Christian Voice has put together a video considering the voting records of the contenders for the Labour Party leadership.
We hope this will help Christians in the Labour Party as they pray for the outcome and vote for the candidates.
Jeremy Corbyn has been in the House of Commons the longest, since 1983. Yvette Cooper entered the House in 1997, Andy Burnham in 2001 and Liz Kendall was only elected in 2010.
Several important votes have taken place over the past fifteen or twenty years. These have enabled us to gather a picture of the position taken on a number of key policy areas by Mr Burnham, Miss Cooper and Mr Corbyn. It has also been possible to gain a view of Miss Kendall’s stance on some of the issues which matter even from her short time in the house.
Sadly, the view we have formed of Miss Kendall is that her albeit short voting record leaves a lot to be desired. Miss Cooper’s voting over a much longer period also has few redeeming features.
The two men fare better. In the video we show how Mr Burnham has been on the side of the angels from time to time. Mr Corbyn also surprised us on some very important issues.
We have only looked at their voting records. Mr Corbyn’s membership of the Palestinian Solidarity Campaign may put some people off, and Mr Burnham’s support for all-women shortlists for parliamentary candidate selections could be seen as contentious.
The Bible has some advice for us concerning leaders. Firstly, in Exodus 18:21 we read they should be ‘able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness’. Psalm 146 tells us not to put our trust in princes. We also know from from Jeremiah 18:7-10 and Psalm 9:17 that the Almighty rules in the affairs of men and that he will bring down a kingdom which rebels against him.
So our prayer is that God will so sway the hearts of Labour Party members as to elect the candidate who will, wittingly or unwittingly, most advance his kingdom here on earth and bring our nation back into obedience to him under the sovereignty of the King of kings, Jesus Christ himself.
Amen.
May I suggest an alternative point of view.
To a Christian surely this is entirely academic and of no importance for the following reasons:
• God will decide who is elected and hold them responsible for their stewardship in the roles He will assign to them. Romans 13:1 “For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God.” and of course John 19:11 “You could have no power at all against Me unless it had been given you from above.”
• We are ambassadors of Christ, ambassadors whilst resident in a foreign land play no part in the local politics, they are there to represent their home [Godly in our case] culture. 2 Corinthians 5:20 “Now then, we are ambassadors for Christ”
• As soldiers of warfare – against the powers and principalities [Ephesians 6:10-12] we have no part to play in the affairs of this world. 2 Timothy 2:4 “No one engaged in warfare entangles himself with the affairs of this life, that he may please him who enlisted him as a soldier.”
• Meeting powers and principalities of course these fallen beings are exerting authority and control over the worlds ‘kings’, Daniel 10:13ff, Isaiah 14:3ff, Ezekiel 28:11ff I’m sure you don’t need me to go further in listing similar scriptures.
• Daniel 2, the king’s dream, Babylon was the gold standard ‘as good as it get’ which is quite frightening! From then on the kingdoms of this world have deteriorated, and will continue to do so until Christ comes.
• We are like Abraham sojourners in this world, we do not belong. Hebrews 11
• We are members of a Kingdom, not a democracy, we are serving the King of kings, and will reign with Him. I am not planning to live in a democracy, ‘by the people of the people’ which in Greek apparently is Loadicea!
Many years ago my wife and I tried an experiment, when we went to vote we each determined that in the booth we would seek the Holy Spirit as to where to put our crosses, our votes, so led, cancelled each other out!
Certainly in this world we have to be the ‘voice in the wilderness’ – the Christina Voice – calling for repentance and purity amongst the people and those who govern, we are to pray for those who govern – but elect them I really think not, not one has a full Christina agenda so why should we lend our weight – if indeed we have any – to one who does not espouse and show the fruit of a Christian?
OK, so although God will decide who is elected, the Holy Spirit isn’t in on the secret?
Never forget, 20% of the Bible is the Prophets. They certainly became involved in the affairs of this life.
I think there is a both/and here, not an either/or.
As you say, we need to pray for them. And we may need to pray: ‘Lord what are we to do?’
Hi Stephen
The prophets were called and ordained by God and spoke to the peole on behalf of Him and it was almost always calling them to repent to holy living – the word almost is only there because I wouldn’t claim infallability. There were not being elected or being selected by anyone – who would want the job of a true prophet!
I didn’t suggest that we don’t have a role to play but not one of electing – God says that’s His job so we must let Him.
Don’t think I agree with you re the Holy Spirit ‘not being in on the secret’ – Jesus says He will not speak on His own authority John 16:13 so He speaks with God’s!
I’m not sure we can have it ‘both ways’ since God says no one gets into power except He has said so, and Jesus confirms this with Pilate – so though Pilate wasn’t Ceasar he was in a positioon of authority and that had been determined by God.
Having it ‘both ways’ often really means compromising on God’s word.
What I meant was that God will appoint who he will, but that he will use human beings to do it, and that we are required to be a point of witness at the same time. Otherwise we are into Gnosticism, seeing all the material world as evil.
I don’t think it’s gnosticism – special secret knowledge – you must be thinking of something else.
BUT I do those belive that the whole world is in the sway of the evil one, the ruler of this world 1 John 5:19, and just as God placed both Joseph and Daniel and he didn’t use an election to do so He will place who He chooses for His purposes.
The disciples thought is good thing to elect a replacement for Judas – but they got that wrong as well – we never hear abut Mathias after the election! – God had that planned – Paul and brought him forth at His time – 1 Corinthians 15:8.
We only had God’s Word as our guide – to say we have secret knowledge does indeed take into gnostism – and there isn’t anything about Him using men to do His will, certainly He will use men but His is the guiding hand. We did not choose Christ He chose us. It has nothing to do with us and everyhting to do with God.
I’m sorry if that’s stark but I really think we have to let God be God. Proverbs 14:12/16:25 says there is a way which seems right to a man but the end is death, also Proverbs 3:5 lean not to your own understanding but in all things acknowledge Him and He shall direct your paths.
We have to remeber that we are broken human beings, our job is to recognise that without Him we can do nothing of any consequence, and our job is to live, as best we can the Christian live by humble example and teaching – so as with Christian Voice make His way known, and recognising always that save for His Grace we too would be for the Lake of Fire.
It may not sound as glamorous as electing the next leader of the labour party, prime-minister etc. but actually the eternal reward makes it a much better role for us.
The Apostles cannot be said to have got it wrong over Matthias as he was chosen by lot, and the lot is in the hand of God:
Prov 16:33 The lot is cast into the lap; but the whole disposing thereof is of the LORD.
We do not hear of Matthias in Acts, but he is not alone in that. There is no reason to suppose his apostleship was without fruit.
By Gnosticism, I was referring to their doctrine that everything spiritual is good, and everything earthly is irredeemable.
Hi Michael
In God’s providence, we have a vote, and other democratic rights. These do not belong to us. God has made us “stewards” of these “talents”, and we are accountable to Him for how we use them, or bury them in the ground.
Since I discovered that there was no major political party for whose candidates I could vote in good conscience, I have stood for Parliament myself, four times, and voted for myself twice. I invited Stephen to stand, at my expense, in a by-election in 2005. When Stephen declined, I borrowed his slogan, to stand myself in Livingston as “Alliance For Change – Britain In Sin” candidate – my description on the ballot paper.
It only took me about a quarter of an hour to obtain ten nomination paper signatures from worshippers at my church for the last general election. I made an impression.
The closing passage of my speech at the count and declaration at the 2005 general election reads as follows:
66
I respect all those who did not vote for any of the three main parties that form
what I call “the Lib Lab Con Trick”.
I remember the amputee Iraqi orphan I met at a fringe meeting of the Labour Party conference
last September. She had lost all seventeen of her blood relatives, and one of her own legs, from
just one of the unnumbered bombs. She is one of those for whom I stood. So are the detainees
at Guantanamo Bay, the persecuted Jews in Russia who might very soon need to seek asylum in
other countries, the victims of psychotronic abuse who contact me often from within the UK and
overseas, the British soldiers killed who did not realise how “expendable” they were going to be,
and the poor of this country, and of the world.
Since the election was held on Ascension Day, I will leave you with this outrageous paraphrase
of my own, of the words of the Lord Jesus Christ, recorded in Matthew chapter 25.
“Then they shall also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee anhungered, or athirst, or a
stranger, or naked, or persecuted, or tortured, or wrongly imprisoned, or being bombed, or
deprived of contact with a parent or a child by family courts, or the victim of injustice, or of
psychotronic abuse, or any non-consensual medical experiments, or weapons testing, or any sort
of human rights abuse, and did not minister unto thee?”
“Then He shall answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye voted again for a
government already complicit in the ill-treatment of one of these the least of my brethren, ye
voted for them to do it to me, again!”
That’s why politics matters to me. That’s why I stood.
99
http://slavery.org.uk/wmamw/HarrogateSpeech.pdf
I pitched this year for the votes of Christian voters who were as disillusioned with the main parties as I am. Sadly, too many of them seem to have the same rationale as yourself, for abstaining for apathy. But I had the joy of having a handing out of election leaflets approved by the Royal Mail, in the street, disrupted by a police officer who told me that he’d been ordered to search for some charge against me under the Malicious Communications Act 2003, and had spent four hours the previous day searching the internet for anything offensive this candidate might have written on the internet, finding (he admitted) nothing.
I thought Stephen did a good thing, in making this video. (Thank you, Stephen.)
John Allman
“Let every child have both parents” candidate, North Cornwall, 2015 British general election
http://JohnAllman.UK
John
Brother please believe me it is not APATHY!
Please do not accuse me of that, I have come to this decision based on scripture which I have cited.
Your response is all emotional and I see not a word of scripture to support you position.
Where in scripture does it say God has given us democratic rights? Please quote the passage.
We are desitined to a KIngdom – what democratic rights are there in a Kingdom – none the choice is to obey or exile. Obedience to God is the whole basis of our King Jesus who was obediant to death, even death on a cross.
We must live and teach according to the Bible and not our own inclinations.
Actually, Michael, the people of Israel were given a democratic choice over whether to accept the Covenant or not. They were asked three times:
Exod 19:8 And all the people answered together, and said, All that the LORD hath spoken we will do. And Moses returned the words of the people unto the LORD.
Exod 24:3 And Moses came and told the people all the words of the LORD, and all the judgments: and all the people answered with one voice, and said, All the words which the LORD hath said will we do.
Exod 24:7 And he took the book of the covenant, and read in the audience of the people: and they said, All that the LORD hath said will we do, and be obedient.
But equally:
Psalm 103:19 The LORD hath prepared his throne in the heavens; and his kingdom ruleth over all.
Stephen
Actually more than three – Joshua 24:15
But none of these were decocratic decisons by a plebesite vote – they could choose to accept the covenant or they could choose to leave – just as we choose to accept or reject the new covenant.
They did not choose Moses to be their leader and indeed when Aaron and Miram chose to dissent Numbers 12 God intervened.
Look what happened after the spies reported 2 for entry 10 against and the people went with the 10 – God’s jugement. another 38 years in the wilderness.
I meant the original covenant. I am well aware of the question posed by Joshua. Of course these occasions were of a plebiscite nature.
“God will decide who is elected ”
It’s pretty much like Iran, then. God decides everything and announces it through the Ayatollah.
True democracy can’t work in a Muslim country, they say, and apparently not in a Christian country either.
Was it God who decided who was elected (usually by an overwhelming majority) in the Soviet Union ?
I suppose it must have been.
Thanks for this information, Michael Cornelius.
Rox
His yes he did decide who was elected in the Sovient Uniton Iraq and everywhere else. WE may not understand His choices, BUT He says ‘My ways are higher than your wayas and My understanding higher than your Issaiah 55:8-9
Ans yes He also choice those who put Christians to death in the areana in Rome in the persuction of the first century.
I know it is a tough place to get to BUT God is in control – we may question we may wonder BUT we are no more than lumps of clay He has moulded, the Potter decides. Romans 9.
Michael, I find it really difficult to accept that when a child has his foot blown off by a landmine in Cambodia, for example, that such was the will of God. I should much rather put it down to sinful man, myself.
Matt 2:16 Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked of the wise men, was exceeding wroth, and sent forth, and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had diligently enquired of the wise men.
Mat 2:17 Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying,
Mat 2:18 In Rama was there a voice heard, lamentation, and weeping, and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children, and would not be comforted, because they are not.
You are seriously saying it was not Herod who slew those children, but the Almighty? Can any scripture support such a view?
Stephen
No and I have not said it does.
Whilst God directs and positions who will be king/primeminster etc that does not mean that He approves of how they act or the consequences. We must divorce the two. And this is true for each one of us, how do we steward what God has given to us.
But at the end of the day – or perhaps ages – God will hold each accountable for their behaviour. Christians too will receive for the good and bad they do 2 Cor 5:9-11.
Now you’re talking. Many people can’t see why God should allow such things, or indeed earthquakes and epidemics .
Michael, Michael, that doesn’t’ make sense. Very many observers much less omniscient or omnipotent than God could see pretty well what would happen if Hitler was elected, but he was. (Yes, at first he WAS elected). Do you really expect us to believe that he was appointed by God, and that God naively hoped he would do better than expected, being apparently ignorant of his track record so far and his policies ?
So, poor old Hitler, at the end of the day he was held accountable for his behaviour.
But what about all those other people who got involved in this drama ? What a mistaka to maka.
I suppose you will tell us that God gave them a wonderful time in Heaven to make up for what they suffered on earth. This is Islam.
Corbyn, Shmorbyn
What does that mean ?
Socialism ist kaput, it is also anti-Christian because it encourages people to trust the state rather than to trust God.
It may well be that the Lord will inflict an Israel-hating leftie upon us as a judgement for the way we, as a nation, have trampled underfoot His laws and His word.
I find this rather confusing.
You can’t trust socialists, because they are anti-Christian ?
But you can’t trust God either, because he might choose a socialist ?
Bob
It may be that God is inflicting Islam on us for our turning our backs on Him, just as He did in Habbakuk. Hab 1:5 ‘I will do a work …’ the Chaldeans in view there are from the same origins as islam is today.
The only solution is Daniels prayer from Dan 9:1-19 and 2 Chron 7:14 If My people who are called by My name will humble themselves, and pray and seek My face, and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin and heal their land.
Well, the solution is national repentance:
Jer 18:7 At what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, and to pull down, and to destroy it;
Jer 18:8 If that nation, against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them.
Never forget, the context of 2Chr 7:14 is that ‘my people’ refers to the whole nation, not to Christian believers.
How we pray for a man like Daniel to lead this United Kingdom as Daniel ruled in Babylon.
A nuber of people hasve chosen to criticise me on this forum – BUT I note no one has produced scripture to challenge my scriptural based view.
This blog/forum is called Christian Voice – brothers and sisters we have to base our posiiton on scripture if we are to be a ‘Christian Voice’ anything else is just our own clanging voices.
Er, no-one? Did I not challenge your contention that the Apostles ‘got it wrong’ over the election of Matthias from scripture?
I’m not sure what your view is here, Michael. Members of the Labour Party have a vote. Those who are Christian will feel a duty to vote for the candidate who will most advance God’s kingdom here on earth. We pray the video helps them to do that. They and we can also pray for the Lord to see the candidate elected is the one who will most advance his kingdom. Is there a problem with any of that?
Psalm 75:7 But God is the judge: he putteth down one, and setteth up another.
Dan 2:21 And he changeth the times and the seasons: he removeth kings, and setteth up kings: he giveth wisdom unto the wise, and knowledge to them that know understanding:
Dan 4:17 This matter is by the decree of the watchers, and the demand by the word of the holy ones: to the intent that the living may know that the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will, and setteth up over it the basest of men.
Rulers have God’s standard to adhere to:
Rom 13:4 For he (the ruler) is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.
But if the people want to reject the counsel of God, and elect an ungodly man, they can:
Hosea 8:4 They have set up kings, but not by me: they have made princes, and I knew it not:
Stephen
Who asked the apostles to seleect another to replace Judas – certainly not God.
Do we see the 11 seeking God if they are to apoint someone in place of Judas – No.
Peter took the initiate and set some parameters. This resulted in only 2 candidates who fulfilled .
Incidently the 11 did not actually vote the drawing of lots is not a vote, it is if anything passing off responsibility.
The 12 were appointed by Jesus Himself – just as Paul was. Jesus did not during the 40 days before the assension say Matthias I appoint you an Apostle. Why not? – because that wasn’t the plan – Paul was the plan, as he himself confirms and his appointment was by Christ Himself.
Peter quotes Ps 109 but this is just ‘another -singlualr – to take his office’ either Matthias or Paul was to be.
I don’t doubt Peter’s sincerity in his proposal but I don’t see that it was God’s plan. Plainly though to their credit it did not split the followers of Christ into factions – though they of course soon found ground for division in which widows were getting the better deal.
You suggest it is a duty to elect – is it a Christian thing to be a member of any political party? By the very nature of politics this will lead to divisions in the body of Chrst – that is not right.
Not one of them has a manifesto which is Christian in any way – how can we lend our support to such a situation? The last parliament sanctioned Homosexula Marriage without a mandate, indeed they did so in the face possibly the largest petition ever raised about such a matter, I refrer to that of C4Marriage – plainly our politicians do not belive in democracy – except at election time.
Perhaps the Labour Party should choose it’s new leader by lot!
So you do support a democratic process and you are rightly annoyed the government ignored the people – as they did over the abortion act, no-fault divorce on demand, legalisation of sodomy and pornography, and continue to do over the death penalty.
Of course the eleven sought the Lord – in Holy Scripture, Psalm 69:25 Psalm 109:8.
Or if they didn’t, it means that sometimes people are appointed whom God does not appoint, and you were arguing that does not and cannot happen.
BTW, I am just not with this ‘Matthias was useless and it should have been Paul’ narrative. It’s extra-biblical.
Stephen
I am merely a sourjourner through this world, it is under the control of the devil and simply we do not belong. As with Christ our culture is not of this world, we are here to represent His ways and to tell our neighbours and those we come across the Good News. When governments plan to do things which run counter to God’s laws and ways we must speak out – as SPUC and C4Marriage etc.
It is plain that the ‘democratic’ process does not deliver Godly government – not certain if it ever did, so why should any Christian give their strength to it? Probaly the last time we had a truly Godly government in this country was under Cromwell.
You run along list of anti-God legilsation and there was stuff you didn’t list, all going back through the seconf half of the 20th Century. 70 years of it and as you point out no christina inside parliament has been able to change it. Come out and be separate says Paul.
The Christian Institue records how mps voted on matters with a christian perspective, the list is at http://www.christian.org.uk/mpvotes.php people can see there that none of the four candidates for labour could in any way be considered worthy of a Christian voting for them – surley their duty is not to vote for even the least worse and to own Christ before men.
No the 11 did not seek the Lord before they started this process, nor did Peter stand up and say ‘the Holy Spirit has led me to ..” they didn’t hold a prayer meeting and ask God to reveal the name to them, – they made their decision and expected God to support it, one was going to get the short/long straw either was. Many make this error. My position is and remains that Paul was God’s plan not Matthias or Jospeh and though the disples mistakenly appointed him, God didn’t, and thus whilst men may have called him this God didn’t. As I said before Ps 109:8 ‘let another – one – take his place’ not ‘let two others take his place’ Paul or Matthias but not both!
Pease don’t malign me or others, I have not said ‘Mathais was useless’ – whyever do you say such a thing? He plainly fufilled all that Peter a man set as the criteria. BUT this was not a plebesite, neither was the covenant as you suggest elsewhere – each was invited to decide for themselves who would they choose – God or pagan gods!
Peter was sincere but wrong – as often the case – both before and after Pentecost indeed e.g. his hypocritical attitude of dining with gentiles until judaisers arrived – as we all do at times because he and we are broken humanbeings.
Peter’s requirement were that the person had to have been a disicple since the baptism of John – whatever that might actually mean – plainly Paul who Christ did appoint as Apostle was not part of the movement from the beginning, so Peter’s criteria whilst appearing to have some validity meant nothing to God’s choice of Paul.
Dear Michael, Paul, Barnabas, Timothy, Lazarus and all the other apostles who the Lord raised up after Pentecost do not invalidate God’s appointment of Matthias. Dear heaven, is this how modern Christians spend their time? Speculating over the worth of apostles? I despair of the church at times.
I think we are going to hear a lot more from Michael Cornelius.
Pardon someone else “ganging up” on you, Michael Cornelius (you have an interesting view), but are you saying that God would deliberately appoint bad leaders? Or would it be the case of the least worst?
Mussolini was just a bit of a laugh, and Lenin meant well, but I honestly can’t believe that Hitler, Stalin, Franco, and Pol Pot, were all merely the least worst their country had to offer. Nor the Caliph of Islamic State. The man’s insane. I have often been amazed that the USA can’t come up with SOMEBODY better than some of the people they choose to be president, for example, was George W. Bush really as stupid as he pretended to be ? But if God makes all the choices, there is nothing left to analyse. I suppose that explains why David Cameron won the last election, despite all the poll results insisting it would be otherwise. Michael Cornelius has given us a most valuable insight into politics and history.
Thank you for all your hard work and helpful information , Stephen.
I believe UKIP is the closest to Christianity of the mainstream party.
I pray that Jeremy Corbyn will not be voted in as leader. Apart from all his other policies, his views on Hamas and Al Quaida are very worrying.
God bless,
Peter
His stance on gay marriage is very worrying!!!
Jeremy Corbyn’s stance on gay marriage is very worrying!!!
I don’t know why. It’s legal now, and that’s it. You won’t find a Labour leader who is going to make it illegal again if she ever becomes prime minister. What would happen to the people who were already legally married ? Apart from anything else, this would have legal consequences in the realm of inheritance and contracts and that sort of thing. It just wouldn’t be worth the trouble of trying to sort all that out. Let sleeping dogs lie, as it were.
She? She?? Rox, they are not ‘married’ they are gay-married. Big difference.
Isn’t the Labour leader most likely to be “she” ?
What would happen to the people who were already legally gay-married ? Apart from anything else, this would have legal consequences in the realm of inheritance and contracts and that sort of thing. It just wouldn’t be worth the trouble of trying to sort all that out. Let sleeping dogs lie, as it were (or “biches” as the French say, if it’s that kind of gay-marriage. “Biche” does not mean bitch).
No, Rox, the next Labour leader is most likely to be ‘he’. A grey-haired ‘he’ as well.
Perhaps one could take all gay-marriages to the status quo ante.
But that is hypothetical. It will get a lot worse yet, I expect.
Of course, every previous civilisation which has traveled a similar road to this has been taken over by a stronger enemy.
I wonder which that could be in the present day?
Biche is a female deer, for any of our readers who are not up to speed on their French.
It is one of those words we call ‘faux amis’ (false friends); they look like something they are not.
Yes, a false friend, as in “Islam ist ein Gift aus dem Herrn Gott”.
Biche can mean doe or hind. It is with hindsight that you dismiss my prediction that the next Labour leader would be female. 5 days is a long time in politics.
I don’t think taking all gay marriages to a “status quo ante” would be at all popular with the population as a whole, once they, had worked out what it meant.
No, Mr Corbyn was well ahead when you wrote that! He was ahead on 22nd July. On 10th August he was pulling further ahead. Even our video was a bit anachronistic in that regard. The new one isn’t.
For the benefit of those not up to speed in German (such as me – I had to look it up too) ‘Gift’ is German for ‘Poison’ or ‘Venom’.