The Church of England is to consider banning clergy from joining the British National party amid fears the far-right party is promoting its image as Christian.
Next month’s General Synod, the church’s national assembly, will debate a motion calling on Anglican bishops to formulate a similar policy to that of the Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo) on the BNP.
The Acpo policy states that no member of the police service may be a member of an organisation whose constitution, aims, objectives or pronouncements contradict the “general duty” to promote race equality. This specifically includes the BNP, the policy states.
The agenda for general synod is quoted
here. The relevant part is
2.30 pm Presidential Address
Private Members’ Motion: Vasantha Gnanadoss: Membership of Organisations which Contradict the Duty to Promote Race Equality. The motion itself is available here:
I have a concern about this motion, not because of the intent (which I fully agree with) but because of the way it is phrased. duty to promote racial equality. First of all, equality in what sense. But more importantly, where does this duty come from? The implication I get from the way this is phrased is that it is trying to impose a secular standard on the Church, and I find that very worrying indeed. In particular, I dislike the implication that the Church can ban its members from a particular political party; even though I detest the BNP as much as the proposer of this motion. The question is, on what grounds does the church have the right to do this. I could not accept a formulation which reflects the wording of this motion, because its basis would imply that the church could be subject to a secular notion of of a general duty to promote racial equality. That would set an unfortunate precedent. I also dislike the wording because it seems to suggest that if we need to promote racial equality it implies that it is currently (and perhaps always) lower in the Church than it should be. Maintain racial equality would be better. If racial equality is found in scripture, then there is no need to promote what is already there. If not, the synod has no right to consider this motion and force on the Church’s members something not relating to its order something not contained within scripture.
On the other hand, I would warmly accept a final formulation along the lines of
(Only, of course phrased much better).
And just exactly what on Earth is WRONG in proclaiming one’s Christianity in Britain, may I ask? There IS, supposedly, religious FREEDOM in Britain, isn’t there? Or were my ancestors in Wales wrong?
#2, the CoE is a private organization and can thus define its own rules for membership, particularly among its leadership.
The CoE is NOT a private organization; it is the State Church of England, established by law and governed by the Queen and UK Parliament.
Even though the Church of England has state sponsorship, it may still prescribe rules for the conduct of its clergy and other members. Many readers of this blog, both in England and abroad, probably wish those rules were stricter.
Racism is fundamentally at odds with the gospel. If an organization promotes racism, that is reason enough for a church to prohibit its clergy from joining the organization.
Christians have no business
It needs to be understood by those outside of the UK that the BNP represents the extreme right of the political spectrum. I’ve been in Canada since 2006 so I cannot say whether or not this party has sought to reform itself (or is simply trying to change its image), but they were viewed by most people as the equivalent as the Brown-Shirts in pre-war Germany, complete with marches and pamphleteering skin-heads in tow. A few years ago they managed to win a few by-elections in certain low-income areas where ethnic Britons felt that preference in both housing and job placement was being given to immigrants at their expense. They may very well have been right too, but this is the genius of such parties; they offer themselves as a solution to genuine social concerns but come to the table with a hidden (or not-so-hidden) agenda.
Unless something remarkable has happened along the lines of public recantation, I don’t see how a minister of the gospel can be a member of such a group.
#4, of course, you are correct. It does present a problem.
farstrider: anyone to the right of Karl Marx is considered in England to be Nazi-like. (Are you old enough to remember the things Thatcher was called?). Unless the BNP is breaking in Jewish shops, or Muslim shops, or performing some other coercive activity, they are not, and should not be compared to the Nazis.
The current UK government has their own fascist tendencies. Because they are leftist shouldn’t absolve them either.
justinmartyr,
Firstly, I vote conservative. I am more right than I am left. I say this so that you will understand I am not approaching this question from a left-ish perspective.
To what would you compare a group founded by members of the National Front, such as John Tyndall (google them and you’ll see them “sig-heiling” in front of the swastika) and whose early years involved their members (largely young skinheads) starting a number of race-riots. If it goose-steps like a Nazi and salutes like a Nazi (to the Nazi flag) I will feel entirely free in drawing comparisons between it and Nazism.
Again, the BNP may have moved beyond the swastika tattooed skinhead stage in its life as a party… nonetheless, given its background, would you not have some concerns if you heard your vicar was applying for membership?
FWIW I tend to agree with this. The BNP have been repeatedly associated with racist violence.
farstrider, as a Jew I understand your concerns with racism. I would not attend a church where the pastor was a member of a racist organisation. But that is the point. *I* would leave! And I would hope that others would do the same and the church would die.
But I find it outrageous that the labour party (the party that runs the Church of England*) is thinking of banning people from being a part of another political party, no matter how objectionable that party happens to be.
The labor party has implemented policies that are leading the UK to hell in a handbasket: policies that are causing teen pregnancies, facilitating abortions, breaking up nuclear families, harassing homeschoolers, stealing hard-earned tax money, etc., etc. And there is no outrage that clergy can be members of this party?
*Who appoints the church’s leaders, and who has to approve its laws?
I’m with you Justinmartyr. Multiculturalism is a cancer that is destroying Britain and the reason that parties like the BNP exist is that nobody in either of the “respectable” parties, be they Labour, Tory or LibDem, has the nerve to face up to the fact and say so.
I read an interview with the leader of the BNp a couple of years ago in either the Spectator or the Economist, I believe. The interviewer seemed genuinely surprised that he didn’t have horns and a tail and was an intelligent and sensible man with no apparant plans to construct concentration camps on Dartmoor or wherever.
I have to say the notion of secular politcal requirements being imposed upon the clergy makes me nervous. The BNP aren’t my cup of tea, but where is the line to be drawn? As far as I know the BNP isn’t openly advocating violence (which is where I would perhaps put a line). Their proposed policies and rhetoric may be distasteful, but that is beside the point. A great many clergy subscribe to political views which I find distasteful (including most of TEC I suspect) but that is beside the point when considering their qualifications to be clergy.
Hi justinmartyr,
I don’t see anything in this article that suggests that the Labour Party is banning priests from membership in a political party… As far as I can see the Church of England is banning its priests from membership in this organization (and rightly so). A great number of Churches have banned their ministers from membership in organizations felt to be philosophically irreconcilable with the gospel– even the Masons.
Multiculturalism in Britain has been a disaster in many, many ways, I agree. I also agree that the BNP reaped the rewards of the major parties’ unwillingness to address the concerns surrounding these issues (Praise God for Bishop Nazir Ali). As a party, however, the BNP are an unsettling kind of group. Personally I don’t see how the C of E can do anything other than what they have done.
I don’t see anything in this article that suggests that the Labour Party is banning priests from membership in a political party
farstrider, did you know that the Archbishops of the Church of England are not appointed by the Church, but by the Labor Government? Did you know that Church laws created by the C Of E have to be approved by parliament?
I’m all for churches criticizing and even forbidding its members from voting for evil individuals or parties. But the government-run C of E has no right to do any such thing. If you are in bed with one party, banning another just smacks of bias, and sets an alarming precedent.
By all means criticize evil: racism, theft, etc in a non-partisan fashion. But as a govt-run entity C of E should be able to ban another party.
last sentence should read: “…should not be able to…”
justinmartyr,
Most of the legwork is done by the Church. The government, as far as I am aware either ratifies the Church’s choice or chooses appointments from a shortlist provided by the gov’t. [i]At the moment[/i] it is the Labour gov’t that does so. Prior to that it was the Tories. Even if Church laws must be approved by parliament it is still the Church that proposes them. If the Church asks Parliament to pass a law disallowing its ministers to be members of a very dodgy political party it is the Church asking, not the government.
Do you see the distinction that I am making (and believe needs to be made)?
If we were to enter into a broader discussion with regard to Church/State relations I could sum up my feelings on the matter by saying that Thomas Becket is one of my heroes. As it stands, with things as they are on the ground, I would still argue that there is a difference between a government rubber-stamping a decision of the Church and a government deciding on behalf of the Church. This particular case is an example of the former rather than the latter. It is the Church that is proposing the law.
Sorry, sentence 2 should read “… from a shortlist provided by the Church.”
Otherwise there would be a conflict 🙂
And, Justinmartyr, it should be noted that at the moment, this is just a private member motion to be put before general synod. The private member concerned is not acting on behalf of the Labour party. Nothing has (yet) been passed.
One interesting question is whether, if one can be banned from the BNP for their racist views, can one also be banned from (say) the labour party for the embryology act/SORs etc., which are just as anti-Christian.