have a rather "holier than thou" connotation. In my experience, the only people who proclaim themselves publicly as _Christians _are the more fanatical ones - especially those who see fit to impose their beliefs on others.


Perfectly applicable in this particular case.


----------



## Uncle Jack

Abaye said:


> As nearly everyone in Ireland is Christian


I doubt it. A majority, quite likely, but not "nearly everyone".



Wordy McWordface said:


> The majority of people in Ireland, and in the UK, _are_ nominally Christian


Not in England and Wales according to the latest census data: England and Wales now minority Christian countries, census reveals


----------



## cidertree

Uncle Jack said:


> I doubt it. A majority, quite likely, but not "nearly everyone".


It depends on the way you look at it. The (vast) majority are baptized - for one reason or another - and tend to reflect that on the census forms. 'Practicing' Christians, on the other hand, are definitely in the minority - weekly mass attendance is as low as 2-3 per cent in some parishes.


----------



## Abaye

Uncle Jack said:


> I doubt it. A majority, quite likely, but not "nearly everyone".


Wikipedia says "predominantly Christian", which is better of course than my amateurish phrasing.
No offence intended toward Christians / Non-Christians in Ireland.


----------



## cidertree

From a baptized atheist, none taken.


----------



## PaulQ

Abaye said:


> A story resurfaced in Ireland about a "*Christian teacher* who refused to use gender-neutral pronouns".


Somewhat typically of the Daily Mail, the headline is inaccurate and misleading. The facts can be found at Fact Check-Irish teacher Enoch Burke was jailed for contempt of court. 

The use of the word "Christian" as opposed to Protestant, may have been used as a politically correct term in Ireland where religious feelings can run high.


----------



## cidertree

PaulQ said:


> The use of the word "Christian" as opposed to Protestant, may have been used as a politically correct term in Ireland where religious feelings can run high


No, it wouldn't have been. Religious feelings don't run all that high in Ireland, except in the North - at times.


----------



## CaptainZero

Wordy McWordface said:


> In my experience, the only people who proclaim themselves publicly as _Christians _are the more fanatical ones



I think many entirely non-fanatical Christians would define themselves as Christian, rather than Catholic, Presbyterian, Methodist, or whatever, because they see those denominations as irrelevant to the age we live in.


----------



## cidertree

Or wouldn't mention it at all...


----------



## PaulQ

cidertree said:


> Religious feelings don't run all that high in Ireland, except in the North - at times.


I suspect you are right, but this is the Daily Mail, which also appears in Ulster and Scotland. The Irish Times (Enoch Burke to remain in jail as he refuses to purge contempt) report does not refer to Burke himself as "Christian" but does give the proper reason for his detention.

I feel the question goes to why the strange "Christian" was used instead of Protestant, Catholic, etc., and there's probably a reason for that.


----------



## CaptainZero

cidertree said:


> Or wouldn't mention it at all...



... unless they were compelled to, by being under threat of persecution for their beliefs.


----------



## cidertree

PaulQ said:


> I feel the question goes to why the strange "Christian" was used instead of Protestant, Catholic, etc., and there's probably a reason for that.


Yes, I see your point. It does bear the hallmarks of the 'persecuted majority' narrative.


----------



## glamorgan

Abaye said:


> A story resurfaced in Ireland about a "*Christian teacher* who refused to use gender-neutral pronouns".
> As nearly everyone in Ireland is Christian, the title "Christian" cannot merely refer to the teacher's religion.
> The teacher teaches History and German, so "Christian" doesn't refer to the curriculum.
> 
> Therefore, does "Christian" here mean that the man is devoted to his religion, or anything else?


In Ireland, the Republic, there are two main Christian denominations, the Catholic Church and the protestant Church of Ireland. Members of these Churches usually describe themselves either as Catholic or Church of Ireland. There is also an Evangelical Christian movement which is independent of both the main Churches. Someone described solely as a "Christian" is likely to be an Evangelical Christian. This is also the case in England.


----------



## Wordy McWordface

That's interesting to know, Glamorgan. I suspected that might be the case. As Cidertree said, the Evangelical aspect is key.
For "Christian", read "Evangelical Christian".  I hope the picture is getting clearer, Abaye.


----------



## natkretep

In the _Daily Mail_ report, Burke's father is quoted as saying that his son was brought up in a Christian family, and his mother said that her son was denied his constitutional right to express his Christian belief. The word has been used in the discussion, so the press is only picking up the word from there. I don't see why we need to read so much into it. I'm happy to take the word at face value: Christian, as in follower of Christ. (And maybe the implication: others are not true followers of Christ.)


----------



## glamorgan

natkretep said:


> In the _Daily Mail_ report, Burke's father is quoted as saying that his son was brought up in a Christian family, and his mother said that her son was denied his constitutional right to express his Christian belief. The word has been used in the discussion, so the press is only picking up the word from there. I don't see why we need to read so much into it. I'm happy to take the word at face value: Christian, as in follower of Christ. (And maybe the implication: others are not true followers of Christ.)


I don’t think you can take the word “Christian” at face value. There are many varieties of Christianity. In Ireland and England, someone who describes themselves as a “Christian”, without any further indication of their religious associations, is more likely to be a member of an Evangelical Christian church than of either the Catholic Church or the Church of England/ Ireland.


----------



## Myridon

In American English, we would take the word "Christian" at face value in this context because we don't have this history of conflict between Catholicism and the Church of England. Generally, almost all of them are the same for the purposes of this context.  As a stereotype, all Christians look down upon anything non-traditional in the area of sex and gender.


----------



## Uncle Jack

PaulQ said:


> I feel the question goes to why the strange "Christian" was used instead of Protestant, Catholic, etc., and there's probably a reason for that.


What's strange about it? "Christian" is an ordinary word. Why mention the denomination if it does not matter? I don't think any church is particularly progressive when it comes to gender identity. After all in many Bibles, Genesis 1:27 is on the very first page of text: So God created man in his _own_ image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. (King James Version).


----------



## ain'ttranslationfun?

Wordy McWordface said:


> The majority of people in Ireland, and in the UK, _are_ nominally Christian, but they do not generally describe themselves as such. These people quietly go about their lives, attending church regularly, occasionally or rarely, but do not make a fuss about it or even refer to their Christianity. When asked to specify their religion when filling in a form, for example, people will define themselves as Roman Catholic, Anglican, Church of Scotland, Methodist or whatever denomination is relevant.
> 
> The term _Christian _sometimes tends to have a rather "holier than thou" connotation. In my experience, the only people who proclaim themselves publicly as _Christians _are the more fanatical ones - especially those who see fit to impose their beliefs on others.
> 
> This may be different in other English-speaking countries, of course.



In the USA, many people who proclaim that they are "Christians" do not practice what Christ preached. They also tend to think that others who consider themselves "Christians" but who do not share their particular definition of what "Christianity" is are not "real Christians".


----------



## Wordy McWordface

ain'ttranslationfun? said:


> In the USA, many people who proclaim that they are "Christians" do not practice what Christ preached. They also tend to think that others who consider themselves "Christians" but who do not share their particular definition of what "Christianity" is are not "real Christians".


That's not very, um... Christian of them, is it?


----------



## PaulQ

Uncle Jack said:


> What's strange about it?


It's too generic to convey useful information. There is an almost endless list of Christian sects that could have been used in the description. It turns out that he is of some fundamentalist Evangelical sect which explains his actions - something that "Christian" does not.


----------



## cissy3

Just out of interest I decided to look up the questions about religion on the census forms.

From a sample census form from Eire:






From a sample census form from England:


----------



## cidertree

"Christian", in the OP, should probably be read as the type of person who 'lives by the faith', and will do everything in their power to make sure that everyone else is obliged to. Depending on the slant of the article, and the opinions of the expected readership, "Christian" would mean 'martyr to the faith', or 'religious fanatic'.


----------



## elroy

PaulQ said:


> It's too generic to convey useful information.


It does convey useful information.  Context!  It’s perfectly clear in this context that (1) they are Christian,  (2) this is the reason they refused to use gender-neutral pronouns, and (3) therefore according to their brand of Christianity or their particular interpretation of what it means to be Christian, gender-neutral pronouns should not be used.  All of that is clearly conveyed without specifying the denomination they adhere to.


----------



## dojibear

glamorgan said:


> There are many varieties of Christianity.


There are a wide variety of beliefs among Christians. There is not one set of doctrinal beliefs. Yes, it all started with the teaching of one person, but that person taught in Aramaic. It was later written down in Greek. Then it was translated into Latin, then English. And scholars debated every tiny detail for centuries.



elroy said:


> (3) that therefore according to their brand of Christianity or their particular interpretation of what it means to be Christian, gender-neutral pronouns should not be used.


This "should not" seems very odd to me. But religious beliefs (not just Christian ones) often seem odd to me. It is not surprising to me that some people have views that don't match mine. Yes, really!

I think that often it is what their sect teaches, not each individual weighing the meaning of "being Christian". For example my church (unlike many Christian churches) strongly discourages smoking and drinking. So I don't do them.


----------



## glamorgan

Earlier in this discussion I wrote (21 & 24) that in Ireland and England, someone described or self-described solely as a "Christian" is likely to be a member of an Evangelical Christian Church rather than a member of either the Catholic Church or the Church of Ireland/ England. This is certainly true of the teacher mentioned in item 1, but I find the term "Evangelical Christian Church" rather unsatisfactory. Perhaps "Non-denominational Church" might be an improvement.


----------



## PaulQ

elroy said:


> therefore according to *their brand* of Christianity or *their particular interpretation* of what it means to be Christian


... and that is why on its own, "Christian" is insufficient - you have qualified "Christian" - *their brand/particular interpretation *of Christianity - so why wasn't their "brand" mentioned or used?


----------



## elroy

It was not mentioned because it was not necessary to convey the desired meaning. 



PaulQ said:


> ... and that is why on its own, "Christian" is insufficient - you have qualified "Christian" - *their brand/particular interpretation *of Christianity


No.  I gave an _explanation_ of what is already conveyed without any extra words.


----------



## glamorgan

PaulQ said:


> ... and that is why on its own, "Christian" is insufficient - you have qualified "Christian" - *their brand/particular interpretation *of Christianity - so why wasn't their "brand" mentioned or used?


The Wikipedia article on "Nondenominational Christianity" states that members of an 18th Century movement originating in the USA organised themselves "simply as '*Christians*' and 'Disciples of Christ'". I think it is quite likely that this custom continues to exist in modern worldwide Nondenominational Christianity.


----------



## PaulQ

This may be so, but what it does 
(i) is unhelpful to the vast majority of people/readers who were unaware of that _self-proclaimed_ definition, i.e. it is part of a sociolect;
(ii) is the equivalent of printing " _ἄγνωστος" _and hoping your readers will understand that you mean agnostic, and
(iii) is somewhat arrogant, as it would imply that (a) they are one true sect of the one true God and (b) all the other sects are merely social clubs who have got it wrong and are damned.
(iv) should not be encourage as it gives a misleading impression to those unaware of the philosophy of Christianity in general.

For those reasons an unqualified "Christian" is inappropriate and misleading in this context.


----------



## elroy

The use of “Christian” was appropriate and not misleading: four people have agreed with my post so far, whereas you are the only one who is objecting to the usage.

I won’t address your four points in turn, but I disagree with all of them.


----------



## natkretep

Yes, I agree with elroy. I think it is entirely possible that family are Catholic, Church of Ireland, Presbyterian, Baptist and so on, as opposed to something non-denominational or independent. If you're asked to defend your position, you'll want to claim membership of the larger group to garner more support. They will want to say they are faithful to Christian (and therefore Christ's) teachings, rather than the teachings of, say, the Presbyterian church.

I also think of this year's _Great British Bake Off _if anyone watched it. One of the contestants, Kevin, self-identifies as Christian, and says their family didn't go for ghoulish decorations for Halloween. As he is Scottish, I assumed he was Church of Scotland. He could be non-denominational, but I don't think that is necessarily so because he says he's 'Christian'. I didn't conclude that he was non-mainstream.


----------



## Roxxxannne

Perhaps we are looking at another difference between the US and the UK.  If this were taking place in the US, I would not expect Mr. Burke's family to be "Catholic ..., Presbyterian, Baptist and so on" (to quote #40).  If I saw that article in a newspaper in the US, I would expect someone who identifies simply as "Christian"_ in that context_ to be an evangelical Christian. In addition, he is further described by people in the linked article in #14 as evangelical Christian.  

This website lists seven articles of faith and describes the characteristics of evangelical Christianity, which includes several denominations under its umbrella.


----------



## MattiasNYC

PaulQ,

I think the question here is how you deliver information in a headline in a news article, or rather how much specific information you choose to deliver. In this case it's fair to ask just what I need to know about this case. 

By reading the headline as a whole I will come away with the following impression:

- A teacher is jailed
- The teacher is a Christian
- Because of his religious beliefs he refused to use mandated pronouns
- Sucks for the teacher because_ they're Christian, spending Christmas in jail

I get all of that just from the headline._ 

So the question is why I need the religious belief parsed finer than that? Fine, it could have read "Religious teacher jailed", but since you seem to argue _for _greater granularity "Christian" is better. And I think it's worth noting that it's entirely possible that this particular person never stated his specific denomination or specific interpretation of Christianity to the newspaper or to the court in question (who didn't think it was relevant anyway). So without that specificity it would be impossible to "accurately" parse "Christian" any finer. The teacher is professing a belief and describing it himself, so what is one to do at that point? It would be just as bad for the paper to incorrectly ascribe a denomination to him as it is to assume all Christians have the same set of core beliefs. At least this way we know the person is a (self-proclaimed) Christian (true) and that it mattered in this case because it was the cause for why the teacher did and didn't do what they did (and didn't do).



PaulQ said:


> This may be so, but what it does
> (i) is unhelpful to the vast majority of people/readers who were unaware of that _self-proclaimed_ definition, i.e. it is part of a sociolect;
> (ii) is the equivalent of printing " _ἄγνωστος" _and hoping your readers will understand that you mean agnostic, and
> (iii) is somewhat arrogant, as it would imply that (a) they are one true sect of the one true God and (b) all the other sects are merely social clubs who have got it wrong and are damned.
> (iv) should not be encourage as it gives a misleading impression to those unaware of the philosophy of Christianity in general.
> 
> For those reasons an unqualified "Christian" is inappropriate and misleading in this context.


----------



## suzi br

Yes. 
There’s absolutely no need for any more precision in the headline. 
.


----------



## PaulQ

MattiasNYC said:


> "Religious teacher jailed", but since you seem to argue _for _greater granularity "Christian" is better.


Yes. Ireland is a country in which ~85% claim Christianity as their religion (Wikipedia). "Christian", on its own, therefore does nothing for "teacher".


----------



## glamorgan

PaulQ said:


> Yes. Ireland is a country in which ~85% claim Christianity as their religion (Wikipedia). "Christian", on its own, therefore does nothing for "teacher".


In which case, the question to ask is “Why does the newspaper report specifically mention the teacher’s religious affiliation, yet do so in such an apparently imprecise way?” As I have pointed out above, it is because he is an adherent of Evangelical Christianity, a non-denominational form of Christianity.


----------



## Myridon

Being transphobic is not what separates evangelical Christians from other Christians (nor are any of the extremist things that the Burke family have done).


----------



## glamorgan

Myridon said:


> Being transphobic is not what separates evangelical Christians from other Christians (nor are any of the extremist things that the Burke family have done).


I think I see the beginning of a topic drift so I’ll withdraw for a while.


----------



## elroy

PaulQ said:


> "Christian", on its own, therefore does nothing for "teacher".


That’s not the case in this particular context, as we’ve amply demonstrated.


----------

