Not a few countries have some sort of religious education
requirement. In the past for the British this would have been more or less
controlled by the Established Church. Today it's more a venue for the
introduction of diversity. I've listened to quite a few BBC programmes arguing
the merits and demerits of this type of education.
Many believe it to be critical due to the ever-present and dangerous
social tension existing within their society. The education is geared toward
teaching the students the basics of other religions and helping them to
understand the mindset of the people they will be living and working with as
they enter adult life.
Europe is in a race, a doomed and failing race. I'm not
speaking of Islamic demographic conquest. I'm speaking of the inevitable violence
and chaos that will erupt in order to stop it. The social system depends on a
pool of workers paying tax to support government services and pensions. We have
the same basic operation in the United States but not quite on the same scale
as what we find in Europe.
By now most people know the Europeans are struggling with
this system. They have succeeded in raising the standard of living for many,
but as people begin to climb, they want to climb a bit higher. Consequently
each generation has fewer children realizing this is the key economic factor
that will hinder them from enjoying the higher standard of living they desire.
In addition I may add that with England in particular I am
confident that many are convinced their country (at least) is basically
overpopulated. While many on the American Right scoff at such a notion it cannot
be wholly dismissed. The population density in England is pretty shocking to
someone coming from the United States. There's simply a limited amount of room
and you really 'feel' the difference when it comes to living space. They are
equally shocked when they visit here and the amount of room we have in terms of
personal space and the 'wide open' spaces we have between our cities etc...
To solve this growing demographic and economic problem
Britain and most European countries have been forced to resort to immigration.
Immigrants generate income and pay taxes and they increasingly fill jobs at the
lower end of society which your average Englishman doesn't really want to do
anymore.
The massive influx of immigrants (which ironically are for
the most part citizens of their former empire) has dramatically changed the
society. Many English feel that their country and culture is slipping away from
them. Again, I can't help but note the irony of this when one considers what
the British, French and others did the nations they colonized and their
respective cultures. They forever changed their societies and now it's as if
they're returning the favour.
That said, how does the society deal with the tension?
It's been present for several decades now. Either the
immigrants have to integrate or there's going to be trouble.
They could assimilate and become English but many immigrants
will tell you that not only is that undesirable but it's virtually impossible.
They simply face a growing discrimination and rejection by much of English and
even the larger British society.
Integration suggests a changed society. They 'fit in' but
don't fully become British. You create a new hybridized society and culture.
The very definition of what it means to be British has and will change.
This is the part that a growing number of British and
Europeans don't like. Their governments are doing everything they can to promote
integration even to the detriment of their native born citizens.
Why? Because in the case of Britain and France and even
Germany with their largely Turkish immigrant pool, they are afraid of Islamic
radicalization. If the younger generations can't find work and face
discrimination they are very susceptible to being radicalized. And then
everything falls apart, the economic model and society itself.
And yet to get these immigrants to integrate the government
has to all but favour them and quite literally force segments of society to
embrace the diversity.
This is creating a backlash. As the integration fails, and
it is failing, the youth are being radicalized. As the mainstream and
native-born society feels coerced and manipulated they are rejecting the
government line and turning to Right-wing politics, nationalism and the consequent
of racism.
All across Europe the Right is on the rise and in some cases
the rhetoric is eerie and ominous. We're not quite there but it is reminiscent
of the 1930's and before it's all done I fear there will be blood in the
streets. The forecast for Europe is one of stormy weather.
The UK government is so desperate to win this integration
battle they have created a government culture that to many citizens is viewed
as treasonous. They are ignoring sex crimes and exploitation if the
perpetrators are Pakistani or some other Muslim group. They don't want to be
perceived as racially targeting these segments of society. This recently
exploded into a huge scandal which is shaking the foundations of their social
order.
Now with regard to this Christian school I'm afraid this is
but another chapter in the same story. The government is very afraid of
radicalized subcultures. They don't want to see it in the Muslim community but
are reticent to 'push' too hard in that quarter. The more they provoke, the
more radicalization will occur.
But in terms of the native-born population they feel much bolder
in insisting that subcultures cannot and must not form which reject the overall
agenda. They're terrified that Christian-Nationalist groups will take up arms.
Already there are a growing number of vigilante-type groups stirring the pot.
This grieves me that Nationalism and Christianity are once again wedded. To be
British is to be Christian. The history with all of its propaganda and myths is
championed and the narrative takes over and is integrated with the theology.
Some Christian bloggers are writing that the government is
insisting on 'Islamist' speakers at school assemblies. That's misleading. The
term Islamist has the connotation of a political and violent radical. That's
not at all what they are insisting on. They want Muslim figures who will
promote integration and present Islam as a peaceful element that can indeed fit
within the larger society. They're looking for voices of moderation. I realize
this in many cases will fall on deaf ears. To many Christians there's no such
thing as a moderate Muslim. Those that appear to be are simply hiding their
true nature. The truth is most Muslims are not extremist in the least. Most are
in fact pretty secularized but any people can become radicalized if the
conditions are right.
All that said, the government is of course completely out of
line and has intruded into the confines of a private institution. The UK
doesn't have a First Amendment but they do have a long tradition of free speech
and certainly since 1689 a tradition of religious freedom and toleration. The
government is trying to enforce not only a social toleration (which we as
Christians should support) but also a doctrinal toleration which of course we
must reject.
Constantinian and Dominionist frames of mind cannot accept
such a bifurcation. The social and theological are necessarily united. To
divorce them, which I argue is absolutely necessary for the Church to be in the
world and not of it, for the Kingdom to be not of this world and to maintain an
antithesis is to them wholly anathema.
In terms of practical Christianity this divergence and the
gulf it creates cannot be any wider. This is at the essence of what the Kingdom
is and how we are to live in This Age.
Thankfully many of the Christians in the UK have long
abandoned the quest for social credibility and accreditation when it comes to
their seminaries and Bible schools. This is an ongoing debate in American
Christian culture.
But in terms of primary and secondary schools... what we
call elementary and high school, that's a different situation due to compulsory
educational requirements. The state claims a vested interest and this is one of
those points where we have legal and social conflict. Which 'right' takes
precedent, the right of the state to maintain the social order or the right of
the individual to belief?
Obviously we always side with religious freedom and there
are times when the state is going to reject our claim. It's nothing new. The
question is, how do we respond?
It may be that Christian schools aren't an option in the UK.
It may be that homeschooling is the way to go, even though for many British
this is an unpalatable option.
In this case, social conformity bred by wrong doctrinal
thinking won't allow for the average British Christian to embrace the
antithesis they so desperately need. Instead the response will likely continue
to be political which is the worse way to respond, both in terms of the Kingdom
and ultimately for the peace of the British Christian community.
This is the fruit of the Church abandoning its rightful
status as Second-Class citizenry. Only then can the antithesis be maintained.
Nonconformity in the UK was all but shut-out from the larger society in the
1700's and through a good bit of the 19th century as well. After the
Glorious Revolution the Puritan political project was dead. Non-conformity was
tolerated but you weren't going to be a key 'player' in the society. This
Second Class status was accepted and the Church moved on with its business. I
would argue it was a fruitful and healthy time.
But then the barriers were lowered and during the British
Empire many Non-conformists began to 'sign on' with the larger social project
and outlook. And then of course with the World Wars the society was unified in
a way it had not been before. Nonconformity now felt invested in the larger
society. It had infected itself with a cancer. They were part of the project
and this was especially so after the tremendous liberal reforms brought about
Lloyd-George.
They forgot that they were supposed to be
Anti-Establishment. I don't mean that in only the Ecclesiastical sense. Yes, they
would rightly like to see the Church of England disestablished. But I'm
speaking in larger social terms. We're supposed to be Anti-Establishment in the
sense that we're not part of the social power structure. We reject their
claims, narrative and vision. We don't join with them in the project. We live
among them and speak prophetically. We witness to the truth.
British Nonconformity largely forgot this and fell into a
trap. This changed their mindset and for many of them has hindered them in the
ability to think counter-culturally. For many of them the idea of homeschooling
is simply anti-social and out of bounds.
We're supposed to be anti-social and always out of bounds.
We're Second Class Citizens by nature.
If this is expressed politically we will feel the wrath of
the state. If we eschew all political aspirations then the state while
permanently irritated with us will in most cases leave us alone. Subcultures
aren't as dangerous if they're leading quiet lives and minding their own
business. If they're plotting revolution and brewing trouble then the state
will intervene. In the case of Germany they are so fearful of their own history
they are keen to enforce social uniformity and ironically falling back into
their own historical traps.
Politicized homeschooling will be frowned on. And though
many have misunderstood homeschooling and some view it as surrender and
cultural retreat, it is not always so, in fact rarely is. Not a few American
homeschoolers have a specific political agenda in what they are doing. Perhaps
the best and most obvious example of this is what we see with the organization
known as HSLDA and an institution like Patrick Henry College. These
organizations promote homeschooling but with a specific political purpose. They are precisely the subcultures the UK
ultimately fears.
That's the price of democracy. The UK is in a suicidal
dilemma. If it allows true democracy there will be social violence. They are on
the brink of experiencing the type of social polarity seen in unstable Middle
Eastern countries.
So to maintain order (the British fear chaos more than
anything else), they are sacrificing popular will and hoping desperately they
can iron out the problems before it's too late. The kettle is starting to
whistle and they are trying to deal with it by turning the heat down. It's not
working and ultimately it's going to blow up in their face.
The sad part to me is that right at this point in time the
American Right is flooding Britain with propaganda and aid. Lawyers associated
with the Christian Right as well political planners and grass roots organizers
are busy in Britain and elsewhere trying to push their Christian segments into
a more 'Christian Right' mindset that we're familiar with in the United States.
It's a titanic shift as most nonconformists have historically been on the Left.
But there's evidence to suggest that in some respects it's
working. Dominionist theology takes many forms but ultimately if the British
Church re-embraces the larger paradigm it will lead to trouble. Right now it's
leading to a growing support for BNP and UKIP. Where all that will go is hard
to say, but I don't have very good feelings about it.
At a moment when the Church should really be sitting down
and rethinking their notions of the Christian social order, they are instead
getting whipped up and turning to lawsuits and politics. The UK government isn't helping is it? These sorts of
intrusions will only fan the flames.
It's a mess, a conundrum that doesn't present an easy
solution. I don't have any hope for Britain. It's simply reaping the harvest of
centuries of theft and murder and the lies it has told itself. I pray the
Church in the UK wakes up and begins to reassess everything before they are
dragged down a dark road. The Protestant examples in Italy and France might
prove a better model. They are small vibrant communities and yet largely
non-political. The same is true with the many Brethren churches scattered
throughout the Continent. This is the model to follow.
Related links: