This morning I attended the Rochester Diocesan Synod at which the Bishop of Tunbridge encouraged us to consider banning the BNP from election hustings that take place on church property. I salute him for highlighting the danger of this wicked party and share the Bishop’s concern over the threat from the far right but, in the interests of true liberty, I am not sure I agree with his conclusion. Nor did I agree with the recent decision of the Church of England to bar priests from voting BNP. The following thoughts were contained within an article originally written for New Directions on the subject (so please realise that any comments regarding leadership of the church were directed at the General Synod and not at Bishop Brian- whose point was different and far more sensible!) :
What was Synod’s decision to ban clergy from the BNP all about? I am not suggesting that support of this ludicrous party is not at odds with orthodox faith- it is. What I am questioning is the reason Synod felt a need to underline it? After all, how many clergy did it actually affect? Less than the fingers on one hand, I am willing to bet.
Was this was the House of Bishops and General Synod, whose authority has been so compromised by an inability to deal with the thorny matters of women’s ordination and the homosexual issue, clutching at straws to demonstrate unity/power? For one thing seems certain- it is bizarre to enforce this action that will bear little fruit when so much needs sorting within the communion.
If the exercise was only pointless we could end this article now. A cheap laugh could be had at the expense of bishops and synods, but no harm done. But I fear its not that simple. This strange decision has actually opened Pandora’s box and could have far reaching implications on future decisions. Let us examine just a few.
For starters a dangerous precedent has been set. If we are now legislating against certain political parties- what of others equally abrasive to the faith? I for one cannot stomach certain strands of socialism- which are almost always atheistic, anti-Christian (especially anti-Catholic), secularist and embracing of the murderous act of abortion. Certainly Harriet Harmon and her cronies are no friends of Jesus…so do we ban labour today? Cameron has also stated publically a desire to change church teaching- so is it out with the Tories? And why has Synod not banned Marxism too? Surely socialism has been a graver threat to faith in our time than the feeble minded bigots who make up the BNP? If we are going to ban political parties, where do we draw the line?
Which leads me to question the actual motive in banning the BNP alone. Is it co-incidence that this group was singled out, or does it expose an uncomfortable truth about the present hierarchy of the Church of England? Does this decision point to a church resolutely defending the faith of the ages, or a church rooted to left leaning politics and expressing the opinions of middle England? If that seems a little harsh, read on and re-consider:
I now find myself in a church which allows me to deny the real presence, ignore scripture in matters of sexual practice, endorse non biblical revelations as regards holy orders, opt for the deplorable act of abortion, divorce and remarry in Church and deny the virgin birth or physical resurrection of Christ…..but it will not grant me freedom to vote for who I want! Surely when we examine that list- membership of the BNP, whilst admittedly disgraceful, is the least of our ecclesiological worries? Does the present Synod really rate infanticide as a lesser evil than BNP membership? The crippling silence on abortion from most Bishops within the Church suggest it does. I find that as scandalous and inexplicable as it is spiritually and morally dubious.
And what of the ludicrous decision to apply this ban to clergy only?! This bizarre separation of clergy from the rest of humanity (arguably fair if you have ever been to theological college) has become a favourite of Synod, but it makes no sense at all! Surely, what is good for the goose is good for the gander? What greater sign of weak leadership than the proclamation of rules for one group and not for all! If something is sinful- it is logically sinful for all. If morally permissible it must be free to all. That goes for BNP membership and gay sex alike!
This may seem a mute point but we must ask what message such differential treatment sends out? Were I a layman it would tell me Church laws are only really for clergy, that my behaviour and attitudes were not so important. I might even reach the dangerous conclusion that matters of faith are negotiable. In a land in which adherence to the faith is dwindling, we cannot afford to go soft on some and not others. That only causes confusion. Rather we must re-discover spine and preach our faith without compromise! Experience tells me that it is in churches where this happens, that healthy attendance and revival is found.
A final point of reflection thrown up by this vote turns attention to Synod itself. More and more the governing body of our Church resembles the parliament that governs this land, so that the two are almost indistinguishable. As each year goes by we seem less in step with Jesus and more in step with society, and especially the voice of middle England. The ban on BNP membership was ultimately passed because someone had a bee in their bonnet- and bought a favourite topic to the floor. Would not a vote by majority, as well as passing equally laudable aims such as this, voted a pardon for Barabbas and sent Jesus to the cross?
Sadly we live at a time when the vast majority of Bishops and Synod members have lost faith in Christ, and in the ability of his Gospel to transform and inspire. I say that with reasonable confidence for it is the only explanation as to why they are happier speaking up for ‘Fair Trade’ than for Jesus, or found preaching on the environment rather than calling sinners to repentance and submission to Christ. And once again, in this seemingly insignificant vote on matters of politics not doctrine, we discover a church losing direction under chronic weak leadership.
BNP membership is not viable for true Christians, nor are a host of other things. But I suggest that the Church of England would fair better if it got on with preaching the Gospel of love, rather than pointing a finger of scorn at one particular problem. A problem which just happens to bypass the areas of life that cause schism and resonates strongly with the voice of middle England.
‘The Church embraces and teaches the faith without compromise’ is a much better headline than ‘middle classed Church bans BNP membership’. If only Synod could wake up to that fact and steer us back to a place of orthodox witness.
I would think that one reason clergy might be barred from the BNP and not from, say, a Marxist party, is that the BNP and other rightist groups often claim to be operating in the name of national tradition, and to hide behind Christian trappings; in this country we certainly have had a problem with right wing groups using the protective coloration of Christianity. There exists the danger that a clergyman would, by his membership in a racist group like the BNP, give the impression that those claims were correct. Enemies who pretend to be your friends are surely more dangerous than those who make no pretense of friendship.
As for your claim that it is ludicrous to have different standards for clergy than it for the laity, I’m afraid that you are out on a very shaky limb. The canons of the Episcopal Church, for example, list refraining from “any Conduct Unbecoming a Member of the Clergy” as a standard for clerical behavior; I suspect there are similar canons in the CofE. The existence of such a canon shows (if a moment’s thought will not) that of course there are actions that call for harsher censure when committed by a clergyman than when committed by a layman. You may not like being held to a higher standard, but you should have been able to tell that such a standard existed before you were ordained.