The Bishop of Rochester's views on Islam have provoked outrage within the Muslim community, along with criticism from politicians and academics. We can be glad that few other Christians have backed him up. More worryingly, very few have spoken out against him.

The bishop, Michael Nazir-Ali, published an article this week accusing Muslims of creating "no-go areas" and lashing out at mosques that play the call to prayer through loudspeakers. He lamented the loss of Britain's "Christian basis", criticised multifaith chaplaincies and insisted that the Anglican Establishment was being "eroded".

As a Christian, I am disgusted by the Bishop's promotion of a style of Christianity that is prejudiced, power-hungry and yearning for the past. As a Quaker, I am very aware that many Christian groups have themselves faced centuries of persecution and discrimination within "Christian Britain". And I am horrified that Nazir-Ali has chosen to stoke Islamophobic prejudice with baseless claims.

But most of all, I am staggered that there has not been more criticism of his views from Christian commentators. When an extremist Muslim vents his prejudice, the media are quick to call on "moderate Muslims" to distance themselves. Why is the same thing not expected of the Christian community?

There has been no lack of disagreement with Nazir-Ali's remarks from other quarters. William Hague, the shadow foreign secretary - hardly an apologist for extremism - said "I'm not sure where these no-go areas are; I don't recognise that description."

Imam Ibrahim Mogra of Leicester was taken aback by the bishop's attack on the call to prayer. "I cannot understand why a man of faith would have problems with God's name being called out," he said. "We've had church bells ringing in our country for centuries."

I am pleased to say that there are some exceptions to the lack of response from Christians. The Bishop of Hulme, Stephen Lowe, emphasised that most Muslims, like most Christians, are not extremists. The Christian thinktank Ekklesia invited Nazir-Ali to "consider a positive, alternative future in which Christians become known for modelling new possibilities of peace and justice rather than competing for control". But from most Anglican bishops - and leaders of other denominations - there has been little more than dull silence.

Of all people, Christian leaders might be expected to concern themselves with public perceptions of Christianity. By keeping their mouths shut, they risk appearing to endorse Nazir-Ali's views, harming interfaith relations and perpetuating the damaging rhetoric of the "Christian nation", which only makes Christians appear as bad losers rather than as positive contributors to a multicultural society.

I am convinced that the Christian silence is not due to agreement with Nazir-Ali's prejudices. My experience of Christianity - in its many forms - is that while bigots may shout loudest they remain in a minority. In recent years, active Christians in Britain have quietly become more radical on social issues, as can be seen from the major Christian contributions to Make Poverty History, the anti-Trident movement and recent campaigns against the arms trade. So why are we are not reading about Christians lining up to disagree with Nazir-Ali?

The situation cannot be blamed solely on the media. It is true that extremists make better news than compromisers, but we cannot simply say that balanced Christian views would appear more often if only journalists would report on them. The reality is that most Christian organisations are not geared up for media engagement and that very few make it a priority. Many bishops and denominations employ hard-working and competent press officers. But I know from experience that most Christian press offices are understaffed, underfunded and hampered by a culture that gives low value to media work. When a faith-related story hits the headlines, seizing the opportunity for comment is not the natural reaction of most Christian leaders.

Attempts to promote progressive Christianity are also diverted by a misplaced desire for unity. I have little doubt that at least a few bishops have been put off criticising Nazir-Ali because they don't want the Church to appear divided. The result is that the publicity goes to those who will speak first and think later. The most grotesque example of this is in the Church of England's debates over homosexuality. Whereas the homophobes tend to prioritise their views on sexuality over the desire for unity, many (but by no means all) inclusive Anglicans are so desperate not to split the Church of England that they are prepared to make huge compromises with the reactionaries' demands.

Alongside this fear of disunity sits another fear that frequently haunts the minds of liberal Christians and deters them from publicity and media engagement. I have known many liberal Christians to be scared of "forcing their views" on to others. Of course, it is vital that we respect others' positions and do not seek merely to convert individuals to our own worldview. But that is very different from not standing up for what you believe to be right. Taken to extremes, the logical conclusion of this position is never to express a view on anything.

And while progressive Christians are not expressing views, the stage belongs to reactionaries. This is not the first time that Nazir-Ali has casually publicised his prejudices, knowing that most Christians disagree with him but that he can nonetheless get away with it. In 2000, he described married couples who choose not to have children as "self-indulgent" and three years later he was almost alone among Britain's Christian leaders in supporting the invasion of Iraq. Michael Nazir-Ali is the sort of person who makes Christianity an easy target for the likes of Richard Dawkins.

Both reactionary religion and militant secularism are on the rise, with both displaying a rigid certainty and a desire for power that will do nothing to benefit society. In this context, it is vital that people with open-minded faith speak up and demonstrate alternatives. [altmuslim.com has] set many good examples in this regard. It is now time for progressive Christians to articulate a clear, confident vision distinct from the "Christian" prejudice and oppression characteristic of the British Empire, to which Michael Nazir-Ali is so keen to return.

Source: Comment is Free, The Guardian (UK)