The ulterior motive in the school strikes

How the left-wing turned the Jew from hero to villain

How can a self-proclaimed anti-racist and life-long supporter of the underdog find himself encouraging rampant anti-Semitism within his own Party, to the point that it is now splintering apart? Worse, how can he be found guilty of the same behaviour?

Jeremy Corbyn’s anti-Semitism problem is poorly understood by most, but it is key to explaining Labour’s current crisis. To understand it properly, we have to go back in time.¹

The Early Years

19^th Century socialism, trade unionism and the Methodist revivals combined to give the British Labour movement quite a different flavour to the revolutionary socialism of continental Europe. Christian Socialists such as Keir Hardie dominated the Labour Party’s leadership in its infancy at the turn of the 20^th Century, promoting the interests of the working class.

Indeed, it was Labour Party principles that undergirded the development of the British welfare state, with Labour campaigns for better working conditions and social reforms such as free education, free medical treatment and aid for society’s most vulnerable. Whatever the rights and wrongs of these policies from a biblical perspective, Labour was marked undeniably in its early years by biblically-inspired concerns: justice for the oppressed, compassion for the vulnerable, mercy and grace for those in need.

Labour was marked in its early years by biblically-inspired concerns: justice for the oppressed, compassion for the vulnerable, mercy and grace for those in need.

In this spirit, Labour gladly took up the Zionist baton from Lloyd George’s Liberals. The romantic idealism of the Zionist dream chimed strongly with classic Labour ideals: a down-trodden, persecuted people uniting in common cause of collaborative self-determination, pursuing lives of hard manual labour and bearing one another up through a populist culture of co-operation, shared ownership and mutual benefit, manifested most obviously in the kibbutz system.

Labour leader Arthur Henderson published his own version of the Balfour Declaration three months before the real thing was published under Lloyd George in 1917. Labour endorsed Zionism through the 1920s, 30s and 40s, opposing the Conservative Government’s White Paper limiting Jewish re-immigration and re-iterating strong support for Jewish settlers during and after the war years. Despite some back-tracking from Clement Attlee’s administration, this general support for Zionism continued well into the 1950s and was extended beyond this by philo-Semitic Labour PM Harold Wilson.

Promises of Freedom

It was during the 1960s, however, that the broader political context began to change dramatically, as a new age of rebellion and revolution swept in. As prosperity boomed, empires disintegrated and technology connected up the world, the old class-based politics was replaced by identity politics and a new pre-occupation with the global. Across the West there was a cultural shift as an entire generation rebelled against all forms of authority, choosing instead to experiment – politically, sexually, spiritually.

Under the banner of ‘liberation’ from the old order, a whole host of new movements and intellectual theories gathered, including but not limited to:

• The sexual liberation movement
  
• The anti-capitalist movement
  
• The anti-war movement
  
• The radical green movement
  
• Moral/cultural relativism (the idea that there are no absolute rights or wrongs)
  
• Post-structuralism (the idea that it is impossible to understand the world through universally applicable concepts or ‘grand meta-narratives’)
  
• Third World ‘liberation’ movements
  
• Post-colonial theories (the corresponding academic movement re-narrating the West’s history of colonialism as an unadulterated evil)
  

What unites all of these profoundly influential movements is their pursuit of freedom – by any means necessary - from the perceived ‘oppression’ of the old order of Western culture, grounded as it was in Judeo-Christian beliefs and principles.^2,3

This has manifested most notably through a revival of atheistic Marxism, which turns Judeo-Christian principles on their head and which has been mobilised systematically – and often intentionally - to undermine and overturn them. But Marxism, as we well know, carries within it an illiberal spirit of subjugation and control – not the ‘freedom’ it promises, but tyranny.

While the Cold War seemingly dealt a death blow to communism, the Marxist concept of life as a power struggle between oppressed and oppressor, resolvable only through radical system-change and the forced imposition of a new order, was being re-fashioned in the halls of the Western intelligentsia as a socio-cultural (cf. economic) theory. This eventually became the new guiding ideology for most Western educators, politicians and journalists – and it remains so today.

It was, therefore, the 1960s, 70s and 80s and the gradual rise to prominence of ‘cultural Marxism’ under the guise of social ‘progressivism’, that gave us victim culture and identity politics, the doctrine of multi-culturalism, political correctness and the policing of speech and thought, and the extension of coercive state power into every sphere of life, for ‘the greater good’ of enforced equality.

This era saw the re-organising of Western political and legal systems around a new morality marked by permissiveness, boundary-pushing and a lack of respect for the sanctity of human life. It also saw the entry of Jeremy Corbyn into left-wing activism and politics.

The Marxist concept of power struggle was re-fashioned as a socio-cultural theory which eventually became the new guiding ideology for Western educators, politicians and journalists.

Zionism Inverted

Under this new system, Zionism was inverted: it was no longer a socialist dream for the pursuit of national self-determination by an oppressed people fleeing Western persecution (and with every historical and legal right to return to their homeland), but an oppressive outpost of Western colonialism, with the real victims being the Palestinians. Followed through, this thinking has entrenched on the left the belief that the Israeli state is a racist, colonialist, fascist endeavour that has no right to exist.

White Western Jewish immigrants enjoying increasing economic and military success could not (even despite the Holocaust) possibly attain to the level of powerlessness and victimhood claimed for darker-skinned, Muslim Arabs. The former, as oppressive occupiers, could do no right. The latter, as oppressed victims, could do no wrong.

And this is the nub of the problem: because of its a priori ideology, left-wing progressives see the world and its problems through a particular grid of assumed power relationships that dictate who is right and who is wrong, who is righteous and who is evil, before the evidence is even considered. Reality is then contorted to fit this picture.

Appeal to Labour

That the British Labour Party bought into this utterly inverted worldview shouldn’t be entirely surprising. After all, cultural Marxism mobilises emotive, virtuous-sounding concepts that seemingly run close to traditional Labour values, such as the plight of the oppressed and justice for the most vulnerable.

However, concepts of oppression, vulnerability, freedom and equality here are twisted and inverted to serve a very different ideology than the one which motivated Keir Hardie – one which strips God, his boundaries and ethics, from the picture entirely.

And it is this secular humanist, ‘progressive’ version of social justice (really the French Revolution in new clothes), to which Jeremy Corbyn subscribes more ardently and consistently than most of his colleagues.

From Anti-Zionism to Anti-Semitism

Palestinian flags at the 2018 Labour Party Conference. Stefan Rousseau/PA Wire/PA Images.

And so we arrive at today’s situation, where the current Labour leader’s antics place fourth on the Simon Wiesenthal Center’s ‘Top Ten Global Anti-Semitic Incidents’ of 2018. Corbyn makes common cause with Islamist terrorists who overtly seek Jewish genocide while refusing to meet with Israelis, defends and celebrates terror attacks on Israeli Jews and allows anti-Semitic chants to be sung at the Labour Party Conference.

He fails to defend Jewish MPs in his own party as they are singled out for torrents of verbal abuse and death threats, and targeted internally for unseating. He also refuses to recognise that the Party even has an anti-Semitism problem (let alone apologise for it), while his supporters dismiss the allegations as a vicious smear.

Rife within Momentum are Holocaust denials and anti-Semitic conspiracy theories that seem more at home on the far-right (indeed, the far-left is blind to them for this very reason). References to ‘Zio-Nazis’ or to ‘apartheid’ Israel degenerate quickly into age-old anti-Semitic tropes, from blood-sucking, baby-killing Jews to Jews as evil masterminds manipulating the world. Israel is singled out uniquely and disproportionately for distorted, ideologically-motivated criticism.

Fuller accounts of Labour’s anti-Semitism problem can be found easily elsewhere. Suffice to say that, in the span of a generation, the Labour Party has completely inverted its position on Israel, and that this has triggered a drastic rise in anti-Semitic attitudes. The inevitability of this slide into anti-Semitism can be argued from both a biblical/spiritual and a philosophical perspective (though many would undoubtedly disagree).

Left-wing progressives see the world and its problems through a particular grid of power relationships that dictate who is righteous and who is evil before the evidence is even considered.

Conclusions

With the whole of the 20^th Century in view, it is difficult to escape the conclusion that Jeremy Corbyn is not a freak accident, but an extreme, outlying example of a general trend: the shift of British politics towards the extreme secular left, in rebellion against our former commitment to biblical ethics and ideals. In the words of Melanie Phillips, “Corbyn is not the cause of left-wing Jew hate – he’s the result”.⁴

The roots of this issue lie in our cutting ourselves loose from our spiritual and ethical moorings in the Judeo-Christian scriptures, a move being described by some as cultural suicide. It is no coincidence that this has brought with it a volte-face regarding Israel and, from there, the Jewish people.

From a biblical perspective, the situation is quite simple. An embrace of God’s word produces not only a love of God’s ethics, but also a respect for all that he has marked as his own – whether land or people. Rejection of his word induces a hatred of all who are connected to it - all who bear his name.

This hatred, in turn, results in a cursing (Gen 12:3) which the Labour Party – despite its honourable beginnings – may even now be experiencing, and from which it may never recover.

Notes

1 What follows is a necessarily potted history. For a lengthier comment on this whole topic, I recommend ‘The Left’s Jewish Problem’ by Dave Rich (2016, Biteback Publishing). Also 'It backed Israel before Balfour: Corbyn stance is stark shift from early Labour' by Robert Philpot for The Times of Israel, 17 April 2018.

2 These movements gained a lot of momentum by piggy-backing on worthier causes, such as the civil rights movement in the USA and the anti-apartheid movement for South Africa (though both of these also had their more violent, revolutionary elements).

3 Read more about this in Melanie Phillips’ book ‘The World Turned Upside-Down’. That these movements cohere around a reaction against the Judeo-Christian West means they find common cause with a variety of other movements with the same agenda (e.g. radical Islam).

4 Jeremy Corbyn is not the cause of left-wing Jew hate, he’s the result. Melanie Phillips, 21 October 2018.

Why are we often so different?

In response to Linda Louis-vanReed’s recent article ‘The War on Trump’, Jock Stein muses on the contrasts between American and British attitudes to life and liberty.

In earlier life I had an American colleague who, domiciled in Scotland, heroically adopted three children from Devon. The oldest had an inherited genetic condition and suffered from depression as an adult. Last year, living on his own in California, he took his own life – but not before seeking help from three hospitals who all refused him admission because he had an insurance card called ‘Obama Care’.

The hospitals all refused to use the Obama Care card because they had been purchased by large hospital conglomerates, who wished to pursue more expensive insurance options.

American Christians have a record second to none in dedicated missionary and humanitarian engagement. But it has always puzzled me why their attitudes to healthcare provision, as well as to other political issues, are often so different from ours in Britain. If it were a matter of Christians thinking differently from others, I would expect and understand that – but my impression is that these attitudes represent the majority of Christians as well as Americans in general.

This article is an attempt to explain why this may be the case; it draws upon conversations with Americans as well as past reading, but I am open to correction.

1 Separation of Church and State

The Declaration of Independence is premised on belief in God. But because the American colonies saw church affiliation as directed by the attitude of the reigning monarch (rather than based on theological principles) they decided to allow for a separation of Church and State, hoping that this would make differences between denominations less problematic. Indeed, America was big enough to allow what missionaries called a ‘principle of comity’, with some States being mainly Presbyterian, others Baptist and so on.

Those who signed the Declaration never intended this separation to rule God out of public life. They just wanted to avoid the ‘establishment’ model being replicated in America, so that Christians (especially Non-conformists) would have a freedom they had not enjoyed in Britain. This has resulted in thousands of denominations freely proliferating.

On the one hand, this has allowed a freedom of theological inquiry which is non-aligned to political identity. On the other hand, it has inevitably led to the emergence of ‘tribal’ political identities, with politicians courting ‘the Christian vote’, just as Britain has had ‘the Non-conformist vote’ and ‘the Catholic vote’.

Those who signed the Declaration of Independence never intended the separation of church from state to rule God out of public life.

Since the Constitution does not actually name God, in the 20^th Century atheists began to argue more strongly not just to keep church out of state business, but to keep God and the Bible out of it too. Abortion and religious education in schools became crunch issues. While much the same kind of situation has now been reached in Britain by a different route, nevertheless here there is not the same stark gap between faith and public life that exists in the USA.

For example, take the polarisation between Christianity and science. In the USA, believing scientists such as Francis Collins (who cracked the human genome) have to tread very carefully around this issue when they write (as Collins does in his latest book The Language of God, which includes his testimony), despite the fact that 70% of US scientists across the full spectrum of disciplines identify as being ‘people of faith’ (Christian or otherwise). In the UK, there has been a far greater historic acceptance of faith and science rubbing along together.

This modern American attitude to separation – keep faith out of public life – seems to have embraced aspects of service also, feeding the arguments (outlined below) that welfare and healthcare are private matters - the responsibilities of individuals and churches, rather than the state.

2 The Formation of American Identity

The century leading up to the First World War did a lot to found American values. It was a Cowboys-and-Indians century in which Americans drove the frontier westward, with a belief (parallel to the spirit of British Empire) that the United States had a destiny to subdue the entire continent in the name of God.

A nation of self-made people was in the process of forming its own identity, especially after the Civil War, which left the country shaken and wounded. During this century, the steel magnate and self-made multi-millionaire Andrew Carnegie wrote a book called The Gospel of Wealth. In it, he argued that economic inequalities then emerging in American society should be tackled by the wealthy upper class, who should put their hard-earned millions to good use, engaging in thoughtful, responsible philanthropy.

A sense of individual responsibility came to characterise white American society and its Christianity.

This sense of individual responsibility came to characterise white American society and its Christianity, while it was black people who began to identify the Gospel communally – i.e. with a people and a race.¹ This contrast between individual and communal aspects of Christianity is expanded later.

Both Britain and the US have struggled to work through their race issues, but in Britain the work of those like ‘the Clapham Sect’ extended far beyond slavery into other social issues, and eventually Christians and non-Christians formed a consensus to support ‘the welfare state’ after the Second World War, which included the provision of social care. The same did not happen in USA.²

3 Individual and Social Provision of Care

The Old Testament teaches that God’s justice and care for the poor does require some social provision, not just individual charity (e.g. Lev 25). Similarly, the New Testament teaches that equity cannot be left simply to the goodwill of individuals (e.g. 2 Cor 8:13-14). This has often been reflected in the teaching of Christian leaders – for example, Calvin’s concern for his neighbour led him to support low interest rates and a city-sponsored job creation programme.

The theological underpinning of this comes from the biblical idea that each individual human being is made in the image of God (Gen 1:26) and is in need of rescue from sin through the coming of Christ and his sacrifice (John 1: 14, 29). But we also see (e.g. in Hebrews 2:5-10) a social or corporate focus – Jesus taking on humankind as a whole and dying, once for all, on the cross.

That is why the early Church Fathers described the incarnation as having both an individual side - the Lord coming to earth as a specific individual (enhypostasia in Greek) – and a corporate side - the Son identifying with humanity by taking on human nature (anhypostasia). And it is why the illustration of the Church as the Body of Christ – one body with many parts – is so powerful.

In other words, both the social and the individual matter when it comes to salvation, and this affects how we see the Gospel impacting society. My impression is that Christians in Europe, perhaps more influenced by Calvin, have taken on both these aspects of our salvation, the corporate aspect which lends itself to socialism, and the individual aspect, favourable to capitalism. This has led (all told) to a centrist economic position incorporating aspects of both in the provision of social welfare, but without the exclusion of charity.

Both the communal and the individual matter when it comes to salvation – and this affects how we see the Gospel impacting society.

In the US, it is the individual emphasis which has largely prevailed, while socialism has often been identified with communism (seen as the great rival of the American way of life, especially since the McCarthy era), and so rejected.³

In Britain the founder of the Labour Party (Keir Hardy) was a Christian; and early Trade Union branches, especially in Wales, were known as ‘chapels’. While of course many Christians held other political views, socialism was respected in Britain and found political expression in a way that did not occur in the States. The US Democratic Party had very different roots.

Final Thought: How Far is Grace ‘Unconditional’?

Healthcare is expensive, and understandably all governments struggle to put a cap on cost in one way or another, especially in ageing societies like Britain and the US. Both countries continue to debate this.

Although the contexts are very different, there is one question about attitudes which both societies face: do you help the poor regardless, or only the ‘deserving’ poor? And – to pick up the story I began with – do people really have to be wealthy enough to afford a certain level of health insurance before they qualify for assistance?

In other words, should the State set ‘conditions’ for the receipt of benefits, and if so, what conditions should it set? This may be directed by cost, but it is also a moral dilemma. Responses on each side of the pond will, at least in part, reflect the cultural differences outlined above.

Christians face this with regard to their own giving: do you help the poor, whether they deserve it or not - whether they belong to your group or not? Or do you limit generosity to ‘those and such as those’? In Roman times, the Emperor Julian used to complain how Christians supported pagan poor as well as their own, even though they would also have known Paul’s priority expressed in Galatians 6:10. And beyond the Church, is ‘charity’ only a private and individual concern, or is taxation and welfare a proper concern of ‘charity’?

In the days of the New Testament, Christians had to work out these issues within a minority group of believers – and in many respects we are now back where they were then. But the laws of Western nations were drawn up when Christians were at least nominally in a majority.⁴ Our social and political witness does, I think, require us to put these questions on a wider canvas, while we still retain the freedom to do so.

References

1 The formation of this ‘evangelical identity’ is well documented (see for example George Marsden, Fundamentalism and American Culture, 1980, OUP).

2 A recent interesting book which explores the history of these ideas is by the American writer Marilynne Robinson, The Givenness of Things (2016, Picador).

3 See Bob Goudzwaard, Capitalism and Progress: a Diagnosis of Western Society (1979, Wedge Pub. Foundation).

4 See The Evolution of the West, by Nick Spencer (2016, SPCK), Research Director of Theos.

'Providence, Piety and Power' by John Petley (RoperPenberthy Publishing, 2012, 352 pages, available from the publisher for £14.99. Also available from the Telegraph bookshop and from Amazon)

This book, subtitled 'Biblical government and the modern State', argues that religion has a vital role to play in modern political and social affairs. The author, a former political researcher in Brussels, insists on the relevance of Scripture to current problems and maintains there is an overarching divine Providence watching over us and weighing us in the balance.

Biblical Perspective on Politics

Petley's main thesis is to question the size of the State, suggesting it has grown far too large, with a power and influence now well beyond its Biblical mandate. For instance, the belief than more and more state spending will in itself increase wealth and economic growth has led to "a far greater role for the state in managing a nation's economy than the Bible condones" (p241).

The author asks: how much should be entrusted to a State that does not espouse Biblical principles? In answering he often reverts back to Calvin's distinction between spiritual government and political or civil government. He would agree, for instance, that Government is "God's ordained method of restraining evil" (p82), something that is always necessary in a fallen world.

He would also allow the State a role in regulating commerce, to ensure greater fairness and honesty, and that it should legislate to protect the vulnerable in society, but "the actual caring process – feeding the hungry, nursing the sick and dying – is the responsibility of individuals and communities" (p48).

The author asks: how much should be entrusted to a State that does not espouse biblical principles?

Anti-Socialist

He firmly believes in smaller government, one which performs only those functions ordained for it in the Bible, rather than a 'nanny state' in charge from the cradle to the grave. The author is very much against socialism, something to be aware of when approaching his book. He claims that "the fundamental principles that undergird socialism are totally at odds with the Bible" (p173) and admits that "this book argues strongly that Christianity and socialism are incompatible" (p205).

Overall, his verdict on socialism's big state is one of constant failure as it is built upon a rejection of Biblical teaching. So - be prepared for political bias and controversial statements!

Petley has a strong anti-socialist agenda, and is a firm believer in small government.

Christian Worldview

But the author has genuinely looked for a Biblical perspective in current affairs and thoughtfully considered the development of Christian political thinking down the ages in order to use it as a yardstick for today. The first half of the book largely attempts to develop a Christian worldview, and considers how departures from historic Christianity (for example, deism) have affected political thinking in the past.

There is also great relevance to the debate on Europe and EU membership, and to some extent he has foreseen (in 2012) the shake-up of the political landscape that is now emerging.

Christian Voices in Politics

In concluding, he stresses the urgent need for the Christian voice to be heard again in the political arena, and adds some advice on how to get involved. He explains he wrote this book to "inspire Christians to work actively towards a government in their nation that will be characterised by that righteousness which comes through obedience to the Word of God" (p332).

Here is a book on a fascinating area that many Christians don't consider enough or think through in detail. He may not always persuade you, but you will become better informed.

Here is a book on a fascinating area – he may not always persuade you, but you will become better informed.