Is Barbados MP Jordan Wearing Two Hats at Loggerheads?

In early August, CBC TV published a Youtube extract from a speech allegedly made by Mr. Colin Jordan to the proceedings of the opening Quadrennial General Conference of the Wesleyan Church at the Mount of Praise Wesleyan Holiness Church at Tudor Bridge in St. Michael.

The viewer of the Youtube video who was not privy to the proceedings, might be wondering what is the “that” the Minister is referring to. We can surmise from studying the extract that “that” means “dealing with immorality in the society”. Of course, it would have been much more helpful -and journalistically responsible – if that explicit part of the speech in which that was defined were “edited in” rather than out.

The Issue

That, however, is not the theme of this article. This article is about Mr. Jordan’s head. We don’t mean its shape; Mr. Jordan is quite a handsome male and we do not say that facetiously. What we are concerned about is the two invisible hats some perceive him to be trying to wear at the same time.

Let us digress for a moment, to indicate that there are some people like Mr. Bobby Morris who assert that they are able to wear two hats at the same time. I recall Mr. Morris making that statement in the context of discussions regarding the still-born UCB (Barbados University College) at the Barbados Community College. One could also argue that, with some awkward gymnastics, he was able to do a fairly good job of wearing the two hats of trade unionist and high-ranking member of (and, at one time, MP for) the Democratic Labour Party.

In the case of Mr. Jordan, a certain section of the public sees him as wearing two hats: MP for St. Peter in this BLP administration and believer/Christian. Given their perspective, they see potential conflict between those roles especially given the dark globalist path down which his government is travelling.

Those who practice the Christian faith understand that a believer is required to be salt and light to the world in which he or she lives. Salt and light are used metaphorically to represent directional moral rectitude in the context of the morality of a society and this seems to be Mr. Jordan’s perspective as well.

Indeed, Mr. Jordan is invoking this very concept when he adjures the Christians at the Quadrennial General Conference of the Wesleyan Church to “carry out [their] responsibility” to deal with what the editor of the extract calls the “challenges of immorality” in the country.

Mr. Jordan makes it very clear that the church members have no right to expect the state to do their job for them. On this particular point Mr. Jordan cannot be faulted given the Great Commission given to Christians in Matthew 28:19.

According to him, the church and state have different roles to play. More specifically, Mr. Jordan made it clear that the state has a responsibility to create and maintain an environment in which the church can be free to carry out its role. On this particular point we must again agree with Mr. Jordan.

So, can we expect the MP to oppose any lockdowns when the next attempt is made to introduce another health emergency of the sort experienced recently? Time will tell.

If Mr. Jordan is a true believer and representative of the faith, thinking Christians may want to know what they should expect of him in his capacity inside the circles of government. Is that an arena in which we should expect him (or any of the other professing Christians in the government) to be salt and light; in other words, can we expect him / them to wear two hats? Comfortably?

Given his choice of words, it seems quite clear, that contrary to what the Christian community might believe, Mr. Jordan sees himself as wearing only one hat in his capacity as MP: his governmental hat.

Is he, perhaps, misinterpreting Jesus’ admonition to “render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and unto God what is God’s”? Is he construing this to mean that you should do one or the other?

A certain Hedda Hopper is reported to have said: “I can wear a hat or take it off, but either way it’s a conversation piece!”. To which we might add, “pun intended!”

That must be true because Mr. Jordan’s silence on some issues has drawn sharp criticism from certain sections of the public. Salt and light have very telling effects on the elements to which they are applied: salt cures and cleanses, light dispels darkness and error.

What moral light did the honourable gentleman have to shed on the passage of contentious Child Protection Act 2023? Did he bring a biblical/ prophetic perspective on the matter of the digital ID card? What about crime and gun violence?

On the other hand, what exactly is the church supposed to do about immorality that it has not already done and is doing? The Gospel or Good News is designed to change people from the inside out; it is entirely voluntary. Has the church in Barbados stopped preaching the gospel?

It is strange that some individuals who do not present themselves as believers or born-again Christians are more willing to stand up for causes and against wrong-doing. Case in point is Mr. Trevor Prescod who has often taken a position against the government on some issues. See for example here and here.

With respect to Mr. Prescod, we might indeed say: “the balls have it”. But too many of his colleagues, in this government, appear to be in need of a main injection of testosterone plus an occasional booster for good measure.

Core Problem

Whereas the above may be considered peripheral, there is a core problem or issue behind Mr. Jordan’s perceived dilemma. It is his belief in separation of church and state. As a certain Monsieur Peter Wickham (we hope we are not misgendering the individual) argues consistently, Barbados is a secular state. We engaged that individual and his humanist clique on that very issue comprehensively in articles here and here.

By “secular state”, Monsieur Wickham means there is no place for religion in the state. In a recent article accessible here, that individual has called for the removal of the chaplaincy from House of Assembly. At best Monsieur Wickham wants all religions to be represented in that role. Fair enough.

Mr. Jordan evidently agrees with Monsieur Wickham’s stated position that Barbados is a secular state. Let his choice of words not fool you. When he states in the excerpt “Barbados is not a theocracy” that is what MP Jordan means.

But clearly Mr. Jordan does not agree that there is no room for religion. It is a fine but important distinction. Perhaps we can elucidate the MP’s position by inquiring into the meaning of theocracy.

Merriam-Webster dictionary defines a theocracy as “government of a state by immediate divine guidance or by officials who are regarded as divinely guided”. Other online dictionaries define theocracy as follows:
“A nation or state in which the clergy exercise political power and in which religious law is dominant over civil law” (source).
Finally, “a theocracy is a form of government in which the ultimate leader is a supreme deity, who rules either directly as a god in human form or indirectly through mortal servants”. (Source)

Examples of theocratic Muslim countries are Iran and Saudi Arabia where Muslim sharia law is supreme. On the other hand, a country like Turkiye (Turkey) which religiously is predominantly Muslim, often describes itself as being secular for reasons we cannot discuss here.

Of course, the above conceptualizations and examples are a simplification of the role of religion in a state. But synthesizing the above ideas, Jordan’s outlook probably resembles something like this:

“Barbados is a secular society where clergy or religious leaders as an entity do NOT exercise political power and where civil law is dominant over religious law”.

Now Christians believe that society should be governed by God’s laws. However, if by definition the country’s position is that civil law is dominant over religious law, it follows that laws passed by the legislature may oppose God’s laws. Case in point would be a law sanctioning same sex marriage.

Conclusion

To the best of my knowledge, Mr. Jordan never ran for office on the platform that he was representing Christians or Christianity. So, then his commitment is strictly to a party. Therefore, his response in parliament vis-à-vis religious and moral issues is a matter of personal piety or conscience. As he so eloquently put it, “Do not depend on the state to do that for you”.

The question that arises then is what do we expect of Mr. Jordan – and people in his position- when such legislation is attempted? Explicit agreement? Silence? Opposition? If a Muslim were elected to parliament would Muslims expect him or her to be silent on the issue of same sex marriage?

This then raises the 64- million-dollar question: should Christians in Barbados seek to enter party politics explicitly (even if not exclusively) on a platform of looking after the interests of the Christian faith and the Christian worldview? Is the time ripe for a Christian political party which is prepared to strike a fine balance between a theocratic philosophy and a wholesale secular/ atheistic philosophy? We would be delighted to hear what you think in the comments section below or on our Facebook page.

Article by Dr. Aldon D. Tull