Jesus the Radical

From time to time it really hits me just how radical Jesus was: in his words, in his attitudes, in his behaviour.

The passage from John's Gospel set as today's lectionary reading really brings this home. It's the passage in John 4:5-42 in which Jesus visits a well and asks for a drink from a Samaritan woman, leading to a discussion about the water of eternal life.

In focussing on the message of water in eternal life, it strikes me that there are three major aspects of this reading which could easily be overlooked, yet speak volumes:

1. Jesus was human.
   It's quite something when John makes a point of describing Jesus in a human way, for he usually takes great pains to emphasise the divinity and high status of Christ - far more so than the authors of the synoptic gospels. But in this passage, John specifically states:
   'Jesus, tired out by his journey, was sitting by the well' (Jn 4:6).
   It's especially important to remember when reading John that Jesus is not some alien figure; like every other human being he experienced pain, fatigue, anger and a whole other array of human emotions.
   
   
2. Jesus overlooked race boundaries.
   For centuries Jews and Samaritans were divided; Samaria was in the northern kingdom, Judah in the southern, and since the united monarchy they had been separate. The divide was deep: children of Samaria grew up with the understanding that they didn't associate with people from Judah, and likewise those from Judah learnt very quickly to avoid Samaritans.
   
   But for Jesus, this wasn't going to happen. He was in need of a drink, and a Samaritan woman was present. Connecting with another human being on the human level was far more a concern than long-standing cultural animosity. The woman, however, is clearly taken aback when he asks her for a drink, for she asks: ‘How is it that you, a Jew, ask a drink of me, a woman of Samaria?’ (Jn 4:9).
   
   Clearly Jesus envisaged a kingdom of God which did not exclude anyone - certainly not on the basis of race.
   
   
3. Not just race boundaries, either...
   The fact that this lady is Samaritan is not the only shocking thing here...she is, of course, a woman! To the twenty-first century reader, of course, this wouldn't raise an eyelid; but one must put oneself in the cultural context. It's 1st century Palestine...and women are effectively considered second-class citizens. Women would have had certain domestic roles, including of course as mothers - but this would have been their main domain. It would have been quite shocking for not just any man, but a man like Jesus who was revered in some circles, to have been in conversation with a woman. Yet Jesus time and time again is found talking to women and even defending them (cf. Matthew 26:6-13).
   
   In this passage, John explicitly states that: '[The disciples] were astonished that he was speaking with a woman' (Jn 4:27). He also tells us of her fundamental role in spreading the good news of Jesus: 'Many Samaritans from that city believed in him because of the woman’s testimony' (4:39).

What is abundantly clear from this passage, therefore, is that Jesus envisages an inclusive kingdom where people of all races and genders are not only welcome, but also valued, having an important role. Perhaps churches and church leaders who attempt to exclude people from leadership or even membership would be well-advised to consider this.

Inexcusable Prejudice

I had the pleasure this evening, like many others, of watching the repugnant Nick Griffin attempt to justify his unspeakably disgraceful and distasteful views regarding people of ethnic minorities.

I commend those on the programme who shamed him and relentlessly demanded answers to their questions. Particularly moving was a statement early on from an African man who, understandably agitated, expressed how he felt about this disgusting party and their ideology.

I find it particularly laughable that immigration is supposedly the cause of major problems in our society. If you believe the crap that Griffin spouts those from other nations are 'stealing' 'our' jobs. Surely the jobs belong to British citizens (which these people are)? Or do we now have to justify our ancestry, too?

In which case, I ought to leave Oxford, and this country, for I am ethnically half-Indian. In fact, most of the people I know would not be in this country if immigration had been banned over the last few centuries.

Furthermore, immigrants are NOT stealing any jobs. They are available for any applicants. But there are plenty of British people who are far happier to watch Jeremy Kyle, This Morning and Loose Women all day living from the taxpayers' money than actually contributing to the economy - and such people then have the temerity to suggest that immigration is a huge problem. Decent, hard-working people from Asia, Africa and many European countries are actually trying to express their gratitude for being here by contributing to the economy! I would much prefer a citizen of Asian descent working for their living than a 'pure Brit' feeling they don't have an obligation to contribute to our economy.

Of course, I find these things 'laughable' but the reality is they are actually not hugely funny. They reflect something very tragic. I am incredulous at the amount of prejudice there is in our society. I find it disturbing that people vote for the BNP, simply on a whim out of a twisted phrase of Griffin's that sounds right. Even if we do need at some point to tighten immigration (which I suspect is the case) - this is a world apart from the absurd suggestions of this man that we should 'reverse' it. As one decent hard-working Muslim man said to him: "Where will I go?"

Personally, I am rather more saddened that I have known so-called Christians who harbour racist, prejudiced feelings and see no issue with it. I have heard 'Christians' assume that crimes committed, 'must have been done by an Asian', or feel it acceptable to view those from other countries and somehow inferior to themselves.

Reader, these are not the marks of an intelligent society. Nor are they the marks of a compassionate, caring society. Whether you are Hindu, Muslim, Sikh, Christian, Buddhist or Atheist - a basic commitment to caring for other individuals is a fundamental part of society. And no philosophy in this list would justify the treatment of others as inferior. From my perspective, if Jesus walked this earth today, he would be appalled by the BNP and by many so-called 'Christians' who spout such appalling, ignorant nonsense.

Dictating the Political Opinions of the Clergy

It may not be as 'hot' a topic as the head 'forced to resign' over the banning of assemblies for Muslims, but I have chosen instead to focus on the Church of England's decision to ban its clergy from joining the BNP.

I myself am someone who is highly amused by the BNP, for a number of reasons; to me they are an odd little political group, with a certain naivete about how to soar in politics, a blatant bigotry, and a group of people for whom taking an issue to the extreme is not uncommon.

And yet, scarily, this bizarre group is growing. The Conservative Party has a basic philosophy, adapted for modern times, that is, or perhaps should be, fundamental to all of the decisions it makes. The same is true of Labour and the Lib Dems. Their policies lie in the perceptions of human nature and the rights of human beings, whether these be equality or basic freedom. Their philosophies can be applied to all sorts of issues, whether they be about abortion, gay marriage, discrimination laws or road laws.

The BNP's philosophy, on the other hand, would appear to be something along the lines of: anyone who is not British is bad news. They may dress this up by claiming that they are only doing what is fair and logical for the defence of native Britons...but anyone can see that the underlying belief is in the supremacy of ethnic Britons in Britain. This would then translate, presumably to these other areas by giving native Brits a greater freedom to act as they please than those who are not. Where does this end? Do we return to the situation which Martin Luther King and other greats fought to overcome, to the point of death?

Anyway, enough rambling. Suffice to say, I have expressed my views (albeit in a nutshell) on the BNP.

I therefore, I hope it is clear, take no issue with people being opposed to the BNP.

However...I do wonder if banning clergy from joining it is a step too far. The claim is that there is no place in Christianity for 'extreme right wing' political parties. Whilst I might (and do) agree that there is no place for the policies of the BNP in the heart of someone who claims to love and serve Jesus Christ, and by default to therefore love their neighbour, I am pondering on the road in which we are now heading.

Which political parties are to be banned next? What about those conservative Christians who feel that socialist policy is not compatible with Christian faith, and vice versa? Will clergy eventually only be permitted to support one political party? And will that party change depending on the policies released by that party?

To me, the decision is not so much a bad step...as an unnecessary one. There is currently only one CofE vicar who is a member of the BNP, and he is not a practicising clergyman. Furthermore, if, in the unlikely event that some buffoon slipped through the net into the clergy who was a member of the party, surely s/he would be removed anyway? Why start placing sanctions on who people can or cannot believe in politically?

Before closing I should just like to reiterate that I do not in any way support the BNP or its policies!