The columns of our newspapers and our feeds on social media have been filled with the debate about the political issues raised by the tragic murder of Southampton student Henry Nowak. Nowak was stabbed five times by Vickrum Digwa in December 2025, and Digwa was convicted this week. The case has raised emotive issues—but before reflecting on those, we need to pause to remember his family, their loss, and the terrible way that knife crime both takes and breaks lives.
Before you read on, please pause to pray for Henry Nowak’s family in their loss, and in the reminder of that loss again this week.
But we do indeed need to reflect on the issues that this murder and trial has raised, not least to understand the political issues around it. Dom Helda Camara, the South American Catholic bishop, once said ‘When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why they are poor, they call me a communist.’ In other words, good understanding is actually part of exercising compassion.
The pertinent events are as follows. There was some sort of altercation between Digwa and Nowak in Belmont Road in the Portswood area of Southampton, which is not far from the university (I lived in St Mary’s, slightly further away, when doing my MSc at the university). In the course of the altercation, Digwa stabbed Nowak five times in the face and chest with an eight-inch blade, which he held illegally (this was nothing to do with the small symbolic kirpan that Sikhs are allowed by law to carry).
As Nowak lay dying, Digwa’s brother, Gurpreet Digwa, called the police on 999. Reports of the call and subsequent court proceedings state that Gurpreet told the operator that he and his brother had been the victims of a racial attack. According to Hampshire Police, the caller reported an assault on Vickrum Digwa, but did not disclose that Henry Nowak had been stabbed and denied that weapons had been used. He claimed that they had been victims of a racist assault.
We’re Sikhs, and we wear turbans, and he has attacked my brother.
The police arrived believing they were responding to an assault rather than a stabbing. (I thought I read somewhere that another person had made a 999 call, reporting a stabbing, but cannot now find that.) Vickrum Digwa himself then spoke to police officers at the scene, repeating allegations that Henry Nowak had racially abused and assaulted him. (Those claims were rejected by the jury when it convicted him of murder.)
You can watch what then happened because the body cam footage of one of the officers has been published. Be warned: it is deeply traumatic to watch. I found it very upsetting.
Nowak is on the ground, immobile, behind a car. The police have to pull him out from behind the car in order to handcuff him. As they do so, he manages to say ‘I’ve been stabbed.’ After a cursory glance, the police officer replies ‘I don’t think you have mate.’ At the same time, Digwa tries to show the police a supposed bruise above his eye as evidence of his claim of assault.
Soon afterwards, the police realise that there is a problem with Nowak; they unhandcuff him, and give CPR, but Nowak dies soon afterwards.
Even from the short video, I found what was going on quite shocking. Why would the police handcuff someone who was on the ground, clearly in distress, and posing no threat? You might argue that, on occasion, the police have to make split-second decisions, and in the heat of the moment, they can get it wrong. But there was no urgency here; this was not in the middle of an ongoing dispute.
I asked a former police officer friend for his view, and he commented:
When I was in, no way you handcuff anyone until
1) they have been arrested (because you’ve established the facts & it needs to happen to deprive someone of their liberty is not to be taken lightly)
2 ) they are then posing a threat to you themselves or others & you can’t otherwise restrain them
This is the result of bad training and (it appears) presumption of who was the victim and who was the perpetrator.
And other (former) police offers have commented online (in a police-interest group):
I served as police officer for some years the inexcusable action here was to cuff the person without first checking properly for knife wounds, whether victim as in this case or offender they should gave checked for his injuries, there appeared to be enough officers in attendance.
“Any application of handcuffs must be strictly lawful, necessary, and proportionate. Officers must have objective grounds to believe the person will escape, harm themselves, or harm others. Handcuffing cannot be used as a matter of routine”
I’m ex police. I do struggle with the fact that, regardless of what was being said by people at the scene, the first thing would have been checking the welfare of the man on the ground, taking personal safety into consideration, but establishing his condition would be a priority. He may have been faking illness or drunk, but in checking that, it would have revealed his injuries, which would then have turned the tables on the accuser, and although it would probably not have saved Henrys life, it would have diminished the immense grief and stress that this case has brought.
One also cited what I think is a police training manual:
Legal Justification
The Law: Handcuffing is legally considered a form of assault unless it is justified. Officers rely on powers like Section 3 of the Criminal Law Act 1967 and Section 117 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) to justify the force.Reasonable Grounds: An officer must have an objective basis for handcuffing. This usually requires proof of a real risk of violence or escape, or the need to prevent the destruction of evidence.
An additional layer of the puzzle is this: Digwa was known to the police, since he had been arrested in 2023 on suspicion of stealing a cache of illegal knives. The question arises, why did the police here act so far out of line with not only police training but also basic common sense? And what role did the claim of a racist attack play in this scenario?
Commentator Konstantin Kisin believes he knows the answer:
The answer, if you’re willing to look at it honestly, is this: a new form of racism. A bureaucratic racism. An actually institutionalised racism. A racism so thoroughly laundered through the language of progress and inclusion that the people enforcing it genuinely believe they are on the right side of history.
What else do you call a system in which a dying teenager’s word counts for less than his killer’s because of the colour of their skin?
The reason that he says that is because of the Police Anti-Racism Commitment that they put in place, partly in response to the McPherson report of 1999 following the murder of black teenager Stephen Lawrence, but more recently in response to the Black Lives Matter campaign following the killing of George Floyd in the States.
The key part of the document says this:
Our commitment to racial equity means
Producing equality of policing outcomes for people from different ethnic groups by responding to individuals and communities according to their specific needs, circumstances and experiences, with understanding that these will be racialised and with the aim of reducing harm.
It does not mean treating everyone ‘the same’ or being ‘colour blind’ (racial equality).
I had an interesting discussion about this online with a friend who is a suffragan bishop. He had posted that he supported Keir Starmer’s rebuke to Nigel Farage about making this a political issue. The curious thing here is that Starmer was indeed himself making it a political issue in rebuking Farage! And Starmer had no hesitation in making political capital after George Floyd’s death, posting pictures of himself ‘taking the knee’ with other Labour leaders. What was also interesting is that this bishop had posted on the politics of this without actually doing the homework to understand the issue. When I commented that all Farage was doing was pointing out the problem with police policy, which creates a ‘two-tier’ system for dealing with different ethnic groups, he asked me for the evidence, and I posted the quotation above from the PARC.
In the further discussion, the question arose as to what this statement (read in context) actually means. The bishop concerned claimed it simply meant taking cultural context into account. But that is clearly not the case.
For one, the comment is explicit: we will not treat all people the same, regardless of ethnicity (‘race’). We will actually treat people differently on the basis of their ethnicity. That is what Farage means by ‘two-tier policing’ and the police document is quite explicit about that. This is why the police have now said explicitly that this policy document must be changed.
And it goes further in explaining what that means. They seek to produce ‘equality of policing outcomes for people from different ethnic groups’ and this is expanded with a subheading lower down the document.
Our commitment calls for overall improvements in policing outcomes alongside an end to racial disparities in those outcomes, however seemingly impossible both may be…
- The likelihood of people being criminalised by the police
One of the features of our criminal justice system is that different ethnic groups are convicted of crimes at different rates—I was struck by the fact that the initial BBC report on the conviction of Digwa actually mentioned this differential upfront as part of their report. The goal of the police anti-racism policy here is explicitly to see few people from ethnic minorities convicted—by means of differential treatment of the groups.
I read this policy out to a friend who is an experienced barrister, and he had two responses. First, he had never heard of this—and indeed, the document has not been publicised widely at all. Secondly, he said that this was, in all likelihood, illegal, since it displaces the core principle of law that all are treated with equality, not with ‘equity’. Equality means that the same process is applied to all; equity means that you adjust the processes you apply in order to create the same outcome.
In other words, the goal here is not that different groups should be policed so that the crime rates are equal, but the justice process should be adjusted so conviction rates become equal. What is remarkable is that this approach very nearly led to a proposal to introduce different sentencing guidelines for different ethnic groups—until Shabana Mahmoud stepped in to block it.
So where has this approach come from? Allister Heath calls this ‘anti-white racism’, and connects it directly with the ideology of Critical Race Theory. He first notes that it is a direct contradiction of the famous dictum of Martin Luther King:
I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the colour of their skin but by the content of their character.
The PARC specifically rejects this by saying that they will not be ‘colour blind’.
Labour and Tories alike were adopting the nostrums of critical race theory (CRT), a far-Left, anti-white, post-modern ideology incompatible with Western civilisation.
Often dubbed “wokery”, CRT rejects the existence of objective reality (racism is in the eye of the beholder), of rationalism (evidence and proof are not required), of universalism (race is essentialised) and of any possibility of progress.
Western societies are deemed racist by definition, hotbeds of power imbalances and exploitation, even if nobody is actually racist. Intent is irrelevant: non-white minorities are inevitably oppressed by the white majority (which also includes Jews and other “white-adjacent” groups). The “power dynamics” are rigged.
King is viewed as a victim of Marxist false consciousness, a useful idiot for the “white supremacist” camp (anybody that disagrees with wokery), a traitor even. His colour-blind ideal is dismissed as a tool to perpetuate “systemic inequity”. Any “disparate impact” from any policy – such as laws against shoplifting – on different racial groups is deemed proof of discrimination. All differential outcomes are bad.
CRT rejects equality for “equity”, which must be imposed through re-education and Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) programmes.
The result? Instead of arguing that race should be irrelevant, our companies, schools and police have become more race conscious. We were told that real justice required differential treatment. Rather than requiring immigrants to join British society, the UK’s deficiencies were highlighted. Instead of promoting on merit, there was a push for “reverse” discrimination.
What is fascinating here is to trace not only the language of rejecting being ‘colour blind’ but also the language of ‘institutional racism’ back to this ideology.
But while well-intentioned, correct about prejudice within the police and useful in many ways, Macpherson made two fatal concessions to CRT that continue to plague policing today.
It described the police not as infected by a racist culture, which it was, but as “institutionally racist”, a woke technical term coined by Stokely Carmichael (aka, Kwame Ture) and Charles Hamilton in Black Power: The Politics of Liberation. The term implies acceptance of CRT’s nonsense, including that racism against whites is impossible; Carmichael was a rabid anti-Semite (“The only good Zionist is a dead Zionist,” he said) and a racial separatist.
The second error was to adopt the view that a racist incident was “any incident which is perceived to be racist by the victim or any other person”. Yes, this meant police could no longer ignore prejudice, but that wasn’t the right way of achieving such a necessary change.
You can see the direct impact of this in the Digwa-Nowak case: the behaviour of the police here appears to have been completely framed by their absolute belief in the claim of Digwa, because he has mention the R word.
Lord Tony Sewell, who was appointed chair of the Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities, makes the link quite directly:
What was clear in the Henry Nowak tragedy was that the word “racism” was simply ringing in the ears of the officers. No one appeared to assess the situation with any kind of objectivity, for fear of appearing racist or colluding with racism.
How has this mindset entered the police force? Well, a pamphlet published last year offers a clue. It purports to examine systemic racism within the Metropolitan Police Service and was commissioned by the Met itself from the consultancy HR Wired.
Entitled “30 Patterns of Harm: a Structural Review of Systemic Racism within the London Metropolitan Police Service”, the aim of the report was to highlight and challenge alleged anti-black racism within the police force. Its tone is divisive: it views policing only in the context of white supremacy.
This text is just one amid many in recent years that see “whiteness” as inherently problematic – a consequence of the sinister ideas of critical race theory (CRT) imported from America.
As Kisin comments:
I want to be precise here, because precision matters. I am not saying that the officers who attended the scene that night are bad people, or that they set out to let Henry Nowak die. I believe, in fact, the opposite: that they were following the spirit of their training, and of the culture that had been built around them, in good faith, over years. The problem is not the individuals. The problem is the system that produced them — a system that taught them, in effect, that an allegation of racism is a trump card that overrides normal investigative procedure, normal medical common sense, and normal human judgement.
And this has been painfully evident in other prominent cases, involving both the police and the social services.
Mental health professionals decided not to detain the Nottingham triple killer Valdo Calocane despite a violent incident in 2020, after they considered research that addressed the over-representation of young black men in custody, a public inquiry has been told.
The same disaster was true about the suicide bomber who detonated his home-made rucksack bomb, packed with thousands of nuts and bolts, murdering 22 bystanders and injuring hundreds more at an Ariana Grande concert.
A security guard had a “bad feeling” when he saw Manchester Arena suicide bomber Salman Abedi but did not approach him for fear of being branded a racist, a public inquiry has heard.
And it applied in the Rochdale grooming gangs scandal.
Sara Rowbotham was an NHS sexual health coordinator in Rochdale. Between 2005 and 2011 she filed 181 detailed referrals to Greater Manchester Police and social services. Each one named victims. Each one described systematic rape and trafficking of girls as young as 11. Each one went nowhere. She was not ignored because the evidence was weak. She was ignored because the evidence was inconvenient. Authorities labelled her not credible. Her team was dismissed. The official reason given for inaction was community cohesion.
And the same has been true in education.
Axel Rudakubana’s head teacher was accused of racially stereotyping him by pointing out the risk he posed, and the risk assessment was then watered down. Rudakubana went on to stab and kill three young girls.
And here is another from social services—the murder of Sara Sharif, which might have been prevented:
Sara Sharif was murdered by her father and stepmother after a professional who may have “feared causing offence” failed to question why she was wearing a hijab that hid her injuries, a damning review has found. The report, commissioned by the Surrey Safeguarding Children Partnership, found that “race was a bar to reporting possible child abuse” and “professionals never explored how [her Pakistani heritage] impacted on Sara”.
Racist anti-racism has distorted judgement and, tragically, cost lives.
What does all this have to do with the Church of England? Two brief things.
First, wouldn’t be wonderful if we could speak convincingly into all this, without having a political axe to ground—but offering the good news that all humanity is created in the image of God, and the central hope of the gospel is that God shows no partiality? The problem is that we cannot, with credibility, because we have not lived this out. Instead of being able to speak to this, we are hamstrung—because we have walked down exactly the same path as the police have done, only not as effectively.
I remember where I was sitting in General Synod when Justin Welby stood up and claimed (on the basis of no evidence whatsoever) that the Church was ‘institutionally racist’. Instead of drawing on the good news of God’s impartial love for all, he decided to buy into this racist anti-racism of CRT just as the police have done. The only saving grace here is that no-one is likely to die as a result.
Secondly, as I and others have pointed out repeatedly on this blog, the Church’s approach to issues of race is simply going to exacerbate the problems, increase frustration, and continue to create divisions. Even now, we have dioceses spending money that is not needed and is not based on evidence. And it all sprang from a report, From Lament to Action, which includes absurd quotas, poorly researched proposals, and makes the extraordinary claim that the ‘theological foundations of the Church of England’ are racist.
Until we get our own house in order, then as a Church we are going to have little to say to the crisis of racist anti-racism in our culture. And we appear to be a long way off even beginning to do that.
For further theological and practical resources in this area, do read my posts on:
A theological and practical critique of Black Theology
Ethnic and cultural diversity in the early church
Why ‘From Lament to Action’ is a disaster for the Church of England
Why God’s impartiality could be seen as the heart of the gospel
Why spending on racial justice offices is a damaging waste of money
What makes for Black Success in Britain today?
See also other articles here by John Root
(Dear reader, I had intended to write something of quite a different shape, exploring the issues in the Church of England more fully—and also noting that racial discrimination is a serious issue, but that racist anti-racism is completely the wrong way to address this. But I have found I needed to take more time to explore the details of the case. I look forward to intelligent, objective, and respectful debate in the comments…!)
Buy me a Coffee
Alan,
Have you actually watched the video of Henry pleading for his life in terror, as he is dragged over the ground like an animal ?
You think God is not angry beyond measure at his treatment ?
Your think pious injunctions about tone are needed ?
Watch the video, Alan. If it does not silence you and move you to anger there is something wrong with you
Pure cold rage – is that still prohibited.
Is there any level of savagery on our streets that will puncture the lofty contempt of those who excoriate people like me
Or is beheading people ok in this brave new world you have created
If youre referring to the Belfast attack then yes that was barbaric and the individual has suffered terribly.
But what is happening in the light of it? Violent thugs roaming the streets (no doubt all of them white, and mostly young men and boys), burning the homes and cars of people who have a different skin colour to them, not giving a damn if a family was in the house at the time. Threatening businesses and forcing them to close, and stopping ordinary citizens driving on the King’s highway.
My rage is against the attacker and those who then use such an event as an excuse to harm others who have done nothing wrong.
It is perfectly obvious nobody approves of mindless violence.
Too many comments on this blog were addressed not at rioters. They claim to define the range of acceptable comment and opinions.
Ian Paul has a strong stomach but even he was moved to protest when it was claimed the thread was a “seedbed for facists and racists”. Pure hysteria.
People become deranged every time Farage opens his mouth. That is not going to stop anytime soon.
At least let the rest of us speak
I dont see anyone stopping you from speaking, least of all here.
Peter,
There is open hostility on this site to the perspective I hold. Please don’t insult my intelligence by denying that obvious fact.
Peter, you are taking it all too personally, and so yourself are ‘ramping it up’ emotionally.
You all need to focus on the issues rather than getting upset. I don’t see the ‘open hostility’ that you claim.
And please use a name, not initials.
Peter,
What on earth do you think is going to happen if you ramp up historically unprecedented rates of immigration with people from totally different cultures? Look at the history of Fiji in the last 150 years.
I don’t care what colour people’s skin is, so I do not consider myself racist. But I am a ‘culturalist’; I am prepared to argue that some cultures are better than others. Certainly immigrants think that Western culture, with its twin roots in Athens and Jerusalem, is better, given its combination of prosperity and freedom under the law, and its eradication of human sacrifice, cannibalism and widow-burning in various places.
I am tired of hypocritical multiculturalists happy to accept that the Punjab should be a homeland for Sikh culture, China a homeland for Chinese culture, etc, but England should be the locus of a multicultural experiment rather than a homeland for English culture and all who wish to adopt it. Even Trevor Phillips repented of multiculturalism.
I regard several living Prime Ministers as equally responsible with the thugs for the present wretched situation. Mass immigration has never been in any manifestos. The phrase ‘Bill of Attainder’ comes to mind, once Human Rights legislation has been repealed.
Anthony,
I agree with every word of that. I have never cared about a person’s skin colour, only the mind and person that inhabits that body. Race has never – or hardly ever – been an issue for educated professionals who relate to each other at the level of their ideas, skills and knowledge. I sometimes wish, however, that more Indian and Pakistani doctors were serving their own people first, instead of heading to Britain for a a better life for themselves.
It is the mass importation of people of low education and skills, compounded by massive numbers of young, largely unemployable young men from the third world, that is at the heart of the problem. This has created an intolerable burden on Britain’s indigenous poor and working class people, who are patronised and despised in equal measures by the political and journalistic classes. It does not help, of course, that many thousands of illegal immigrants – nearly all men under 35 – have been released into Britain by successive governments, Tory and Labour.
I wonder if events in Belfast indicate we have reached a breaking point. North Belfast is a Sinn Fein seat, although the DUP held it before. It is the supreme irony to see Sinn Fein, which once used violence against persons and homes to pursue its ends, denouncing masked men rioting in the streets.
James,
Thank you. Several points in reply, unrelated to each other so I’ll number them.
1. The outstanding book on the subject, giving plenty of demographic statistics, is Eric Kaufmann’s ‘White Shift’.
2. The problem is largely driven by the Treasury, who view human beings exclusively as (positive) economic units, and are aware of a looming debt crisis.
3. Two good friends of mine married Irish women, who have bent my ear about British maltreatment of Ireland in the last 500 years. I replied that this Englishman does not covet the soil of Ulster but that I coulod not support a united Ireland while the Roman Catholic church wielded significant political power able to be used against protestants. Since, however, that church wrecked its standing through the paedophile priest scandals (more via cover-ups by bishops than by the paedophiles), that argument no longer stands, so Good Luck with reunification. My friends’ wives now say they can’t be bothered, that the Northern Irish economy is poor, and it would be taking on too much trouble. So here was an Englishman advocating a united Ireland, and two feisty Irish women, whose ancestors were all for the cause, advocating the opposite. Bad economics simply means a generations’ financial sacrifice, whereas politics is enduring. What is it about secularism that wrecks people’s minds?
What is an ‘English culture’? Scotland seems to have a more obvious ‘culture’ yet is very mixed at least in it’s major cities.
Do you believe that England doesn’t have a culture but everybody else does?
Peter,
Nothing wrong with being angry and passionate. This is what I’m doing about it: going onto the high street on Saturday to tell anyone who will listen about Jesus.
I try to keep my opinions to myself in order to keep the focus on salvation through faith in Jesus. I refuse to take up the bait of anyone’s opinion to keep on topic:Jesus.
The world ,including Britain is a sepulchre. The Gospel is the only means by which the bones my receive flesh. Painting it red white and blue will only make it pretty.
Jesus said my yoke is easy and my burden is light. Speaking to bones is a lot easier than painting and decorating, or any other noble activity.
Be angry at sin.
Be passionate with the Good News.
Ian,
I did not mean that you are allowing a hostile environment.
I don’t like it being inferred I’m a fascist
That’s is not unreasonable
Well, you are inferring. Are they implying? The trouble is these exchanges are between one or two people—they should go elsewhere. Comments here need to engage with the arguments.
And there is so much emotion here, I cannot sort the good comments from the bad.
And you are still not using a real name.
Ian,
I am not going to use my name because I have been the subject of a reckless and legally incompetent insinuation of libel.
I will comply with your guidelines and not post again.
I would want to part on the basis that I enormously admire you courage in what you are willing to say in pursuit of the truth and reason.
Many, perhaps most of you clergy colleagues will be appalled by your refusal to comply with the iron rule of their progressive ideologies.
Long may you continue to talk sense with clarity and courage
Peter
Then use a pseudonym!
The stated policy (which seems to me right) is that you do not allow anonymous comments, except that you will allow pseudonyms if the commenter has good reason to remain anonymous. Are you saying that the (in my view false) perception, or even just fear, of being subject to ‘a reckless and legally incompetent insinuation of libel’ is a good reason? If the perception is considered a true one, it certainly does not reflect well on those of your readers encompassed by this aspersion.
If someone is raising that concern, then they need to present me with good evidence, citing the specific claims.
I don’t see any, and I think (as often happens) a personal spat has got out of control.
I just don’t want these on my blog!
Steve,
What do you mean “false perception” of an insinuation of libel.
The insinuation of libel is written in black and white and addressed to me in the thread above !
Ian wants the matter dropped, but I think I am entitled to rebutt the claim I am making stuff up
You need to cite the wording. I cannot go through the thread on a hunt.
Steve,
What do you mean “false perception” of an insinuation of libel.
The insinuation of libel is written in black and white and addressed at me in the thread above by Geoff.
Ian wants the matter dropped, but I think I am entitled to rebutt the claim I am making stuff up
I have walked with 2 ex-policemen from the Met who both got out after the Macpherson report because they wanted to do policing, not be used as political tools. One acknowledges that there was racism in certain places but not everywhere. They both said that many of the best policemen got out after the Macpherson report, thus weakening the standard of policing in this country.
Re Welby’s comments: we are looking increasingly like a 2 tier church with the hierarchy following every woke bandwagon society throws at them, to the detriment of local churches, who are not helped by unfounded allegations of being institutionally racist, and the hierarchy spending loads of money to do so. Recent reports by the C of E on racism hardly mention any Scripture. The early church addressed this problem by preaching the Gospel and without spending money!
Nice re-use of the two-tier language there—and I think apt.
Ian,
Reference Geoff’s insinuation. I can assure you it is there, but you – to state the obvious – have better things to do with your time than following it up.
It is not really a personal spat, Ian. A young man was murdered and died in terrible circumstances. I was rebutting a false narrative about the tragedy in what is a public forum.
Having said all that, I can assure you I am as sick to death of the matter as you are. The matter is best ended
https://christianconcern.com/comment/the-murder-of-henry-nowak-and-cultural-marxism
A really interesting article – from a christian perspective – which does what Ian rightly requires which is to get back to scholarly analysis of the issues of social justice and race
An article from a very particular Christian perspective. Christian Concern by no means represents the views of many (most?) Christians.
Penelope
Can you elaborate on your point – it being an entirely reasonable general statement
I don’t know how to reply except to repeat that the views of CC and its leaders and the causes they choose to support are not shared by many Christians. Andrea Williams’ views are well publicised but not representative of mainstream Christianity.
Rather like yours here, then.
Pedro,
Here is an overview of Critical Theory and Cultural Marxism and its development:
https://www.freedomcollectivefoundation.org/post/cultural-marxism-history-overview-and-its-role-in-america-todaywhat-is-cultural-marxism
Anglican minister, the late Melvin Tinker Tinker, wrote a book on the the roots and place of Critical Theory today in culture and the church which includes the seeking revision: ‘That Hideous Strength: A Deeper Look at How the West Was Lost – An Expanded Edition Examining the Cancer of Cultural Marxism in The Church, The World And The Gospel of Change.’
The revisionist’s activism today in the church in matters sexual can and has been well traced to Critical Theory, Cultural Marxism and its offshoots.
May I recommend on these subjects a book published during the later course of this thread? It is “Island of Strangers” by Ben Jones, a lawyer who works for the Free Speech Union.