Bishop’s chaplain likens 7/7 bombers to Christian crusaders
-31/08/06
An Anglican chap
Bishop’s chaplain likens 7/7 bombers to Christian crusaders
-31/08/06
An Anglican chaplain has likened the London Tube bombers to Christian crusaders.
Canon Philip Gray, chaplain to the Bishop of Blackburn, said the extremists who carried out the 7/7 attacks shared the same “religious passion” as those who took part in the Christian Crusades.
Writing in the Blackburn diocesan newsletter, he said a number of Christian figures had committed violent acts.
“Behind modern fanatical Islamic terrorism lie many spiritual and religious passions and narratives also found in the Christian tradition.” he wrote.
“Blind Samson, his hairy growth returning, commits an act of suicidal terrorism as he destroys the pillars of the pagan temple.
“The people of Israel sing their song of triumph ñ which we echo in the Easter vigil ñ as the bodies of the Egyptians float in the Red Sea.”
The chaplain added: “We cannot simply ignore the violent passion of Jesus cleansing the temple with whips. We are never told of the collateral damage possibly resulting from his actions.
“In the Christian tradition we rejoice over the passionate commitment and bloody deaths of numerous martyrs. We need to consider the same religious passion and spiritual single mindedness lies at the heart of a London bomber and a Christian crusader.”
The Express newspaper reports that the Church of England distanced itself from the comments by Canon Gray, chaplain to Bishop Nicholas Reade. A spokesman said: “These were the canonís personal views.
“It is fairly clear that most occurrences of terror have been linked to a form of religious expression, but this is a twisting of faith.” A spokesman for the Catholic evangelical group CASE told the newspaper: “In their time, everyone believed in a Holy War.
“It was justified at the time because of the climate. The Crusades were supported by popes.
“There is no way Christians could justify something like the 7/7 attacks these days. The comments are unhelpful, inflammatory and foolish.”
But Jonathan Bartley, director of the religious thinktank Ekklesia, who recently co-edited a book Consuming Passion, which examines some of the violence contained in the Bible and the Christian tradition suggested that Philip Gray had raised important issues.
“Those who read the article that Philip Gray has written will see that he is not providing any justification whatsoever for the 7/7 attacks. Rather he is pointing to the violence within the Christian tradition which many would like to forget, explain away, or abdicate responsibility for.
“But if Christians are to speak meaningfully about terror, as Gray has highlighted, they will need to face up to the violence contained within their own scriptures and indeed some manifestations of Christianity today.”
The Full Text of the article is as follows:
Imagine you are awaiting the arrival of a loved one from abroad when you hear their plane has been hijacked and is standing on a Heathrow Airport runway. How would you want our political and military leaders to respond? Should we resist using military force under any circumstance? Would we want the SAS, with all their expertise and force, to target the plane? Should our loved ones be left to their fate, or would we want action to save their lives, which may inevitably lead to the deaths of hijackers, soldiers and hostages?
This is no academic game, but is rather crucial. For if we as Christians believe we have some comment to make about a response to terrorism, then we must do so with something approaching reality, not just grand statements from the top of ivory towers. We are facing new issues.
First, terrorism has changed. IRA terrorism had a political agenda. There was a group with which to negotiate, with the possibility of a political outcome. Dreadful as IRA terrorism was, it did mostly have limits. Generally warnings were given. Certain targets were seen as legitimate, others were not. The terrorist wanted to keep his or her own life, so he or she wanted both an entrance and an exit. New terrorism knows no such limitations and that is probably because, for many, its motivations are primarily religious. The political aims are secondary. All targets are legitimate, no warnings are given and there is no group with which to negotiate.
This religious motive raises crucial questions for the Church, about how we conceive of God and how we understand the Bible. For behind modern fanatical Islamic terrorism lie many spiritual and religious passions and narratives also found in the Christian tradition.
Blind Samson, his hairy growth returning, commits an act of suicidal terrorism as he destroys the pillars of the pagan temple. The people of Israel sing their song of triumph, which we echo in the Easter Vigil, as the bodies of the Egyptians float in the Red Sea.
We cannot simply ignore the violent passion of Jesus cleansing the temple with whips. We are never told of the collateral damage possibly resulting from his actions. In the Christian tradition we rejoice over the passionate commitment and bloody deaths of numerous martyrs.
We need to consider deeply the fact that the same religious passion and spiritual single-mindedness lies at the heart of a London bomber and a Christian crusader. What is our understanding of Scripture as we preach such commitment to Christ and his faith? What boundaries must the Church draw between taking up our cross, and the crass immorality of crusaders? When does a freedom fighter become a terrorist?
Major General Sir Michael Hobbs, former General of the British troops in Belfast, defined terrorism as “international theatre- keeping yourself on the world stage through atrocity”. He was sceptical of the military wisdom of speaking of a “war on terrorism”, for, he said, the best military response was to remove the microphone.
He spoke of a meeting with Mrs Thatcher in the 1980s, when the military were requesting more resources for the Irish situation. Instead of Mrs Thatcher’s suggestion of “another 20 tanks”, they requested “50 road sweepers to clean the streets”. Their aim was to create an environment as normal as possible to remove the anarchy, energy and revolutionary air in which terrorism thrives.
Other strands emerged from the consultation, and can involve us all: prayer; the work of Christian education across all ages; our inter-faith work and community building; clear moral teaching, particularly within the armed forces, and a confidence and faith that can make a difference amidst paralysis – that is, the gift of Christian hope.
Bishop’s chaplain likens 7/7 bombers to Christian crusaders
-31/08/06
An Anglican chaplain has likened the London Tube bombers to Christian crusaders.
Canon Philip Gray, chaplain to the Bishop of Blackburn, said the extremists who carried out the 7/7 attacks shared the same “religious passion” as those who took part in the Christian Crusades.
Writing in the Blackburn diocesan newsletter, he said a number of Christian figures had committed violent acts.
“Behind modern fanatical Islamic terrorism lie many spiritual and religious passions and narratives also found in the Christian tradition.” he wrote.
“Blind Samson, his hairy growth returning, commits an act of suicidal terrorism as he destroys the pillars of the pagan temple.
“The people of Israel sing their song of triumph ñ which we echo in the Easter vigil ñ as the bodies of the Egyptians float in the Red Sea.”
The chaplain added: “We cannot simply ignore the violent passion of Jesus cleansing the temple with whips. We are never told of the collateral damage possibly resulting from his actions.
“In the Christian tradition we rejoice over the passionate commitment and bloody deaths of numerous martyrs. We need to consider the same religious passion and spiritual single mindedness lies at the heart of a London bomber and a Christian crusader.”
The Express newspaper reports that the Church of England distanced itself from the comments by Canon Gray, chaplain to Bishop Nicholas Reade. A spokesman said: “These were the canonís personal views.
“It is fairly clear that most occurrences of terror have been linked to a form of religious expression, but this is a twisting of faith.” A spokesman for the Catholic evangelical group CASE told the newspaper: “In their time, everyone believed in a Holy War.
“It was justified at the time because of the climate. The Crusades were supported by popes.
“There is no way Christians could justify something like the 7/7 attacks these days. The comments are unhelpful, inflammatory and foolish.”
But Jonathan Bartley, director of the religious thinktank Ekklesia, who recently co-edited a book Consuming Passion, which examines some of the violence contained in the Bible and the Christian tradition suggested that Philip Gray had raised important issues.
“Those who read the article that Philip Gray has written will see that he is not providing any justification whatsoever for the 7/7 attacks. Rather he is pointing to the violence within the Christian tradition which many would like to forget, explain away, or abdicate responsibility for.
“But if Christians are to speak meaningfully about terror, as Gray has highlighted, they will need to face up to the violence contained within their own scriptures and indeed some manifestations of Christianity today.”
The Full Text of the article is as follows:
Imagine you are awaiting the arrival of a loved one from abroad when you hear their plane has been hijacked and is standing on a Heathrow Airport runway. How would you want our political and military leaders to respond? Should we resist using military force under any circumstance? Would we want the SAS, with all their expertise and force, to target the plane? Should our loved ones be left to their fate, or would we want action to save their lives, which may inevitably lead to the deaths of hijackers, soldiers and hostages?
This is no academic game, but is rather crucial. For if we as Christians believe we have some comment to make about a response to terrorism, then we must do so with something approaching reality, not just grand statements from the top of ivory towers. We are facing new issues.
First, terrorism has changed. IRA terrorism had a political agenda. There was a group with which to negotiate, with the possibility of a political outcome. Dreadful as IRA terrorism was, it did mostly have limits. Generally warnings were given. Certain targets were seen as legitimate, others were not. The terrorist wanted to keep his or her own life, so he or she wanted both an entrance and an exit. New terrorism knows no such limitations and that is probably because, for many, its motivations are primarily religious. The political aims are secondary. All targets are legitimate, no warnings are given and there is no group with which to negotiate.
This religious motive raises crucial questions for the Church, about how we conceive of God and how we understand the Bible. For behind modern fanatical Islamic terrorism lie many spiritual and religious passions and narratives also found in the Christian tradition.
Blind Samson, his hairy growth returning, commits an act of suicidal terrorism as he destroys the pillars of the pagan temple. The people of Israel sing their song of triumph, which we echo in the Easter Vigil, as the bodies of the Egyptians float in the Red Sea.
We cannot simply ignore the violent passion of Jesus cleansing the temple with whips. We are never told of the collateral damage possibly resulting from his actions. In the Christian tradition we rejoice over the passionate commitment and bloody deaths of numerous martyrs.
We need to consider deeply the fact that the same religious passion and spiritual single-mindedness lies at the heart of a London bomber and a Christian crusader. What is our understanding of Scripture as we preach such commitment to Christ and his faith? What boundaries must the Church draw between taking up our cross, and the crass immorality of crusaders? When does a freedom fighter become a terrorist?
Major General Sir Michael Hobbs, former General of the British troops in Belfast, defined terrorism as “international theatre- keeping yourself on the world stage through atrocity”. He was sceptical of the military wisdom of speaking of a “war on terrorism”, for, he said, the best military response was to remove the microphone.
He spoke of a meeting with Mrs Thatcher in the 1980s, when the military were requesting more resources for the Irish situation. Instead of Mrs Thatcher’s suggestion of “another 20 tanks”, they requested “50 road sweepers to clean the streets”. Their aim was to create an environment as normal as possible to remove the anarchy, energy and revolutionary air in which terrorism thrives.
Other strands emerged from the consultation, and can involve us all: prayer; the work of Christian education across all ages; our inter-faith work and community building; clear moral teaching, particularly within the armed forces, and a confidence and faith that can make a difference amidst paralysis – that is, the gift of Christian hope.