Saturday, 1 August 2009

Methodist Church bans flock from joining BNP

Rev Sylvester Deigh - Who proposed the motion

The Methodist Church of Britain has become the first major denomination in the UK to ban all its members from joining the British National Party (BNP) and any members of the BNP from becoming full members of the Church.

A resolution passed by the annual Methodist Conference, meeting in Wolverhampton, declared that “No member of the Church can also be a member of a political party whose constitution, aims or objectives promote racism. This specifically includes, but is not solely limited to, the British National Party”.

The news follows a similar ban on Church of England clergy, but the Methodists have gone much further, saying that no-one can even be a member of the Church while also belonging to the BNP.

“We must be clear that racism is a denial of the Gospel” said Rev Sylvester Deigh, who proposed the motion and appears not to have got round to reading all the Gospels.

“An openness to all people, regardless of nationality, is at the heart of Methodist identity” he continued.

But not it seems to white Christians who's politics you don't like huh?.

Source

_________________________

Apologies for the fact that this story is some three weeks old, but, as it didn't make much of a stir I have only just noticed it. It will not effect huge numbers of people, the Methodist Church in Britain is far smaller than, for instance, the United Methodist Church in America. However, it is interesting to note how many politicians and public figures come from a Methodist background, for example Alderman Roberts, the father of former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher was a Methodist lay preacher. Also Paul Boateng, Britain's first ever black Government Minister is, himself a lay minister in the Methodist Church.

16 comments:

alanorei said...

Re: "“We must be clear that racism is a denial of the Gospel” said Rev Sylvester Deigh, who proposed the motion and appears not to have got round to reading all the Gospels."

Exactly. Chapter and verse? None, which is typical of today's apostate clergy.

I went all through this before on Lee Barnes's blog, which may be of interest.

I trust you can overlook my somewhat scathing criticism of a certain female cleric in the above article, Sarah. The criticism isn't a blanket one. I am just tired of befrocked wilfull ignoramuses of either gender, of any colour.

Anonymous said...

NEVER TRUST DUKE

Dr.D said...

One more reason to give thanks that I left the Methodist Church more than 40 years ago!

Black Country Patriot said...

But its ok to be a member of a political party that took us to war against the wishes of the people on the basis of a lie killing countless innocent people!
Do these people actually think before opening their stupid mouths ?

mark said...

So will they explicitly condemn the Labour councillor who refused to endorse another would be councillor who was a Jew a few weeks ago?

Anonymous said...

What gospel exactly is this satanic imposter Deigh refering to?

Multiculturalism and racism as acribed to whites only - the biggest deceptions from the pits of hell and the spawn of satan in the entire history of humanity.

And the Gospel refers to this satanic trickery as the "Mystery of Iniquity" - deceiving even the elect..

Anonymous said...

Yep He's a racist

Anonymous said...

I notice many churches have been taken over by blacks the methodist church now sanctions ethnic cleansing of the British people and therefore are racist and in the arms of global evil of the anti-Christ

They are truly IGNORANT and that can beget evil

Dr.D said...

To attach the Church to positions for or against any particular political party is one of the fastest possible ways to make the Church completely irrelevant. It becomes at best, at the very most, another social agency.

The mission of the Christian Church is the salvation of souls -- perhaps Mr. Deigh has forgotten -- something that cannot possibly be accomplished by drawing lines to exclude groups of people.

Jesus had many confrontations with the Pharisees, and yet he chose a Pharisee (Saul of Tarsus) to be His apostle to the gentile world. If there was a political party that Jesus would have condemned, it would have been the Pharisees, but he did not. It is fortunate that Saul was not a member of the BNP; he might not have been eligible to be chosen if the English Methodists had the ear of Jesus.

Dr.D said...

As a practical matter, will the Methodists now go through their rolls and inquire of every member what their political affiliation is? For those who say BNP, will they be purged from the Church roll? I find that truly difficult to believe, but that would seem to be the import of this resolution.

Or perhaps it will lead first to a counseling session with the clergy, followed by dropping from the rolls if the member is recalcitrant?

Evidently the Methodist have some excess members that they need to shed, a somewhat novel situation for the Church in most parts of the world. They have chosen an original approach to this problem.

Jeff ( Va. Rebel ) said...

Dr. D - "Jesus had many confrontations with the Pharisees ...

If there was a political party that Jesus would have condemned, it would have been the Pharisees, but he did not."

I don't see how the gospels can be read, Matthew 23 being a good example, and that statement supported. Maybe I misunderstood.

English Viking said...

Wesley would never have believed it.

TITVS-ADVXAS said...

well who's the loser there?
A church that is so small minded and weak that its places of worship are under risk of becoming a mosque? or a legal British political party that IS NOT racist, who are the only people standing up for these smaller groups under the threat of Islam?

MrsJ said...

What sort of inquisition will they launch to find out who the members of the BNP are? Will it stop at membership? What about those who simply vote BNP?

Dr.D said...

@ Jeff

You are correct about Jesus condemnation of the Pharisees, and your citation of Matt. 23 illustrates it very well. I misspoke on that.

The point I should have tried to make is that Jesus, even with his many confrontations with the Pharisees, did not disinherit them, did not declare them no longer proper descendants of Abraham. He did not cast them out of the family, even as he castigated their misunderstanding of the Law and their misleading of the people. I think that this is the proper parallel; the Methodist Church of England is casting a particular constituency (the BNP) out of the family and saying that they can no longer be Methodist (Christians) because of what the Methodist General Assembly considers mistaken belief.

My more important point was the fact that Jesus still chose a Pharisee, Saul of Tarsus, to become St. Paul, the Apostle to the Gentiles. Thus Jesus not only did not cast Saul out, even though Saul had excluded himself by his actions prior to being chosen, Jesus saw fit to use a Pharisee for His work. Paul made mention of his background as a Pharisee from time to time, when it was useful.

tim said...

A domesticated Black can still bite !!!