±«Óãtv

It occurs to me that something curious has been going on on the blog recently, and perhaps all the christians of all shades, shapes and flavours are guilty. Interestingly it might be understood by considering the BNP's use of the question, "What would Jesus do?", the use of a bible verse and their suggestion that their policies are in line with the teachings of Jesus.

(In fact even little old Heliopolitan has been ensnared in the web saying recently, "that Jesus might be a handy enough story scaffold or mnemonic for the secular ethical life") Sorry Helio, couldnt resist.

The bit which interests me is that we are all keen to point out the Jesus agrees with us, or that we agree with Jesus or some version or other of this kind of thinking. Maybe its that we think that our version of Jesus is more palatable than the Jesus presented by others, our version of Jesus is obviously more loving or more holy or more something than everybody else's.

Strange isn't it that we all want Jesus on our side.

I'm just not sure he's that much of a poodle.

And... just to be clear, cos misunderstanding is, at times, rife on the blog, I'm not writing in support of the BNP.

explain peter ... what's the strange and curious thing thats been going on on the blog here recently?

I think he means that we all seem to have a deep insught into Jesus' inner psychology, and that we all know he'd agree with our ethics over everyone elses.

Anyway, wouldn't Jesus need to be British to vote BNP? And why would a Jew vote for anti-semites?

GV

In light of the first few posts of this thread, it might be appropriate to bring up a quote of how it can work in the other direction too. People might claim jesus to think what they think, but also to disagree with what they disagree with:

"You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do." Anne Lamott

Sentiments from one of our homophobic regular posters and quotes from Leviticus to support them readily spring to mind.

Peter

Both aspects of the desire to claim the 'mind of Jesus' in order to affirm my view of the world were in my thinking. Maybe I've just reached the stage that the more I participate in this blog, the less I feel I want to say.

i imagine there are a few racists out there who would use the Bible, even today, to make their case. that approach has a long history

One of the more irritating things on this site is when someone declares, "God says.." or "God said.." What?*!?

God didnt actually, I mean actually, say anything.

Another irritant is "Traditional Christian teaching says..." They then make a statement which is derived from the Old Testament or St Paul and has little or nothing to do with Jesus Christ. (Given what Jesus says about who is mother and his brothers and his sisters are, and the fact that he actively took husbands and fathers away from their wives and families, and that he wasnt married, I could make a powerful argument that Christ wasnt very Christian!!)

It would seem to me that if someone wants to claim 'the mind of Christ', best to stick to what Christ is supposed to have said and did and argue from there.

But then a lot of Christians would have to drop a lot of prejudices, were that to happen.

Dr Rowan Williams a poet more than an Archbishop. As an Episcopalian I am discouraged by this latest gaff from said Archbishop. Who is he to say to whom the electorate can vote and not vote for. Dr Williams should not be concerned with the Temporal Politics of these islands and should consider the spitritual need of the folk within his own Church. Funny that the BNP go into areas and preach their message, in areas that the Archbishop or indeed Labourite/Tory/Liberials fear to tread.

Of course given that we do not live in early Palestine it would be hard to know if Christ would vote for the BNP or the Peoples Front of Judea.

"'Christians have been deeply disturbed by the conscious adoption by the BNP of the language of our faith when the effect of those policies is not to promote those values but to foster fear and division within communities, especially between people of different faiths or racial background.'"

It seems to me to be a question of usurpation of power and authority. Fostering fear and division is something Christian religious leaders have traditionally jealously regarded as their provence alone.

When I first heard about the Archbishops' comments, and their advice to "me" as a Christian (and also an Anglican, as it happens) about how I should or rather should not vote, I felt a bit like certain American voters must have felt when they received letters from British people advising them not to vote for George Bush.

This was a ridiculous project run by The Guardian called "Operation Clark County", and you can read about it here:

OK, I grant that the Archbishops have every right to state their opinions, but it would have been a bit more pleasant if they had actually encouraged Christians to think for ourselves (and some of you sceptical types might like to know that there are indeed Christians who can think for themselves!).

This is so typical of the patronising attitude in parts of the church, which really can only backfire. If there is one sure way to encourage people to vote for the BNP, that is the way to go about it. I mean can you imagine a disaffected and alienated white person in our society being more likely to agree with the opinions of two relatively wealthy men in purple frocks who are detached from his way of life, rather than listening to BNP activists who may seem to be more in tune with his concerns?

Talking about Jesus Christ - he mixed with ordinary people, and did not present an image of religious and "other-worldly" detachment. Perhaps the Archbishops could reflect on that.

" mean can you imagine a disaffected and alienated white person in our society being more likely to agree with the opinions of two relatively wealthy men in purple frocks who are detached from his way of life, rather than listening to BNP activists who may seem to be more in tune with his concerns?"

Exactly my point. I don't recall the Welsh poet traveling to the more economically poorer areas of England. Areas where the only folk that seem to listen are the BNP. This gives the BNP an advantage.

The churches demand of their followers that only they can tell you whom to hate, when to hate them, and why. One year they may tell you to hate Jews. Another the Catholic Church may tell their followers to hate Protestants, the Protestant Church will tell its followers to hate Catholics. Now both Churches will tell their followers to hate homosexuals. They will not stand idly by and have the BNP come along and divert their followers by telling them to hate foreigners or Molsems or whomever they want people to hate. So I see this as the Churches re-asserting their own authority. Now next year it may be people who are left handed or those with green eyes. But this year it's homosexuals. Get with the program Christians, the messengers of god have spoken. Obey or be cast out into the darkness with the evil one.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

The B.N.P. say that the archbishops are not speaking for the public and that they are.
I would like to say that I am "the public and I agree with the archbishops. I am not a member of the Church of England but I am a Christian and feel that unless the leaders of the B.N.P. have accepted Jesus as their personal saviour and therefore recognise Him as the Saviour of the world, who has compassion on all sinners, outcasts, homeless, sick and needy, then they have no right to use his name to back their cause.
I would be interested to know whether they have, (accepted Jesus as their Saviour) but think I know the answer, as their views are not compatible with His teaching.

I wonder whos pulling the strings of these two puppets, I guess the dirty tricks department within the British government, because whether we like it or not these two Bishops are politicians who sit in the House of Lords as well as being clergymen. They are no better than the Chinese government who have prevented a prayer letter from B16 to Catholics in China from being published through the internet by blocking Chinese public excess to the Vaticans website. Do these two prelates really want to do away with free choice and democracy, regardless how of unpalatable the choices may be.

"The B.N.P. say that the archbishops are not speaking for the public and that they are."

How European. It seems to me in a real democracy nobody "speaks" for the people except the people themselves at the voting booths. Given how the British public has been railroaded time and again on crucial issues such as ceding sovereignty to the EU in Brussels, seemingly by all their elected politicians with hardly much outcry and almost no public debate they don't have much to say. When you get down to it, IMO Britain is not really a democracy at all which is why its population is so easily cowed by its government, its religious leaders, anyone in authority. Its citizens grow up being taught that they must bow to the dictates of authority no matter what it does.

#16 - Marcus - "How European. It seems to me in a real democracy nobody "speaks" for the people except the people themselves at the voting booths."

Essentially I agree with what you are saying. That is why I have commented that I don't agree with the Archbishops' meddling, which I think is self-defeating. Much as I dislike and disagree with the BNP, they are, after all, on the ballet paper, whether the establishment likes it or not, and they have a not insignificant degree of support in the country. The more the establishment tries to ostracise them, the more popular they are likely to become, because the "protest" element is added to the attraction of voting for them.

What really annoys me is the way Christian churches take the views of their members - or Christians in general - for granted. We are not a tribe living in awe of the witchdoctor or big chief. As a Christian I refuse to be told that there is an expectation on the part of the church leadership that I should vote in a certain way. As someone who has a considerable knowledge - from the inside - of the Christian subculture in this country, I know that there are some Christian leaders who are fond of talking about "our people" or even "my people", as if to say: "I can order 'my people' around as if they are little tin soldiers". I am not suggesting the Archbishops think like that, but it is a problem in some of the so-called "new churches".

I am aware of your views about "Europe" (whatever that is supposed to mean), but you have to admit that the USA also has a major problem with this - just look at the religious right, and the way prominent evangelical leaders try to sway millions of Christians in that country to vote Republican. Surely that was the whole point of the Sarah Palin project, wasn't it?

As a liberal Anglican there are few in my church whom I despise more than Rowan Williams so it pains me to speak in his defence. In this case, however, the Archbishops' letter is a model and moderate response to the misappropriation of the image of Christ by the BNP. It would have been moral cowardice of the highest degree and an utter abnegation of their responsibility to provide ethical leadership and guidance to the Church if its leaders had failed to rebut the ghastly message of Britain's neo-fascists.

RighteousHolyKnight - both Archbishops have visited deprived areas of Britain on many occasions and the Anglican church is actively involved in the promotion of social justice and welfare in those areas. Your assertions are ill-informed and ridiculous. Further, pace PeterM, anyone who does not know that Christ would not vote BNP quite simply does not know Christ.

Portwyne

(Sorry, I'm clarifying again!)

I agree the BNP have misused the name of Jesus, my concern in post one was that I do too at times, and I have a suspicion others do aswell.

I was also concerned that my comments might be misread as suggesting that the BNP had a case for using the words of Jesus.

For me, their use of the words about persecution in their ad are a perfect example of some trying to invoke (wrongly) the name of Jesus in support of their cause. My concern is that 'me', (or anyone) invoking his name to make 'my' case usually means that I have a pretty weak case!

It had always struck me as odd that the words "I follow Christ" were linked to the words, "I follow Paul", or "I follow Apollos", until I realised that the emphasis is on the 'I' and that that is where the difficulty lies.

I hope this is clear, I'm not sure it is.

HappyHippyPuritan

Are you saying we *should* vote BNP? Or just that the C of E is as oppressive as the People's Republic?

GV

#18 - portwyne - "It would have been moral cowardice of the highest degree and an utter abnegation of their responsibility to provide ethical leadership and guidance to the Church if its leaders had failed to rebut the ghastly message of Britain's neo-fascists."

In principle I agree with your point, but my concern is the question of whether the Archbishops really have provided ethical leadership to those many ordinary people (most of whom are probably not racists or neo-fascists) who are likely to vote for the BNP. Has the church addressed the real concerns people have about the issues the BNP exploit?

I loathe the BNP, a party I most certainly do regard as racist. My livelihood involves an activity which is actually dependent, to some extent, on immigration into the UK, and so I am personally concerned about the influence of the BNP. However, it would be dishonest of me to say that I cannot understand the worries people have about immigration, multiculturalism, soft justice towards hideous offenders and the influence of the EU (and I am actually a supporter of the EU). The Church should not only stand up to racism and the cynical exploitation of people's fears, but also have the guts to challenge the insidious culture of political correctness in which anyone who dares to voice certain genuine concerns openly is stigmatised and then dismissed as a bigot or racist. Now facing up to both these categories of evil would be real moral courage.

There is nothing intrinsically wrong with desiring some kind of national identity (which of course should not be dependent on skin colour) - and this is an issue here in England. I acknowledge that Archbishop Sentamu has addressed this very question, but people feel angry that virtually no other country in the world would tolerate any policy which undermines their sense of national identity. In fact, those on the political left often criticise colonialism - and neo-colonialism - for exporting western culture to the developing world. They show concern for the integrity of local culture and identity, and yet when this applies to our own country, they seem to take the opposite position.

There is a great deal of hypocrisy on this issue, and the BNP are exploiting this sense of grievance. Simply banning the BNP - or condemning the party without expressing an understanding as to why people vote for them and, most importantly of all, without suggesting a viable alternative - will only inflame this grievance not quash it.