Those who have seen Pirates of the Caribbean would recall the scene when Miss Swann shouted parley, as Port Royal was under attack and the pirates had reached the governor’s residence. She was taken aboard “The Black Pearl” and to Captain Barbossa, where she tried to bargain for the “cessation of hostilities” on Port Royal. Thinking she had the better of Barbossa and his crew she was disappointed to discover that she will not be released after she handed over the much need gold medallion. As Captain Barbossa cunningly observed: “Firstly, your return to shore was not part of our negotiations nor our agreement so I must do nothing. And secondly, you must be a pirate for the pirate's code to apply and you're not. And thirdly, the code is more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules.”

Just recently (June 24^th) a set of guidelines have been produced by the Christian Muslim Forum (set up in 2006 http://www.christianmuslimforum.org/) on how Christians and Muslims in the UK can share their faith in an ethical way. The ten (10) guidelines are intended to help Christians and Muslims better able to witness in ways that will enhance the common good. Guidelines, as Captain Barbossa noted, are not rules!

I am sure that many believers from both of these faith communities would identify with the ten guidelines and wish to affirm them. On the other hand, there will also be those who may not identify with these for various reasons – including that of the diverse theological understandings in relation to both faith and conversion. Among other things, some from the latter group of dissenters may point out that these guidelines seem to originate within the framework of a particular understanding of both Christianity and Islam and do not necessarily give cognisance of intra-diversity in either.

In the meantime, here are some questions: what do we mean by conversion? Where does this idea originate from? Why should one convert? Is not the Divine glorified and our faith deepened when we can share our faith in lives that are lived (in faithfulness) whatever the way? If God is one, and both Christians and Muslims are monotheists, why should one leave one’s faith for another? Or is it that in reality both operate on the premise that “my God is better than your God”? In which case, is it that at heart of the matter both are polytheists rather than monotheists?

My view is that conversion distorts the image of the Divine. However, a more substantive and deeper issue for me is why do people of faith need guidelines? If our Sacred Books are inspired and divinely authored texts, and we the believers and readers are under the influence of the Divine (however named), what has gone wrong and where/when were these distorted (and our practices) that we now need guidelines? How did we manage to create the distortions and what is the source of religious arrogance? Why do we need guidelines to walk the way of the Divine (a way of love, openness, hospitality)?

It may be that in pursuing the deeper questions that we will discover that the guidelines are not about the Divine, but about us humans and the ambiguities that we embody. Perhaps, the conversion we need is one that re-turns us to the elusive many-oneness of the Divine.

Meanwhile whatever guidelines we opt for, may the poetics of love (in word and deed) be etched deeply on our hearts and in our lives!

copyright June 27, 2009

What does the BNP’s gaining seats in the European Elections mean for British politics? How did this happen in liberal England? There is certainly a lot of disappointment and blame around. Would this demise serve as a blessing in disguise – a sort of wake up call for white (and some Black) British liberals to the fact that racism is real, alive and will kick you where the sun does not shine when you least expect it?

There is the view that racism is no longer an issue in Britain as there are enough in place and enacted by law to “catch it”, “bin it” and “kill it”. Instead, what needs addressing is equality or equal access across the board and social integration, as the real culprit is multiculturalism and the “ghettosiation” of ethnic groups. Hence, the mantra of government and experts – assimilate so that we can find that fleeting cohesive British national identity.

Consequently, as Arun Kundnani writes on the dismantling of significant bodies: “the Commission for Racial Equality has been subsumed into a more nebulous Equality and Human Rights Commission, local racial equality councils have been pressured into reinventing themselves as promoters of assimilation and community-based anti-racist organisations have had their funding removed on the grounds that they cater exclusively to the needs of minority groups.” [IRR, June 2009]

Even some churches with their long involvement of anti-racism work have closed down their racial justice office or have integrated it under a diversity umbrella. Some ecumenical bodies with a long history of strong involvement in anti-racism work have also been affected. While funding may be a reality, one cannot deny that people are still uncomfortable to talk about and explore the evil of racism. The reality is that racism has not disappear - it has simply reinvented itself.

The question should be asked as to the ways the media and government policies played into the hands of the BNP – a threat to the very democracy that is purported to allow them to bethere in the first place. Whatever happened to responsibility in our conversation about democracy? It may be that the disillusionment of the electorate with the state of present day politics meant that Bloody Nativistic Politics got through the back-door.

One wonders, however, whether there are deeper issues here at play. What happens to a national psyche, for instance, bombarded daily by the media and politicians with anti-immigrant/Muslim rhetoric? How different is the BNP call for “Britain for Caucasian British” and the ruling party’s mantra of “British jobs for British Workers”. As Kundnani writes: “Years of New Labour borrowing from BNP nationalism has simply fuelled its steady rise, as New Labour's message and the BNP's have converged ever closer and issues of nationality, multiculturalism and immigration have dominated the political agenda.”

It is nonsense to suggest that BNP’s success is a mere result of plebiscite protests. It is even more rubbish for some voters to argue that they are not racist or fascist but that they voted for BNP to send a message to their parties (Labour and Conservative). Why did they not vote for a party other than the BNP? Such reasonings make me wonder whether we have before us an electorate who are unable to distinguish between right and wrong or a body of citizens trying to camouflage racist views .This may be why one lay commentator in responding to why BNP won seats observed: “There are a lot of racists around”!

New labour, New Conservative or New Liberal Democrats (or new whatever) will do well to interrogate and remember a few things: how middle and upper-class their politics are; how un-interrogated liberalism can serve to cover-up one’s own racist tendencies in current discourses; and that “racism” is around though the garb may be “new”!

June 12, 2009

It is not only the Press/Media that have a field day with the abuse of expenses by our Members of Parliament (MP’s). Those who have been at the heart of our financial meltdown and in the spotlight and those who are cynical about politics and politicians are also having a good laugh. One is ever mindful of the well used maxim about the person who laughs “last”. As the plots of these stories thicken the last “laugh” is yet some way in the distance.

Tax-payers, decent, honest and law-abiding citizens are dismayed about the revelations and the blatant and high-handed ways people and a system conspired to rob the public coffers. And we ought to be. Even a donkey with reading abilities can see that the rules from the Parliamentary Green Book are at pains to point out to MP’s the need to be “above reproach”, about “the misuse of public money” and the need to avoid arrangements that can point to an MP or someone close to them benefiting from public funds. I am sure this situation, usually critiqued and represented as the corrupt practices of politicians from the majority world and their “banana, coffee, tea or oil “republics by British politicians and media, is going to create more cynics from among us. There are those, on the other hand, who have never had faith in politics and politicians and may mutter through their teeth: "we told you so".

Of course, greed and self-serving interests are not the monopoly of one particular group, and one needs to be mindful of this fact. At the same time, our word pedalling performers (politicians) have accepted public offices and they should not be surprised when they are placed under public scrutiny. They should not be comparing themselves and their ills with the fact that in other professions this also happens. They are public servants and even if we want to put aside the ill-used term “servant”, the public aspect remains a fact. Whether they like it or not, they are models to the whole nation – one presently recovering from financial mismanagement.

We put them there. We have a moral obligation to know what they are doing there. And, we also have the power to remove them from their office. MP's are not above the law. Had I done this in my present job then my employer would have probably called in the police and I would have been sacked. I am also accountable. Finding replacements, however, may be more than a challenge given that the misuse and abuse is across the political colours. For as a former Archbishop of Canterbury notes, "the latest revelations show it was not just a few MPs with their noses in the trough, but a culture of abuse." One can breathe a sigh of relief that there are still some decent and honest politicians around!

Sin and human ambiguities are real – it is a flesh and blood reality and none of us are immune to it. What this underscores, once again, is the need for a spiritual or religious core to the ways we order and manage our lives. This whole debacle brings to the fore the issue of ethics and morality – much of which is quite scarce and absent from our society as a whole. One can be excused for asking whether the decline in ethics and morality as seen in the expenses scandal is a reflection of the rest of society. One is reminded of the timely observation of Zygmunt Bauman that because of “savage individualism” we need to locate our present day ills beyond the ills to something deeper, which is - the “absence of society”. We are drowning in our engineered culture of crass individualism. For me society is communal or communitarian, with a heart and moral conscience and it is one where accountability is central to the common good of society. Paying back is only the first step. There is a second step - stepping down in order to create a stronger moral ground to stand on.

copyright Jagessar May 14, 2009

Give them some credit: the British National Party, whatever we may think of their narrow and racist tendencies, knows how to get attention. Getting Jesus on one's side and to stamp one's campaign that is geared to reclaim Britain for Christians will certainly resonate with many of the populace. It does not matter what Jesus will think or do! Doing it around this time of the church year is an even smarter move. Not to mention the employment of a bible verse! Such timing is spot on, even though it may not win them votes!

British churches, especially from the historic traditions, and their theologians are running around trying to mount an opposition to what they rightly consider the pathetic hijacking of Jesus by a far right political group. Whether Jesus needs defending is another matter! For the churches it is clear that the policies of the BNP are highly objectionable from a gospel imperative – especially their narrow and excluding nationalism. The irony is that some church leaders have also been concerned about the Christian heritage of the nation (one even hinting at a return to Christendom), though their strategies have been more measured, sophisticated and perhaps less excluding. Yet, similarities are there if one scratches hard enough to get below the surface.

From all of the comments thus far from Churches and pundits, no one has yet commented on the white-looking Jesus that accompanies the BNP’s campaign. A close up look (of this popular image) will reveal interesting colours of Jesus' hair and eyes as imaged in this picture. Where did the BNP get their image of Jesus from? Certainly it is not their creation. British and European Christianity cannot wash its hands of this distorting image. Over hundreds of years what kind of Jesus has the church been imaging? Where did they get their distorted theology from and their obscene inclinations to link faith to British identity or nationalist tendencies? This, I suggest, did not drop out of Cloud 9.

Indeed, some may wish to contend that we have moved on and that this is no longer the image we use in our churches. I, for one, would want to believe that it has moved on for some Christians, but not for the majority of churches and the nation. I would also want to believe that most churches’ theology will not be narrow or restrictive and that in fact there are churches that have spoken out against membership in the BNP and their racist policies.

Yet, the reality is that Christian imaging in most churches has remained largely un-interrogated. Eurocentric indoctrination has been so thorough that Jesus – a Galilean Jew of the Asia Minor region- has become blond and blue-eyed (compare this with Lula’s swipe on the architects of the global banking scandals). Check all our stained glass windows, look at the religious books published over the last years,; peruse the news sheets and magazines of churches; and check the hymns and liturgy we sing and recite (especially during lent, the passion and Easter) and then consider whether our imaging of Jesus in churches is any different from the BNP’s and even their use of scripture. BNP’s imaging of a European Jesus is the story of that unpleasant version of eurocentric Christianity “coming home to roost” and haunt Christians as we are yet to do our home-work of expunging years of bad theology and theological imaging. What Jesus looks like has implications for what he means for today!

What would Jesus do? For starters, he may just wish to exorcise the demons of the BNP with a mandate that they have a mass cleansing at the nearest river and then go and sin no more! And if that is not convincing, in practical terms he may be more forthright – give up politics and start emulating the Good Samaritan to stake out a place in heaven!

© copyright Jagessar April 3rd, 2009