The BNP and the C of E, and dog whistles.

For those who have not seen the British National Party poster in question, it's at the beginning of the video on the BBC news page here. The quote is interesting: John 15:20. It's worth looking at in context, and it's in the context of the Gospel reading for Pentecost, which is currently on my desk. However, I must give credit to my brother, himself no Christian, for pointing out some of what I am about to discuss.
The poster points out that C of E employees may not belong to the BNP and that it is pursued by both the press and the police: which it is. As the same happened to Jesus, which is the basic meaning of the quote, the BNP essentially claims that it is being treated as Jesus was, therefore the BNP is in the place of Jesus. Which makes the BNP Christian.
There's a lot we could say to that.
Firstly, the logic, as is obvious from the above, is quite tortuous.
Secondly, if the BNP wants to appeal to Christian voters, why this quote? They'd be better off ripping Acts 17:26 out of context, wouldn't they?
Thirdly, the C of E ban has its reasons throughout the Scriptures. The Bible takes no view on economic systems, assuming one of trade and slavery as that was the system at the time and modelling how it should operate in a just fashion, a model we need to apply with wisdom to whatever system we adopt. However, on questions of race the Bible is very clear, whether you start from creation (Gen 1:26-29) or redemption (Gal 3:28). The Church ought be careful about being party political, but some things are beyond the pale.
Fourthly, the press pursues the BNP because the press pursues everyone - that's it's job.
Fifthly, the police pursues the BNP because the BNP faces repeated allegations of incitement to hatred and the police has a legal duty to pursue allegations in order to see if charges are to be brought.
In other words, the BNP is persecuted not without cause, quite unlike Jesus (John 15:25).
But here's a thought: this quote is from the Farewell Discourse. The immediate persecutors of Jesus were the Jewish authorities, about to hand Him over to Rome; John's readers may well have experienced rejection by their local Jewish communities. Is this dog-whistle politics? Well done to my brother for suggesting it. I wonder if the BNP are smart enough, let alone their voters, but hey, if a BNP person turns up and says "we are smart enough", we know that the anti-Semitic whistle has been blown. Anti-Semitism has been documented as being on the rise, primarily as a result of rise of more combative forms of Islam in the UK, but to see the return of anti-Semitism into our political system would be, sadly, not as surprising as I thought when I started writing this sentence and remembered the activities of Le Pen and Mölleman and some of the things they said in our near neighbours.

Romans 11

There is no better time to be preaching through Romans 11 than during a Middle East crisis - NOT! There are always Christians whose focus is too much on the 1948 state when you say "Israel", although they to my mind often merely balance the outrageous bias the other way of others. Neither those in Hamas who happily force children into martyrdom (what can a seven year old do with 72 virgins anyway?) nor those in Israel who accept the temptation to cause such (oh hateful phrase) "collateral damage" are to be condoned, nor can we sympathise greatly with anyone except the suffering, although empathy (which is different - check your dictionary) with tiny Israel surrounded by hostile powers does not seem unreasonable to my mind.
But the great thing about Romans 11 is that is simply off topic. I don't need to preach Israel next Sunday. Here's something that got my spiritual juices flowing as I prepared the text using e-sword (which explains some font failure for Greek and Hebrew quotes.) Feel free to correct errors - you have until Friday, when I write the sermon!

For I do not want you to be ignorant, brothers, of this mystery, that you might not be understanding to yourselves, that hardening in part has come to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in, and so all Israel will be saved, as is written,
Out of Zion comes the Deliverer,
He will turn away ungodliness from Jacob
And this to them the covenant I have made,
When I forgive their sins.
These three theologically packed verses hang on the correct interpretation of the word "Israel". A quick search on the use of "Israel" in Romans shows that it is used frequently in opposition to the elect or to the Gentiles in Romans 9-11 and only in Rom_9:6 is it used in any other sense, being used here to distinguish Israel, the descendants of the patriarchs from Israel from Israel the elect line counted descendants of Abraham and so receivers of the promise (note the parallelism in Rom_9:6-7).
Therefore the bringing in of the Gentiles serves the purpose of bringing in Israel! All Israel will be saved because in fact the mission to the Gentiles will make the Jews jealous of the nations who serve their Messiah (Rom_11:13-14).
Paul does not want the Romans to be ignorant of the mystery he is about to reveal because the alternative to revelation is παρ᾿ ἑαυτοῖς φρόνιμοι, that is, speculation, literally, being insightful or understanding to or for ourselves, rather than turning to God for insight and understanding. These words stand out as a clear call to revelation based theology. Where we speculate, we are being exactly that which the NIV and ESV accuse us of being - conceited. For the danger with speculation is that as soon as we arrogate to ourselves the right to do theology rather than listen to it, we then end up with a theology that glorifies us rather than glorifying God.
Israel's hardening is to be put in the context of a plan, a plan conceived in heaven, in which the bringing in of the fullness of the Gentiles not only works out God's purpose to save from among the nations, it being too little for Messiah only to save Israel (Isa_49:6), but in which His very calling the Gentiles serves His Israel plan. In this sense, the Gentile plan serves the Israel plan: Gentiles are brought to God in order to bring in Israel.
That naturally has implications for mission to the Jews: firstly, the clear teaching here that God's plan has two distinctive parts tells us that Jewish mission must be part of the ministry of God's people, yet secondly all mission serves the aim of Jewish evangelism, for whatever we do to bring in the fullness of the Gentiles serves the purpose of bringing in Israel.
The Isaiah quote underlines the Jewishness of the saving work of God: from Zion, to turn ungodliness from Jacob, according to the covenant. Romans has unpacked the gospel of the forgiveness of sins by way of the justification of the ungodly by Jesus Christ. To expect this gospel not to be fully effective for the ancient covenant purposes of God would be most strange. This new David, from David's city, must surely not just rule the nations but save Israel and bring them to godliness.
The phrase ἡ παρ᾿ ἐμοῦ διαθήκη is quite striking, as Paul has not chosen the simpler ἡ διαθήκη ἐμοῦ. The genitive attribute παρ᾿ ἐμοῦ underlines the active nature of God in this covenant (see Bauer on παρά I4a). It accurately reflects the LXX of Isa 59:20-21, which translates presumably the extra emphasis of אני in the Hebrew. The passage is insistent on the activeness of God: He is the saving covenant actor.
Hence overall in these verses we here the voice of the Sovereign God challenging us: who gets to decide our theology? Who gets to decide who gets saved how (one thinks further of Isa_45:1-13 and particularly God's response to those who challenge the use of a pagan king to save; but we could also consider the Gentiles who don't like seeing their salvation as in any sense secondary)? The answer is found in the answer to this question: who is the author and executor of the covenant? He decides.

A British Obama?

I'm not thinking about the question posed in the media, concerning whether we'll see in Britain or any European country a black leader soon (note - the German Greens have elected a man of Turkish origin to their dual leadership - but that's the nearest we have right now).
It's the hype thing. Could a political leader ever be so hyped, ever have so much hope associated with him, ever be such a rhetorical star turn in Europe?
Well, yes.
He was elected in 1997 in Britain.
Look where that got us.

Islamism, Secularism, Persecution or Stupidity.

The Christian Institute has reported that Tower Hamlets borough council (that's the local authority governing parts of London east of the Tower of London) doesn't allow its Christmas party to be called so, but is requiring councillors not to eat during daylight hours during Ramadan at town hall, and asking them generally to support the fast.
How can we interpret this?
It could be a first step to the imposition of Islam as state religion in Tower Hamlets. Other religions are driven out of the public sphere and only Islam is recognised, with all wanting to play a full role in civil society being required to be practising Muslims.
It could be that rather strange mix of secularism and racism one sometimes hears, whereby Christianity, the white man's religion, is driven out of the public sphere by secularism, but the same secularism has a rather patronising attitude to non-whites, feeling the need to give full recognition to their religions to avoid racism. In fact, such an attitude is a form of racism, because it says that the poor foreigners of different skin colour can't help their religious foibles, but white men ought to grow up.
It could be simply persecution of Christians. Christianity is being driven out of Tower Hamlets just because the people on the council don't like it. One way of doing that is say everyone ought to follow a variety of religious practices and then accuse those who won't of being intolerant and so unfit to work for the council.
Of course, the first is exceptionally unlikely. The second and third options are possible. Britain doesn't do philosophy (Russell and Ayer thought they were smart for confusing epistemological difficulties for ontological answers). So we are incapable of the radical secularism of, say, France, which simply declares a plague on all religious houses: we don't think that deeply. And we do have a somewhat colonial attitude to uncivilised Johnnie Foreigner's religions.
But personally, I don't think there's a thought through ideology at work here, be it Islamism, Secularism or Persecution of Christians. There may be a bit of all of these, but in Britain, I suspect the best explanation is stupidity.

He is the best of Tory and the worst of Tory

The first report I heard was that Bozza, Mayor of London, wanted to close Heathrow. Hurray! What an intelligent policy! Close that dreadful planning error and sell off the land to fund a high-speed rail link straight to Brussels and through to Frankfurt, I thought. Then we wouldn't need it anyway.
Then I read the truth. Firstly, he only wants to prevent its further growth. Secondly, his scheme is to build an island in the middle of the Thames as an alternative!
Okay, Bozza, you've started off alright. Close Heathrow. Then sell that extremely lucrative real estate. Oh, it belongs to BAA? Sod them - after all, they're a nasty polluting monopoly.
Use the money for the above mentioned highspeed link. There are daily armies of flights between London and Frankfurt. None are necessary - make the train preferable.
Thirdly, if we must have an airport, simply put a station on the high speed link at Kent International (the old RAF Manston).
Problem solved.

Late Capitalism and Late Democracy

What shall we make of the collapse of Lehmann Brothers and the impending doom of AIG? If AIG is not supported by the US Government, despite its greater importance to the wider US economy, particularly the housing market so famously propped up by the nationalisation of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, then why?
Alisdair Darling of course let the cat out of the bag: we're in the worst place we've been since the end of WWII. Bear Stearns was saved; Lehmann Brothers wasn't. Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were saved; AIG won't be. The pattern is clear: an initial intervention is attempted, and then the Government realises that further such interventions are then hoped for and expected. That simply cannot be afforded. Lehmann Brothers had to die: it was sacrificed for the sake of the wider economy, to say that the Government couldn't be relied on to save everything.
Behind this lies a bigger issue. Put simply, capitalism and democracy are less compatible than thought. In a democratic society, particularly what we may soon call late democracy (as per Marx's late capitalism), the population expects the government to act to save the day. So banks do too. They trade irresponsibly to gain the maximum upside during a boom, and expect the government to save them when they go bust, because they expect the government to bail out the depositers, who are also voters.
It's time to decide: who will pay the price? The banks, whose bosses ought to be sued by the governments and not propped up, or Joe Ordinary, who then effectively finances corporate bonuses through the tax system.
But another thought springs to mind. Didn't Joseph Schumpeter, in "Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy", argue that late capitalism tends to oligopoly, which lends itself to oligarchy? Look at Russia.
Never has it been clearer that Fukayama was wrong: history is not over. Money is in the hands of anti-democratic powers possessing raw material wealth. After Chelsea and Manchester City, so perhaps more serious institutions. Russia increasingly exercises geopolitical power through the gas pipeline; OPEC has spoken of trying to reestablish the $100 barrel; sovereign wealth funds are increasingly the only remaining wealthy people.
In late democracy, the tensions between oligopolistic late capitalism and populist late democracy grow. The question is, which will go.

On Russian Imperialism

I returned from holiday in Germany armed with the Süddeutsche Zeitung, Die Zeit and the Independent courtesy of Lufthansa, and with a copy of Spiegel. There was plenty to read, and plenty to be concerned about.
Back in 1999, as Belgrade was being bombed by NATO, I told a friend that I thought that we'd be at war with Russia in ten years. I had forgotten that prediction completely until yesterday. Now it comes back to me.
Kosovo has clearly provided the Russians, surrounded as they are by Russian speaking minorities that are to a greater or lesser extent disadvantaged, with the perfect pretext for imperial ambitions. Russia is already gas provider number one; control of the Caucusus would put them on target to be oil power number one; the sheer vastness of their territory makes it likely that overall in mineral terms that they can be number one. China and India have people, have a love of learning and large educated middle-classes. In military terms both are powerful. But they too will need Russia.
Russia's military decline is well-documented, but easily overstated. None of its neighbours west of China is a serious military force.
But here is something to consider. Spiegel not only documented this week the Russian ambitions in military terms. It also documented the significance of former DDR, even Stasi men, in the German branch of Gazprom, which now supplies a third of the German market, and will be Europe's number one supplier, especially as the North Sea runs out. At the same time, former DDR men, including plenty with Stasi connections, run what is rapidly becoming Germany's third political force (Oskar Lafontaine excused, but his interview with Spiegel is rankest populism of the Soviet apologist kind). The significance of the KGB in the Putin regime is again documented.
So how's about this? Germany, Europe's most strategic bit of territory, is being softened up. Russian power is being projected across the former Soviet Union, with a clear willingness to take by force what is wanted. The panellists on Any Questions this evening in the UK sounded to a man like Chamberlainites - Georgia and Ukraine are far off countries of which we know little, and the Russians have legitimate interests there.
The year? Are we back in 1936, watching the Saarland plebiscite? Or are we in 1937, early 1938, preparing the way to Munich?
Or is the year 1973? Is a small country about to be attacked, whilst the energy supplies are switched off from its allies?
Or are we back in the Great Game?
And does this all put a new spin on the War on Terror? After all, with bases in Iraq and Afghanistan, and with the Iranian missile threat providing a perfect excuse for missile defence systems, was in fact the US/UK war aim all along not in fact concerned with containing Russia. Were perhaps Bush and Blair not considering, like me, not so much Islamic terrorism as Russian imperialism, considering not just the bombing of New York and Washington but of Belgrade, when their war aims mysteriously switched from Afghanistan to Iraq? But if so, then why not take Saudi Arabia - a much easier, and in the light of the 9/11 bombers, more plausible target?

Rights and Responsibilities

Ben Bradshaw thought he had David Davis on the ropes on Any Questions. Davis went onto the attack on Labour's record on liberties and Bradshaw fired back on Davis' record on homosexuals' rights. Davis had voted against homosexuals in the military, against the right of homosexuals to adopt, and against civil partnerships. Davis corrected him on the last point, pointing out that he was absent from the chamber on the last issue, leaving the Tory lead on the issue to be taken by Alan Duncan.
Has Bradshaw exposed Davis the Liberty Man?
Let's start with the easy one. Should homosexual men be allowed in the military? Essentially the case against was what they might get up to. But then again, ask the family of the Danish woman raped and murdered in Cyprus what heterosexual British squaddies get up to. The sad fact is that sex does lead to ill-discipline in the military - regardless of sexuality. But again, regardless of sexuality, it shouldn't.
Bradshaw 1-0 Davis
Adoption. The very association of the word "rights" with adoption is a complete failure on Bradshaw's part. No one has the right to adopt. The very concept ought to fill any decent person with horror. If there is a right to adopt, then anyone could seek to exercise that right through the courts. Adoption is a privilege to be granted with care, a responsibility to be exercised only by the most able. The question is not "do homosexuals have a right to adopt?" It is "what forms of relationship are an appropriate matrix for the development of a child?" On religious, scientific or sociological grounds, Parliament needs to provide proper statutory guidance on that question. So the debate cannot be about Parliament granting people an inherent right (rights normally inhering to people by virtue of some metaphysical consideration, such as human dignity or divine image bearing), it's about the appropriateness of relationship matrices. Bradshaw could claim Davis suffered from prejudices on this issue, but it's not a rights issue; others might point out the desperate need for more adoptive parents, but that's not about rights either. Own goal.
Bradshaw 1-1 Davis
Civil partnerships is far more complex, because the key issue is the relationship between such a partnership and marriage. The media, both for and against civil partnerships, have characterised it as "marriage"; the Government sought not to until a recent case in which spinster sisters living together sought to protect themselves from the inheritance tax due should one of them die. They wanted a civil partnership, which would recognise the contribution each made to the welfare of the other, the love that was there, and the difficulties the death of one would pose for the other. Then Harriet Harman came out to the effect that civil partnerships were to afford a legal framework equivalent to marriage for homosexual couples. So the media were right.
So the question comes down to what you think marriage is. It is a question of rights depending on how you define marriage and its spiritual, sociological and relational function.
You score the game.
Then factor in the rest of the Labour record: at least before Labour campaigners could turn up in Parliament Square without registering, at least 1 million innocent people weren't on a DNA register, at least before Labour there was not a threat of identity cards, at least thought was not policed, as it now is on a variety of questions of religion and sexuality ...
Good try, Mr Bradshaw: I hadn't thought of that one, and you were right to raise it. But I don't think it's enough, even if you win this set (which to my mind you don't, because I take a Bible-rooted view of marriage), to win the match.

Two footnotes.
Firstly, I've used "homosexual" not "gay". I understand "homosexual" as the opposite of "heterosexual", describing a sexual orientation. I understand "gay" as an identity-political label, associated with a political and lifestyle choice to emphasise sexual orientation as a marker of identity beyond any other. So gay belongs in the same category as feminist, Muslim, Christian, Marxist or any other identity label that claims overriding precedence in a person's make-up.
Secondly, I know Ben Bradshaw is homosexual. So? The issue is about rights here.

Cynical spinning

The media response to David Davis is full of the most rampant cynicism, but as today's Observer pointed out, much of the public is having none of it. Like me, the public has done the calculation and figured out they think Mr Davis means it. Apparently, again according to the Observer, the rest of the blogosphere agrees.
I stand by my open letter to Mr Cameron. Now is the opportunity to put clear blue water between the Conservatives and Labour, yet at the same time force people on the Left, such as myself, seriously to consider voting Conservative. He should see the opportunity to portray Mr Brown as a threat to our liberties and welcome Mr Davis back, as I recommended.
But the media won't have it. On the Today programme on Friday morning, some idiot hack was saying that there was still no better explanation than that Mr Davis meant it. It ain't rocket science, unless you're a cynical idiot hack. As for Eddie Mair on PM on the day, he should be fired for the interview with Dominic Reave. The interview was nothing more than a brazen attempt to spin the story as Tory splits and Cameron losing control. It was partisan, biased and incompetent: when Mr Reave gave simple and straight answers, Mr Mair read stuff into it that was simply not there.
In fact, if you were a conspiracy theorist, and apparently there are plenty of you out there (unfortunately, I suspect you don't read my blog, unless people other than my Mum and a few friends are reading it and just haven't said so), here's one to try. The media is run by liberals like Mr Mair, and they are fighting a rearguard action to prevent the incoming Conservative administration through organs such as the Independent, BBC News, the News Quiz (apparently, someone complained about them!) and the like. There is the legislative curtailing of our freedoms, then there is the attempt to hook our kids to the media (those stupid Government targets for toddlers and ICT - I shall endeavour not to subject my children to the child abuse that would be meeting them), and then there is the above manipulation of the media.
Unfortunately, as I am neither paranoid and gullible, I cannot believe it; and my satirical skills prevent me setting up the appropriate scaremongering blog as a fake. Someone else can do it - I've given you the pointers. Only thank me if you're a satirist - I guarantee my reading your work, if it's funny.

Dear Mr Cameron

I've been meaning to write for a while. The very thought of writing to a Conservative Party leader fills me with a sense of self-loathing: I was brought up on the Left, I rejoiced with tears in 1997, I consider the privatisations of the 1980s and 1990s insanity and as far as I am concerned, much of the economics of Thatcherism, for which I consider you to stand, is morally neutral to the point of immoral.
But I am disillusioned. I was under the illusion that the current Administration would be a panacea for the ills of post-Thatcherite Britain. Oh, the work of Chancellor Brown on child poverty, pensioner poverty, Third World debt poverty and the like were of vital importance: these are the unsung songs of British political achievement. When I read "Servants of the People" and found listed the unspun success of Labour, I wept. But then we went into Iraq: oh, you voted for it, and some would consider that unforgivable, but I voted for it (well, not really, because I'm not an MP). I honestly could not believe Mr Tony Blair would commit our troops without the best and highest of motives, without being convinced that it truly and undubitably was the right thing to do.
But I am writing today because of Mr Davis. I have always liked his style, even if his policies were on occasion too strident, and was not surprised when someone worked out he was Britain's most straight-talking politician. Maybe I am being duped again, but I believe in his resignation: it seems personal folly and political folly, even party folly. But he is right. Our fundamental freedoms are at issue here. And I find myself believing that actually I believe in political freedom and personal liberty from the State before I believe in the reduction of poverty. We were not made to be comfortable slaves.
There is now the possibility of a deeply plausible conservative narrative: Conservatism loves Britain, and now Britain is under threat. It is under threat from the environmental catastrophe, it is under threat from authoritarian government, it is under threat from political apathy caused by over-centralisation and the concentration of power in Westminster and Whitehall. Britain, Britain as a temperate nation of rain and green grass, of civil liberties and gentle but real civic concern, the Britain of Mr Major's foolish yet true aphorism, needs conserving.
Could I vote for you? It would pain me greatly: I would look at the cross on the ballot paper and consider myself a traitor. But perhaps the point has been reached where political discourse will be restructured, and Conservatism can recast itself as the party of the environment, local decision-making and traditional freedoms, being therefore truly conservative of this country.
When Mr Davis is returned to Parliament, re-appoint him Shadow Home Secretary, or Shadow Attorney-General; commit to repealing 42 days and give him a remit to restore our freedoms. Put someone serious in charge of the environment and nick Liberal Democrat policies concerning switching the burden of tax on wealth creation onto pollution. Finally, get someone of Mr Straw's calibre onto constitutional questions so far as Parliamentary powers and the powers of local government are concerned: strengthen the Houses and commit to devolving power down. Whatever the outcome, it will be good for our country, whether it sharpens our government or puts a (genuinely - we don't want to be let down, like we were post-1997) reforming administration in their place.
There are tears in my eyes.
The Incorrigible Amateur