The Bishop of Rochester (UK) and his detestable enormities
First, please read this article from the (English) Sunday Telegraph on Jan 6th.
You may have to cut and paste the link.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/01/06/nislam206.xml
Now that you have read it, here is my “take”.
First: I agree with the Bishop that 50 years ago, Brits thought themselves to be part of a Christian (Protestant) nation.
But it was a wafer thin thought. Already the Christian norms were under attack or suspicion. They were seen as the province of the ruling classes.
Second: The first post WWII wave of immigration into Great Britain was from the old Empire, especially from the West Indies. These immigrants were in many ways “more British than the British” But the Churches, and in particular the Church of England failed to greet these immigrants as sisters and brothers. The Church of England (in general) spurned those immigrants that loved her.
Third: Britain opened the doors for Asian immigrants, at first for those who were fleeing from Idi Amin’s disastrous regime in Uganda. These immigrants were given a grudging welcome. These immigrants soon established themselves as local retailers. Few, if any Brits were aware of their religion.
Fourth: Colour, rather than national origin or religion was the determinate by which most Brits welcomed/ignored/resisted this wave of immigration.
THE BISHOP DOES NOT REFERENCE ANY OF THE ABOVE. In particular he is shamefully ignorant of the response of the Church of England to immigrants.
But Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali’s article is also suspect for other reasons.
1. He was either too naïve, or wilfully aware that the Daily Telegraph would give his piece the heading “Extremism flourished as UK lost Christianity”.
2. He makes assertions without documentation of sources: viz (a) the noise of the call to prayer: (ignoring of course the chimes of Church of England Bells). Or (b) “It is now less possible for Christianity to be the public faith in Britain”
(I question any re-assertion of a public faith. Is not “saving faith” to be preferred?)
3. I ask “is Sharia law” always to be resisted? Is it not consistent with some older Christian laws (e.g. re Usury)
4. I have two chief complaints:
(a) Is it necessary or desirable for Britain to be a Christian nation?
(b) Why does a Christian Bishop make assertions without a clear reference to his sources?
And my personal plea is this: (i) check your sources.
(ii) recognise the biases of authors. Including me!
(iii) ask if you are widening the boundaries, or circling the wagons. I believe that Jesus was a widener, not a circler.
You may have to cut and paste the link.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/01/06/nislam206.xml
Now that you have read it, here is my “take”.
First: I agree with the Bishop that 50 years ago, Brits thought themselves to be part of a Christian (Protestant) nation.
But it was a wafer thin thought. Already the Christian norms were under attack or suspicion. They were seen as the province of the ruling classes.
Second: The first post WWII wave of immigration into Great Britain was from the old Empire, especially from the West Indies. These immigrants were in many ways “more British than the British” But the Churches, and in particular the Church of England failed to greet these immigrants as sisters and brothers. The Church of England (in general) spurned those immigrants that loved her.
Third: Britain opened the doors for Asian immigrants, at first for those who were fleeing from Idi Amin’s disastrous regime in Uganda. These immigrants were given a grudging welcome. These immigrants soon established themselves as local retailers. Few, if any Brits were aware of their religion.
Fourth: Colour, rather than national origin or religion was the determinate by which most Brits welcomed/ignored/resisted this wave of immigration.
THE BISHOP DOES NOT REFERENCE ANY OF THE ABOVE. In particular he is shamefully ignorant of the response of the Church of England to immigrants.
But Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali’s article is also suspect for other reasons.
1. He was either too naïve, or wilfully aware that the Daily Telegraph would give his piece the heading “Extremism flourished as UK lost Christianity”.
2. He makes assertions without documentation of sources: viz (a) the noise of the call to prayer: (ignoring of course the chimes of Church of England Bells). Or (b) “It is now less possible for Christianity to be the public faith in Britain”
(I question any re-assertion of a public faith. Is not “saving faith” to be preferred?)
3. I ask “is Sharia law” always to be resisted? Is it not consistent with some older Christian laws (e.g. re Usury)
4. I have two chief complaints:
(a) Is it necessary or desirable for Britain to be a Christian nation?
(b) Why does a Christian Bishop make assertions without a clear reference to his sources?
And my personal plea is this: (i) check your sources.
(ii) recognise the biases of authors. Including me!
(iii) ask if you are widening the boundaries, or circling the wagons. I believe that Jesus was a widener, not a circler.
Comments
Post a Comment