The fury over a Christmas carol event exposes the ideological gatekeeping hollowing out British Christianity.
Jason Clark writes: Over the last few days, my social media feeds—shaped by the strange, selective algorithms we all live under—have been replete with progressive and left-leaning Christians condemning the upcoming “Christ in Christmas” event in London linked to Tommy Robinson. Anecdotally, those are the voices I see most loudly. And beyond my feeds, the national news and radio have been wheeling out predominantly Anglican clergy (as they always do) to denounce the gathering in firm, moral tones, with warnings of the ‘Far Right’ and ‘Christian Nationalism’.
I understand why people feel uneasy. I am no Tommy Robinson supporter. But I also sense that something deeper is happening here—something revealing, something uncomfortable, and something worth paying attention to. Because if we only focus on the personalities involved, we risk missing what this moment is saying about the soul of the UK, and perhaps the state of Christianity itself.
We seem to have had Christian groups who have spent months entirely at ease under pro-Palestine banners, Islamic slogans, rainbow flags, LGBTQ+ causes, BLM symbolism, climate change flags, and anti-colonial rhetoric, who are suddenly and seemingly scandalised by a carol event—and not primarily because of the carols. That contrast alone should make us pause.
Anglican and other priests have been arrested for supporting a proscribed extremist organisation—Palestine Action—whose activists violently assaulted a police officer with a sledgehammer. Yet many of the same voices express horror at a proposed carol service, immediately castigating it as ‘far right Christian nationalism’. It is a revealing moment in our public discourse: outrage is not always proportionate to actual harm, and moral energy is, I suggest, often spent denouncing the wrong thing.
Policing Faith
For years now, huge numbers of ordinary Brits have felt ridiculed, unheard, and publicly shamed simply for being British. And the moment some of them reach for Christian symbols, language, and tradition—the very things Christianity once assumed belonged to all—those who preach tolerance respond with moral panic and purity tests. The contradiction is hard to ignore.
Beneath that reaction lies something more uncomfortable: the instinct to decide who is “allowed” to reach for Christ, who may “recover” Him, who counts as worthy of invoking His name. As though Christ belonged to some ideological tribe or moral elite. As though we could curate where Christ is permitted to appear.
But here is the truth few want to say aloud:
The most unsettling element of this carol event will not be Robinson. It will be the crosses, the icons, the voices publicly shouting, “Jesus is King.”
That will disturb many who have been perfectly comfortable with other ideological symbols dominating public space all year. The offence is not nationalism; the offence is Christ showing up in a place we did not approve.
And if anyone imagines the attendees will be the fever-dream caricature of the “far right,” it is worth remembering how elastic that label has become—a catch-all category deployed for almost anyone who disagrees with a dominant progressive moral imagination. It functions like a modern heresy charge, shutting down conversation rather than opening it.
This caricature stands in stark contrast to Trevor Phillips’ firsthand account after attending the Unite the Kingdom march with 150,000 taking part in London this year. Many of whom might well be at this Christmas Carol Event:
The vast majority seemed normal, not like the stereotype of some far-right extremists.
Exactly. The people attending will mostly be ordinary folk—neighbours, parents, tradespeople—people reaching for meaning, identity, and yes, perhaps even faith.
And that prompts a difficult question: If we casually call this gathering “far right,” are we prepared to label everyone condemning it “far left”? Of course not—and that’s precisely the point. These labels are flattening our moral vision and impoverishing public discourse. They tell us more about our cultural anxieties than about the people themselves.
Here is another irony: Some of the voices denouncing this event come not from worshipping communities or from people living a discipleship-shaped Christian life, but from cultural and professional Christians—those whose functional faith has migrated into ideological symbols, activist liturgies, and moral slogans. Their causes have become their creed, baptised with Christian symbols and terminology.
Yet they insist that those gathering in London have “no right” to use Christian imagery. Misappropriation is a serious charge — but it is being levelled by many who have done the same thing with their ideological beliefs. And they can appear as cultural middle-class Christianities, offended by their sensibilities, unable and unwilling to have empathy for those in their sights.
And yet, to be fair and truthful, not everyone raising concerns fits that description.There are many thoughtful Christians genuinely troubled about co-option, distortion, or Christian symbols becoming vehicles for grievance or identity conflict. Those concerns matter as much to me as they do to you.
But even here, a question lingers: Why is it so easy to publicly denounce this event, yet so hard to critique the ideological culture of the progressive left and their ideological capture in public?
Their symbols, chants, and moral framework have dominated public space for months with scarcely a murmur from the same people now speaking so forcefully. That asymmetry reveals something about the state of Christianity in Britain—people often more willing to critique unfashionable expressions of faith than fashionable forms of ideology.
The danger of co-option is very real. Christian symbols can be bent into political tools and have already been used by the progressives and left this year. But it is hard to name that danger without first acknowledging how we ourselves—left and right—are discipled by cultural ideologies that function like anti-Christian liturgies.
Tommy Robinson now speaks openly about having found faith and believes a kind of revival is stirring outside the established church—among people who, like him, feel they would never be welcomed by its leaders. Whatever we make of his claims, the dynamic he is describing is not unfamiliar. Time and again in Christian history, those on the edges of church respectability have insisted they are encountering God, while the institution has responded with suspicion, distance, or outright rejection. Often, the church has been uneasy not only with the individuals involved but with what their presence might say about its own life and witness.
Throughout the centuries, many of the Church’s most significant renewal movements began precisely in these marginal spaces. In nearly every instance, the resistance was shaped as much by cultural anxiety and political concern as by theology: fears of instability, the loss of control, and the unsettling presence of people who did not fit the accepted norms. Yet history shows how often these same movements became agents of renewal, mission, and reform that reshaped the Christian landscape, no matter how much people condemned them at the time.
There is a pattern to such moments in history:
- God meets people in unexpected places — often outside established structures.
- Authorities denounce these encounters as spiritually suspect, socially disruptive, or politically dangerous.
- The “outsiders” form new communities around their lived experience of God.
- Some of those communities become significant renewal movements in theology, mission, and prayer.
- Within a generation, the church often adopts what it once opposed.
What begins as illegitimate spirituality at the margins often becomes the birthplace of renewal for the whole Church.
This is the cautionary note for our current moment. The increasingly alarmist efforts to proscribe the carol event associated with Tommy Robinson may end up driving more people toward it, not away. When leaders resort to sweeping denunciations, collapse every distinction into the language of extremism, or speak as though attendance is itself morally suspect, they unintentionally reinforce the narrative that the church and the cultural establishment neither listen nor welcome. People already wary of institutions often interpret such reactions as proof that something genuine must be happening beyond official boundaries. Ironically, history teaches us that attempts to shut down fringe religious gatherings rarely diminish them; more often, they consolidate them.
If we are wise, we will pay attention not only to the very real risks but to the deeper questions being revealed — questions about belonging, credibility, and the gap many now feel between the church and the people it is called to reach.
This moment, if we are willing to receive it, is a mirror.
It reveals the ideological purity cults we build, the idols we defend, the boundaries we draw to gatekeep Christ, and the strange comfort we find in labelling others rather than examining ourselves.
But perhaps the greatest tragedy is pastoral.
Instead of denouncing and deepening polarisation, this could be a moment to reach out —
…to listen,
…to understand the woundedness beneath the rhetoric,
…to invite people into a relationship with Christ and into communities that actually form disciples of the risen Lord.
For many who participate in the carol service, there is pain there. There is longing. And beneath the surface noise, there may be genuine hunger for God. Christ often appears where respectable religion least expects Him. As mentioned above, we only have to take a cursory glance at church history to see this. What if this part of a ‘dirty/messy revival’ as messy as other moments in history, to lean into instead of condemn?
Grace always begins when we stop gatekeeping Christ, lay down our ideological idols, and open our eyes to the people right in front of us.
Summary
Given the minefield I have stepped into on this topic, let me summarise what I have attempted to express:
Post-Church Condemnation: Those outside the church in post-church life who have made cultural ideologies their mission are as guilty as those charged with Christian nationalism.
Genuine Concern and Suggestion: Christians who sincerely want to follow Jesus, in whatever form that takes and with Christ at the centre of their lives, are right to feel uneasy. But before reaching for the reflex of condemnation, I am suggesting it is worth asking whether something deeper may be happening — something that might actually be an opportunity to help people find faith in Christ.
Opportunity: What if there are hundreds of thousands of ordinary people who, amid the political and cultural turbulence of our age, are instinctively reaching for Christianity as a stabilising identity and source of hope? And what if, instead of being dismissed or denounced, they were listened to, welcomed, and gently guided toward a relationship with Jesus by those who have one — one not captured by nationalism or by progressive ideology, but shaped by the gospel itself?
And for absolute clarity: If anyone reads this as support for the event or for Tommy Robinson, they have not read what I have written.
Jason Clark is 
a professor of leadership, having designed and continue to lead the Doctor of Leadership for Portland Seminary. He spent his twenties in finance in London, then twenty-five years as a church planter and pastor—his post PhD research centres on Christian identity formation and leadership.He is an Ignatian spiritual director, and the director of the London Centre for Spiritual Direction.
This article was originally posted on his substack here.
Buy me a Coffee
I have wondered why this kind of comment from Ian Paul is so very long overdue.
Europe is erasing its Christian history.
As one who lives inside Europe and also outside, I am stunned at how the basic elements of Christian witness are being eviscerated and indeed made illegal, while every other ‘religious expression’ (LGBTetc, Islam, you name it) is not just allowed, but allowed to be a kind of status quo against which Christianity of the historical sort is brought up before the bar.
Why aren’t English Christians worried?
Thanks. I have been making these observations on social media for some time—as well as in meetings I have been in.
When I read this from Jason, I thought he expressed it better than I could!
Not critical of you. Best regards in Christ. As a ‘citizen’ of Europe I am keenly aware of this frontier.
The zeitgeist is inverting.
The USA is leading the way.
Britain will, must follow suit.
Revelation shows how it works in the “heavens”.
The beast holds up on its back the woman. She represents the ideology for the world to follow. After an epoch the beast eats the woman.
Then it sets upon its back another for the world to follow.
At the moment all worldly church leaders support the current iteration riding the beast because ‘establishment’ requires them so to do. (Establishment is broader than the CxE)
When the about turn is complete, a new rider of the zeitbeist will be worshiped . “Who can fight against the new zeitguest” will be the bishops injunction. (Bishops = any popular denominational leader).
People will still get saved from under the new normal.
What basic elements of Christian witness are being made illegal?
Speaking about Christian sexual morality in public. Reading Romans 1 in public.
Telling children in a church foundation school they don’t have to follow LGBT propaganda.
Praying outside abortion clinics.
Teaching the truth about Islam in schools.
I’m sure you know these things, Adam.
None of these things is illegal. There are regular spins put on them in the mainstream and social media to suggest they are. Look at Enoch Burke.
Anyway, when Christians are being killed cosplaying persecution in Europe and the USA is rather tasteless.
So why was Enoch Burke originally debarred from teaching at his school, and why is he debarred now?
Burke was sacked by the school. He has subsequently refused to comply with court orders to stay away from the school that used to employ him, repeatedly trespassed on the school property, has repeatedly been found to be in contempt of court, and therefore finds himself fined quite heavily and having spent some time in jail.
We can be sure that when Christians are arrested and tried for being public enemies, Penny will be there cheering the thought police on.
Yes, Adam, and tell us why you are completely ignoring the fact that this all stems from his being sacked when he had spoken entirely truth.
The facts of the case seem important though Christopher. I thought you were committed to the truth…
To quote Judge Cregan:
“The idea that Mr Burke is being imprisoned because of his religious beliefs is nonsense. This court does not imprison people for their religious beliefs. Mr Burke is being imprisoned because he is trespassing on other people’s property. No more. No less. Any statements by Mr Burke (or other members of his family) that he is being imprisoned because of his opposition to transgenderism are lies.”
The helpful judge helpfully said not a single syllable about why EB WAS debarred from the school. It is highly suspicious that the quotation withholds that, which is the only relevant information. He should not be shy – out with it. Why was EB debarred?
And: different judges have given contradictory rulings about why he was disciplined by Wilson’s Hospital School.
And: what is the sense of the word ‘trespass’ if people are just obeying an unjust law or policy that penalises the innocent?
Anyone who just goes along with that would perhaps have gone along with other penalisings of the innocent historically.
Enoch Burke is like Gandhi or Martin Luther King.
He broke the law, very peacefully, non-violently.
He showed up his Anglican school for the craven fools they are.
A boy who thinks he’s a girl needs help. The school connived in a lie, instead of telling the boy the truth. They told Burke to lie. Burke called them out for it.
Let’s abandon the cause of MLK and Gandhi then?
Or shall we treat them as criminals?
Sigh. It’s fairly easy to look up the Burke case. To suggest he was suspended simply for his views on the transgender issue is very disingenuous. He disrupted the school’s church service, and later sought out the headteacher, pursuing her so vehemently that others had to intervene so she could leave. He was, unsurprisingly, suspended and the school got a High Court injunction to prevent him being on school premises during his suspension. He broke that injunction immediately and repeatedly. As Judge Cregan has pointed out it’s Burke’s verbal aggression, unregulated anger and lack of self-control that are at issue.
No way. He did none of those things unless as a stand against the lying nature of the original unjust school policy which is at the root of everything else, and without which none of the rest would exist.
A doormat is preferable, right?
Aggression, anger, lack of self control? Righteous anger and just fury at injustice and indoctrination of children. You would be indifferent or apathetic in the same situation?
Indifference and apathy (i.e. doing nothing and letting any policy at all take root) are praiseworthy?
Comparing Burke to Gandhi or MLK is co-opting peaceable, colonised, men of colour to an unpleasant, radicalised white male stalker. The comparison is egregious.
Burke needs to realise that two wrongs don’t make a right. The school was wrong (morally) to take action against him for what he said and he was wrong (foolish) to deliberately keep going onto school property subsequent to that.
Comparing Burke to Gandhi or MLK is co-opting peaceable, colonised, men of colour to an unpleasant, radicalised white male stalker.
Martin Luther King Jr was a serial philanderer who looked on and laughed as a friend of his raped a woman. That seems pretty ‘unpleasant’ to me.
I disagree with you on that, Anthony.
If people lie down like doormats they are playing into the hands of lying policies and lying laws.
When they meekly submit to these policies and laws without a fight, there is nothing standing in the way of the policies and laws becoming worse still.
So opposing them is mandatory. That is one reason why Gandhi and MLK, passive resistance, were cited. Their passive resistance was very visible, and not disruption-free.
The worst and most shameless logic of all, which I know you do not adhere to, is to say that if people act in these aggressive social engineering ways, we ought to just let them do it? Whence such authority for social engineering, or such fear towards it? Zap it.
Dear Christopher (Shell), I wholeheartedly support Enoch Burke in his legal actions against the school and I hope he emerges victorious in higher courts. I do not support him in his foolhardy visits to the school.
Yes, I know, because you said so before. However, I gave reasons above for questioning the coherence of that position.
Challenging his sacking in court is not meekly submitting, is it?
It takes a large mental leap to imagine one would need to go to court, of all places, to defend obvious truths. I am not surprised that he did not expect such an odd thing to happen, and was expecting instead to resolve it in a few seconds.
(Mind you, how much money was recently spent in order to ascertain that sex means “biological sex” [odd phrase]? – and who paid?)
There are clearly different views on the Burke case and that is fine. However cannot be different facts, and we seem to have different depictions of the facts. The tone of the debate in a place like this I find very troubling.
The motives Burke had for his actions do not alter what he did. What he did is a matter of fact.
His motives are also a matter of fact, if known for sure only to him.
Also they can be deduced very accurately, and commonsensically. His family repeat ad nauseam what his motives were and he never denies it. Do you?
As for your elevating actions above motives, that is just irrational bias. Which you are then trying to enforce on everyone else, on no authority.
The motives are in any case what produce the actions, so are more fundamental than the actions.
Street preaching. The Public Order Act is regularly cited to shut it down.
Penny knows this but pretends not to.
Who is defending the RE teacher in Batley who went into hiding to escape the Islamic mob?
Who is defending Bernard Randall, declared a ‘terrorist’ by his headteacher?
Who is defending nurses who stand up against sexually confused doctors dressing up as women?
Libel James. I certainly wouldn’t cheer anyone who was arrested for being a Christian.
Enoch Burke is a stalker who is in contempt of court.
Sandi Peggie is a nasty racist (as well as a nasty transphobe) who, fortunately, lost her case.
Bernard Randall wasn’t simply teaching the Bible (though he is the only one of these three who has a case).
Yaxley-Lennon is a violent, abusive little racist who is now cosplaying Christianity to attract the Christian Nationalists.
Russell Brand is a nasty, misogynistic, alleged abuser.
If they represent a growing Christianity, I want no part of such a depraved cult.
None of them is Dietrich Bonhoeffer.
Madame La Tricoteuse.
Madame La Tricoteuse.
What? If you sack people for telling the truth, and uphold lies, a large number of so-called ‘stalkers’ will suddenly manifest, asking for justice. You deserted the truth tellers. Is truth that bad?
Struggling to abide by the comments policy James?
Adam
Lots of commentators don’t abide by the comments policy. But James is just being very silly. If he can’t respond with an actual argument – however Jamesian – he would do better to be silent (at least for a while).
And Penny you are one of the worst.
Don’t be silly.
So witty you had to say it twice.
No, it was the same comment, which he was not sure had registered the first time.
And I see that compliant commentator ‘S’ is back.
Liberal bishops take money from Christ’s church to sow doubt in Christ. That is worse.
Quite so, Christopher. The older generation of eastern Europeans who visit us say they recognise the direction of travel toward totalitarianism here very clearly. There is plenty about this in Rod Dreher’s book “Live not by lies” (a quote from Solzhenitsyn).
Christopher
Why haven’t English Christians been worried about the unbiblical ‘established church’ whose inappropriately claimed authority has been the major root of the reaction against Christianity? That is to say, real Christianity is not being opposed, but rather an authoritarian distortion of the faith which was all too like the violent totalitarianism of Islam. We will likely continue to have these problems until we get back to a truly NT attitude to Church/State relations – and a good start in that process would be to disestablish the CofE and make clear that real Christianity is not about nationalised churches but about people voluntarily joining the inter/supra-national ‘Kingdom not of/from this world’ which Jesus declared to Pilate…..
To compare the Church of England to totalitarian Islam just shows how ludicrous your ideas on this are and why they must be ignored. The Church of England is established church as that is the whole point of it and what it was created to be and it does not need nonconformist Baptists like you telling it what to do!!!
Simon
One of the early acts of Henry VIII’s CofE was the execution of a group of Anabaptists. And varying degrees of ‘holy’ war have been seen in the past of the CofE. The comparison with totalitarian Islam is not ‘ludicrous’ but tragically evident. Fortunately overthe years the efforts of more biblical Christians have had the effect of blunting that totalitarianism yet the CofE continues to hang on to the rags of the unbiblical establishment…..
And you still very much skip over or slide round the question of evidence that CofE ‘establishment’ and the similar practices of other churches are truly the will of God rather than the self-serving exploitation of the faith by worldly governments for their own benefit…..
Not now, it is the likes of Tommy Robinson and some uber conservative evangelicals who want conflict with Islam not the C of E who perform inter faith dialogue. Yet ironically conservative evangelicals share some of their totalitarianism with conservatives within Islam, including in their opposition to LGBT rights and sometimes female careers etc.
C of E establishment has been the core purpose of the C of E since its foundation, if you don’t believe in it you must not be in the C of E. Go off and become a baptist like you instead!
Here, here…I agree with every word you have written here.
No nation in Europe makes Christianity illegal, in some parts of the world being LGBT is still illegal and in a few nations openly being Christian is illegal
Thank you for this. I have been concerned for a time about this single event which the national church leaders, with the aid of the media, have been going out on a limb for.
It can easily lead to the impression that the Church – which spends time, money and effort, urging people to come INTO our buildings to celebrate Christmas – only wants one style of celebration.
What about the many carol events organised by communities and drawing hundreds to sing carols and hear the Bible accounts of the nativity. Do we question their motives and methods?
I get the feeling this smacks of Pharisee-ism. “We want to control how faith is learned, lived and shared” rather than celebrating an initiative that is just a little different.
I just hope the C of E, with its huge safeguarding failures and hypocrisy, is urging everyone who goes to the London event is DBS checked!
Christ is knocking on the door of Britain. Let’s open it wide in faith and trust in Him
The last line rather nullifies what went before! If it’s a work of God why not join in and share your wisdom, teacher of Israel?
If my children and grandchildren were not with me all weekend, I would have attended the event. Ready to listen, ask people why they are there and share Christ with those wanting to know more about Him.
A great strategy. I hope others do so!
I thought exactly the same! It’s hard to ‘reach out’ if you stay behind your barricade. Tommy Robinson is tapping into something and appears to have a reach to ordinary people that the CofE can only dream of. Tommy and his lieutenants are connecting British culture to historical Christianity, however crudely – who will engage with them and help shape it?
We should not forget too, God remains on the throne! We have just had the most fruitful Alpha course in our church for a few years, with salvations and healings (physical and ‘heart’) – and I keep stumbling across (algorithms, I know!) stories of Muslims converting to Christianity. In these changing times, there is much to be heartened by.
We’ve seen almost 30 baptised as adults in the last couple of years….lives being transformed…amongst the most disadvantaged in our town. It’s wonderful to see several of those becoming leaders of various things for and among the really needy.
But no medically confirmed physical healings. (Some claims of physical healing though)
I don’t know enough to comment on the other issues raised.
This blog post is worth reading!
https://www.soldierofchrist.online/2025/09/23/a-response-to-the-open-letter-given-by-mentioned-church-leaders-upon-the-occasion-of-the-united-the-kingdom-march/
Good article. Some depressingly weird comments. But then that’s not unusual for Psephizo articles IMHO.
Indeed. I wish sensible people like you dominated the comments a bit more!
As I was scrolling a batch of comments I wondered if I was on a different article 🙂
Acts 5:38-39
.. if their purpose or activity is of human origin it will fail. But if it is from God you will not be able to stop these men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God.
Wise.
Amen.
Magnificent, Very refreshing!
For those souls who wonder “what would Jesus do”? –
Mark 9:38 John said to Him, “Teacher, we saw someone else driving out demons in Your name, and we tried to stop him, because he does not accompany us.”
39“Do not stop him,” Jesus replied. “For no one who performs a miracle in My name can turn around and speak evil of Me.
40For whoever is not against us is for us.
41Indeed, if anyone gives you even a cup of water because you bear the name of Christ, truly I tell you, he will never lose his reward.
There are sooo many demons that need to be cast out one more cast out is most welcome and refreshing.
Singers lead the army into battle against the enemies . Perhaps OUR Leaders might lead us in holy array?
2 CHRON. 20 :21ff
Then Jehoshaphat consulted with the people and appointed those who would sing to the LORD and praise the splendor of His holiness. As they went out before the army, they were singing:
“Give thanks to the LORD,for His loving devotion endures forever.”
22The moment they began their shouts and praises, the LORD set ambushes against the men of Ammon, Moab, and Mount Seir who had come against Judah, and they were defeated. 23The Ammonites and Moabites rose up against the inhabitants of Mount Seir, devoting them to destruction.e And when they had finished off the inhabitants of Seir, they helped to destroy one another
Shalom.
In a different historical context the writer of this article might have criticised the Confessing Church for opposing the Nazi appropriation of Christianity.
Seriously? Thinking, for example, that uncontrolled migration is not a good policy is equivalent to gassing six million Jews? I think you have just highlighted the problem we have…!
How do you get from what I wrote to a claim like this? What, precisely, in my words—or in the method of my argument—leads you to think this article supports your position? I can infer the interpretive steps you’ve taken, but they are not ones I made.
My actual suggestion is simpler: when secular materialism fails to provide a stable sense of meaning or identity, people instinctively reach for Christian culture as a liferaft, because Christianity has historically underpinned that culture. This is what ordinary people do. They do not theologise their way into culture; they reach for something stable in order to make sense of their lives and the world around them.
Hi Ian, thanks for sharing this. 1. I appreciate the point being made that it isn’t just the far right co-opting Christ. Though that dies not change the fact that they are. 2. I’m not sure the author quite gets what the challenge to UTK and Christian Nationalism is. Perhaps we’ve had too much amplification of liberal Anglicans and it might be better to engage with those of us who have been challenging from evsngelical and especially politically conservative positions. See eg https://faithroot.com/tag/christian-nationalism/ 3. In terms of calling people far left, a better comparison would be to the poll tax, stop the war and pro Palestinian rallies. Were those marching all left wing and in the last case anti semitic? Of course not, indeed they may well have been the neighbours and relatives of those on the September 13th rally. Maybe some marched for stop the war or against tht poll tax in their youth and behind Tommy Robinson in their middle and old age. The reality is that both far left and right have miniscule actual adherents and so they rely on finding causes to co-opt a wider crowd to. 4. Whilst there has been a broader Christian association with left wing and progressive stuff here, have we seen Evangelicals joining the platform and involved in organising far left activities in the same way?
I am not sure what to make of this article, reading this morning over coffee. I’ll have to give it some more thought.
“And that prompts a difficult question: If we casually call this gathering “far right,” are we prepared to label everyone condemning it “far left”? Of course not—and that’s precisely the point. These labels are flattening our moral vision and impoverishing public discourse. They tell us more about our cultural anxieties than about the people themselves.”
However, this comment is bang on the money. If nothing else, we should be lamenting the collapse of sensible discourse (particularly about morality) into a series of labels and definitions that enable us to write off the opinions of those who think differently than ourselves.
There is genuine danger in the rise of the ‘far right’, and I wouldn’t want to play that down, but the attempt of many in the media/commentariat to throw as many people into this group as possible in the hopes that making it bigger/more prominent will make it easier to address is terribly naïve. All it does is enable the genuine extremists to hide.
Than ourselves*. Sigh. I typed in haste.
edited
Thanks Mat. I find it bizarre that not one single C of E bishop has ever shown anxiety about the gospel being hijacked by the ‘far left’.
The gospel hasn’t been hijacked by the ‘far left’ (though, as society moves inexorably to the right, it’s difficult to find any org that is far left; Your Party? Maybe).
Some in the UK are borrowing plumage from the Christian Nationalists in the USA. Let’s hope the phlegmatic Brits are too wise to fall for the hype and see that Tommy Ten Names isn’t wearing any clothes (and certainly not wedding gear).
Thinking that the killing of innocent members of the glorious main species by their own dads and mums is within the window of acceptability instead of being the most extreme thing possible…
thinking that it is fine to kick out one spouse for no reason at all, with all the unhealable ramifications for them and their family and children…
thinking that it is fine to confuse children about a smooth life path re gender and sex…and to lay temptations in their way left right and centre
What could be more extreme than these? None of them is even hardly protested against by established church leaders. That indifference is very extreme indeed because of its distance from the reality.
If that’s a reply to me, could you address the points I made?
It is not a reply to you, though the reply may have been to a comment now deleted.
The topic is what counts as being extreme, and how we calibrate that, which is relevant to the topic of most comments in the immediate vicinity.
Who in the ‘far left’ is hijacking the Gospel? The last really left wing politician I can remember invoking the Gospel was Tony Benn who retired over 20 years ago and died 10 years ago! Who have I forgetten?
Those advocating Queer Theory, and Black Theology which is radically Marxist in its philosophical assumptions (along with other critical theory approaches) and denies key orthodox beliefs about Jesus and his death.
You’re angry the bishops aren’t denouncing Robert Beckford and his documentaries from 20 years ago? Is that what we’re talking about?
You really believe Queer Theory and Black Theology are Marxist?
‘You really believe Queer Theory and Black Theology are Marxist?’ Yes, of course.
I really didn’t understand that point. Why would we expect the only people to condemn the “far right” to be the “far left”?
Oh, maybe I read it differently to you.
I thought the comment’s purpose was to highlight the double standard of applying a label extremely broadly, while simultaneously being appalled that others might do the same thing in return. It’s clearly absurd to suggest that everything vaguely patriotic or right-leaning is ‘far’ or ‘hard’ right, just as it’s absurd to suggest that all the criticism of that is from the hard or far left. In both cases it is likely true, but only for a minority.
The desire to do this, on both sides, which seems symptomatic of so much online discourse is damaging and demeaning. That is what I am agreeing with.
That is indeed how I wrote it and meant it. Thank you.
But is Yaxley-Lennon merely “vaguely patriotic or right-leaning”? Is he outside the label ‘far right’? He’s a former member of the BNP, he’s a former member of the British Freedom Party (short lived home for ex-BNP), and he founded the English Defence League but then left it saying at the time he had come to recognise the “dangers of far right extremism”. I’m not sure how it’s unreasonable to say someone is far right when they founded an organisation that they themselves call far right. And despite his worries when he left the EDL, there’s been no indication his politics has changed. He founded Pegida UK, he worked for Rebel News, he founded Hearts of Oak, he’s made a habit of regurgitating Russian propaganda, and so on.
I have posted this on the Psephizo FB page:
Several thoughts. First of all, the difficulty of objectively commenting on this event reflects the polarisation of opinion which had been precipitated by the rise of social media. Everyone retreats to their own silos and those who are in the opposite camp are perceived as a threat or an enemy. Trying to reclaim the middle ground is an almost impossible task. Linked with this is the rise of soundbite culture. I am sure many will simply see the headline and react without reading the full article. For my part, I cannot help thinking how this event will be happening around the same time the HoB is meeting to discuss the future of LLF. Even beyond the presenting issue, there is the question of culture in the Church of England, and the narratives that are informing our discussion. All I can say is that the prevailing culture of the C of E has no resonance at all in the area of deprivation I serve, and there is a major disconnect between folk here and the “establishment.” If the CofE is to grow and thrive, it needs to show it understands the concerns and indeed the culture of those it seeks to reach, and reclaim a Gospel that is not read through the lens of a dominant secular ideology. But in such a polarised age I have my doubts whether that is even possible.
Thanks Tim. ‘All I can say is that the prevailing culture of the C of E has no resonance at all in the area of deprivation I serve, and there is a major disconnect between folk here and the “establishment.”’ I think this is absolutely key.
That’s the truth. The usual Sunday attendance of the C of E is about 2% of the population – in some places it will be non-existent. Catholicism is, I think, the largest church by attendance in the UK.
Even among its natural constituency, very middle class folk, I can see little impact of Anglicanism. And the King has singularly failed to pass on an Christianity to his sons.
William is deeply uninterested in his imminent role as Supreme Governor and Defender of the Faith.
Why are there still bishops in the House of Lords?
Because it brings up the Christian representation a little bit closer to the reality of the populace. Or it would if the bishops stood up en masse for Christian positions.
Right now, parliament is unrealistically and very disproportionately skewed to lawyers, metropolitans, university-educated, secularist individuals.
On weekly church attendance the C of E and Roman Catholic churches are about equal in England now. Though more attend C of E churches and cathedrals for services overall once you include those who go at Christmas and Easter only and those who attend for weddings and funerals and baptisms. Even the Prince of Wales still goes to church at Christmas and Easter with his family at Sandringham. There are bishops in the Lords as there have always been, they lead the established church and our faith leaders and it is a fully appointed and unelected house. Indeed we should have kept the remaining hereditary peers too as they along with the bishops were in the House of Lords even before the life peers joined it
It’s so nice to see even a single alternative view to the many I’ve seen on the other side. Most of the people I’ve seen saying “this is dangerous” are actually on the evangelical wing, not progressive.
I think it’s a misapprehension to say that people are insincerely co-opting Christianity for their political goals. The simplest way to understand what is happening is that people are opposing multiculturalism. If the English want to go back to monoculturalism, then that obviously means one formed by Christianity in a fundamental but possibly newly-defined way.
It is interesting that while composing this, the word “monoculturalism” is underlined in red because it’s not considered officially a word.
I often think of the phrase “the past is a foreign country” when people clutch their pearls at the idea of doing things in the way that uncounted generations have done before us. If those people dismissed and denigrated a foreign country in the way they do their own previous generations, they would consider themselves bigots.
Thanks, that is very helpful.
Paul: it is really about opposition to Islam being ensconced into British society.
This puts the C or E bishops into a quandary because they have no idea how to commend Christianity to Muslims or even the desire to.
They are watching Christianity disappear from Bradford, Blackburn, Tower Hamlets etc and they are bewildered.
Well said.
My letter in last week’s Church Times:
Madam – The recent rise of Christian nationalism, together with the claimed conversion of Tommy Robinson, are indeed, to quote the Bishop of Ramsbury, Dr Andrew Rumsey, an ‘only too happy’ corrective to fashionable homeland denigration. The opportunity should be seized, since this is a sizeable demographic that produces huge crowds.
Recent Anglican reactions have, alas, echoed the Giantess’s revulsion at Puddleglum (‘The horrid thing! It’s alive!’ – CS Lewis, The Silver Chair) and recall the PCC whose church was being done up and who proverbially devoted an entire meeting to discussing how to get rid of the ‘outsiders’ who had joined them in their temporary location.
We should lovingly catch the wave (as the Anglicans partially failed to do with the Windrush generation and the Jesus People) and provide solid evangelism and teaching. Who knows whether ‘they’ might not also have much to teach ‘us’?
(The charismatic housechurch breakaway and the quiet revival could also have been mentioned.)
It could easily have been said that it does not matter which churches the new influx join – even their own bespoke ones – and also that several Christian leaders are already in place poised for this, which is good. However – the Anglicans are a good fit in one central way: because heritage is precisely what the new influx values, and passing the buck is never a good look for where one’s heart is.
I thought it was a great letter…
Conversion requires repentance. I have yet to see Yaxley-Lennon acknowledging his manifold sins.
It could well be a private thing if he did. However, if you can direct us to the public listing of your or my or anyone’s sins, then he could get even with us in that respect.
Ha ha. His sins are notoriously public.
I am with you on this.
I do not presume to demand sackcloth and ashes, but I do think that genuine repentance of sins committed in the public realm should at the very least be acknowledged. I do not wish him to grovel, but I think we should expect some visible contrition.
Me too.
Though not from him alone, from anyone and everyone in an ongoing way, where it is of public relevance.
Nor is it good to demand that from others prior to demanding it from oneself.
Also there will be spin depending on preconceptions of an individual. if police are keyed up to regard someone as a criminal they are looking through those lenses before they even start.
In addition there is a category of people who indirectly affect the peace. Whether or not they have done anything themselves, and regardless of whether things they say are true. The police are interested in getting those people out of the way somehow, to prevent the peace being affected. Of course, this backfires.
That’s because you’re not a priest.
But keep on casting stones.
Only priests see repentance?
That’s a new one.
Only priests are supposed to hear confessions. At least that’s what you learned as a Catholic.
James
As you know, confession doesn’t equal repentance. In order to be absolved a sinner has to express a firm purpose of amendment. I can’t see any evidence that Yaxley-Lennon has done this. And, unlike auricular confession, a firm purpose of amendment isn’t private.
I don’t have a window into men’s souls, or women’s. On the Day of Judgment, neither you nor I will be charged with deciding whether another has repented.
Mind you, I always thought that liberals were universalists, and usually universalist-annihilationists. I didn’t know liberals believed in post-mortem judgment, just pre-mortem judgmentalism. I learn something new every day.
Ah! ça ira, ça ira, ça ira
les aristocrates à la lanterne!
Ah! ça ira, ça ira, ça ira
les aristocrates on les pendra!
Oh, believe me James, I look forward to post mortem judgment.
Meanwhile, I’ll keep looking for signs of repentance …
Of course you do, Penny – there is great comfort in knowing you are one of the elect and knowing who the damned are. You Calvinists are a real hoot!
You can’t quite put your finger on it, can you?
“manifold sins…a stalker…a nasty racist (as well as a nasty transphobe)…a violent, abusive little racist…a nasty, misogynistic, alleged abuser.”
Madam, that’s a whole lot of vitriolic judgement going on. I believe the subject of the article was the co-option of Christianity for ideological purposes. There’s a mote around somewhere…
Indeed there is. But even though I’m exhorted to be loving, I can’t overlook intimate partner violence without looking for some sign of reparation. Ditto, racism and encouragement of thuggish violence.
Would you really expect to be party to that? That’s quite a presumption!
Yep. I would.
Watch the video link further down to watch TR saying a number of times that he is a struggling sinner.
Interestingly, I listened to a clip of the Carol service where he did exactly that. I may be misquoting slightly but he said something like “I find it difficult saying I’m a Christian, because I’ve got lots of sins” He didn’t specify what but he clearly declared his sinfulness.
The Lion of Judah is not tameable by culture. Thank God.
This is a battle for cultural Christianity between woke self-proclaimed Christians and nationalist self-proclaimed Christians. Cultural Christianity has a rather hazy overlap with gospel Christianity. Personally I’d rather have a beer with the nationalist than the woke churchgoers, but the real question to ask both sides over that pint is: Do you know and love the living Lord Jesus Christ, and what is He doing in your life?
Christians are inspired by
“God is love” (John 4:8) and the parable of the Good Samaritan when reaching out to vulnerable immigrants.
However, other Christian perspectives (eg. Acts 17: 26, Romans 13: 1-7) uphold national boundaries and governing authorities. Some relevant insights can be gained from a book by Douglas Murray “The Strange Death of Europe: immigration, identity and islam” (2017).
We can at least agree to pray for the coming of God’s kingdom!
Indeed. Douglas Murray is very good on these questions.
Is the invitation of the gospel only for the “right” sort of people? Surely if we believe in the power of the Christian message to transform lives then we should welcome this interest in Christianity wherever it comes from. Didn’t Jesus come for sinners? Aren’t all of us sinners? Do we actually believe that anyone can become a disciple of Jesus and be renewed in the spirit of their mind? If not then we might as well give up.
Let them come…
There is a phrase in A Day in the Death of Joe Egg: PLU. meaning ‘people like us’. Snobbery in other words.
“People who look like me” is also code in America for “black people should vote for black candidates (but white people who do so are racist supremacists etc)”.
In line with Tommy Robinson’s concerns I spent 90 minutes praying in tears for European civilisation next to the sarcophagus of Charles Martel a few years ago, in Basilique St-Denis in what is now, tellingly, an immigrant area of Paris.
Te Deum my English friend. Te Deum.
It is just that kind of moment. Prayer is the world to live in.
In general, I cannot believe the tentativeness.
Catch the wave. This is a case for mass baptisms as California c1970.
Defining the ‘far right’ is not futile. I regard Nigel Farage, who is committed to peaceable democracy, as a shield against the genuine far right, who aren’t. Anybody who calls Farage far right isn’t worth talking politics to.
It takes a lot for the English to do extremism. Oswald Mosley’s ghastly blackshirts made a lot of noise in the 1930s but they were few in number, and generally regarded as a joke. And communism never remotely took off here postwar in the numbers it did on the Continent. What is needed today is recognition of why people are turning to Tommy Robinson. It is a reaction, not an action, and their grievances should be listened to instead of stomped on.
This precious stone set in the silver sea,
Which serves it in the office of a wall
Or as a moat defensive to a house,
Against the envy of less happier lands,
This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England…
What I find strange is the far more charitable overall response here towards Tommy Robinson’s high-profile professed conversion to Christ when compared to the overall response to Russell Brand’s professed conversion.
Those want the bishops to engage more charitably with Tommy Robinson’s professed conversion (despite the seriousness of his convictions for which he’s never publicly expressed remorse) should themselves engage more charitably with, for example, Russell Brand’s professed conversion (despite the seriousness of allegations for which he’s not even been tried or convicted).
To do otherwise smacks of ‘two-tier’ Christian charity!
I don’t know.
The present topic is TR not RB. Therefore TR is being mentioned.
Both are high profile.
RB as Christian is the best place he can be, and Christians prefer him to be in that place far more than any other.
It doesn’t matter – it only matters that we catch the wave and the urgency and baptise and catechise.
I for one have never made comment on whether I consider Brand or Robinson a true brother in Christ. If they made public testimony that they they feel convicted of their sinfulness and wish to reform their lives then that would be promising. Has either of them? I simply don’t know. But you can presumably direct me to a Psephizo thread in which the main essay or multiple regular commenters evince scepticism of his conversion?
PS “his conversion” = “Brand’s conversion”
To be clear, I didn’t use the preposition ‘here’ to describe the overall response to Russell Brand’s professed conversion.
Instead, I compared: “the far more charitable overall response here towards Tommy Robinson’s high-profile professed conversion” to “the overall response to Russell Brand’s professed conversion.”
I found the difference to be ‘strange’.
The following Facebook post exemplifies the scepticism that’s been expressed about Brand’s post-conversion behaviour: https://www.facebook.com/share/1BtheJvKtd/
I do understand that, unlike spearheading a nationalist movement’s carol singing event, for certain denominations, baptism (even of a friend) is reserved for ordained ministers.
However, the scepticism towards Brand goes beyond that and is mostly focused on the serious (but hitherto unproved) allegations that he’s facing.
Overall, the responses here to Tommy Robinson are positive and charitable, despite his criminal convictions for which he’s never publicly expressed remorse.
So, I’m wondering out loud why Brand’s professed conversion hasn’t elicited a similarly positive and charitable response from conservative evangelicals, despite of the serious (but hitherto unproved) allegations that he’s facing.
Perhaps, that’s because Tommy Robinson’s hardline anti-immigration stance chimes well with the right-wing political views of the conservative evangelicals who comment here.
In my case I am a Green first, but not enamoured of what the green party has actually become. Christians tend to be more egalitarian, and also more family minded. That does not translate into party politics, and Christians are the first to see how hopeless the categories left/right are. Are left and right supposed to be package deals covering vast number of scarcely connected issues? Are there, tribally, to be two tribes who disagree with each other on each of these in the prescribed way? Is standing up for family values the same thing as liking fat cats? Both are ‘right’.
No wonder people court the Christian vote. It is almost as if the Christians are the only ones intelligent enough to be ‘floating’.
Perhaps, that’s because Tommy Robinson’s hardline anti-immigration stance chimes well with the right-wing political views of the conservative evangelicals who comment here.
You might be onto something.
For myself, I can’t shake the remarks of Gideon Falter the chief exec of Campaign Against Antisemitism who, when asked about why Yaxley-Lennon had been shunned from the March Against Antisemitism in London in 2023: “You don’t fight prejudice with prejudice, you can’t fight racism with racism… They don’t realise how naked their attempt is to try to fool us.”
Indeed. Thanks for pointing out this seeming contradiction.
It would be a contradiction if people had commented at all on here of late on RB’s conversion, and done so in a less enthusiastic way. Where have they done that?
To be clear, I didn’t use the preposition ‘here’ to describe the overall response to Russell Brand’s professed conversion.
Instead, I compared: “the far more charitable overall response here towards Tommy Robinson’s high-profile professed conversion” to “the overall response to Russell Brand’s professed conversion.”
I have no idea whether Tommy Robinson or Russell Brand is a sincere believer or not.
God is the Judge of our hearts and His way with each of us remains completely individual.
If they were seeking ordination, of course I would be entitled to ask some questions. I don’t think they are.
But if they are reading their Bibles and listening to Christian talks, that is surely a good thing.
For myself, I regularly pray for our politicians – Badenoch, Davey, Farage, Starmer – that they will converted and receive eternal life from Christ.
I hope the C of E critics of Robinson and Brand are doing the same.
The unspoken background question to all this – and the one that causes great angst to the Left, though they cannot acknowledge it publicly – is the place of Islam in British society, especially in London and the great cities.
TR is best known for his outspoken opposition to the Pakistani grooming gangs and the vast number of working class and underclass white girls they have raped and abused. This creates an enormous dilemma for the Left, who see themselves as the champions of the poor and of women, because Labour desperately needs the votes of Muslims. Yet Muslim attitudes toward women, homosexuals, Jews, atheists and other kufarin, seriously conflict with old socialist views, and TR exposes this rift.
In a post-Christian Europe with the indigenous population in a demographic freefall, Muslims look forward to their own numbers tripling to about 18% by 2025.
This is an ethno-religious timebomb the likes of which have NEVER been seen before in British history, and the honest Left (they do exist) secretly admits that the future of the country will be more divided than ever.
TR is a lightning rod for the fears of the Left.
Yaxley-Lennon is best known for his criminality, grifting, and abuse of women. Not his so-called opposition to grooming gangs – when he almost derailed a trial.
This is a fascinating and thought provoking piece, which I feel a range of responses to. I certainly don’t agree with all, not lest his rather broad brush judgements of a very complex picture. But I can’t deny the massive significance of the issue. But there is, of course, an irony in what he writes as well, given the current traumas of the C of E.
‘These labels are flattening our moral vision and impoverishing public discourse. They tell us more about our cultural anxieties than about the people themselves.’ Amen to that. And, ‘ Time and again in Christian history, those on the edges of church respectability have insisted they are encountering God, while the institution has responded with suspicion, distance, or outright rejection. Often, the church has been uneasy not only with the individuals involved but with what their presence might say about its own life and witness.’ That’s probably true for us all at some point. There were many other quotes that were worth quoting. Looking at the London Centre for Spiritual Direction website maybe he’d be an excellent person to help the warring LLF factions to discover the presence of Christ in each other rather than labelling and rejecting each other. As he says wisely, ‘5. Within a generation, the church often adopts what it once opposed. What begins as illegitimate spirituality at the margins often becomes the birthplace of renewal for the whole Church.’
N.B. If anyone reads this as support for one group or another they have not read what I have written.
Tim,
It’s really all about Islam and its place in Britain – especially Birmingham and some northern towns like Bradford and Rotherham which have a very high Pakistani immigrant population but almost nobody in Anglican churches.
Islam exposes the fault lines in Britain and TR is drawing attention to the failure of the C of E in these places.
‘All about Islam’s? Not really. Certainly the presence of large communities of Muslims and those of other faiths is a part of his analysis, but there’s more to it than that, even in Bradford. My real suggestion was that his approach could be significant in other areas including the tribalism we are stuck in. And the need many seem to have to condemn, judge and put down those who hold different views instead of reflecting on why they feel that need. Take a look at the LCSD website.
Warring factions?
There can never not be a war between those who follow evidence and those who follow mere desire. Apart from that the latter has no right to enter a battleground on the same terms as the former.
Interesting response. I just wonder if Jason Clark would see things in that way.
You term it interesting and then provide zero analysis of what is interesting about it.
Anything that does not repeat societal cliches will be interesting. Firstly what on earth makes you think that societal cliches are especially likely to be accurate? And secondly, why would you expect anything other than that those who have thought more about things will come up with minority perspectives?
Interesting because the suggestion I made was how his approach might help us to address the conflict to resolve it. But your resonse seems reiterate what I think he was arguing against. Where do I mention ‘societal cliches’, which, of course, all of us are prone to except we call ours ‘analysis’ and believe we’re entirely rational. It’s only other people who resort to clichés.
You are wrong in many ways.
First, it is measurable which things are actually cliches in the sense that they are oft-repeated.
It is less easy to chart which things are *thoughtlessly* oft-parroted (which is more or less what a cliche is) but each of us individually knows when we are analysing freshly and when we are just voicing the approved phrases.
Your main error is to say that 100% of people behave in the same way – i.e., prejudicing their own analyses and positions. But as it is obvious that humanity is very diverse, it follows that the figure is nowhere near 100%.
I have to smile when reading some of the responses above. The inability to move beyond one’s silo to engage with the realities of ‘the other’ is stunning.
That the church slept through causes centred on lockdowns, BLM, Pride, Palestine/Gaza etc and yet is having a meltdown over a carol service says much.
Very helpful article and thanks, Ian
Perhaps because some of us believe that condemnation of racism, genocide, and queerphobia shews us more of Christ than a few criminals and sad gammons jumping on the Christian Nationalist bandwagon.
“Gammons” says the condemner of racism.
Feel the love as well as the irony.
Gammon isn’t racist. Don’t be utterly absurd.
It is certainly sexist. And conformist and a cliche.
From wikipedia: “Gammon is a pejorative term popularised in British political culture since the 2010s. The term refers to the colour of a white person’s flushed face, which purportedly resembles the type of pork of the same name.[1][2] It is characterised in this context by the Oxford English Dictionary as occurring “in various parasynthetic adjectives referring to particularly reddish or florid complexions”.[3] By 2018, the term had become popularised in British political discourse to describe right-wingers and Brexiters.” That certainly sounds like a racist insult: = ‘conservative white men are pigs’. Also the white equivalent of n*****, that magic evil word that no one can say without opening the jaws of hell. Yes, very Christian of you, Penny.
Christopher
Sexist? What are you on about?
Which women are gammon, according to your a-la-mode classification?
I know many who attended that event: both sexes, white and mixed race, wealthy, poor, middle class, modestly to well-educated. None of those terms—racism, genocide, queerphobia—are remotely applicable to those I personally know, and in fact, they actively work against such phenomena.
The obvious two-tier policing of Muslims more lightly than the rest is often blamed on woke police chiefs. Although police chiefs are indeed deplorably woke they should not be blamed for this. The trouble is that there aren’t enough police to enforce order on (for example) Muslim marches for Palestine since the IDF response to the October 7th atrocity, Muslim threats against visiting Israeli football supporters, etc. There aren’t enough police because of the number of persons who turn out on those intimidating marches (a fact which police chiefs obviously dare not admit). And THAT is due to government immigration policy – which is what Tommy Robinson protests about. Robinson gives a voice to many others who share the same concern and do not find their views represented at Westminster. If the government wants to de-power him then, instead of turning him into a martyr, it should address those concerns.
Had he survived, I wonder how the thief on the cross would have been received? Probably with the same scepticism.
On a different note entirely, I am finding Dr Martyn Lloyd Jones’s book “From fear to faith” on Habakkuk very helpful as it describes how God uses/invokes geopolitical events to shape His people. Many parallels with current times.
“From fear to faith” ….
Thanks for the reminder! It sits on my shelf… cost me 30p several decades ago. A re read then…
This is a wonderful and long overdue article, which seeks to address the rise of Unite The Kingdom/Tommy Robinson etc and their growing engagement with Christian faith. Partly for cultural reasons for sure, but also, for many at least, a genuine desire to find a holy purpose which modern society seems to have stripped them of.
Messy revival is a good name for it, and indeed for many revivals. You look at those Jesus himself attracted, and he thanked God for how it was the outcasts that came to him, not the socially acceptable. In today’s climate, esp in media and political circles (less so in the real world perhaps) the unacceptable thing is to be patriotic, socially conservative and anti immigration. Doesn’t make that viewpoint right, but it does mean that viewpoint is not a bar to faith. Jesus himself had a nationalist zealot as a disciple after all!
It is fair that for some (not all) Christians this recent trend is concerning, and it is some and not all. But where this article makes me leap for joy is that our response to that messy goodness is to reach out and have good dialogue, not disown and disparage publicly. It is totally unfair, unhelpful and as has been said, is totally disproportionate to the push back given to the far left/liberals on issues like abortion, overlooking grooming gangs, Tavistock clinic, free speech etc… on those issues are mainstream leaders are silent.
So well said Jason Clark, and thanks for reposting this Ian. A much needed counter point which will actually help me to keep certain members of my congregation in my congregation.
Thank you!
Oops no edit function!!
I find myself suspicious of TR and RB…. I’d like more evidence of (broad brush term) repentance and a new life. Much of my suspicion could be a social gulf.
I’d like to believe it might be a noisy revival (As I think Isaiah 2 implies)…
By their fruits shall we know them. If someone is promoting love for God and others, and seeking out to live a life of goodness, kindness, and generosity, isn’t that fantastic? If there’s going to be a crowd from every nation, tribe, people and language, who’s to say Tommy Robinson isn’t invited? The “far-left”, the Muslims, the asylum seekers, the bishops, and the people who comment on this website all along with him.
Agreed!
If someone is promoting love for God and others, and seeking out to live a life of goodness, kindness, and generosity, isn’t that fantastic?
Sure. If that’s what’s happening. Is that what’s happening though? Are Yaxley-Lennon and Unite the Kingdom promoting love for God and others, goodness, kindness and generosity? Am I just not paying attention?
Adam, I don’t know the answer to that. But what I find odd in the migration debate is the absence of reference to ‘loving my actual neighbour’, those who are affected my migration in practice, with shortage of housing and depressed rates of pay. My and large, those advocating for more open migration are those least affected by it—hence the sense of abandonment by many.
Shortage of affordable housing and low pay has nothing to do with migration. That’s a racist dog whistle which I would expect from some here, but not from you.
That’s a ludicrous claime Penelope. The current shortfall of housing stock is pretty much equal to the total legal immigration. Therefore it is in part due to having immigration at a far higher level than our country was, and is, prepared to deal with. And its economically well established that much migration (not all) is at best economically neutral, but the lower paid migrents tend to reduce job oppertunities for the working class, and are prepared to work for less, thus depressing wages.
Denying this is living in a fantasy.
‘The current shortfall of housing stock is pretty much equal to the total legal immigration.’
Yes indeed. When I point this out in conversation, it is often met with a stunned silence.
Thomas
Blaming immigrants rather than the billionaires bloated by late capitalism is both economically ignorant and a racist dog whistle.
Penny, the data about housing is a fact. Please desist from just repeating your insults, and engage with reality.
Not only living in a fantasy, but one in which ad hominum attacks replace any attempt at reasoned argument. Your facile and empty insults are ultimately ignorable and make your opponants points more than you could ever realise.
I pity you.
It’s salutary that many of the commentators here are all too ready to insult bishops and liberal/progressive Christians, but get all affronted if ‘liberals’ criticise racists, sexists, queerphobes, Christian Nationalists, white supremacists.
Do you ever tire of calling people disparaging names? I understand you are righteous, but still, you might try a new rhetorical tool once in a while.
It’s OK, John, Madame La Tricoteuse is just sharing a bit of seasonal joy and fun, and sad gammons enjoy a bit of banter.
But Penny’s deep commitment to secular liberalism and hostility to confessional Christianity does highlight the kind of conflict we see in the country today and the dilemmas are ery perceptively brought out by Gavin Ashenden in his latest youtube podcast “Carols, Culture and Tommy Robinson’s Conversion”. Ashenden shows exactly where Penny’s outlook comes from and how it is in deep tension with what the Church of England is actually meant to be: the National Church of Christian England – in other words the very embodiment of Christian Nationalism.
Why else is there an Established Church?
Check out Ashenden’s profound comment, which recounts his previous meeting with Robinson,
Ashenden is a sad reactionary. But probably one who shares your secular, neoliberal approach to the gospel. The conflict is between those who have a faint hope that the unredeemed will experience redemption and those progressives who place their hope in growth, success, and resilience – the gods of secular, capitalist values. You are the progressive liberal, not I.
The word ‘reactionary’ is not even a coherent word, since it assumes that opposition to later trends must always be wrong(!). The word could be coherent only if progress were inevitable.
I have met Gavin Ashenden only once, it was more than 25 years ago when he was clearly a pro-gay liberal university chaplain. He was at Sussex University and doing a doctorate in pastoral theology, I think. In those days his thinking was very much formed by Carl Jung, whose religious psychology and his psycho-anthropological theory of archetypes are still popular among liberal Anglicans (maybe not so much his occultism, which is less well known). The most recent exponent of Jung’s archetype theory is Jordan Peterson, who relied upon it for his biblical interpretation lectures.
Ashenden was presumably once a conservative evangelical (he studied at Oak Hill after being a pupil at the King’s School in Canterbury) before his liberal phase. His return to conservative theology and from there to conservative Catholicism is unusual in my experience: I have known a few conservatives who became liberals (sometimes following some trauma in their personal lives), followed by agnosticism. Taking the progressive liberal course is usually the easiest course to follow in one’s life because it circumvents conflict with secular liberal mores about sex, divorce, abortion, blasphemy, pornography, Islam etc and makes it easier to hold on to your job and even get promotion.
Here is the Wee Flea, David Robertson, talking sense about it all:
https://www.christiantoday.com/news/will-tommy-robinson-put-christ-back-into-christmas
Yes, that really is excellent.
Sorry, I’m not as nationalistic as Simon re the CoE.
But your analysis of my beliefs is both trite and hilarious. Thank you 🙂
Do consider adapting your comments into greetings cards, Penelope.
I don’t tire of calling out vicious little grifters. Just as James et al don’t tire of calling out apostate bishops and liberal Christians who read the scriptures differently.
Apparently, one stance is laudable. The other is not. You choose.
Sizeist as well?
What a mixture of fallacies of inflated, straw-man, categories from a fixed intolerant liberal one way street, of supreme self-tolerant antinomian denunciation. Rich in anticipated self-parody.
Where Christian conversion is offensively exclusive.
And Jesus is just a good, (on balance, maybe) but misguided mere man or worse as per CS Lewis.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8Tlq36OjRVg&pp=ugUHEgVlbi1HQg%3D%3D
A link to Gavin Ashenden’s commentary on Robinson, Theo Hobson of The Spectator and the Church of England. It’s all about glorifying Muslim asylum seekers.
Since he swam the Tiber Gavin Ashenden has continued to talk sense on the occasions when he speaks about the culture. I’ll watch this in the next hour.
It is true that some preach Christ out of envy and rivalry, but others out of goodwill. The latter do so out of love, knowing that I am put here for the defense of the gospel. The former preach Christ out of selfish ambition, not sincerely, supposing that they can stir up trouble for me while I am in chains. But what does it matter? The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached – Philippians 1:15-18.
Multiculturalism? A kingdom divided against itself cannot stand (Mark 3:24).
It is understandable that C of E leaders are uneasy about Tommy Robinson, who uses Christianity more as an anti Islam vehicle than as a tool to follow all of the teachings of Jesus Christ. Nonetheless given the leftist and woke elements in some parts of the C of E actively campaigning on their issues of some rightwing nationalists also want to become more active Christians and attend church so be it. After all about a third of the UK electorate backs Farage and ReformUK on current polls and as established church the Church of England has to be able to represent all Christians in England, not just left liberal Christians
There would be no splintering if the error of woke had not been introduced.
Errors (e.g. abortion) make culture war inevitable in one stroke.
Simon writes: “as established church the Church of England has to be able to represent all Christians in England, not just left liberal Christians”
That’s very strange coming from Simon, who is always telling those Anglicans who don’t agree with liberalism and same-sex ‘marriage’ that they should leave and go to the Baptists, Pentecostals and other lesser breeds.
Well the polls show most English people back same sex marriage even if they want tighter border controls. Even Tommy Robinson is more anti Islam than anti gay.
In any case LLF is prayers for same sex marriage not full same sex marriage in church
Yes, most people will back anything at all so long as you normalise it by media prominence and also by legislation.
Or prayers for same sex couples not same sex marriage in church. Plenty of conservative Muslims would join you in opposing same sex marriage though
Thank you for the Anti Ashenden posts. The portrayal and subsequent condemnation of Gavin caused me to feel I needed to listen to him myself. Thank you for that prod! It correlates with what I had engaged with from other sources and entities over several years. Great clip! And for those who would like to hear Gavin and decide for themselves: https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=8Tlq36OjRVg
Lisa: it is a very perceptive piece of commentary, isn’t it? The discussion on Theo Hobden shows how the Church of England, in its official hierarchical persona, has denatured itself into becoming a post-Christian proponent of secular liberalism with a fear and reverence of Islam. That is why it cannot bring itself to admit there is any spiritual problem of unbelief in the nation.
It is absolutely unbelievable that Theo Hobson’s writings are featured so often in even a Catholic publication (The Tablet).
He treats as self-evident that disastrous western liberalism is a default and a presupposition, and the idea that Christians should be associated with coherent, foundational, historical or international Christianity seems regarded by him as eccentric.
It was ever thus. One king puts up the high places, the next takes them down. Apostasy and the worship of false gods is oh so easy to slip into. One blink.
An excellent read – thank you.
I think we’re dealing with three different but connected issues here. Firstly there is a kind of class snobbery in people who consider themselves sophisticated thinkers against other people whose life circumstances (birth, employment, location) are more down to earth and challenging.
Then there are obvious political differences on issues such as mass migration (legal or criminal) into our densely populated country; again, one section of the population is largely unaffected by the very real cultural and justice problems that are clearly in evidence.
Thirdly (particularly in the case of Christians) there’s the resentment of a ‘prodigal son’ who has a bad past but is celebrated by ordinary people as he takes a courageous public stand against shocking injustice, and then starts to encourage public celebration of Christianity in a nation that has become ideologically indifferent or opposed to it. How dare he! True to history, it’s people in the Christian establishment (the Church of England in this case) who are scandalised by the temerity of this little upstart. Time-served Christians are struggling to revive their dwindling congregations let alone fill the London streets with people singing carols at Christmas; the contrast is impossible to avoid!
Lynda Buckley’s quote (above) has hit the nail on the head: ‘.. if their purpose or activity is of human origin it will fail. But if it is from God you will not be able to stop these men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God.’
Rather a good C of E Christmas video at: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/Uqk2pXCGcms
Won’t meet everyone’s theological perspective of course (who could ever manage that?) but it’s direct, positive and welcoming. Avoids knocking so called secularism and wokeism.
A theological perspective is:
-something that one cannot have at all prior to study and training of one’s mind;
-something that is open to new evidence, and therefore not set in stone;
-something that has no connection to preference or desire.
It does not matter what we call ‘secularism’ – we can give it another name. But to say ‘so-called’ implies it does not exist. If it does not exist, what was it that cared so little (or was so malicious) that wrong material was put within one click of children; what was it that actively supported spouses who kicked the other out for no reason; and confused children re sex and gender, stealing the smooth life development which Polish or Anglo-Indian cultures would have given them. You would think that, whatever this was, and *whatever* name we give it, it is a pretty large reality and a pretty evil one, right?
Well, it’s a bit of a portmanteau word that can be used to attack a vast, changing and varied bunch of characteristics. So speaking just for myself I don’t find it (or woke or political correctness) useful. If you do that’s fine, we disagree, and that’s ok. I’m not defending the things you attack.
But my actual point was to commend the video the comment about secularism was a bit of an afterthought.
Secularism, is considered important enough to provide the setting for Tim Keller’s book, Making Sense of God, with the preface entitled, ‘The Faith of the Secular’.
To brush secular aside reveals an unreality in living in the West, and looseness in think inking, and its dominant influence outside and inside the church. It is a factor that weighs heavily in this topic.
A corollary to the title of the article could be , ‘Who Disowns, Repudiates, Derides Jesus.? ‘
The icicles of indifference are huge in this season.
More could be abstracted from Keller’s book, drawing as he does on Charles Taylor’s work.
But that’s the whole point.
Saying ‘we disagree and that’s ok’ is wrong. It’s the same as ‘agree to disagree’. There are four separate things that are both wrong with it:
(1) You are dictating to everyone else that this is where the conversation stops. It is dictating, because you did not consult them, and are not even expecting them to reply or have a voice at all.
(2) The principle agree-to-disagree is the same as saying that every stance that anyone could have is equally worthy of a place at the table. But the vast majority of possible stances are not worthy of a place at the table at all – let alone *equally* worthy.
(3) You are saying that a stance’s mere existence, rather than the evidence for that stance, is the thing.
(4) You are repeating this stance (which is called relativism, and is simply refuted by all philosophers) even after your relativism has been previously pointed out to you.
If this one point is digested, then that is all that is necessary: You have relied on relativism as your main foundation; yet as worldviews go, relativism is about as weak and as false as it is possible to be.
But you seem to think that you must tell me what’s right. I was simply saying that if you find using the word secularism (not secular) helpful then ok. I can’t stop you finding it helpful. I don’t. But please don’t tell me what to think or presume to know what I think, and I’m not trying to tell you. In any case, the main point I made was that I think the video is helpful, but you might not. BTW I suggest that relativism (a family of views) is not ‘refuted by all philosophers.’
Tim Evans,
The significance secularism, see my comment above. Again more could be added, but your mind may already have been set.
Tim
The problem is, you’re not really capable of serious debate. You make an assertion (nearly always commending the Church of England hierarchy in whatever it says and castigating evangelicals for not following the rubrics of Common Worship), complain about other people’s “tone”, fail to engage substantively with any criticisms, and then claim the moral high ground – as if to disagree or debate was distasteful and bad form.
It’s completely unconvincing because in all your comments you never come to grips with the central issues in any discussion.
The meaning of secularism in contemporary cultural and political discourse is in fact well known and has been exhaustively explored by Canadian Catholic philosopher Charles Taylor in ‘A Secular Age’. This is very much the context for understanding the fissures Tommy Robinson has exposed in British society- and the Church of England.
Until you do the serious work of understanding the issues, you will only sound like the amen corner of the superficial secular liberalism which prevails in the C of E hierarchy.
I must tell you what’s right? So again you totally misunderstand. I was taking about the ways we find out what is right. Namely, evidence backed up by coherence. Once again, you voice relativism. But you will not find any serious scholar who does not agree that relativism is self refuting. Your analysis, therefore, far from having the best grounding, has almost the worst imaginable.
Tim, a ‘family of views’ is not the understanding or definition that philosophers have of the word ‘relativism’.
Thanks Tim. I find it incredible that you constantly have to justify the inferences that other commenters here draw from what you write.
Bruce, you know that Tim creates a rod for his own back by first expressing his disdain when people disagree, then failing to justify his own support of the Establishment, then being too high-minded to enter debate. You know that if Tim had the wherewithal to engage in actual debate instead of complaining about the noise, he might actually learn something. As somebody said, if only people knew how human beings actually communicate.
Penelope above at Dec 12 at 10.11 pm calls my judgment that her description of white men of conservative views as ‘Gammon’ is ‘racist’. She calls this ‘utterly absurd’, but Wikipedia and its sources disagree:
“Gammon is a pejorative term popularised in British political culture since the 2010s. The term refers to the colour of a white person’s flushed face, which purportedly resembles the type of pork of the same name.[1][2] It is characterised in this context by the Oxford English Dictionary as occurring “in various parasynthetic adjectives referring to particularly reddish or florid complexions”.[3] By 2018, the term had become popularised in British political discourse to describe right-wingers and Brexiters.”
Calling white men ‘pigs’ because of the colour of their skin is pretty much the same as calling black people “n******” – the magic word that no one may say or write (unless they’re black) because it unleashes a flood of evil upon the world, apparently.
But there you have it – Penelope thinks calling white men pigs is acceptable.
How very Christian.
Yes, gammon is a pejorative term, first used by Dickens. It is not a synonym of pig, nor would I use either term for all white men. Neither term is as corrosive or offensive as the N word and to suggest that it is is risible.
It’s racist and un-Christian, born out of anger and contempt.
Par for the course, then.
Joyeux Noel, Mme La Tricoteuse.
And of course it’s a racist comment to compare a white man to the flesh of a pig. It would be like calling a black man a bag of coal, but worse, because pig is an insult.
The New Testament is clear that Christians do not indulge in insulting and derogatory language.
Physician, heal thyself!
Adam, if I have used racist insults please inform me and I will withdraw them.
Tell that to St Paul.
Meanwhile, returning to the discussion some time ago on metaphor, I refer you to Charles Dickens and the language of imagery.
The New Testament is clear that Christians do not indulge in insulting and derogatory language.
Physician heal thyself!
Adam, I accept your withdrawal.
Is some of the problem the baked-in moralism and pelagianism of the English soul? The expectation that only “moral” people (defined by those observing and inserting their version a la Kant et al) get to be heard? The second use of the Law seems to make no inroads one can observe. That we are all frauds and hucksters being exposed by the righteousness of pure love on the Cross.
No, instead people have to go through some retinal scanner to determine whether they are to be heard. Tommy R — is he to lead a carol service, bible reading, prayer *with its own power to convert hearts and souls* or is that power of the Gospel, which Colossians says moves with its own force (Paul observes it; he has never even been there), held captive to CofE evaluations and worries about this man and who he hangs out with?
The most powerful men and women used by God are almost without exception also the men and women brought to their knees to confess their ‘moral’ inadequacies. The Super Apostles worried mightly about Paul the persecutor. But when he organized a ‘hymn and prayer’ message extolling his Lord and Savior and that message brought conversations of hearts, they counted the latter fact greater than the former evaluative stance.
Just as I am without one plea.
No, we must check out the morality of the “I am” speaking.
I think we don’t have a single word that Pelagius wrote, only a hostile summary by a converted professor of rhetoric. After the Reformation England became the protestant land most wedded to the Bible – thanks probably to the Lollards – and its Established church had a thoroughly Calvinist Book of Common Prayer. Why do you call us Pelagian?
So, he isn’t British and the instinct toward moralism = Christianity also isn’t indigenous?
I am certainly hopeful that all the attention to messenger over message is just my wrong sense about the CofE. I would be happy to know that the theological use of the law (Luther) is deeply British and I am seeing an attack on a messenger as chiefly theological and not moral.
“Pelagius was active between about 390 and 418. He was said by his contemporaries, such as Augustine of Hippo, Prosper of Aquitaine, Marius Mercator, and Paul Orosius, to have been of Celtic British origin. ”
I am happy to be corrected. Sin invades the best of us.
Christopher,
What features of England’s post-Reformation history are more Pelagian than in other Western countries, please? I would have thought that Catholic lands were more Pelagian, given that the central issue in real time of theReformation was over justification.
Celtic British were not English. Heck, you Germans know that!
I sense that my larger point has touched a nerve. Forgive me.
Pelagius can be British and the English can favor his account of the Christian Faith. We are born in a state of relative innocence and the Gospel nudges along on the basis of this.
The moralism implicit in condemning a hymn and scripture event because its proponent/organiser must be of impeccable character strikes me as running against the grain of the Gospel.
That is my larger point.
Most of this thread is focused on TR and whether he’s a ‘good man.’ I hope he’s a man who has received the Gospel of forgiveness of sins.
“Little children all should be, mild, obedient, good as he” — it is that reduction of the Incarnation to good manners and behaving oneself that I was trying to identify, as animating this controversy. I call that moralistic replacement or ‘being good (and getting better)’ for the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Sunday blessings.
Let’s face facts: robinson is not a convert, or we would see genuine fruits of repentance. What would that look like? see zacchaeus or saul – a complete turnaround as a result of the love of God poured out in his heart.
We haven’t seen this, or even a whiff of it. Steer well clear.
Another fact: Rikki Doolan is a member of a cult (spirit embassy is a personality cult around self appointed “prophet” uebert angel). They are bad news – Too many news sites have been taken in by the self appointed minister/pastor title. Rikki is an ex UKIP grifter who was also the subject of an Al Jazeera expose around money laundering, along with his boss Mr Angel.
It does not bode well when Christians are taken in by people claiming the name of Jesus but really taking his name in vain. Even Alexa/chatGPT can claim Jesus is Lord…
‘robinson is not a convert, or we would see genuine fruits of repentance’ Did you see the note about what he said in the concert?
The UTK Carol Service (which I have just come from) was equally terrifying (ahem) to the presence of Christian Concern at Oxbridge colleges, and just as much in need of armed guards at every corner. But (ho ho) I should think there were 100 police for 1000 peaceful people. Meanwhile the fare dodging and shoplifting that they should have been deployed for probably continued unabated, or accelerated.
It’s quite inspiring at many points and hopefully can be watched later on youtube or similar?
I prefer Billy Bragg’s carol.
It shews me more of Christ.
I doubt I am not the only sinner who wonders about the cash value of the blogosphere.
In this Advent season, as we ponder the Last Things, I hope we all can take the measure of our language, proclivity to insult, quickness to snap responses, take more time for prayer, silence, the virtues of the Christian life as embodied in Christ and the Apostles.
I want to be first in line.
There is just so much bile and anger. How can that be right and good?
I wish you all the grace and peace that Christ came to bestow.
I will have to assume this post has been written from a position of extreme naivety, but Jon Kurt has done a good job of getting behind this event. It isn’t just a carol concert. It is a ‘Unite the Kingdom Carol Concert’ and the email invitation for it is filled with toxic rhetoric. https://gracetruth.blog/2025/12/09/tommy-robinsons-carol-concert-show-naive-grace-or-face-the-ugly-truth/
I heard a story recently about a priest in a parish which has an asylum hotel in it. Tommy Robinson had organised a violent protest there and the priest was struggling to show grace and love to both those cowering inside in fear, those outside expressing their anger and those in authority struggling to manage the situation. These are difficult issues, I have no doubt.
But if you can’t see how Tommy Robinson is using this event as a tool to sew division and stir up hatred, then I suggest you take another look. The invitation rails against Sadiq Khan as an ‘unwanted guest’ and a ‘coloniser’. There is no mention of a desire to follow the life and teaching of Christ. If he really just wanted to encourage people to go to church, there are tens of thousands of carol services he could have advised them to go to in their local community or at national gatherings.
If T R has been recently converted, it shows scant regard to how far anyone has to change, if the conversion is in later life. Not all change is instant.
However, it is significant that the event was introduced on Premier radio news as TR’s ‘far right’ then going straight into another topic, conversion therapy as if it were one and the same.
Their was no mention at all, of what took place at the event.
So far, we only have Christopher’s brief description.
For some context, I am aware of two serious criminals, one from gangland, who were converted, one through the ministry of J John.
They were both raw converts who struggled to find a place in church, and church struggled with them.
However, they were both fearless in in the proclamation of the gospel.
None of us is the finished product, but we are not what we once were before conversion to Jesus (John Newton).
Do we know the reality of Amazing Grace that saved a wretch like me?
Widening the subject a little. Mouse, I found depressing this quote from the link you give:
The priest Kenneth Leech, who founded the youth homeless charity Centrepoint, wrote: ‘All Christians are political, whether they realise it or not. But especially when they don’t realise it’.
No Kenneth Leech, no John Kuhrt, no Mouse! It is a depressing Marxist view that all acts are political. The (biblical) truth is that all acts are tangled up in the battle between good and evil. Politics is but a part of that.
While I don’t know either of them our host Ian Paul has hosted articles on this blog by J Kurht.
The quotation seems to be looking through the wrong end of the telescope, invertering the primacy of ‘religion’ over politics.
It seems to me that they have swallowed, in whole or in part, ‘The Secular Age’.
To continue with the real life conversation of the criminals, a friend said that her mother said, after hearing the testimony of the gangland guest at her church, invited by the CoE vicar, that if the criminal were let into heaven, she didn’t want to go there!
They are both dec’d; she was first.
Thank you Mouse
All true but I attend an ‘evangelical’ church where middle-class Karens proudly wear Keffiyah scarfs and repeat Hamas/Islamist lies about genocide in Gaza. And today the consequence of those repeated lies is the slaughter of Jews in Australia.
Please join my campaign for the abolition of the word ‘Karen’ as a derogatory term for middle-aged and older white women of left-wing activist/haranguing persuasion. Most of the Karens I have known in my life have been lovely and kind women.
In my post-ordination days, I had a lot to do with the Rev Sue Walrond-Skinner (a liberal catholic, not an evangelical), who was no doubt thought a role model and teacher by the ecclesiastical powers that be. I thought she was nuts then but didn’t imagine that in her 80s she would try to deface Magna Carta. Wisdom does not always come with age.
That’s nothing, the government is abolishing it after 800 years. No more trial by jury for most cases.
1) there is an undeniable genocide in Gaza
2) on a much more frivolous note. ‘Karens’ are right wing female activists.
Penny ‘there is an undeniable genocide in Gaza’. No, there is very clearly not ‘genocide’ in Gaza. The fact that you call it ‘undeniable’ demonstrates the continual autocracy and illiberalism of ‘left liberalism’. You deny facts, and then call those who set out the facts ‘deniers’.
It is really toxic.
Thanks Church Mouse for the link to Jon Khurt’s helpful reflection which also contains this link to his comment following the event in Whitehall: https://gracetruth.blog/2025/12/14/the-polarisation-express-reflections-on-tommy-robinsons-carol-concert/
A nuanced approach is much more helpful than either simple condemnation or agreeing with TR’s agenda.
Very struck by the wisdom of Sally Mann the Baptist minster engaging in respectful dialogue with those she disagrees with. There really is no other way to learn across the divides and be effective rather than dismissive and negative about others. In so many areas at the moment we quickly create binary divisions, with ourselves of course 100% on the right side, dismissing others as Marxists, liberals, woke, conservatives, etc. And often justified by resorting to ‘we must not compromise because it’s a battle between the absolutely right view and the absolutely wrong one.’ When we feel the temptation to that kind of binary approach it’s a good odea to press the pause button and be self reflexive.
The wonderful satirical songwriter Tom Lehrer died this year aged 97. Here is his song National Brotherhood Week, which is obviously relevant:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CgASBVMyVFI
There is also his Christmas Carol, a dig at the commercialisation of Christmas.
C R SeitzDecember 13, 2025 at 8:45 pm
Hi CRS
Unfortunately such is the nature and spirit of the beast
Provocation. Polarization and Accusations.
Some of the themes and questions posited tend to excite that spirit which characterizes some of our churches, all a bit Corinthian .
The saints have from the beginning faced many Head-winds trying to deflect them to the right or left of their/ God given purposes, and the fruitfulness of the Graces of the Spirit.
However the varieties, strengths and duration of such Head winds
are of little moment in view of the winds that God brings “out of His treasuries”; that is the Four Winds at His command.
Such winds are a glorious Tail-wind for the saints who hold fast
The Sovereign God. {See “The Four Winds @ Biblehub or AI. }
The Tail winds easily dissipate the Head-winds throughout the
Holy Scriptures even to the eschaton .
All the saints need to do
is “Stand in the “evil day” Stand where and how? “Stand and see the
salvation of the/ our Lord { Jesus } who sits and waits for His enemies to be “made His Footstool .
There is a wonderful line in the Canticles CH.4 where the Bride/Church calls on the winds to even Awake!
“Awake, O north wind; and come, thou south; blow upon my garden, that the spices thereof may flow out. Let my beloved come into his garden, and eat his pleasant fruits.
The North Wind, the winds of the storm, afflictions and adversity.
The South Wind of comfort and fruitfulness, good and bad influences are invited so as to attract the Bridgroom to feast on its fruits, to be satisfied with her labours and her gracious ness. Shalom.
There is a marvellous paper on “Facing Cultural Headwinds” @
biblicaljesus.org/index.cfm/library/sermon/id/6000/facing-cultural-headwinds.htm
OK, a bit American initially, but what happens there percolates over here often.
When he gets to the Scriptural “meat” I think it a feast. Shalom.
This, it appears, is the first comment since the event. A friend and member of the local evangelical church, attended. He has true blue Keswick-attending credentials. He was delighted to note the number of straight-down-the-line two or three minute testimonies. He noted the few in the crowd who tried to start a chant of ‘Tommy, Tommy’, were quickly quietened by a more robust chorus of ‘Jesus is King’. (You can probably watch it all on You Tube, as I did.) he was impressed by the cross-section in the crowd, from ‘street people’ to a 1980’s fashion icon. And lack of bother the Police experienced.
He had attended the earlier Unite rally, and was disappointed by this time’s fewer numbers. But hopes next year will gain the much more support it deserves in our nation’s capital. Who else will stand up? He agreed the publicity had served to flush out of the woodwork today’s pharisees, whom he charcterised as mostly Anglican. He would estimated this gathering would stand against abortion, the unchallenged capitulation to Islamism. and craven appeasement that blights faith schools, political discourse, and breakdown of family. Political, but not party political. The gospel-centredness would cause bishops to blush.
The mainstream media reporting seems to have been syndicated by the one ‘official’ jounalist who attended. I hope this helps.
Thank you, Ian.
Look closer and you will see that all is not what it seems. One “pastor” close to TR and sharing the stage with him at these events is in the thrall of a false zimbabwean prophet who teaches heresy. There have also been serious financial allegations made about him. It will not end well.