The article below has been submitted by one of the blog readers, Alan O'reilly.
Thank you Alan.
God, the Bible, the BNP and the C of E
Following criticisms of the BNP by at least nine ordained clergy, Lee Barnes, owner of the 21st Century British Nationalism blog, has kindly asked me to forward an article in response to these criticisms from my perspective as a professing, New Testament Christian believer.
I am very happy to oblige. My purpose in so doing is to show that these clerical critics are wholly (and unholily) at odds with the scripture in castigating the Party as they have done.
As official clergy, they therefore don’t have a critical leg to stand on and Party members ‘have a right to know,’ as the MSM would say.
As a professed NT Christian believer, I should point out that I believe the 1611 Authorized King James Holy Bible to be the pure and complete word of God, given by inspiration of God, preserved by Him without error and the final authority in all matters of faith and practice.
The AV1611 will therefore be my basis for answering the Party’s clerical critics, because it has rightly been described as the anvil that breaks all the hammers. It will do the same with these apostate clergy. Not all readers will agree with this approach but I trust it will be seen to be consistent.
Some over-arching Biblical observations are therefore in order and they follow below.
Note that emphases in Bible texts quoted are mine throughout this article. I may of course be falsely accused of wresting the scriptures, 2 Peter 3:16, i.e. taking them out of context but even the false accusers can’t deny that the various Biblical statements cited in this article were actually made.
The main plank of the clergy’s criticisms is that the British National Party is un-Christian. It is right and proper to ask, therefore, just how ‘Christian’ are these critics? And just what do they mean by the term ‘Christian?’
Unfortunately, the second question above must remain unanswered because not one of the critics defines what a Christian is and how an individual becomes a Christian. Yet such a definition is surely germane to all their criticisms of the Party.
To get the scriptural perspective of a Christian, however, St John in his Gospel provides the Biblical definition of a NT Christian.
“But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name” John 1:12.
In other words, a NT Christian is an individual in whom the Lord Jesus Christ lives, spiritually, by invitation. As the context of John 1 reveals, the Lord Jesus Christ is God incarnate and He has the power to indwell believers, spiritually, thereby transforming them, generically, into “sons of God.”
Such a definition clearly has no bearing on BNP membership. These clerical critics therefore have no business declaring anyone ‘un-Christian’ simply for BNP membership. They themselves are unbiblical in this respect and therefore un-Christian. (At worst, it’s ‘pots and kettles.’)
Secondly, these clerics are incapable of substantiating their diatribes against the BNP with even one verse of scripture. This is surprising because no fewer than seven of these nine anti-BNP clergy are Anglicans and Article VI of the Church of England’s Articles of Religion, entitled Of the sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for Salvation plainly states, my emphases:
Holy Scriptures containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation. In the name of Holy Scripture, we do understand those Canonical books of the Old and New testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church [39 OT Books, 27 NT Books, 66 Books in all].
Since these clergy’s anti-BNP calumnies are uniformly lacking ‘Chapter and Verse,’ they can be summarily dismissed as unbiblical, un-Christian and contrary to the basic tenets of the national church itself.
Thirdly, each of these clergy accepts the title Reverend. Yet this title appears only once in scripture.
Psalm 111: 9b states “holy and reverend is his name” i.e. God’s.
It is therefore the height of presumption for any ordained member of the clergy to take unto himself (or herself) a term that in scripture is reserved for God only.
Yet that is precisely what these anti-BNP clergy do.
Fourthly, one of the six clergy is a woman, Rachel Poolman, yet NT church officers are uniformly male, as St Paul makes clear.
“But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence” 1 Timothy 2:12.
“A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife” 1 Timothy 3:2.
“Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife” 1 Timothy 3:12.
Rachel Poolman cannot fulfil any of the above criteria. She has no business even being an ordained minister, let alone abusing that role to inveigh against a legitimate political party.
Fifthly, each of these clergy wears the clerical collar.
Yet the clerical collar has been a standard symbol of sun worship in all heathen religions since 1,000 BC (Mark of The Beast, by Dr. Peter S. Ruckman, Bible Baptist Bookstore, 1960, p 20).
In the Old Testament, the penalty for sun worship was death by stoning, Deuteronomy 17:2-5. Verse 5 states, “Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die.”
Just as well for these collared clerics that the NT has superseded the Old but they are certainly unbiblical and un-Christian in adopting the dog collar.
In sum, these anti-BNP clergy are unbiblical and un-Christian in all five of the above respects. I shall now address the specific criticisms from the clergy in turn. To do so, I’ve selected extracts of their statements from the web logs where they appeared i.e. Lee’s and Simon Darby’s, where the critics most plainly contrast Christian belief and the BNP. The extracts are in Italics, with the first mention of the clergy’s names in bold and my responses are in Regular text, with accompanying scriptures in Italics.
Extracts from 21st Century British Nationalism leejohnbarnes.blogspot.com/ blog article:
Why Jesus Would Never Have Been in the C of E
The Most Reverend and Right Honourable Dr John Sentamu, Lord Archbishop of York, at his inauguration as chancellor of University of Cumbria [said]:
“...Jesus would not support the BNP, nor would he appreciate his name being used to promote the party...[via a BNP billboard campaign]”
Chapter and verse? Sorry, none. John Sentamu is merely speculating.
“...BNP policies would have turned Jesus, Mary and Joseph away from their party and our shores. The Christian vision of society is one where each person is treated with dignity and respect, whatever their race or religion...”
The BNP would regard “Jesus, Mary and Joseph” as model asylum seekers.
They emigrated to the nearest safe country when danger threatened and returned to their homeland when the danger was past. Matthew 2:14-15, 19-22 describe what Joseph did when Herod the Great attempted to kill the child Jesus and then after Herod’s death, in obedience to God.
“He took the young child and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt:
And was there until the death of Herod... But when Herod was dead... he arose, and took the young child and his mother, and came into the land of Israel”
As for dignity and respect, regardless of race or religion, consider the words of the Lord Jesus Christ during His earthly ministry, first in reference to a Hamitic (black) woman, then to a habitually erring church member, then to the religious leaders of His day, whom He also repeatedly called “Hypocrites,” “Blind guides,” “Fools and blind” in the same chapter and finally in reference to the notion, apparently espoused by John Sentamu that ‘all religions are the same.’ (Publicans were Jews who collected taxes for the occupying Romans, like the EU-imposed VAT. They were hated.)
“Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me. But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs” Matthew 15:25-26.
“And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican” Matthew 18:17.
“Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves” [i.e. by their religion] Matthew 23:15.
“Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?” [i.e. thanks to their religion] Matthew 23:33.
“Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me” John 14:6.
Whichever “Christian vision” John Sentamu is referring to, it isn’t the one held by Christianity’s Founder.
The outgoing Bishop of Carlisle, the Right Reverend Graham Dow...told The Cumberland News that...
“The BNP’s message is a travesty of the truth...Jesus was inclusive. He taught us to love all people and he sent his disciples out to share the good news with every nation...”
This is what the Lord Jesus Christ said about ‘inclusivity,’ loving “all people” and “the good news.”
“He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad” Matthew 12:30.
“If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple” Luke 14:26
“And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched” Mark 9:43-44
“The good news” has some caveats to it.
Graham Dow goes on, nevertheless.
“A fundamental Christian principle is that the human race is one.”
It is not.
“And the sons of Noah, that went forth of the ark, were Shem [Oriental], and Ham [black], and Japheth [white]: and Ham is the father of Canaan. These are the three sons of Noah: and of them was the whole earth overspread” Genesis 9:18-19.
“The human race” has three ancestors, not one. The BBC’s Dr. Alice Roberts is wrong, too. For example, the descent of early British, Anglo-Saxon, Danish, Norwegian and Irish Celtic kings can be traced back to “Japheth the elder” Genesis 10:21, i.e. a white European as distinct from either Oriental or African ancestry. “Japheth” means fair, i.e. light-skinned or white. See After the Flood, by Bill Cooper, New Wine Press, 1995.
Graham Dow goes on regardless.
“Jesus Christ sought to bring us back together again...I always like mixed marriages. They are a testament to God bringing people together...”
Not according to the Jesus Christ of the Bible.
“Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division: For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three” Luke 12:51-52.
“And a man's foes shall be they of his own household” Matthew 10:36.
Mixed marriages are a testament to God’s judgement of “the flood upon the world of the ungodly” 2 Peter 2:5. This is lengthy but bear with it.
In the pre-flood world, Cain, the son of Adam, murdered his brother Abel, Genesis 4:8. To avoid revenge killings, “The Lord set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him” Genesis 4:15. This mark, which had to be visible from a distance, was passed to Cain’s descendants because in Genesis 4, the name of the offspring e.g. Cain, Abel, Seth, Adam’s third son, is synonymous with the term “seed” as in verse 25.
Thus the expression black mark is with us today, as are Cain’s lineal descendants, through Noah’s youngest son Ham, the name meaning burnt one or black. Adam’s other descendants, through Seth and ultimately Noah and his second son, Shem, were light-skinned and ruddy of hue, like David and Solomon historically, 1 Samuel 16:12, Song of Solomon 5:10, noting that Adam means ground and is associated with the name Edom, meaning red, Genesis 25:25, 30. That Shem evidently preserved Adam’s racial lineage intact, to judge by David and Solomon’s appearance, may be one reason why he was given a name that means renown or fame.
After God’s marking of Cain therefore, the pre-flood world consisted predominantly of two races, red or ruddy and black. That both races became increasingly mixed in the generations leading up to the flood is apparent first from Noah’s three sons, who were each racially different from the others. However, they all came from one couple, Mr and Mrs Noah, because Noah is said to have had only one wife, Genesis 7:7.
But in God’s providence, although Noah’s sons were racially different from each other, they each represented a pure racial stock (or gene pool).
This is apparent from Genesis 6:9, which states that “Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God.”
Of the pre-flood population, therefore, only Noah’s descendants could preserve separate, not integrated, racial identities. Even Mrs Noah was of mixed racial stock (though apparently her daughters-in-law weren’t), as the racial differences between her sons clearly show. However, because her husband “walked with God,” God in His mercy preserved those distinctions intact for replenishing the post-flood world, Genesis 9:1, because mulattoes, like mules, are eventually sterile.
It appears that in so doing, God clearly had to allow or impose a disproportionation in Noah’s offspring that concentrated Adam’s original bloodline (genes) in Shem and Cain’s in Ham. God could have wiped out the whole of the earth’s pre-flood population and made another man out of ground like Adam, Genesis 2:7 but instead, God honoured Noah’s righteous obedience, Genesis 6:9, 22 (“Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord” Genesis 6:8) by preserving Noah’s descendants.
Some obvious questions arise.
Noah and Mrs Noah produced offspring not only from both pre-flood racial groups (Shem, red or ruddy, from whom are the Semitic and Oriental peoples, and Ham, black or burnt, from whom are the negroid peoples) but from a third group (Japheth, fair, from whom is the white race).
How, therefore, (or why) does a third race emerge? And how (or where) did these three sons apparently get wives of the same race for each of them such that their three racial groups were preserved in the post-flood era?
Complete answers aren’t possible but the scripture gives some indications.
God’s judgements always spare a remnant. For example, speaking of Israel’s survival as a nation, Isaiah states “Except the LORD of hosts had left unto us a very small remnant, we should have been as Sodom, and we should have been like unto Gomorrah” Isaiah 1:9. Sodom and Gomorrah were two of “the cities of the plain” that God destroyed by “brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven” because their citizens “were wicked and sinners before the LORD exceedingly” Genesis 13:13, 19:24, 29.
Noah’s daughters-in-law probably came from “a very small remnant” of world’s population that was otherwise becoming highly racially integrated. This remnant may well-nigh have died out by the time of the flood.
As for Japheth, he seems blessed with great resilience as the eldest son, as Jacob (founder of Israel’s twelve tribes) says of his eldest son, Reuben.
“Reuben, thou art my firstborn, my might, and the beginning of my strength, the excellency of dignity, and the excellency of power” Genesis 49:3.
Shem’s descendants (with few exceptions, e.g. Inuits, formerly Eskimos) inhabit temperate areas where tent-dwelling is possible year round, Genesis 9:27 and Africa (Egypt), with its warm climate, is the Biblical land of Ham’s descendants, where most of them still live, Psalm 105:23, 27, 106:22 and where year-round tabernacle or tent-dwelling is also feasible, Psalm 78:51. However, as God foresaw, Japheth’s descendants inhabit the harsher climes of northern Europe, where they need greater resilience to survive, which they received from their progenitor as the firstborn.
Blessed therefore with such greater prowess, Japheth’s descendants are best suited to fulfilling Jesus’s Great Commission, as stated in Mark 16:15.
“Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.”
Even though the Commission was originally given to Shemites, i.e. Jesus’s disciples, it was fulfilled globally by English-speaking Japhethites during the era of the British Empire, upon which the sun never set; Carey, Judson, Taylor, Brainerd, Livingstone, Paton, Martyn, Studd etc.
As forecast by Noah’s prophecy concerning his eldest son, the fulfilment of which was essential for the global spread of the Gospel.
“God shall enlarge Japheth and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan [the son of Ham] shall be his servant” Genesis 9:27.
Note that Japheth was meant to journey to the lands of Shem and Ham, not the other way around. It is not surprising, therefore, that Japhethites, with their God-given worldwide missionary responsibility, should, in God’s wisdom, look different from Shemites and Hamites, to head off any possible ‘sibling rivalry’ that might hinder the Gospel. The first post-flood war in the scripture, Genesis 14, was between Hamites and Shemites, who remain natural enemies to this day, witness the perennial Arab-Israeli conflict.
The only way that God could prevent this antagonistic rivalry would be to make Japheth’s descendants fair i.e. white, thus showing no partiality to either of the other races that could exacerbate resistance to the Gospel. A white complexion of course is fine for Japheth’s northern homelands.
This is probably the most practical explanation for the three major racial groups as extant in the world today, from a scriptural perspective.
Moreover, this explanation underlines in part why God drowned out the pre-flood world. It had reproductively doomed itself, as Genesis 6:12-13 show.
“And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth. And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.”
The corruption in verse 12, which is the second scriptural indicator of pre-flood race-mixing, Noah’s progeny being the first, indicates degeneration through race-mixing leading to mule-ism and sterilisation. The violence, verse 13, suggests that the antagonistic racial groups (red and black), having intermingled, were killing each other’s males, ravaging the females and producing a (sterile) mongrel race in a race war. This is the large-scale reality of race-mixing. So what Graham Dow likes, God abominates.
“And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God” Luke 16:15.
All this is far beyond the understanding of the BNP’s clerical critics, of course but it does show that their support of collective race-mixing is unbiblical and un-Christian.
Reverend Rachel Poolman...is president of the United Reformed Church in Cumbria...[She said]:
“...The BNP work by trying to play on people’s fears. They talk about having a Christian country, which implies that non-Christians are not welcome...”
No, it implies that Christians should witness to non-Christians about the salvation of the Lord Jesus Christ and help non-Christians to become Christians according to
John 1:12, which see. Silly woman.
Reverend John Goddard, Baptist network minister for Cumbria, said of the BNP campaign: “...There is no justification to use His name and image for their [billboard] propaganda. I genuinely believe Jesus would offer a welcome to all people whatever their ethnicity...”
“But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel” Matthew 15:24.
See also Matthew 15:25-26 and associated comments above.
John Goddard’s “Jesus” is not the Jesus Christ of the Bible any more than Graham Dow’s.
Extract from Simon Darby’s blog simondarby.blogspot.com/ article:
The Rev Ian Bishop, of St Michael and All Angels Church, in Hightown, Middlewich: “In my opinion to vote BNP is to oppose Christian values and the Christian Church.”
Mr Bishop’s opinion is irrelevant. “What saith the scripture?” Romans 4:3.
Mr Bishop (Psalm 111:9b) continues.
“I have made it abundantly clear that I cannot see how it is possible to call yourself Christian and vote BNP. The Archbishop of York was recently quoted saying: ‘A vote for the BNP is like spitting in the face of God’.”
See remarks above on John 1:12. In addition, the only individuals recorded in scripture who actually spat in the face of God were “the chief priests, and elders, and all the council” Matthew 26:59a and members of the occupation forces of the Roman Empire, an early form of the EU.
“Then did they spit in his face, and buffeted him” Matthew 26:67a.
“And the soldiers led him away into the hall...And they smote him on the head with a reed, and did spit upon him” Mark 15:16a, 19a.
That is, the spitters were the apostate clergy and the heathen foreigners they were allied to, which clearly is of relevance for Britain today.
The Rt Rev Dr Alastair Redfern, the Bishop of Derby has signed a statement ahead of June’s European and county council elections...jointly with the Bishop of Repton, Bishop of Southwell and Nottingham, and the Bishop of Sherwood.
Their joint statement says: “...We...confirm that the core beliefs and policies of the BNP are inconsistent with the teaching and example of Jesus Christ.”
St Peter succinctly expresses “the teaching and example of Jesus Christ.”
“For this is thankworthy, if a man for conscience toward God endure grief, suffering wrongfully. For what glory is it, if, when ye be buffeted for your faults, ye shall take it patiently? but if, when ye do well, and suffer for it, ye take it patiently, this is acceptable with God. For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps: Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth: Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously” 1 Peter 2:19-23.
On balance, BNP members who’ve endured wrongful arrests, intimidation, threats, false accusations, summary dismissal and even physical violence appear from the above to have followed “the teaching and example of Jesus Christ” a lot better than their critics like Dr Alastair Redfern.
The falsehood, false teaching and unbiblical, unethical and un-Christian prejudice against the BNP on the part of the nine clerics listed above has been amply demonstrated. In every respect, the AV1611 Holy Bible has soundly rebuked them. It remains only to issue a final Biblical admonition to each of them, from none other than the Lord God Almighty Himself.
“These things hast thou done, and I kept silence; thou thoughtest that I was altogether such an one as thyself: but I will reprove thee, and set them in order before thine eyes” Psalm 50:21.
North Yorkshire, May 2009