Thread: David Cameron, evangelical Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=027321
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :
 
David Cameron in the Church Times this week:

quote:
I believe we should be more confident about our status as a Christian country, more ambitious about expanding the role of faith-based organisations, and, frankly, more evangelical about a faith that compels us to get out there and make a difference to people's lives.
Church Times

Is this message good for British Christians and for Britain in general?
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
That's a weasel word right there. Saying people should "be more evangelical" may make evangelical Christians think Cameron is an evangelical, but the word is often used much more widely in business, particularly in the field of new technology. See for instance, more or less at random, here (emphasis mine):

quote:
Most internet users will tend towards the casual end of the advocacy scale. These are the people who like a Facebook post or retweet a tweet. At the other end of the scale are the super fans, who are evangelical about products or services
So very cleverly worded, but not a clear sign of a sudden "Damascus Road" conversion in my view.

[ 17. April 2014, 08:16: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
That's a weasel word right there. Saying people should "be more evangelical" may make evangelical Christians think Cameron is an evangelical, but the word is often used much more widely in business, particularly in the field of new technology.
This being a written medium, the location of my tongue in relation to my cheek is not clear in my post. Maybe I ought to change it to "evangelical."
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
Scare quotes or not, he's not saying he is an evangelical or, despite appearances, recommending that Christians should be theologically evangelical. But that's quite possibly how a lot of UK evangelical voters will hear it. Here in France the general public will probably think he's become George W Bush.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
This is one of those places where two kingdoms thinking is useful. Just because he has proclaimed himself to be 'evangelical' or Christian, doesn't mean that he suddenly has competency that was previously lacking.

I've always felt that a lot of the church have been willing to give IDS the benefit of the doubt for far too long based on him being 'a good Christian man'.
 
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 
I'm wondering if he meant 'evangelistic', in any case!
 
Posted by tessaB (# 8533) on :
 
Having read the whole article I frankly feel a little sick now [Projectile]
So the government is " giving £8 million to the Near Neighbours programme, which brings faith communities together in supporting local projects." ~Well that's great, and certainly a lot cheaper for them then actually having a welfare system that doesn't penalise people for being poor, ill or disabled. Also he "welcome the efforts of all those who help to feed, clothe, and house the poorest in our society." Lovely, the church is doing it so we don't have to.
Maybe I'm being a bit cynical but frankly this reads to me like "Ok we've bashed the churches a bit for running food banks, but actually they are doing our job for us, with no cost to us whatsoever, so let's give them a little pat on the back."
Is it me being cynical, or them?
 
Posted by Ramarius (# 16551) on :
 
I know the PM recently met with Gerald Coates (and presumably some other Christian leaders) at no 10. It wouldn't surprised me that DC agreed to make some encouraging noises in the back of that. The question is, how will these statements translate into any kind of policy initiative?
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
In a country where the poor are reviled and the people taught to revile them as skivers and scroungers, and where the growing need for food banks is met with sneers from the ruling party, he is shameless.

If he is one of those people who rewrites the world so he can believe it to be a panglossian place where all that he does is for the best, that would be bad enough, for someone in his position.

But if he actually recognises what he is responsible for in the state of the nation, that is worse.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Part of his UKIP defence strategy?

I also agree with SCK, I think he meant evangelistic rather than evangelical. The distinction is probably one of many things about the C of E about which he is, self-admittedly, a bit vague. (See Church Times article)

So Gerald Coates paid a recent visit? You can expect references to that at any upcoming conferences at which he speaks. Well known "name-dropper", Gerald.

[BTW, Gerald Coates is an anagram of "Large Tesco Ad" as wells as "God's Ale Crates"]
 
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Scare quotes or not, he's not saying he is an evangelical or, despite appearances, recommending that Christians should be theologically evangelical. But that's quite possibly how a lot of UK evangelical voters will hear it.
I think the word choice was purposeful and intended to convey exactly the double meaning you highlight - the business/idea promotion concept and a "dog whistle" to conservative Christians who might give their votes to other parties at the upcoming set of elections.
 
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by tessaB:
Is it me being cynical, or them?
No, it's certainly not you. As an evangelical I'm nonplussed (at best) as to why my faith community has been dragged into his attempt to wash over his government's failures.

"We're not withdrawing services, we're making space for the church - which is just brilliant isn't it, even though I don't understand its theology and don't really bother to attend - to do all that nice Christian stuff for the poor and whatnot. And because I'm saying this in public, I'm being evangelical for the church. I think?"
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:
I know the PM recently met with Gerald Coates (and presumably some other Christian leaders) at no 10. It wouldn't surprised me that DC agreed to make some encouraging noises in the back of that. The question is, how will these statements translate into any kind of policy initiative?
He's talked the talk, but before he walks, we need to work out who he's talking to and why.

DC is very good at encouraging noises. That's his job.
 
Posted by Cartmel Veteran (# 7049) on :
 
I think this is all about trying to claw back votes from those moving towards UKIP. Here in West Dorset there are many older moneyed Tories that are moving towards UKIP - a party that favours their homophobic, racist, anti-immigration, pull the ladder up after them view of society*.

The sad thing is many of these people attend my wife's churches. They'll give to the foodbank, money to the church, do fundraising. Yet they still show off abhorrent bigoted views.

UKIP appeals to them more these days because the Tories aren't being anti-gay or anti-Europe enough. And there's quite a few UKIP signs gone up around here recently. One of the UKIP candidates attends a local church.

So the older traditionalist Anglican vote is moving further right and I think that's what has got Conservatives scared. Cameron can hardly go back on the gay marriage laws now, so he's trying to appeal to the racist old biddies the best he can by claiming to be a follower of Jesus - that well known scourge of the poor.

*My wife and I have heard enough of it round here to know its a very common view from the older moneyed people in the surrounding parishes. It's like every month the government unleashes rabid wolves on the poor in the area. These lovely old churchy Tories come out to help, tend their wounds, comfort them. And then every four years tick a box that says "unleash wolves on the poor".

[ 17. April 2014, 09:37: Message edited by: Cartmel Veteran ]
 
Posted by Stejjie (# 13941) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
I'm wondering if he meant 'evangelistic', in any case!
I'm not sure: it's certainly possible, but I wonder, with others here, whether he's deliberately trying to "tap in" to evangelical Christians whom he hopes are sympathetic to the Tories.

Which isn't to say all evangelicals are Tories - that's nonsense as I'm the former but definitely not the latter. But I get quite a bit from a certain large evangelical media group (because I subscribe to one of their magazines) and if I was one of his advisors and saw their stuff, I'd definitely be advising him to court them as they do seem like they could be largely sympathetic to him.

And yes, it does seem really rather cynical, especially in the light of the letter that was sent to him from church leaders about the rise in use of foodbanks...
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by tessaB:
Lovely, the church is doing it so we don't have to.
I'm unconvinced that this is massively different from the "the government should do it so we don't have to" stance of many churches/churchgoers...
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Stejjie:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Which isn't to say all evangelicals are Tories - that's nonsense as I'm the former but definitely not the latter.
There is a certain constituency of evangelicals who look to the US as an exampler whowould be Tory - and it looks like a strategy that would be very much in their mould[*] but designed to attract older voters tending rightwards.

[*] Which isn't much of a surprise because they adopt similar tactics to Dave from PR

[edited code with evangelistic zeal]

[ 17. April 2014, 13:16: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 
Posted by chive (# 208) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:
I know the PM recently met with Gerald Coates (and presumably some other Christian leaders) at no 10. It wouldn't surprised me that DC agreed to make some encouraging noises in the back of that. The question is, how will these statements translate into any kind of policy initiative?
If that happened to be on 9 April, I know there was an evening reception for religious 'leaders' for Easter. Someone I know was invited and turned it down as he a) didn't want to legitimise the current government by being there and b) felt it would be uncouth to tell someone in their own house that their policies were evil and antichristian.
 
Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on :
 
I wouldn't take seriously anything that Cameron says or promises.

He is a politician. Politicians will make any accommodating noises necessary to win votes and Cameron is playing to the right-wing gallery in the guise of religious rhetoric.

His view of Christianity happens to be Pelagian as well as being indistinguishable from the best of non-Christian Faiths.

Enough of this political playing to the gallery nonsense.
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
If we was an evangelical Christian he would not have pushed through the same sex marriage bill.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
If we was an evangelical Christian he would not have pushed through the same sex marriage bill.
Not necessarily. In government the individual ministers, even PMs, support legislation they might disagree with personally. It's one of the consequences of cabinet responsibility and amongst everything else, he probably doesn't regard it as the #1 issue, so it wouldn't be worth resigning over.

Then again, even if he is an evangelical Christian, I doubt he is your kind of evangelical Christian.
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
If we was an evangelical Christian he would not have pushed through the same sex marriage bill.
Not necessarily. In government the individual ministers, even PMs, support legislation they might disagree with personally. It's one of the consequences of cabinet responsibility and amongst everything else, he probably doesn't regard it as the #1 issue, so it wouldn't be worth resigning over.

Then again, even if he is an evangelical Christian, I doubt he is your kind of evangelical Christian.
There is a difference between supporting (or not) a bill and introducing it and pushing it through while disregarding the voices of many in your party.
 
Posted by Lucia (# 15201) on :
 
Presumably David Cameron's recent Easter message is all related to this as well. DC's Easter message
 
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
If we was an evangelical Christian he would not have pushed through the same sex marriage bill.
As well as what Sioni Sais said, one can consider an action to be immoral or not right, yet still believe people should have the freedom to take that action if they feel it is moral / appropriate / correct.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
If we was an evangelical Christian he would not have pushed through the same sex marriage bill.
Perhaps he's the sort of evangelical Christian that supports same sex marriage.
 
Posted by tessaB (# 8533) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by tessaB:
Lovely, the church is doing it so we don't have to.
I'm unconvinced that this is massively different from the "the government should do it so we don't have to" stance of many churches/churchgoers...
Totally agree Marvin. There are plenty of Christians out there whose idea of loving their neighbour stops before it gets below a certain income bracket.
In any community there will always be those for whom government assistance, however generous, will not be enough, that is the hole that Christians should be plugging. Not the hole left by policies that target the disabled, the sick, the uneducated.
If the measure of a society is how it cares for it's most vulnerable people, then frankly the UK is looking pretty sick.
 
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
If we was an evangelical Christian he would not have pushed through the same sex marriage bill.
This view is deeply problematic. I'm going to ignore the specifics of the Dead Horse here but address what seems to be your wider point - that an evangelical (defined by yourself, I suppose) politician is going use their power to impose his or her own standards of behavior as a Christian onto the wider society.

When countries like Saudi Arabia or Malaysia do this, we call it religious oppression. And for good reason.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
OK, so I too think DC meant that the CofE should get out there and not hid the 'God bit', but I don't think that means he is an evangelical in church terms.

As for whether or not we should take him at face value: looking at the 2 party leaders of the coalition, I'd rather DC than Nick Clegg, who is still trying to claim that proclivities of Cyril Smith were unknown within the party until after CS's death.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
If we was an evangelical Christian he would not have pushed through the same sex marriage bill.
This is a clever device to induce a bunch of liberal left-leaning Christians to defend David Cameron.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
I think the word choice was purposeful and intended to convey exactly the double meaning you highlight - the business/idea promotion concept and a "dog whistle"
I think this is very likely. It seems like an odd word to use at that particular point, although I notice he uses the rest of the text to make himself sound like a vague, go-occasionally, not-too-worryingly-keen Christian to those who wouldn't pick up on that word and might otherwise worry about a politician who "does God".
 
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :
 
The DH can definitely stay in its corral down in Dead Horses. There is absolutely no need to bring up SSM in relation to what you think of Cameron's article in the Church Times.

Gwai,
Purgatory Host
 
Posted by Polly (# 1107) on :
 
It's too easy to judge whether a public figure's faith is sincere and real or not.

I'll start with the things I liked about DC's comments. The simple highlighting of the facts the Christian faith has contributed and continues to do so to the fabric of our nation. When much of the media seems to want to airbrush out various important facts about faith and this country it was good to hear a reminder.

Then there's the things that irritate me!

[Big Grin]

Evidence of real faith is by the fruit it yields and for many whether they are Christian or not may perceive DC's comments as promoting something that is only for middle class white folk.

With Easter Sunday approaching I believe we have a whole lot more to offer than this.
 
Posted by Holy Smoke (# 14866) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Cartmel Veteran:
...The sad thing is many of these people attend my wife's churches. They'll give to the foodbank, money to the church, do fundraising. Yet they still show off abhorrent bigoted views.
...
Just one small thing: just because people happen to have conservative views on immigration, sexuality, race, etc., doesn't make them 'bigots'. That's not what the word 'bigot' means. It means somebody who holds a particular view, and stubbornly refuses to consider the alternatives, not somebody who holds a different view from the one which you do. [Smile] People in positions of power and influence generally speaking have considered the alternatives, and don't much like them.

Saying that, I do think considering Dave as a Christian stretches the definition a little bit too far, given his toleration of payday loans, zero-hour contracts, bedroom tax, etc., etc., and it does demonstrate how perilously close the CofE sometimes comes to condoning this sort of right-wing conservatism.

[ 17. April 2014, 14:51: Message edited by: Holy Smoke ]
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
Cameron attends a liberal catholic anglican church.

If he WAS an evangelical, he'd have been confronted by the many evangelicals who have a passion for social justice (and they have a better record, historically, than anglo-catholics on sucial justice issues).

[ 17. April 2014, 15:39: Message edited by: leo ]
 
Posted by Cartmel Veteran (# 7049) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Holy Smoke:
Just one small thing: just because people happen to have conservative views on immigration, sexuality, race, etc., doesn't make them 'bigots'. That's not what the word 'bigot' means. It means somebody who holds a particular view, and stubbornly refuses to consider the alternatives, not somebody who holds a different view from the one which you do. [Smile]
Just one other "small thing", Gee thanks Mr Dictionary.

The views I've heard aren't "conservative views" they are more akin to the BNP or worse. If I was just talking about conservative views I wouldn't have used the word bigot. I'm talking about hatred, racism, "ship them all back to bongo land" and the like. That's not "conservative views".

I used the word because you hear a lot of stuff that sounds like the following. "Bigotry is the state of mind of a bigot: someone who, as a result of their prejudices, treats or views other people with fear, distrust or hatred on the basis of a person's ethnicity, evaluative orientation, race, religion, national origin, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability, socioeconomic status, opinion, or other characteristics."

And you hear plenty of it from Tory church goers in West Dorset.
 
Posted by Holy Smoke (# 14866) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Cartmel Veteran:
...I used the word because you hear a lot of stuff that sounds like the following. "Bigotry is the state of mind of a bigot: someone who, as a result of their prejudices, treats or views other people with fear, distrust or hatred on the basis of a person's ... opinion, or other characteristics."

And you hear plenty of it from Tory church goers in West Dorset.
You're welcome to look the word up in a real dictionary, of course. Meanwhile, I think you'd better come up with some quantifiable evidence of what 'Tory church goers' actually believe and practice. Apart from Dave, of course, who we know about.
 
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :
 
The pathetic weasel has realised he might need the vote of Christians, so he is saying things that they can interpret as being supporting of their views.

Without, of course, actually committing himself to doing any of the things that most people would consider to be Christian. Like caring for the poor, and helpless.
 
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :
 
I noticed the line that it's fine to evangelise the Christian Church and all its good work, not so important to believe in God or to promote belief.

So yay for moral values where they mean that Christians get out there and put their energies into helping others, especially those suffering from the dreadful policies which leave people hungry or homeless, and yay for our history as a Christian country where jolly good fellows gave their all to bring in health care and education, but not 'yay' for God.
 
Posted by Cartmel Veteran (# 7049) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Holy Smoke:
quote:
Originally posted by Cartmel Veteran:
...I used the word because you hear a lot of stuff that sounds like the following. "Bigotry is the state of mind of a bigot: someone who, as a result of their prejudices, treats or views other people with fear, distrust or hatred on the basis of a person's ... opinion, or other characteristics."

And you hear plenty of it from Tory church goers in West Dorset.
You're welcome to look the word up in a real dictionary, of course. Meanwhile, I think you'd better come up with some quantifiable evidence of what 'Tory church goers' actually believe and practice. Apart from Dave, of course, who we know about.
What? You want me to go record them next time and present evidence to you? You've a grand opinion of yourself.

Meanwhile in the real world folks don't go around recording each other to present on the internet.

I said I'd heard such discussion. If you don't believe it. Then fine, but I'm not going to waste a second of my time playing "internet willy waving" with you. Hope things work out for you.
 
Posted by Ramarius (# 16551) on :
 
The £20M for cathedrals is welcome - I understand the CofE is looking at an £87M shortfall in cathedral funding repairs. Also interested from any CofEers on how this new grant compares to cuts to funding since the coalition came to power.

£8m, for anti-poverty projects,whilst welcome in itself, is a drop in the ocean compared to the billions in reduced welfare spending. Can anyone tell me more about the "Near Neighbours" project? Is this the same as the Church Urban Fund?

[Confused]
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by tessaB:
Also he "welcome the efforts of all those who help to feed, clothe, and house the poorest in our society." Lovely, the church is doing it so we don't have to.
Maybe I'm being a bit cynical but frankly this reads to me like "Ok we've bashed the churches a bit for running food banks, but actually they are doing our job for us, with no cost to us whatsoever, so let's give them a little pat on the back."
Is it me being cynical, or them?
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
In a country where ... the growing need for food banks is met with sneers from the ruling party, he is shameless.
Whenever Labour MPs try to bait David Cameron about food banks (which they do periodically in Prime Minister's Questions) he goes out of his way to praise the work they do. He's been doing that for a while.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Whenever Labour MPs try to bait David Cameron about food banks (which they do periodically in Prime Minister's Questions) he goes out of his way to praise the work they do. He's been doing that for a while.
People who run down the street with knives, slashing at anyone within reach, have only good things to say about the NHS, I hear.
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
It's shameless trawling for votes. Hypocrite.

About the only bit that sounded real was his references to the help he got from the church at the time of his son's death.

Today we have most newspapers (the righter leaning ones), attacking the food banks. Good news/bad news = good tory/bad tory.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
Is it possible for any politician to make a statement about their own personal faith without being accused of trawling for votes?
 
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Scare quotes or not, he's not saying he is an evangelical or, despite appearances, recommending that Christians should be theologically evangelical. But that's quite possibly how a lot of UK evangelical voters will hear it. Here in France the general public will probably think he's become George W Bush.
So Cameron has mellowed?
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Whenever Labour MPs try to bait David Cameron about food banks (which they do periodically in Prime Minister's Questions) he goes out of his way to praise the work they do. He's been doing that for a while.
This baiting wouldn't work if his party wasn't full of people who periodically make completely idiotic statements about food banks (see Lord Freud, etc.)

Secondly most criticisms come from people (often people who run food banks themselves) who would rather that food banks didn't need to exist in the first place.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
Does anyone really wish that food banks had to exist in the first place? Same with, say, Job Seekers' Allowance.
 
Posted by Alex Cockell (# 7487) on :
 
And the British church splits into the Political Church and the Confessing Church.

Just like in Germany in the 1930s....
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
Unemployment is a price worth paying, apparently.

Of course, you don't have to give them dole...
 
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Is it possible for any politician to make a statement about their own personal faith without being accused of trawling for votes?
Absolutely, but it has to be shown long-term, in words and actions.

There are MPs who have and show their faith. Most of them don't talk about it, they show it.
 
Posted by GCabot (# 18074) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Does anyone really wish that food banks had to exist in the first place? Same with, say, Job Seekers' Allowance.
These questions imply that there is some sort of magical world where food banks or Job Seekers' Allowance would be unnecessary. We can dream of such a world, but that seems rather unproductive.

Jesus said himself that "the poor always ye have with you."
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
IMO the article is firstly about the importance of religiously inspired 'good works', and secondly about the cultural value of the CofE. It's not about evangelicalism as a theological approach, nor about the importance of a personal faith. Even the reference to evangelism is more about developing social projects rather than belief.

It would be interesting to know which 'religious leaders' were in attendance, and also who the intended wider audience is. The speech doesn't really deal with the issues that potential UKIP voters might have, so it's hard to see how Mr Cameron is targeting them.
 
Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :
 
I think that there are striking similarities between David Cameron and Justin Welby. Let's start with the bleeding obvious - they are both old Etonians and reflect that (relatively narrow) group of upper-middle class men who come from rather priviledged backgrounds and who have a rather inbuilt assumption that they are somehow "meant" to be in positions of leadership. It is a benign, old school paternalism. Cameron is not the heir to Thatcher, but rather heir to the likes of Eden and MacMillan.

Secondly, both of them came to "power" without much experience. Cameron was made leader of the Conservatives not on the basis of anything he had done, but on the basis of what he said he would do. He became Prime Minister pretty much on the same basis - he was good at making statements which were appealing. Welby was the same. He didn't have any experience to "justify" his appointment - it was all based upon his "potential" and the things he had said.

And they both exhibit a similar pattern of behaviour. They are prone to making "warm" sounding statements, designed to get people agreeing with them, which actually - when analysed - don't really add up to much. There is also a distinct disconnection between what they say and what actually end up doing. Cameron made a big thing about this will be the "greenest" government in history, but actually has done nothing of note in environmental terms. Welby has made warm sounding statements about tackling homophobia in the Anglican Church but has actually done very little about it.
 
Posted by Garasu (# 17152) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by GCabot:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Does anyone really wish that food banks had to exist in the first place? Same with, say, Job Seekers' Allowance.
These questions imply that there is some sort of magical world where food banks or Job Seekers' Allowance would be unnecessary. We can dream of such a world, but that seems rather unproductive.

Jesus said himself that "the poor always ye have with you."
I don't see that we have to imagine a world in which some people are less well off before we can imagine a world where food banks and JSA are unnecessary...

If Jesus was really saying "there will always be some people who are completely destitute", then I'm not sure what good news you think he was bringing?
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
i seem to recall from a reading of the essential Islamic text "The 1001 Nights" (NB, irony intended) that some believed that it was necessary for there always to be beggars so that the faithful could always have people to give charity to and thus fulfil one of the five pillars*. There seems to be a touch of that about using Jesus' words about the poor to justify not reordering society to reduce their number.
*In trying to recall what the beggars were supposed to do to fulfil that obligation, the idea that existing to enable that giving was the charitable act comes to mind.

[ 17. April 2014, 19:49: Message edited by: Penny S ]
 
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
Our use or His?
 
Posted by GCabot (# 18074) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Garasu:
quote:
Originally posted by GCabot:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Does anyone really wish that food banks had to exist in the first place? Same with, say, Job Seekers' Allowance.
These questions imply that there is some sort of magical world where food banks or Job Seekers' Allowance would be unnecessary. We can dream of such a world, but that seems rather unproductive.

Jesus said himself that "the poor always ye have with you."
I don't see that we have to imagine a world in which some people are less well off before we can imagine a world where food banks and JSA are unnecessary...
Such a society has never existed and I don't see how it ever will.

quote:
Originally posted by Garasu:
If Jesus was really saying "there will always be some people who are completely destitute", then I'm not sure what good news you think he was bringing?
Err, the good news of eternal salvation? Jesus promised us that through His grace, our souls would spend eternity with Him. I do not recall Him making any promises about saving us from earthly suffering, unless you buy into prosperity theology.
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
And they both exhibit a similar pattern of behaviour. They are prone to making "warm" sounding statements, designed to get people agreeing with them, which actually - when analysed - don't really add up to much. There is also a distinct disconnection between what they say and what actually end up doing. Cameron made a big thing about this will be the "greenest" government in history, but actually has done nothing of note in environmental terms. Welby has made warm sounding statements about tackling homophobia in the Anglican Church but has actually done very little about it.
Bang on the nail. We're known by God for our delivery not for our planning and our words.

We've bought the pup again on both counts ....
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
Does any realise that Cameron's words mirror the sentiment of Blair's "Trust me, I'm a regular kind of guy?"

It's primarily expediency nothing less. Deliver something Davie, really demonstrate that the Tories don't hate the poor and will kick the fascists out of their parties and then we'll believe you. [Example: the Swindon mayor who resigned wasn't kicked out of the Tory party for the comments he made about disabled people - change that approach David and we'll consider (yes, just consider) cutting you some slack. Until then, the gloves are off - and fortunately in this neck of the woods both Tory MP's realise that. The churches can change it!].
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
I have a sort of idea for a video cutting the speech with interviews with sick people found able to work by Atos or sanctioned by Job Centres for "errors" that no-one normal would regard as errors, and food bank organisers, and Jesus' speech about the people those whom he welcomes into heaven have helped. A bit more apposite than the "the poor you have always with you" remark. don't know how to do it, though.
 
Posted by Sandemaniac (# 12829) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
The pathetic weasel
Isn't that offensive to weasels?

AG
 
Posted by Ramarius (# 16551) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Is it possible for any politician to make a statement about their own personal faith without being accused of trawling for votes?
That's a fair challenge. Trouble with DC is that his political vision seems to resolve around his own personal ambition and little else. He once famously answered the question "Why do want to be Prime Minister?" with "Because I think I'd be rather good at it." One of his close aides remarked that "90% of David's ambition was fulfilled when he walked through the door of No 10." He repeatly comes across as an actor playing a part rather than someone driven with a vision for change. In that respect he reflects a lot of what we see in the political class that cycles around the corridors of power in Westminster.

A more serious response to the need for food banks would be to address some of the structural issues in his Departments which give rise to them in the first place. If he started paying compensation to people who have their benefits stopped incorrectly, or experince unreasonable delays in them being paid in the first place, he would go a long way to reducing demand for alternative provision of subsistence.
 
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:
A more serious response to the need for food banks would be to address some of the structural issues in his Departments which give rise to them in the first place. If he started paying compensation to people who have their benefits stopped incorrectly, or experince unreasonable delays in them being paid in the first place, he would go a long way to reducing demand for alternative provision of subsistence.
That would be brilliant! Is it Mudfrog of this parish who has recounted many sad stories of people being thrown onto the mercies of churches, foodbanks etc. thanks not to the rules around benefits as such, but to the incompetence and intransigence of local officials? If there was actually some serious comeback for such officials who get it wrong, maybe they would get it wrong less often...

Caveat - I realise many / most / all public bodies are seriously overworked and overstaffed but, still, some of the stories Mudfrog (if it was he) shared sounded horrendous.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:
He once famously answered the question "Why do want to be Prime Minister?" with "Because I think I'd be rather good at it."


Perhaps it's me, but that seems as good a reason as any to me. Slightly Macmillan-esque (though I think Macmillan is Cameron's role model).

quote:
A more serious response to the need for food banks would be to address some of the structural issues in his Departments which give rise to them in the first place. If he started paying compensation to people who have their benefits stopped incorrectly, or experince unreasonable delays in them being paid in the first place, he would go a long way to reducing demand for alternative provision of subsistence.
I appreciate that you may not have meant it in this way, Ramarius, but what I don't understand is the way in which people are outraged about folk going to food banks in the way that they aren't outraged about people claiming benefits. 'They should've been paid their benefits' is kind of said with a shrug of the shoulders whereas 'they've gone to a food bank' is said with moral outrage.

The only difference I can see between the two is that one is reliance on charity and one is reliance on the state. Cynical Anglican't can't help but think that's part of the reason for the hatred towards food banks.
 
Posted by Avila (# 15541) on :
 
This is the same man who when presented with petition and church reps this week at constituency office re End Hunger Fast didn't just refuse to open the door but called the police. On a riotous bunch? Well a bishop and some mates, maybe that does count as a threat! Interesting given this pronouncement of his....


(edited: to change Eat Hunger to End hunger....!)

[ 18. April 2014, 10:57: Message edited by: Avila ]
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Avila:
This is the same man who when presented with petition and church reps this week at constituency office re End Hunger Fast didn't just refuse to open the door but called the police. On a riotous bunch? Well a bishop and some mates, maybe that does count as a threat! Interesting given this pronouncement of his....


(edited: to change Eat Hunger to End hunger....!)
I can find reference to a letter being delivered but no reference to the police being called. (Of course, I think it's also very unlikely that David Cameron would have been in his constituency office at the time the letter was delivered.)
 
Posted by Avila (# 15541) on :
 
From facebook of a contact who was there as one and linked to the story noting the police bit was not mentioned.

Checked and he did refer to DC's office not DC - but still...

And letter not petition, so apologies for errors there

[ 18. April 2014, 11:46: Message edited by: Avila ]
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
Is this cartoon in today's "Times" germane to our discussion?
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
I appreciate that you may not have meant it in this way, Ramarius, but what I don't understand is the way in which people are outraged about folk going to food banks in the way that they aren't outraged about people claiming benefits. 'They should've been paid their benefits' is kind of said with a shrug of the shoulders whereas 'they've gone to a food bank' is said with moral outrage.
You mean 'They've claimed benefits' ? (There is cause for "They should have been paid their benefits" being said with outrage). That might be cause for outrage if there was any evidence that fraud was as widespread across the system as The Wail frequently claims it is.

In any case the focal point of the outrage is completely different.

quote:

The only difference I can see between the two is that one is reliance on charity and one is reliance on the state. Cynical Anglican't can't help but think that's part of the reason for the hatred towards food banks.
No, frankly I can only think you are deliberately misunderstanding things. The reason for the outrage is that most people would like to think that we live in a society where the safety net is such that people aren't wanting for basics like food and shelter. Usually the reason people are referred to food banks in the first place is because the benefits system has broken down, and they don't have any resources to tide themselves over to the point where their next payment comes in. The outrage is there because the system has been set up such that such circumstances will inevitably occur.
 
Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :
 
Yes the outrage at "They've had to go to a food bank"
is because it's the end line of "They should have been paid their benefits and they haven't, and you(generic) think that it doesn't matter and even now haven't even noticed that They've Had To Go To A Food Bank".

(at least in this faction of the non-right)
What foodbanks are doing has (many's here) support.
Is it the best way. No... it's an expression of our failure. Are the people good guys (probably, except as far as they contribute to being necessary).
 
Posted by Garasu (# 17152) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by GCabot:
Jesus promised us that through His grace, our souls would spend eternity with Him. I do not recall Him making any promises about saving us from earthly suffering, unless you buy into prosperity theology.
"It's not God's plan for you to be miserable" is hardly the prosperity gospel!
 
Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :
 
It sends shudders down my spine whenever anyone anywhere (except the Vatican) says "this is a Christian country." England has an Established Church - but with so many people who do not identify as Christians living there - you would think that politicians would want to talk about the country as not belonging to any religion (or irreligion) more than any other.

Here in the US, some politicians will say that this is a Christian country, but anyone who has a real chance of being elected president (not of winning the Republican primary, of actually winning the general election) knows that about as far as you can go is saying that this country was founded upon Christian values (which I would say is an oversimplification, but is different that saying that this is a Christian country). After being elected President a person would be even more constrained from saying such a thing. Does anyone have any evidence of a US President since World War II saying that this is a Christian country? What about before (that might be more likely, but I'm not sure)?
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
'This is a Christian country' is a phrase most English people have probably heard before, but it's not really taken to mean that most people in the land are devout believers. I think it's more a reference to the country's cultural heritage. After all, even Richard Dawkins has been known to call himself a 'cultural Christian'. Discomfort arises if the listener suspects the term is being used to insist on special privileges for practising Christians or for churches, which in the mouth of a politician might be the case.

However, it's a fact that despite declining religious practice and belief, there's been very little clamour for the disestablishment of the CofE (although the other countries of Britain have no official church). Every now and then some political leader makes a noise about the bishops in the House of Lords and the powers they anachronistically have there; but then nothing happens. So institutionally speaking Mr Cameron isn't wrong to refer to England as a 'Christian country'. But it's an ambiguous statement from a religious (and hence a political) point of view.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
Polly Toynbee is annoyed in the Guardian about David Cameron. Anything that annoys her must be good news for Christians everywhere.
 
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Polly Toynbee is annoyed in the Guardian about David Cameron. Anything that annoys her must be good news for Christians everywhere.
Apart from the Christians who agree with her, presumably.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Polly Toynbee is annoyed in the Guardian about David Cameron. Anything that annoys her must be good news for Christians everywhere.
Some of us don't allow ourselves to be defined by Polly Tonybee, either positively or negatively.

Having said that:

"But his "Christian country" message is really whistling to the errant flock fled to Ukip. They may never attend, but the C of E is a cultural identity marker for those sharing Nigel Farage's distaste for foreign tongues on his commuter train."

doesn't seem entirely inaccurate. The vast majority of the column is just confused guff though.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
I'd certainly hope not to be defined by Toynbee who - like so many broadly 'socialist' thinkers and journalists - had benefited hugely from the nepotism, family links and connectedness that she decries in people broadly of the right.

I'm not entirely sure why she's so rabidly anti-CofE but anyone of any persuasion expressing a pro-CofE point of view could expected to get a kicking from her.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
At least, he's not a Jewish atheist, like that fella Miliband, with his treacherous father.
 
Posted by Grokesx (# 17221) on :
 
quote:
I'm not entirely sure why she's so rabidly anti-CofE but anyone of any persuasion expressing a pro-CofE point of view could expected to get a kicking from her.
I think you'll find she's an equal opportunities kicker. In 2004, according to the fount of all knowledge, the Islamic Human Rights Commission awarded Toynbee the 'Most Islamophobic Media Personality award, and she has written:
quote:
The pens sharpen – Islamophobia! No such thing. Primitive Middle Eastern religions (and most others) are much the same – Islam, Christianity and Judaism all define themselves through disgust for women's bodies

 
Posted by HughWillRidmee (# 15614) on :
 
From the Church Times article

" Crucially, the Christian values of responsibility, hard work, charity, compassion, humility, and love are shared by people of every faith and none - and we should be confident in standing up to defend them."

In other words - the human values which are shared by some Christians but are no more Christian than they are Islamic, Buddhist, atheistic/agnostic, Wiccan etc. - but since this is aimed at voters who identify as Christian we'll assume that they only read the carefully crafted bit that makes them feel special and don't realise that I'm carefully hedging my bets so that the non-Christian majority don't get too upset.
 
Posted by Hairy Biker (# 12086) on :
 
Predictable reaction from the humanists.

I think it's a shame the ABC and other Christian leaders haven't taken the opportunity to challenge on him on what specifically he and his party have done that Jesus would have approved of. As it is, we're left with a ruling elite co-opting our religion as an old-boys club in order to win a few xenophobic votes. That's hugely damaging for Christianity and should be challenged in the strongest possible language.
 
Posted by Wesley J (# 6075) on :
 
Good points indeed, HB!

And nobody asks people not associated with Cammie et al or humanists et al, and who now find themselves between a rock and a hard place. Bloody embarrassing.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
At least, he's not a Jewish atheist, like that fella Miliband, with his treacherous father.
That would be treacherous as in, "fought bravely for his country in the Second World War", I guess?
 
Posted by Amos (# 44) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
At least, he's not a Jewish atheist, like that fella Miliband, with his treacherous father.
That would be treacherous as in, "fought bravely for his country in the Second World War", I guess?
Yes. Check your sarcasm alert.
 
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by GCabot:
Jesus said himself that "the poor always ye have with you."
I believe that was an observation, not a recommendation.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
At least, he's not a Jewish atheist, like that fella Miliband, with his treacherous father.
That would be treacherous as in, "fought bravely for his country in the Second World War", I guess?
Yes. Check your sarcasm alert.
Just makin' sure ;-)
 
Posted by Solly (# 11919) on :
 
The good Christian people responding in this thread confirm a generally-held view that one's right to call oneself and express oneself as a Christian comes not with baptism but with the approval of the self-appointed righteous. You would think that a politician publicly expressing his Christian faith.....Oh never mind - waste of time.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
At least, he's not a Jewish atheist, like that fella Miliband, with his treacherous father.
That would be treacherous as in, "fought bravely for his country in the Second World War", I guess?
Yes. Check your sarcasm alert.
Just makin' sure ;-)
Yes, my fault. I thought that 'fella' would be the clue for Brits, that I was being vurra zargastickal. But for non-Brits, and non-Daily Wail readers, not so.

There are stories circulating actually, that the 'I'm a Christian' stuff is a dog whistle, for 'and Miliband is a Jew' - do you really want a Jew PM? Not that Cameron would say that, but I know somebody who would.
 
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Solly:
The good Christian people responding in this thread confirm a generally-held view that one's right to call oneself and express oneself as a Christian comes not with baptism but with the approval of the self-appointed righteous. You would think that a politician publicly expressing his Christian faith.....Oh never mind - waste of time.
By their fruits you shall know them, surely? Many people who say 'Lord, Lord' never knew Him...

This isn't specifically saying that Cameron is not a Christian by the way, just saying that people who are not Christians but who call themselves Christians do exist.

Talking about Cameron more specifically, using Christianity to recapture traditional Conservative voters who want to decamp to UKIP is something practising Christians can quite reasonably object to.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
I believe that was an observation, not a recommendation.
Also quoted out of context.

The question posed is why waste perfume on Jesus' head rather than giving the money to the poor.
Jesus: the poor you have always with you so you can give to them any time you like but you will not always have me.
(Italics as in the King James Version.)
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
DC has been a sporadic churchgoer all his life it is just not something that he has been asked about before.
 
Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on :
 
Being a sporadic church-goer all your life does not account for the fact that suddenly you launch into enthusiastic "God talk" unless some kind of conversion experience sparks it.

Cameron has not suggested that this might have happened.

Far more likely it is an attempt to appeal to the 'religious right' hitherto an almost non-existent force in British politics but with the rise of UKIP it might just be a latent force with which to counter his conservative constituency who deride his other 'anti-Christian' actions.

Cynicism is the only appropriate response.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
The problem I think is that everything politicians say is instantly fed into the media machine*, and you can't get to Cameron's position without filtering everything through the test of "Will this make me look like an arsehole?" Hence even when he's being sincere, he will be consciously trying to create a particular impression.

If he just said what he liked, every day would be "Gaffe-prone Cameron puts his foot in it again".

* I would say "closely scrutinised by the media" but that implies a degree of intellectual reflection.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
DC has been a sporadic churchgoer all his life it is just not something that he has been asked about before.
One thing I remember about DC from before he became PM is that one day he was filmed walking down the street, with some of his staff in tow. There was a rather scruffy young journalist in attendance (I don't know if he'd been invited or was just trying his luck) who suddenly asked, 'Is Jesus Christ your Lord and Saviour? At that, DC put on a rather sad, silent face, and a female team member got very cross with the interviewer for asking what was obviously taken as an awkward question.

This incident always stuck in my mind, because both the question and the responses seemed noteworthy.
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
News - BBC, interview with a representative of the Conservative Christian Association (I hope I got that right) who claimed that being Christian was a very British thing and that what the humanists had done in sending their letter was not British. Having gone a bit ballistic about being critical of government pronouncements, including about religion, was very British indeed, and the MP had obviously done the wrong sort of British history. Then I noticed, after reading this thread again, that the humanist spokesman was Jim al-Khalili. More dog whistling?
ITV, interview with a spokesman for Christian Concern, which seems, from its site, to be mostly concerned about sexual issues. I couldn't see anything about the poor and the prisoners and the orphans there, and now I'm going to have to purge my cookies. He was against DC's claims because Christians have a large number of issues on which they disagree with him. SSM, I suspect is top of the list.
Can't they find people who won't let the side down?

[ 21. April 2014, 18:12: Message edited by: Penny S ]
 
Posted by StevHep (# 17198) on :
 
For what its worth I have written a blog on the subject. My conclusion is-

David Cameron remains a politician. The debate he has stirred up really does nothing to help the Christian faith or to impress upon the minds of those who hear him the Good News about Jesus Christ. But it probably does help the Conservative Party bring on board Evangelicals and those for whom the words 'Christian values' is a shorthand way of saying 'everything was better in the 1950's'. And that is all he cares about.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
Will it really help the Conservative Party 'bring on board Evangelicals'? As far as I can tell, DC didn't actually say anything that was particularly evangelical. He threw in some key terms and a catchphrase about how we live in a 'Christian country', but the 'Christian values' he referred to directly were about doing charitable works. You don't have to be an evangelical (or even a Christian) to pay lip service to that....

I'm still hoping someone will tell us which 'church leaders' attended his Easter meeting. That would be very interesting information.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Will it really help the Conservative Party 'bring on board Evangelicals'? As far as I can tell, DC didn't actually say anything that was particularly evangelical.
It's not meant to bring on board 'Evangelicals' (though may have an un-intended impact amongst the small number of evangelicals of the phillips stroud variety who look over the Atlantic for inspiration). It's supposed to appeal to the rural Tory voter who thinks God is an Englishman who looked like WG Grace, and who would otherwise go Kipper.
 
Posted by StevHep (# 17198) on :
 
Evangelicals who might be inclined to sit on their hands rather than vote for any of the main parties may well re-evaluate that in the light of these comments and other similar ones that will no doubt be made. Especially when the main opposition party is led by an atheist. The bigger impact though, I suspect, is among those for whom Christianity means the world before the 1960's and all that flowed from it.
 
Posted by StevHep (# 17198) on :
 
I remember back in the 70's when I was growing up in my native land prominent figures sometimes said "Scotland is a Protestant country." In the sense that the culture and values of all Scots had in some way been shaped by the dominant ethos of Calvinism it was an intellectually defensible statement.

What it actually meant though, in many instances, was 'don't vote Labour' since the Labour Party and the large Irish-origin population in the West of the country were inextricably intertwined. And the Irish were notoriously not Protestant.

ISTM that David Cameron could be trying to pull a similar trick here.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by StevHep:
Evangelicals who might be inclined to sit on their hands rather than vote for any of the main parties may well re-evaluate that in the light of these comments and other similar ones that will no doubt be made. Especially when the main opposition party is led by an atheist. The bigger impact though, I suspect, is among those for whom Christianity means the world before the 1960's and all that flowed from it.
As I say, I'm not sure how Christians doing charity work somehow takes us back to the pre-1960s era, nor how DC's words about a 'Christian country' mean there are more Christians around now than there would have been without his speech. Words are cheap, I suppose.

I'm now getting the picture that DC wasn't really speaking to any of the Christians that I know, evangelical or not. But I suppose I knew that anyway.
 
Posted by StevHep (# 17198) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by StevHep:
Evangelicals who might be inclined to sit on their hands rather than vote for any of the main parties may well re-evaluate that in the light of these comments and other similar ones that will no doubt be made. Especially when the main opposition party is led by an atheist. The bigger impact though, I suspect, is among those for whom Christianity means the world before the 1960's and all that flowed from it.
As I say, I'm not sure how Christians doing charity work somehow takes us back to the pre-1960s era, nor how DC's words about a 'Christian country' mean there are more Christians around now than there would have been without his speech. Words are cheap, I suppose.

I'm now getting the picture that DC wasn't really speaking to any of the Christians that I know, evangelical or not. But I suppose I knew that anyway.
I think you are failing to differentiate between two distinct groups of voters. One, church attending Evangelical Christians. Two, people who are not in any sense actively religious but for whom Christianity is a word that stands for the tranquility of order from a time before the UK went through the changes of the 1960's. Cameron targeted both groups with the undercurrents of his speech but it is the second which is most electorally significant and most vulnerable to UKIP
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Polly Toynbee is annoyed in the Guardian about David Cameron. Anything that annoys her must be good news for Christians everywhere.
Some of us don't allow ourselves to be defined by Polly Tonybee, either positively or negatively.

Having said that:

"But his "Christian country" message is really whistling to the errant flock fled to Ukip. They may never attend, but the C of E is a cultural identity marker for those sharing Nigel Farage's distaste for foreign tongues on his commuter train."

doesn't seem entirely inaccurate. The vast majority of the column is just confused guff though.
Interestingly, Ed Miliband recently claimed that Britain is a 'Christian country'. But for some reason Polly and her friends didn't get so exercised about that.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Interestingly, Ed Miliband recently claimed that Britain is a 'Christian country'. But for some reason Polly and her friends didn't get so exercised about that.
Possibly because he didn't try to tie it some kind of personal faith (in an entirely deniable manner).
 
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
I believe that was an observation, not a recommendation.
Also quoted out of context.

The question posed is why waste perfume on Jesus' head rather than giving the money to the poor.
Jesus: the poor you have always with you so you can give to them any time you like but you will not always have me.
(Italics as in the King James Version.)
"Italics as in the King James Version" meaning, "there's a bit missing here if this passage is going to mean what we want it to mean", usually. I think we can be sure that the one thing Jesus didn't mean was "sod the poor, gimmee my foot massage!", which is the attitude we've come to expect from the spoiled privileged brats who run this country.

What mystifies me in this whole business is why the hell Church Times gave this man column space.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
posted by shamwari
quote:
Being a sporadic church-goer all your life does not account for the fact that suddenly you launch into enthusiastic "God talk" unless some kind of conversion experience sparks it.

Cameron has not suggested that this might have happened.

Far more likely it is an attempt to appeal to the 'religious right' hitherto an almost non-existent force in British politics but with the rise of UKIP it might just be a latent force with which to counter his conservative constituency who deride his other 'anti-Christian' actions.
But Mr Cameron HAS suggested that experience sparked it: maybe not in a way that some sections of Christianity would find sufficient/acceptable, but he has referred to the help, comfort and support he got from his PP in Oxfordshire (and in London, for that matter) at the time of his son Ivan'd death, and it has been noted that since then that he and the rest of the family have been far more regular in church attendance in London, Oxfordshire and near Chequers.

They also went to church when on the Cornwall holiday that saw their youngest child born - I know because a friend was gobsmacked to see them in the congregation.

I find it quite astonishing that instead of accepting that we might just have a PM who is a regular worshipper, the reaction on here is to jeer and instantly cry 'hypocrite': time for people to reacquaint themselves with John 8:7 and Matthew 7:3 ?
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:

I find it quite astonishing that instead of accepting that we might just have a PM who is a regular worshipper, the reaction on here is to jeer and instantly cry 'hypocrite': time for people to reacquaint themselves with John 8:7 and Matthew 7:3 ?
So you believe that he - trained PR man that he is, and with the benefit of advice - used the word 'evangelical' in the Church Times purely by accident.

In many ways I don't give a stuff anyway. His faith - whatever it consists of - neither qualifies or disqualifies him as PM. There is plenty to object to with his policies (just like that of that other 'good Christian' IBS).
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
I have never suggested that Mr Cameron used the word evangelical by accident - in fact I haven't referred to the word at all.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
I have never suggested that Mr Cameron used the word evangelical by accident - in fact I haven't referred to the word at all.
Sure - but read the first page of the thread then - most of the 'sneering' consisted of assuming he was involved in dog whistle politics by picking particular language that would appeal to certain sets of people, without scaring other sets of people.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Interestingly, Ed Miliband recently claimed that Britain is a 'Christian country'. But for some reason Polly and her friends didn't get so exercised about that.
Possibly because he didn't try to tie it some kind of personal faith (in an entirely deniable manner).
I was rather hoping that Polly had typed a diatribe about Miliband's use of the phrase, but a dodgy internet connection in Tuscany meant that it got lost in transmission to Guardian HQ.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
What mystifies me in this whole business is why the hell Church Times gave this man column space.
I don't read the Church Times, so don't know what kind of person usually writes guest columns, but it strikes me as bizarre that any newspaper worth its salt would turn down the opportunity to have the Prime Minister of the day write for it.
 
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
posted by shamwari
quote:
Being a sporadic church-goer all your life does not account for the fact that suddenly you launch into enthusiastic "God talk" unless some kind of conversion experience sparks it.

Cameron has not suggested that this might have happened.

Far more likely it is an attempt to appeal to the 'religious right' hitherto an almost non-existent force in British politics but with the rise of UKIP it might just be a latent force with which to counter his conservative constituency who deride his other 'anti-Christian' actions.
But Mr Cameron HAS suggested that experience sparked it: maybe not in a way that some sections of Christianity would find sufficient/acceptable, but he has referred to the help, comfort and support he got from his PP in Oxfordshire (and in London, for that matter) at the time of his son Ivan'd death, and it has been noted that since then that he and the rest of the family have been far more regular in church attendance in London, Oxfordshire and near Chequers.

They also went to church when on the Cornwall holiday that saw their youngest child born - I know because a friend was gobsmacked to see them in the congregation.

I find it quite astonishing that instead of accepting that we might just have a PM who is a regular worshipper, the reaction on here is to jeer and instantly cry 'hypocrite': time for people to reacquaint themselves with John 8:7 and Matthew 7:3 ?
Perhaps he should act like a Christian then - that might help.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
What mystifies me in this whole business is why the hell Church Times gave this man column space.
I don't read the Church Times, so don't know what kind of person usually writes guest columns, but it strikes me as bizarre that any newspaper worth its salt would turn down the opportunity to have the Prime Minister of the day write for it.
Only if you assume that the PM has something to say about every topic. In this case it ends up making a reasonably good argument for applying a two kingdoms approach to something.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
What mystifies me in this whole business is why the hell Church Times gave this man column space.
I don't read the Church Times, so don't know what kind of person usually writes guest columns, but it strikes me as bizarre that any newspaper worth its salt would turn down the opportunity to have the Prime Minister of the day write for it.
Only if you assume that the PM has something to say about every topic. In this case it ends up making a reasonably good argument for applying a two kingdoms approach to something.
Do you have in mind a list of issues on which the Prime Minister of the day shouldn't comment?
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

Do you have in mind a list of issues on which the Prime Minister of the day shouldn't comment?
It would depend on largely on the individual, what their particular interests were and the particular venue in which he/she was commenting.

Additionally, in this particular case one wonders why the Church Times thought it was a good idea to publish a largely party political piece.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
While I was rather saddened that DC felt that it necessary to comment on the price of football jerseys, I struggle to see why a Prime Minister who is a practising Christian shouldn't comment on the role of the Church of England in society as he sees it.

Having re-read the article, it seems largely benign. There's some stuff about what the government is doing in the third to last paragraph but I'd hardly say that makes it a 'largely party political' piece.
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
chris stiles said:
quote:
His faith - whatever it consists of - neither qualifies or disqualifies him as PM. There is plenty to object to with his policies (just like that of that other 'good Christian' IBS).
Indeed. The Secular Society and assorted prominent atheists have often said that Christian politicians should not allow their faith to influence how they do their jobs.

If they are really sincere in their objections to the government's policies towards the poor and not just trying to score cheap rhetorical points, perhaps they should be more careful what they wish for.

[ 23. April 2014, 16:31: Message edited by: Jane R ]
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
The Secular Society and assorted prominent atheists have often said that Christian politicians should not allow their faith to influence how they do their jobs.
Which is, if they'd given it a moment's thought, a bloody stupid thing to say.
 
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
The Secular Society and assorted prominent atheists have often said that Christian politicians should not allow their faith to influence how they do their jobs.
What exactly have the National Secular Society said in this regard? I ask because I agree with Doc Tor that the above is / would be a daft thing to say, and I've not got that impression from the NSS in the past (based on things I've read, radio interviews I've heard etc.).
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
You're absolutely right; it wasn't the National Secular Society, it was the British Humanist Association I was thinking of. Specifically, Tim Minchin's comments on their letter to the Daily Telegraph.
 
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
You're absolutely right; it wasn't the National Secular Society, it was the British Humanist Association I was thinking of. Specifically, Tim Minchin's comments on their letter to the Daily Telegraph.
Ah, that makes more sense to me. Not that I'm a keen observer of either the NSS or BHA, just that my impression is the former are pretty balanced and not anti-religion, just anti religious privilege.
 
Posted by Merchant Trader (# 9007) on :
 
A tangent:
Why do CofE Evangelicals assume that the word evangelical pertains to them? The Roman Church uses the term "evangelical Catholic" and the PMs words make even better sense if the word evangelical in understood in the sense that arguably England's largest denomination uses it. Also I have heard a liberal catholic high church priest get very upset about a suggestion that he was not evangelical. My roots are Evangelical but I have come to recognise that many in the wider church are evangelical in their practice.
 
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Merchant Trader:
A tangent:
Why do CofE Evangelicals assume that the word evangelical pertains to them?
We don't. My church as are many other evangelical Anglican parishes is a member of the Evangelical Alliance, which is made up mostly of non-CofE churches.

But coming out of the mouth of an Anglican PM writing in an Anglican newspaper, it's reasonable to make that assumption in this case.
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:
Originally posted by Merchant Trader:
A tangent:
Why do CofE Evangelicals assume that the word evangelical pertains to them?
We don't. My church as are many other evangelical Anglican parishes is a member of the Evangelical Alliance, which is made up mostly of non-CofE churches.

But coming out of the mouth of an Anglican PM writing in an Anglican newspaper, it's reasonable to make that assumption in this case.
I thought, possibly wrongly, that the question Merchant Trader was asking was more:

"Given the Prime Minister has said this, why do CofE evangelicals assume that his use of the word "evangelical" applies to them in particular, rather than all CofE people needing to be more *evangelical* about their faith, rather than *Evangelical in their faith*?

The thread title itself is probably guilty of this, in that it suggests DC is an evangelical, rather than *an Anglican who says people need to be more evangelical* - not Evangelical. Quite apart from anything else, the services he's getting at churches in Chadlington (constituency parish) and London (where he's choosing from a much wider menu) would suggest he's middle/high...
 
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
I thought, possibly wrongly, that the question Merchant Trader was asking was more:

"Given the Prime Minister has said this, why do CofE evangelicals assume that his use of the word "evangelical" applies to them in particular, rather than all CofE people needing to be more *evangelical* about their faith, rather than *Evangelical in their faith*?
I created the thread and the title, as I mentioned on the first page, is tongue in cheek. Neither I nor DC himself things he is an Evangelical, big E.

He used the word politically, not theologically. That much is obvious. The idea that he meant it to appeal to all Christians to be small-e evangelical, rather than as a cheap attempt to garner the votes of self-identified big-e Evangelicals, is in my view a naïve one.

All Christians can be evangelistic, which as mentioned is probably what Cameron should have written. Evangelicalism is a particular Christian view on salvation and conversion and it cannot be applied to all churches or all Christians.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
The language he used was not markedly evangelical. Presses no buttons. Sounds much more MOTR in CofE terms - Common Worship with a prayerbook tinge, catholic-lite decorations, liberal theology.

That is a comment on his apparent party line or factional position within the CofE, not his personal beliefs or faith, which are of course unknown to me.
 
Posted by Sleepwalker (# 15343) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Perhaps he should act like a Christian then - that might help.
Do you know him then?
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sleepwalker:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Perhaps he should act like a Christian then - that might help.
Do you know him then?
I don't know about you, but I find coming to a value judgement on various world leaders' actions is possible without curling up on their sofa to watch a DVD with them.
 
Posted by Merchant Trader (# 9007) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:
Originally posted by Merchant Trader:
A tangent:
Why do CofE Evangelicals assume that the word evangelical pertains to them?
We don't. My church as are many other evangelical Anglican parishes is a member of the Evangelical Alliance, which is made up mostly of non-CofE churches.

But coming out of the mouth of an Anglican PM writing in an Anglican newspaper, it's reasonable to make that assumption in this case.
I thought, possibly wrongly, that the question Merchant Trader was asking was more:

"Given the Prime Minister has said this, why do CofE evangelicals assume that his use of the word "evangelical" applies to them in particular, rather than all CofE people needing to be more *evangelical* about their faith, rather than *Evangelical in their faith*?

The thread title itself is probably guilty of this, in that it suggests DC is an evangelical, rather than *an Anglican who says people need to be more evangelical* - not Evangelical. Quite apart from anything else, the services he's getting at churches in Chadlington (constituency parish) and London (where he's choosing from a much wider menu) would suggest he's middle/high...
That is exactly what I meant, thank you.

Also I dislike the word evangelistic as inelegant and not quite what is meant. Perhaps only to be used by folk who don't like to use the word evangelical in this context?

PS: Ken is right, the whole thing sounds more naturally MOR than Evangelical.
 
Posted by Sleepwalker (# 15343) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Sleepwalker:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Perhaps he should act like a Christian then - that might help.
Do you know him then?
I don't know about you, but I find coming to a value judgement on various world leaders' actions is possible without curling up on their sofa to watch a DVD with them.
Really? All you have to judge though is what you see or hear via the media and what policies his party and that of the Lib Dems promote (given that we have a coalition government at present). That is hardly enough information upon which to make a value judgement on anything other than his politics. It certainly isn't enough upon which to make a value judgement on his own actions.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sleepwalker:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I don't know about you, but I find coming to a value judgement on various world leaders' actions is possible without curling up on their sofa to watch a DVD with them.
Really? All you have to judge though is what you see or hear via the media and what policies his party and that of the Lib Dems promote (given that we have a coalition government at present). That is hardly enough information upon which to make a value judgement on anything other than his politics. It certainly isn't enough upon which to make a value judgement on his own actions.
For those of us who actually pay attention to what they say and do, it's plenty.

And, FWIW, I think it's a civic duty to pay attention.
 
Posted by Sleepwalker (# 15343) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Sleepwalker:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I don't know about you, but I find coming to a value judgement on various world leaders' actions is possible without curling up on their sofa to watch a DVD with them.
Really? All you have to judge though is what you see or hear via the media and what policies his party and that of the Lib Dems promote (given that we have a coalition government at present). That is hardly enough information upon which to make a value judgement on anything other than his politics. It certainly isn't enough upon which to make a value judgement on his own actions.
For those of us who actually pay attention to what they say and do, it's plenty.

And, FWIW, I think it's a civic duty to pay attention.
Unless you know the man personally then all you will see by observing such things is his public persona and political preferences. You won't be in a position to judge whether or not he is a Christian.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sleepwalker:
Unless you know the man personally then all you will see by observing such things is his public persona and political preferences. You won't be in a position to judge whether or not he is a Christian.
I don't claim to have a window into his soul, but I reserve the right to call it as I see it if he takes from the poor, the hungry, the prisoner and the refugee, while giving to the already rich. His public persona and political preferences are nothing: I couldn't give a shit about them. It's what he does that matters, given he's, you know, the Prime Minister...

I mean, how bad does someone's actions have to get before you say, "probably not behaving as Christianly as I'd expect, given they claim to be a Christian"?
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Merchant Trader:
I dislike the word evangelistic as inelegant and not quite what is meant. Perhaps only to be used by folk who don't like to use the word evangelical in this context?
AS far as I understand, the two words don't mean exactly the same thing in a theological context, although they might mean something similar in a more general sense: being committed, precise and vocal about something you're passionate about.

I do think it was rather confusing for Cameron to insert the word 'evangelical' into his speech. IMO he meant it in this more general sense, but using it in a speech about (the practical benefits of) religious values was obviously going to bring the more theological emphasis to mind. Maybe this double meaning was deliberate.
 
Posted by Sleepwalker (# 15343) on :
 
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Originally posted by Sleepwalker:
Unless you know the man personally then all you will see by observing such things is his public persona and political preferences. You won't be in a position to judge whether or not he is a Christian.
I don't claim to have a window into his soul, but I reserve the right to call it as I see it if he takes from the poor, the hungry, the prisoner and the refugee, while giving to the already rich. His public persona and political preferences are nothing: I couldn't give a shit about them. It's what he does that matters, given he's, you know, the Prime Minister...

Well, I would suggest that in your post you are interpreting the coalition government's policies from a certain perspective rather than commenting specifically upon David Cameron's credentials as a Christian.

quote:
I mean, how bad does someone's actions have to get before you say, "probably not behaving as Christianly as I'd expect, given they claim to be a Christian"?
Again, you would need to know what his actions are before you could assess that but actually what you see, because you do not know him, are the policies of the coalition government.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sleepwalker:
Again, you would need to know what his actions are before you could assess that but actually what you see, because you do not know him, are the policies of the coalition government.
You're just splitting hairs. Even I don't think Cameron is a ineffectual catspaw in the thrall of the oligarchs, and that in reality he maintains a high degree of agency.

So, to take a recent example, his spiking of Theresa May's consultation in the use of Stop and Search, he'd rather be tough on ethnic minorities rather than perceived as weak on crime. He can love kittens as much as he likes, but while he attempts to starve the poor into submission and give handouts to the City, I - and the rest of the electorate - are perfectly free to judge him on his actions and decide whether they seem 'Christian' to us.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
Now he's hailing a "Great British revival"! [Killing me]

More Lord!
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0