(For our parish magazines. Meanwhile, if you want to read something really scarey, go to the government's ID cards website and read the press release, Benefits of Identity Cards will be delivered soon, Home Secretary tells Manchester. When you get to the piece which says that issuing prototype identity cards to workers at Manchester airport will “help ... kick start joint work to explore opportunities for streamlining airside pass regimes,” you realize that the truly frightening thing is not that these people have a cunning plan but that they really haven’t got a clue what they are talking about. They are committed to supporting the course of action irregardless of the possible consequences. Then look at this piece in the New Statesman: John Pilger sees freedom die quietly. What was so brilliant about the TV series In the Thick of It was the way that it showed our leaders as one suspects they truly are: people driven more by fear of office politics than by any truly grand designs. See this clip here on YouTube. The considerable swearing may offend some, but the fact that it is now clearly part of institutional ‘life at the top’ is also itself telling.)
******************
The Trouble with Freedom
Given that the Church of England has just decided to ban vicars from joining the British National Party, I feel now might be a good time to consider the question of freedom.
Not that I particularly wanted to join the BNP, but I can’t get over the nasty feeling that I am somehow less free today than I was a week ago.
Throughout human history, freedom has been a fundamental issue. The biblical story of the Exodus, for example, has inspired many other enslaved peoples. Long before Martin Luther-King’s cry of, “Free at last!”, Black American slaves were singing, “Go down, Moses,” to express their own hopes: “We need not always weep and mourn, Let my people go, And wear these slavery chains forlorn, Let my people go.”
But — and this is not as stupid a question as it might appear — why do we want to be free?
The most obvious reason might seem that people want to do what they want without interference from others. This is the ‘freedom’ which expresses itself in the language of ‘rights’: “I’ve got a right to — you can’t stop me.”
Yet this is really little more than selfishness, and it is not the ‘freedom to do what I want’ which motivates people to risk beatings, imprisonment and even death in order to gain it not just for themselves but for others.
Then there is another way of looking at freedom, which sees it primarily in terms of equality of treatment and opportunity. That seems to be the social model prevailing in our own society at the present.
But, as we are increasingly seeing, that may not be the same thing as freedom at all. In fact it may be, and I fear has become, a massive exercise in social conditioning, where what matters is not the freedom of the individual but the outcome desired by the Conditioners.
Of course, from the viewpoint of the Conditioners, these outcomes are ‘good’ for us. But the society geared to produce ‘desirable outcomes’ is quite different from one which aims at maximising freedom for its citizens.
Pigeons who have been taught to play ping-pong (it has been done), may seem cleverer to those who have taught them, but they are hardly more ‘pigeon-y’ as a result.
What may seem surprising to some, though, is the importance of freedom in the Christian understanding of humanity. Not that you’d guess this from looking at the historical record of the churches, which very often have been at the forefront of social control.
We must not forget, however, that Jesus was born into a society as tightly regulated in many ways as Islamic culture. Anyone familiar with Orthodox Judaism will know that, although people are glad to accept them, there are a multitude of rules and regulations covering many aspects of day-to-day life.
Jesus, however, not only deliberately overturned such rules, he questioned the very adequacy of God’s Law: “You have heard that is was said [in the seventh Commandment], ‘You shall not commit adultery,’ but I say to you, ‘Anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.”
And here is the paradox. We are made to be free — that is why people will die for freedom. But freedom is so much more difficult than living under the law. That is why freedom is so hard to preserve.
Rev John P Richardson
John, I would find this article more convincing if it had included a clear rejection of the aims and policies of the BNP. Your words "Not that I particularly wanted to join the BNP" leave open the suspicion that the reason for your complaint is that you are a secret sympathiser. But if you can clarify that you are not this article becomes a powerful and almost convincing appeal for freedom.
ReplyDeleteNevertheless I think a ban is right in this case, to restore the credibility of the church in the light of allegations that some of its clergy are racist, in complete contradiction to the gospel message which includes Colossians 3:11.
"Your words "Not that I particularly wanted to join the BNP" leave open the suspicion that the reason for your complaint is that you are a secret sympathiser."
ReplyDeleteThis is not the suspicion I get from reading John's words Peter. In fact the suspicion I get from your words is that you have a suspicious mind!
The fact is that the BNP resonates with a large section of British society is not because many are sympathetic to the BNP per se, but because the organisation articulates the fears of a large number of people; particularly with regard to the unrestricted immigration, that has caused huge social tensions in this country and which the Labour Government has singularly failed to address.
Banning the clergy from belonging to the BNP will not exclude sympathisers from the ministry but will simply drive them underground and will make it harder to see who they are. The CoE would do far better by addressing the concerns that lent support to the BNP in the first place.
My goodness, next thing we will hear is the CofE excluding opponents of woman Bishops.
Hmm - hey - now hang on a minute....!
Suspiciously yours,
Chris Bishop
Devon
(are you still advising John to leave the CoE BTW?)
To judge from this post, the undefined freedom that you write about is not rights-based, is not equality-based but does include the freedom to belong to the BNP with all the prejudice and racism that implies. Frankly, it reads like a very unattractive form of freedom. Perhaps rather more elaboration and definition is required.
ReplyDeletePeter,
ReplyDeleteDoes banning BNP membership actually achieve that? Someone could be a BNP sympathiser but now not allowed to join - that doesn't make the Church/individual un-racist. Such a rule simply isn't neccesary.
But also there are other problems in the C of E with no 'rule' for. E.g. Clergy who are pro-'choice' (pro-death?), pro-Israel/Palestine, pro-gay agenda. People were quick to defend +Chelmsford as Patron of CA.
We need to get to the cause and the heart. The only function rules/laws should have is restraining evil, e.g. not killing. Banning membership of a racist group doesn't end racism, it just aggrevates people and makes us wonder if they have something to hide.
Darren Moore
Tranmere
This event (and Peter Kirk's comment!) confirm what I have long thought about the political one-sidedness of British Anglicanism. Exhortations to Anglicans to get involved in politics have been ringing out from the CofE's leaders for 30-40 years - but now some of the flock have responded in ways which are not quite what the exhorters wanted. In other words, it is "good" for Anglicans to get political - as long as it's the party the CofE leadership approve of. While the CofE used to be called "the Tory party at prayer", it's now firmly "the Guarduan readership at prayer", and if your sympathies lie somewhere else, the leadership demonise you. Unfair - or hypocritical? What would be the right word ...
ReplyDeleteChris, perhaps I should be advising you to leave the C of E, if you are in it in the first place, because by showing your sympathy to those who want to exclude foreigners from this country (but seem to have no problem welcoming white people from southern Africa) you are showing yourself to be racist and so unworthy of being a member. If John believes this too he too should leave.
ReplyDeleteThen we can get back to believing that under God all men and women are equal, regardless of race and nationality - that there is no Greek or Jew, barbarian (African) or Scythian (eastern European) but Christ is all and in all. I'm sorry, but I find the scare campaign about immigration stirred up by the Daily Mail and others utterly anti-Christian and serving the same aims as the BNP. I also utterly reject the ways of addressing these concerns which I suspect you have in mind, e.g. tighter immigration controls, for the same reason as I reject giving in to terrorist demands.
But I agree with Darren that rules like this may not be effective. I see them as more symbolic, expressing the church's clear rejection of racism. I accept that there is room for debate about whether this is the best way to express that rejection, but not about the need for a clear rejection.
John T, remember that the General Synod which overwhelmingly approved the ban is not some remote "CofE leadership" but is made up of elected representatives of clergy and laity, along with bishops. Those whose sympathies lie with the Daily Mail rather than the Guardian have been not so much demonised as outvoted. Are they a real minority or a sleeping majority? Perhaps they need to stand up and be counted.
Peter,
ReplyDelete"Chris, perhaps I should be advising you to leave the C of E, if you are in it in the first place, because by showing your sympathy to those who want to exclude foreigners from this country (but seem to have no problem welcoming white people from southern Africa) you are showing yourself to be racist and so unworthy of being a member. If John believes this too he too should leave."
My first reaction to reading your comment above was to dismiss it as too offensive for a reply. However since you are making a serious allegation against me that I am a racist and also by insinuation John Richardson, then I am bound to respond.
If you read my post carefully you see that I nowhere stated that *I* am showing sympathy to the BNP. Contrary to your assumptions neither did I state that I supported welcoming white people from southern Africa (as opposed to not welcoming black). What I did write was that:
"The fact is that the BNP resonates with a large section of British society is not because many are sympathetic to the BNP per se, but because the organisation articulates the fears of a large number of people; particularly with regard to the unrestricted immigration, that has caused huge social tensions in this country and which the Labour Government has singularly failed to address."
However you have chosen to interpret this as evidence that I am a racist and a BNP sympathiser and wish to exclude foreigners from this country for xenophobic reasons. I cannot speak for John, but your personal attack on me in making this allegation is highly offensive and ful.
But to allay your suspicions, I will tell you some of what I do think about immigration. I deplore and the BNP. This issue to my mind, is not about but whether the UK has the ability to absorb very large increases in immigration and still maintain social cohesion and stability.
Historically, starting with the Romans, Britain has always been a nation of immigrants. Over time, successive populations have become slowly integrated and developed a shared sense of ‘Britishness’. What I think has been different in modern times is that since the last war, the pace of immigration has risen at an unparalleled rate due better transport links, communications, increasing standards of living and economic pressures along with changes in the geo-political landscape such as the European Union.
During this period, successive Labour and Conservatives Governments have largely failed to address the need to integrate immigrants into the indigenous population preferring instead, to pursue a multicultural experiment which has singularly failed and not just in the UK but in other parts of Europe. It has led to tribalism, fragmentation and a loss of national identity. A brief but good analysis of this assertion and its relation to is articulated by Yasmin Alibhai- Brown at http://fpc.org.uk/articles/38
The management of immigration from EU States, Commonwealth countries and other parts of the world will I believe, necessarily involve tighter immigration controls and the BNP does not have a monopoly on this view. Until the Government addresses the division that multicultural policies have produced in the UK, further unrestricted immigration would exacerbate the fragmentation even assuming that the country’s infrastructure could accommodate it.
The Office of National Statistics predicts that the UK population will increase to excess of 70 million by 2031 and while there are other factors involved, a significant proportion will be due to immigration (see http://www.statistics.gov.uk/pdfdir/pproj1007.pdf.) The fact the world is now entering a period of prolonged recession is not only going to help the situation. The Government is now waking up to this need for tighter immigration controls but it is responding in my view, with too little too late.
However Peter, while you do not seem to believe in immigration controls, having a tighter immigration policy or believing in tighter immigration does not necessarily make you a racist or a BNP sympathiser. Governments are fearful of stating that immigration should be controlled for fear of being smeared as racists by people like you. The Labour MP Margaret Hodge fell foul of this when she had the temerity to report whet her constituents were telling her about immigration in her constituency (see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6690007.stm
As for banning the BNP in the CofE I think it will make little or no difference. It will just be harder to identify who the BNP sympathisers are but they won’t go away. If you really want to effectively neutralise the influence of far-right parties, Governments need to ask themselves searching questions why they are in the ascendancy in many parts of Europe. It is even possible that the BNP may win seats in the European parliament. Surely, it cannot all be the fault of the Daily Mail?
It is astonishing is it not, that the Dutch, the most liberal of liberal societies have seen the emergence of extreme far-right groups. Why is this? Parties such as the BNP are able to tap into peoples anxieties about fragmented societies while keeping their own distasteful agenda hidden, and they can do so because Governments are not listening to the views of the indigenous population.
So you may still think I am a racist Peter, but I think you are quite wrong to brand people like me as xenophobes because they support more restrictive immigration policies. Implying that I and John are racist and BNP sympathisers when you have no evidence other than your prejudiced assumptions, is slanderous and could be potentially defamatory on a public blog.
Chris Bishop
Devon
Chris, I apologise for suggesting that you or John are racist. I am happy now to see and accept your clear condemnation of racism and the BNP.
ReplyDeleteThe alleged social tensions in this country (played up by the Daily Mail etc), to the extent that they exist at all, are largely because there is a small but vocal group of racists, some but not all in the BNP, who are stirring up racial hatred. You suggest that government policy should be to make concessions to them. My position is that it is wrong for Christians to concede even one inch to the demands of people who are filled with racist hatred.
I accept that there is a need to integrate immigrants better into the wider community. I do not accept that it is right to restrict the number of immigrants, especially of those who have reason to seek asylum here from oppressive regimes. That being said, I would accept some temporary restrictions in order to provide adequate infrastructure. I would also expect that other countries would follow similar policies allowing also greater emigration from the UK. I suspect that if Australia and New Zealand reopened their borders (which I accept would cause issues for them as for us) emigration from the UK would soon match immigration, and so your fears about uncontrolled population growth would prove groundless.
Peter - Some while before the recent Synod debate, vote, etc., my local bishop (now succeeded) put out a written plea that everyone avoid BNP membership (at the time, I couldn't help thinking that this action implied a conviction of inhabiting moral high ground, on his part, from which he looked down on the rest of us ...). I suspected that other bishops had done something similar in their areas, or planned to. Bishops, despite attempts to suggest otherwise, really are the CofE's leaders; and I would risk a fair amount of cash on a bet that many of them do indeed read the Guardian.
ReplyDeleteI think we will probably disagree on how best immigration should be handled but thank you for your apology Peter.
ReplyDeleteChris Bishop
Devon