John Root offers this review of Eric Kaufmann’s Taboo: How making Race sacred produced a Cultural Revolution.
The week-end before last the Wireless Festival was held in Finsbury Park just down the road from my home. Amongst the items that attendees were prohibited from bringing were ‘Clothing, garments, items which promote cultural appropriation’. What’s going on? You mustn’t wear a sombrero! Music festivals used to be venues for hedonistic, let-it-all-hang-out expressive individualism; now they give more prissy instructions than a Sunday school outing.
When I started my blog almost four years ago I took a vow not to use the word w*k*, which I thought was a sloppy journalistic term to stir up hopelessly ill-defined culture wars. But incidents like the above convince me that ‘woke’ refers to a real phenomenon, and Eric Kaufmann’s book lays out why it is so important.
The Argument.
Kaufmann, Professor of Politics and Director of the Centre for Heterodox Social Science at the independent University of Buckingham, uses a less crass term, and makes ‘cultural socialism’ the centrepiece of his book. The parallel with the more usual term ‘economic’ is fairly direct. In both terms ‘socialism’ refers to a levelling, in Kaufmann’s estimate levelling down in both cases. Just as moving from economic liberalism to doctrinaire socialism has consistently led to poverty and immiseration, so too the drift from cultural liberalism to cultural socialism augurs ill for western, or notably in this book, Anglophone societies. Whilst Kaufmann’s response to this drift is fairly Draconian, his understanding is not marked by right/left polarising, but rather stresses the importance of holding to liberal centrality.
Thus his book is marked by words such as moderate, balance, optimal; and his fears come from the lack of ‘guardrails’ that prevent a leftward drift. He frequently refers to cultural socialism as ‘turning the dial’ – as far as 11, when the common cultural good normally hovers around 5. He does not want to turn it back to 0. The changes of the last 60+ years – the focus of his time frame – have brought many good things, but the over-reach of cultural socialism has now brought us to the dire situation. If the upturn in cancelling speakers over the past decade is the most obvious symptom, more serious is the over-whelming dominance of left-minded academics, notably in the Social Sciences and Humanities, leading to a lack of diverse perspectives, and aided by the growing reach of self-censorship amongst their colleagues.
Kaufmann writes from experience here. He was Professor of Politics at Birkbeck College, London, my alma mater where I was taught by the great Eric Hobsbawm, a brilliant historian but whose doctrinaire Marxism landed him decisively on the wrong side of history, and yet his iconic status in the college nonetheless remains untarnished. Kaufmann doesn’t mention the college by name, but writes of the harassment and obstacles he faced in pursuing his research projects, and which led him to take up his post at the consciously ‘heterodox’ Buckingham University.
As to the marks of cultural socialism, Kaufmann highlights two in particular: ‘care/harm’ and equity. The former focuses on protectiveness towards vulnerable or minoritized groups, initially black people, then extending to women and sexual minorities. (Kaufmann also notes that the taboo extends no further, not reaching class or religious groups). The effect is that open debate is stymied since disagreeing with the growing reach of cultural socialism immediately raises the threat of being ‘racist’ (that is, ‘social death’, quoting John McWhorter), ‘sexist’ or ‘homo/transphobic’. The prevention of harm to such groups irresistibly justifies cancelling speakers, books or other expressions, including wearing sombreros at the Wireless Festival. Kaufmann points to ‘concept creep’ as aiding the process. The inflation of the term ‘harm’ from referring to fairly clear physical damage through to a wide range of amorphous subjective feelings means that it can be deployed extensively to shut down the views of others.
If ‘care/harm’ is cultural socialism playing defensively, then it is on the offensive with ‘equity’, policies which go beyond seeking equal opportunities for all people to instead taking the lead in proactively ironing out all differences of outcome between groups. He likes using the phrase ‘radioactive velvet glove’ – the softness of avoiding harm is joined with harsh punishment for those who disagree with the cultural socialism programme. For Kaufmann the point of origin is again race in the USA in the 1960s, where the culturally liberal Civil Rights Act outlawing racism and discrimination then quickly swung over in 1965 to President Johnson’s culturally socialist Affirmative Action, promoting measures of positive discrimination designed to over-rule principles of equal treatment with the intention of engineering equal outcome for black people across the society.
The momentum has since gathered speed, both with the increasingly negative connotations of the word ‘white’, and with the widespread implementation of Diversity, Equality and Inclusion, very often with a Di Angelo/Kendi assumption that white racism is always the problem. An illuminating table on pp 370/1 lists five pre- and post-1965 situations, where the leftward swing has by-passed the culturally liberal ‘Missing Optimum’ in the middle. As an example, the pre-1965 ‘White Centrality’ turns into post-1965 ‘White Sin’, with no place for the intermediating optimum of ‘White majority, with minority contributions’.
In response to those who produce evidence that we have now passed ‘peak woke’, Kaufmann argues that we face not a simple ‘up and then down’ profile, but instead a process more like a tide where there is a recess after each wave comes in, but then the next wave comes in further up the beach. This long-term drift is enabled by the inability of cultural liberalism to resist the logic of cultural socialisms two main thrusts. The latter’s strength is particularly amongst the young, more especially young women apparently, who have the weaponry and threats of social shame to pressure older cultural liberals into acceding to their demands (as with the junior staff of publishers or newspapers or university departments successfully pressuring their seniors into refusing ‘taboo’ expressions). The evidence is that it is unlikely that young cultural socialists will soften their views with age, therefore the institutions where their views have gained ground (initially universities, then journalism and the media, education, and now large organisations with considerable DEI budgets) will increasingly be dominated by them as they move into positions of seniority.
Many critics of woke mentality have interpreted it mainly as a development in the history of ideas – with Critical Social/Race Theory’s cynicism over the abuse of power by established institutions stemming either from a Marxist perspective, or from post-modernity’s deconstruction of the illusion of their legitimacy. Helen Pluckrose and James Lindsay’s Critical Cynical Theories take this stance, as does Carl Truman’s excellent theological diagnosis in The Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self. Disappointingly for those who delight in knowing their Gramsci from their Foucault, Kaufmann disagrees:
Those seeking to explain our cultural predicament need to focus more on our banal public morality than on the intellectual lineage of today’s woke fundamentalists; [rather] they key into the common humanitarian-egalitarian morality of our time (p 41).
Whilst, strangely, he makes no reference to Tom Holland’s Dominion, like him he similarly sees a linkage with Christianity:
Cultural socialism springs from the same Christian and Enlightenment sources as other Western ideas. It evolved as variants of liberalism, egalitarianism and humanism were taken to their logical conclusion (p 31).
He notes it would come under Nietzsche’s derision of ‘slave morality’ (p 46). The key development is that these initially liberal emphases took on institutional and prescriptive force, and with the absence of appropriate ‘guardrails’ fell into absolutist implementation. Given that woke-ism has this once pious origin, it may be no coincidence that the most virulent anti-woke critics such as John McWhorter and James Lindsay are also strongly anti-religious. Kaufmann notes the firm resistance to cultural socialism in secular Quebec (p 292) and France.
Meanwhile it seems that Nietzsche’s worst fears are being materialised, with the ‘rise of victimhood as a cultural trope’ (p 255). Correlating with the avoidance of harm has been the rise of fragility and decline in resilience, and rising mental health problems. Vulnerability has been valorised. (On Channel 4 news this evening there was a report of a disastrous mud-slide in Ethiopia that killed over 200 people – including ‘women and children’ we were told. Are there mudslides that kill only men? Or, if so, would they be less serious?)
The consequences
If the negative results of hard economic socialism took time to appear, then with the more elusive cultural socialism the harm in ‘impoverishing national culture and the societal good’ (p 61) is less immediate or obvious. At many points Kaufmann points out the harm: cancellation of opposing viewpoints, free speech hindered by the partly unconscious implementation of taboos, the teaching of speculative hypotheses of critical race theory or ballooning gender diversity as firm and given facts.
In addition there are what he terms ‘sins of omission’ (p 308). Cultural socialism doesn’t achieve its ends of promoting justice or eliminating harm, but rather shows ‘a steadfast refusal to take an evidence-based approach to problem solving, recognising past mistakes (p 311). In reality its progressivism appeals more to white people than to blacks, whilst it is striking ‘that the results of rigorous attempts to quantify the impact of diversity training showed no positive effects for minorities’ (p 189).In contrast look at ‘the millions of victim-centred stories, memes, and videos circulating online and you have a recipe for collective disempowerment’ (p 313).
Cultural socialism also carries heavy political costs both at home and abroad. At home it has widened the gap between academia and the public, whilst using the term ‘racist’ to describe white people becomes counter-productive. Prior to the 2016 presidential election it was found that calling Trump a ‘racist’ significantly increased his support.
All told, politically correct speech restrictions narrowed debate over immigration and crime, opening the way for populists who, in turn, inflame progressives, whose excesses, in turn, stoke conservative backlash. This creates a polarising cycle of mutual recrimination and mobilisation (p 331).
Internationally, cultural socialist alarms and exaggerations provide fuel for totalitarian attacks on western democracies. China used the BLM protests to argue that America was hypocritical in criticising their crackdown in Hong Kong, whilst the unfounded Canadian media and political scare over alleged mistreatment of indigenous people deflected criticism of their mass internment and abuse of Uyghurs.
In summary, Kaufmann argues:
The aim is not to jettison cultural egalitarianism, but rather to turn the dial back to an optimal point at which costs to competing values such as reason, liberty, cohesion, and excellence are reduced. Valuable rules, such as free speech, equal treatment, due process, and an objective truth-based legal and scientific order must be reaffirmed and only abridged in extremis (p 335).
As well as all his research, in chapter 11 Kaufmann goes on to speak of ‘What to Do’. Since he sees the hold of cultural socialism at its most destructive in mediating institutions – starting from the universities, then (contrary to traditional defences of freedom) it needs to be the responsibility of democratically elected governments to act on behalf of the people to control institutions that cultural socialism now holds captive. Most controversially he seeks to learn from such questionable organisations as the National Rifle Association or the Christian Right to produce a Twelve Point Plan to undercut the Japanese knotweed invasion of powerful institutions. Speculative, flakey and possibly even tongue-in-cheek, his proposals can be seen as both creative and alarming, or even dangerous if Trump wins in November. But behind his seemingly eccentric prescriptions is a shrewd, original and discerning take on the reality that the rather lightweight word ‘woke’ conceals a far more deep-seated and harmful derangement of what was once a valuable liberal culture.
In conclusion, Kaufmann’s book is a remarkable achievement. Time and again the extraordinary range and detail of his researches (such as in the Appendix below) provide firm evidence in place of popular and unquestioned speculation. He is not afraid to question culturally socialist dogmas, or over-ride taboos surrounding discussions, especially of race, sex and gender, where in many cases the most likely explanations have become the unsayable.
Between the iron blocks of solid research at times there are less secure ‘clay’ sections of hypothesis, but overall I think his thesis on the woke nature of our culture is compelling. Though the shape of his argument would be clearer if the one word titles of his middle chapters had been extended to give a clearer picture of where the book was going.
He does also include two very minor inaccuracies:
a. Tom Wolfe’s very useful phrase ‘radical chic’ comes not in a novel but in his journalistic account of a Black Panther’s fund-raising soiree in Leonard Bernstein’s elegant New York apartment (p 51) – just a trickle before the recent flood of super-rich support for BLM or Ibram X Kendi’s Centre for the Study of Racism.
b. Gordon Brown did not call Gillian Duffy a ‘bigoted woman’ in a tv debate, but rather in a televised ‘meet and greet’ session where she peppered him with questions about immigration without any pause for an answer. It was when being filmed in his car after the tirade that Brown (correctly, surely) described her as a ‘bigoted woman’.
Overall his account of how a worthy cultural liberalism has been swept aside by a damaging cultural socialism is illuminating and needs the close attention of those who are still cultural liberals. So, next week’s blog will be on ‘Reading Eric Kaufmann’s ‘Taboo’ in the Church of England’.
Appendix: Survey results in the USA on how race has been perceived (pp 201-205).
The proportion of white progressives perceiving racism to be a major problem soared from 35% in 2011, to 60% in 2015 and over 80% by 2020. ‘This despite the fact that police killings of black suspects were at a historic low, while interracial marriage and tolerant attitudes were at a historic high. . . This was nothing more than media generated delusion’.
In 2019 databases showed that between 13 and 27 unarmed black men were killed by the police. But when asked how many they thought were killed in the past year 54% of ‘very liberal’ respondents thought the number was over 1000, as opposed to just 16% getting the closest answer of ‘about 10’, compared with nearly half of conservative respondents doing so.
Eight in ten black respondents thought a young black man was more likely to die at the hands of the police than in a car accident, when the reality is that cars are about ten times more dangerous. 95% of black people who thought Republicans were racist got this answer wrong compared to 70% of white people who thought the same; and compared to 53% of black Trump voters getting it wrong, and only 15% of white Trump voters doing so.
John Root was a curate in Harlesden, led an estate church plant in Hackney, and planted two Asian language congregations in Wembley, before enjoying retirement ministry in Tottenham.
This review was first published on John’s substack here.
Buy me a Coffee
I’d really like to see the end of ‘Phobic’ being used haphazardly as a suffix to describe anyone who disagrees with any tenets of this ‘cultural socialism’ (Nice term). A phobia is an unreasoned, uncontrollable fear of a stimulus- which could involve spiders, oranges or buttons. Using ‘phobic’ language to describe anyone who disagrees with a certain doctrine, is simply mudslinging. How about refusing the label, and using ‘sceptic’ instead? So instead of being ‘transphobic’, someone disagreeing with Trans beliefs could be ‘trans-sceptic.’ That takes disagreement away from becoming a ‘hate crime’, and more towards identifying a place of peaceful discussion… if such a thing is still possible.
Well so would I – and the end of being called ‘racist’ as a kneejerk reaction – but it isn’t going to happen. The side of sense just has to get used to being called these things and retort “Do some thinking about what you are saying – if you can!”
I agree but once SJWs manage to get corrupted use of language embedded into public discourse, or even legislation, ‘thinking’ for oneself can be effectively ruled out of order. It’s hard to overemphasise how powerful language is to influence things for good or ill.
Well, let’s think of some one-word responses. To ‘Islamophobe’ I’d retort ‘dhimmi’, which sounds like ‘dimmy’ and at the same time gets people curious as to what it means; enough will check it up for it to enter the public consciousness. Any suggestions for a response to ‘racist’?
‘Trait spotter’?
‘Anglophobe’?
Ref Gordon Brown describing Gillian Duffy as “bigoted”. For many years it has been apparent to me that the only difference between bigotry and principle is that it’s principle if you agree with it and bigotry if you don’t!
The aim is not to jettison cultural egalitarianism, but rather to turn the dial back to an optimal point at which costs to competing values such as reason, liberty, cohesion, and excellence are reduced.
Yes, but you can do that only if you have a principled position whose sources you understand. Just saying “No further” isn’t enough.
Refusal of cultural appropriation is hilarious. Are we not allowed to use paper because it was invented by the Chinese? Should we allow only Indians to dine in Indian restaurants?
For thousands of years, ideas were shuffled from whichever of the four civilisations of Eurasia invented them (Europe, Persia, India, China) to the others, to the benefit of all. Who wants to undo that?
Use of smart phoned will be banned. Good idea.
I am wondering why cultural socialism would be considered a more acceptable term than cultural Marxism?
Yes, I wondered about that. Maybe because ‘cultural Marxism’ is a turn off expression to many on the left who insist ‘There is no such thing as cultural Marxism!’ Yet they happily own the label ‘socialist’.
Having a clear-out recently, I found (now Baroness) Caroline Cox/ Keith Jacka/ John Marks’ book from the early 70s about the corruption of North London Polytechnic, where they were all lecturers. During one of the sit-ins, the students said (I paraphrase from memory) “We don’t want to study social science, we just want to be told what Marx says.”
It was the intellectually-second-rate, incurious followers of Marx who defined Marxism. This is what underlies the proverb “Marx was no Marxist.” Thinking about stuff is hard work, it’s so much easier to check your brain in at the door if you can get away with it. Ernest Gellner in “Words & Things”, following Popper, notes the appeal of signing up to an all-explanatory intellectual system that explains away empirical challenges which would otherwise undermine it.
In the same way, tracing an intellectual pedigree from Gramsci and Foucault (both authors I have enjoyed reading) to wokeness is indeed a bit redundant, when it’s their supposed followers who are just keying in to the “banal public morality” of our day which contains ready-made dismissive epithets to apply to those of us who disagree with it.
What an interesting anecdote…
… and have just come across this review from 2013 which brings out some of the salient points and seems, from memory, fair (though I’m not endorsing the comments about Islam at the end).
https://www.fahrenheit211.net/2013/07/22/book-review-the-rape-of-reason-by-keith-jacka-caroline-cox-and-john-marks-churchill-press-1975-sbn-902782169/
Very interesting. I was lecturing at North London Polytechnic from 1969-1973 one morning a week on early colonial history. The history department wasn’t violently left, just generally liberal, and I was appointed by the leftish Dr Dennis Judd, who wrote ‘Empire: the British Imperial Experience 1765 to the Present’ – 1996. I was appointed on the say-so of his generally conservative doctoral supervisor & my past teacher, Dr Mary Cumpston. My main memory of the time is that each year the student strikes ate into the teaching time I did.
I read Foucault’s “Madness and Civilisation” a decade ago and thought little of it. He makes an error so gross as to throw into question the whole project, getting wrong the era of the ‘great confinement’, during which European society confined to institutions those it held to be mad, by more than a century. Foucault claims the Great Confinement began around 1650 and covered the entire Enlightenment period (to 1789 when the French Revolution began, and arguably began the Romantic era). This is vital to his argument. Yet the Great Confiement took place in the 19th century, both in France (see M. Gauchet & G. Swain, La Pratique de l’esprit humain: L’institution asilaire et la révolution démocratique, Gallinard, Paris, 1980) and in England (Andrew Scull, The Most Solitary of Afflictions: Madness and Society in Britain 1700-1900, Yale University Press 1993). Foucault is eruditely dismantled by Keith Windschuttle in the chapter about him in Windschuttle’s excellent book The Killing of History: How aq discipline is being murdered by literary critics and social theorists (!st ed Macleay Press, 1994).
A book bought and read years ago which I no longer have, and which critiqued Foucalt, is ‘Truth Decay’ by Douglas Groothuis.
I remember that Foucault is not to be followed though he has had a significant influence on sexual morality, even within the Christian church.
For those who have the interest here is a link:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/foucault/
And when you point out these gay atheist intellectuals who died of Aids, the left gets apoplectic.
What do they get apoplectic about?
Surely not the tragic fate of many gay men in the 80s and 90s?
I thought only conservatives got apoplectic about that; blaming them for getting sick and dying.
An interesting post for the philosophy geeks and for those who ask “where are we and how did we get here” which for some of us is our lived experience.
Philosophy in general is a quest for how we might individually and collectively live our/the best life[without God]
All manner of philosophies have been tried, there is a new philosophy periodically but none have succeeded, none have delivered “the good life”.
Christianity was “born” under the most powerful and brutal of dictatorships and flourished Like the tree of life that it is.
Even in the gold standard Babylonian empire it triumphed [Read Daniel’s story or Esther’s joyful story. ]
For the righteous ones, God is the Blessed God[happy and to be envied]a God of great joy in whose Presence is fullness of great joy and pleasures for evermore, no wonder that its adherents are filled with Delight: “The word is very emphatical: evetvaeshtaasha, I will skip about and jump for joy.” (Clarke)
God is constantly reaching out and offering His Joyful, Peaceful, Abundant, all Encompassing Life, for us to be partakers of. Howbeit on His terms.
John5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.
5:40 And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.
Here is the true, cultural, social, intellectual, religious, spiritual taboo.
“There is, in contemplating Christ, a balm for every wound; in reflecting on the Father, there is a quiet for every grief; and in the influence of the Holy Spirit, there is a healing for every sore.
Do you desire to lose your sorrows and cares? Then go plunge yourself in the Godhead’s deepest sea; be lost in His immensity; and you shall come forth as from a couch of rest, refreshed and invigorated. I know nothing which can so comfort the soul; so calm the swelling billows of sorrow and grief; so speak peace to the winds of trial, as a devout musing on the subject of the Godhead.”
Charles Spurgeon
Quoted at the start of ‘Knowing God’, IIRC, and written when Spurgeon was a ripe old man of 20.
Yes James, well remembered.
Having reached Packer’s ‘Knowing God’, it is indeed part of a longer quotation which opens chapter 1, from a sermon by Spurgeon on January 7th, 1855, New Park Street Chapel, Southwark.
Aged 20.
Through vain [ aka empty] Philosophy many are adrift, in mental turmoil, on a world [Sea] of unstable trouble and toil which will a see our societies and cultures much like the Statue seen by Daniel;
Such will be the decline that eventually clay and iron will be the foundations {philosophies and thus societies and culture] that we will stand on.
“Perilous Times” are prophesied.
Our guest writer speaks of Drift;
Alas none are so adrift than a multitude of people who identify or have once identified as Christians.
In spite of many “Mission” initiatives the churches have become older and poorer and fewer.
Many of us have witnessed this decline from the 1960’s; rather than making Disciples as commanded in The Great Commission, the Evangelicals chose Inclusivism,withwhich they are now being beaten over their heads with.
“Feed my sheep” means more than a 20-minute snack once a week.
The decline I think, is due to the failure to produce people who model the Holy, rich life of the life of God in the soul of man.
It is an exercise in futility to attempt to breath life into a dead body.
I will not labour the point but suggest a deeper treatment on the point @
http://www.thebereancall.org/content/generation-adrift-part-1
tyndale-europe.edu/academics/faculty-publications/faith-adrift-christianity-how-can-we-avoid-drifting-away-from-god
Shalom.
How easily these posts slip away from the central topic! Once again sex raises its gargantuan head in this contribution. And once again we are led up a siding with a definition of philosophy which bypasses the core of what it really means : “philosophy in general is a quest for how we might individually and corporately live out our/ the best life (without God).”? So then what follows here is a series of evangelical tracts extolling among other things the virtues of of our favourite gurus; thereby ignoring the substance of John Roots ‘article; namely the issue of the deification of ” race” .
At the risk of prolonging the oversimplification thus far, I would provide the following definitions of philosophy: philosophy ( literally means the love of wisdom) . More technically, it is the exploration of the basics of existence, Knowledge, reality usually leading to how these are applied to life situations. It is emphatically not an enfeebled alternative to the Gospel! Indeed in many areas of hermeneutics it can provide a useful tool in Biblical understanding
At this moment , it is absolutely vital that the Christian Church gets to grips with an issue which, I believe is ripping the heart out of western civilization. Note: the issue is not race per se but the intellectual and often biased way in which the topic is being manipulated in order to undermine the traditional bases of truth; not least the truths of the Christian Gospel.
I suggest that there are two major sources of opposition here: the first I would label the former “Cultural Marxist” though I realise that no term can really embrace the variations within the contemporary scene. The second is the one which the Western populace in general and both its political and media organizations in particular apparently want to place on a pedestal; in some cases almost to the point of veneration. I speak of Islam. How often have I heard Muslim clerics, for example, berate the British establishment for being racially biased against its[Islam’s] Faith, beliefs and its people. What to us is valid criticism is often interpreted as “Islamophobia.” But do *we* raise objections to this terminology?
It is fascinating that one of incredible ironies of the current scene is the apparent comradery that exists between large sections of both movements; and this in spite of the fact even a cursory glance at their respective values would reveal significant differences!
I draw this contribution to a close with a plea to treat this topic with the seriousness it deserves. I apologise to those who tend to “make their appearance” when S E X is on the menu. But the Church can no longer afford the luxury of dealing out the “happy family cards”.
There is more than enough about philosophy on the link I provided Colin, and if you care to look at the whole article on Foucault you will find there an extended look at his contribution to the burden of the whole article which goes beyond sex and addresses the influence of philoshophy including power. But do look at it and abstract the relevant ideas, underpinning philosophies which are part and parcel of the the
differing strands of the book review, before going off on one.
Chris Watkin has the fillowing article on the Gospel Co-alition site which in part contributes to the discussion from a Christian stance. It is revelant.
‘The Christian Roots of Speaking the Truth to Power, The Voice from the Margins, with Power to Bring Change. ‘.
As does Melvin Tinker’s His Hideous Strength.
Chris Watkin link:
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/mandate-mystique-margins/
.
Geoff, I think you have missed my primary point here. I was following up (a) a definition of philosophy which I felt fell short of its root meaning and from this (b) witnessing a change in direction in this post which was no longer directing its attention to the lead question. I am happy to see that “normal service” is being resumed.
We should not be surprised that secularism and Islam are working together in our land. Both are opposed to Jesus Christ, divine son of the Creator, and opposition to Him is intelligently coordinated.
Muslims respect Jesus as a prophet, just not also as God, secularism denies both Christ being a prophet and the existence of God. Militant secularism is a danger to Islam as much as to Christianity
Yes, in Xinjiang secularism is defeating Islam. In Europe Islam is defeating secularism – but secularists who let Islam in don’t realise it.
It isn’t, in no European nation is Islam a majority of the population and in most less than 10%. China puts the Communist Party state above all
Simon, you don’t need a majority to call the shots, just great determination. England will be 20% Muslim in 2050, the cities more so. Not a safe place for gays!
“Secularism” is winning in Xinjiang because it is willing to use brutal oppression.
So even on your overly high project for Muslims, 80% of the UK population will not be Muslim. Plus of course some Muslims are also perfectly OK with same sex couples, some of Muslim heritage are even gay or lesbian themselves
I would look further than cultural Marxism or Islam for where the great threat to Western civilisation resides: the rise of global fascism – most easily recognisable in (but not confined to) the individuals and policies associated with the World Economic Forum, the Bank of International Settlements, and the World Health Organisation (interestingly all centred in Switzerland). The undisguised appetite and intention to impose technocratic, totalitarian control over populations becomes clearer by the day as one joins up the dots of projects already well under way: digital IDs, CBDCs, health mandates, ‘Net Zero’ (involving massive life changing directives and restrictions), mass migration, an end to free speech and free access to information, and (of course) endless wars. It’s fascism rather than communism because it involves private corporations and allows individual ownership.
The ‘irony’ that both cultural Marxism and Islam appear to be central to the project can be explained once you realise that they are time limited tools (allowing ‘useful idiots’ to work their magic?) ideal for breaking down the traditional arrangements associated with Christendom: family, nation, individual freedom, open respectful debate the assumption that human beings are created in the image of God. As societies become more and more fractured socially and fragile economically, (and possibly sicker in terms of physical and mental health), people will be ever more open to the global control which I suspect will be marketed under that greatest of weasel words: SAFETY.
It’s a Malthusian project, anti human, devoid of morality, and the vision of sick minds. At its heart is undiluted atheism and one shudders to contemplate exactly what kind of horrors those who are involved (some of whom will have unwittingly been sucked in by vast financial rewards and the thrill of immense power) have planned for the future of humanity. We already know ‘transhumanism’ and all manner of medical experimentation are part of the mix. The link with an earlier dark time in Europe is hard to miss.
There’s more than enough information in plain sight about all of this. I don’t claim any specialised knowledge; I simply observe what’s happening. My greatest concern and puzzlement has been why so many Christians are so unaware or unwilling to face up to what is happening. Of course it’s deeply troubling but God remains sovereign, we need not fear, but we do need to face hard reality head on and then pray like never before. I also believe it’s a gospel opportunity like never before in our lifetimes – if only we were not obsessed with other issues…
Don,
I think that’s a useful analysis for what is going on in the world: definitely not a move toward freedom but toward ever greater corporate and governmental control over people’s lives, and the way the UK government is using the courts to deal with the recent riots is a perfect illustration of this.
As you say, everything is done in the name of ‘SAFETY’, and so it is vital to project the idea that the world is facing imminent catastrophe – through climate change, pandemics, racism, uncontrolled internet and Russia – and strong transnational action is urgently required to crush dissent.
It’s a dark year ahead – and again, the hierarchy of the Church of England doesn’t have a clue.
The hierarchy of the Church of England is actively on board.
I wouldn’t be so sure that secularism would win a civil war against Islam in Western lands in several decades’ time. I asked on an earlier thread: since Jesus Christ has all authority in heaven and on earth, and since the Quran denies his divinity and death on the cross (sura 4:157), why is Jesus permitting Islam to rise here? Jeremiah must have wondered why God was letting the Babylonians encroach on the people of God 26 centuries ago, and he was told: they are impending divine judgement. Persons who study the history of family (in)stability in multiple cultures, and who examine the rise and fall of those cultures, will know the answer in the present case. Family failure statistics have risen more than tenfold, in a single lifetime, from a level that had been stable for centuries.
The yobs rioting on the street don’t like the rise of Islam. But would they be willing – indeed, do they have what it takes – to beget children with only one woman in a stable household for several decades? Unfortunately they will never recognise the spiritual connection. Easier for them to attack mosques and the representatives (i.e. the police) of the ghastly politicians who promoted immigration at a rate such as to change the culture in half a lifetime – a dispossession that is always likely to generate rage.
Whether one has a realistic view of Islam (based on its holy books and on life in Islamic lands) or a romantic view of Islam is irrelevant. Islam is what it is. But we are no longer what we were.
In suggesting Islamists are being temporarily employed as ‘useful idiots’ I was suggesting this is how they are being viewed by the fascist elites. I tend to agree with you that they are unlikely to be as easily discarded once their divisive role has played its part in destroying the social fabric of formerly Christian countries. People who have inviolable principles (whether right or wrong) and no fear of death – even welcoming martyrdom – cannot be dealt with as easily as Western secularists assume.
I’m certainly not making exact predictions about how things are going to pan out. However, cosy assumptions that the ordinary people will rise up and overcome their new slave masters don’t take account a) of the technological tools now available for crushing the people’s resistance, and b) a significant proportion of ordinary people also have fascist tendencies and will actually welcome the ‘safety’ and certainty offered by totalitarian governance. On the other hand human frailty (eg simple incompetence, jousting for power, jealousy and personality clashes) will undoubtedly play their part towards undoing any smooth path towards the intended dystopia. And then there’s God who may well be allowing us as nations to experience the judgement we undoubtedly deserve; he can equally turn things around whenever he sees fit, not least when his people turn to him in repentance; the timing is his alone. There’s a lot of waking up and a lot of praying to be done!
Indeed Don, and one can hardly blame Muslims for not wanting to assimilate when they look at our cities on Friday and Saturday nights. If I were to be granted one short message to the Muslim community in Britain, it would be: Don’t think the immorality you see is becase we are a Christian country just because of Establishment and all of the church buildings; it is because we have turned FROM Judaeo-Christian morality.
But even if the ‘yobs’ had more children, it is unlikely to have any effect whatsoever on the UK being more Christian. It will just increase secularism. Most of those children will not become Christians, and may just follow their yobbish parents in their mindsets.
The UK is also not the people of God, so I doubt Jeremiah applies.
I agree that the UK has no national covenant (Coronation Oath pieties notwithstanding). The worst sin in ancient Israel, because of its covenant, was idolatry. But I’m making an analogy. Jeremiah wondered why the Babylonians were coming to destroy Israel, and was told: impending judgement. I am asking: since Jesus Christ has all authority in heaven and on earth, and since the Quran denies his divinity and death on the cross (sura 4:157), why is Jesus permitting Islam to rise here? I propose the same answer: judement – and furthermore I suggest what it is for. What is your answer to my first question, please?
For the benefit of ofhers, Don, CBDCs are Central Bank Digital Currencies, i.e. the abolition of cash, meaning that the government sees everything you do financially down to the last penny, and can prevent you buying various things (meat, fights) and tax/fine you as it chooses.
You seem to have a thing about Islam, as if that is a threat to Christianity in the UK. I dont see that. Secularism also denies his divinity and although most acknowledge his death on a cross, it is meaningless and therefore no better (arguably worse) than the Islamic view.
The UK, like many other western countries, is becoming a much more God-less society, not one of false gods such as Islam. I am not convinced one should see that as a judgement of the church in the UK or elsewhere.
I cannot make my views much clearer. Islam is impending divine judgement on certain sins of secularism.
What is your answer to my question: as Jesus Christ has all authority in heaven and on earth, and as the Quran denies his divinity and death on the cross (sura 4:157), why is Jesus permitting Islam to rise here?
Muslims see Jesus as a prophet just not also as God like Christians, secular atheists don’t even see that
In an age that lacked the instant world wide, global, communication how far sighted was Augustine and City of God v City of Man?
History is replete with fresh iterations of building Babel’s tower in contrast with and opposition to God’s Kingdom.
Augustine’s Civitas Dei was the first attempt to answer the question: Why is an empire that has just gone Christian been permitted by God to crumble? The book is full of fascinating comments on multiple subjects, but I don’t think he answered the central question satisfactorily.
Anton,
The same could be said about his approach to Biblical exegesis.
If you are thinking of Luke 14:23 as justifying force in the name of Christ, I agree!
Your use of the word exegesis seems to be a mere allegory for eisegegis, of maybe a dislike of of the employment of theological interpretation, or Biblical theology, of scripture interpreting scripture! Even if there is an allegory employed by Paul, it is not to deny the original OT text.
But here we again, move off point, as does the attempt to reduce Augustine ad absurdum, even in the format of comments, the highly relevant (to JR’s article) to Augustinian philosophy drawn out in some length, in his discourse, which could be used as a paradigm to critique the book reviewed by John Root.
No doubt a diversion into discussion of Just Wars and questions of free will, would meet Colin’s criteria of being substantially tangential to the article.
Back to the book review.
Apologies for this digression. It was simply that an expression of Anton’s in his comment on Civitas Dei “fascinating comments on multiple subjects” caught my attention ; reminding me of Augustine’s four-fold understanding of Scriptural interpretation (“the senses”) including the allegorical; a method which I still observe in operation in some circles today!
Rev 17:14 These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them: for he is Lord of lords, and King of kings: and they that are with him are called, and chosen, and faithful
1 John 4:4 Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world
John 16:33 These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world.
G.K.Chesterton spoke of the paradoxes of the Bible;
indeed one of the most remarkable is that Jesus was both
Anointed with Gladness and also a Crown of Thorns;
and we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter yet always rejoicing..ROM.8:36 As it is written, For thy sake we are killed all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter.
8:37 Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us.
Os Guinness produced a thought-provoking analysis of cultural changes throughout periods of history.
Beginning at Thessalonica “these men [Christians]have “turned the world upside down” and the efforts of Philosophers to turn it the other way around.
@ /www.cslewisinstitute.org/resources/americas-present-crisis/
As an aside to this discussion as we reflect on cultural trends (and other things) in western society over the past 50 or 60 years there was a fascinating discussion of the life and work of Jurgen Moltmann on BBC R4 this morning at: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m0021qjc
Whatever one’s view of Moltmann’s theology he has been a hugely influential figure in Protestant theology over the past 60 years. (I was a bit shocked to see that ‘The Crucified God’ was first published in English in 1974!) His understanding of the death of Jesus and the suffering of God came perilously close to patripassianism but just (I think) managed to avoid it. Anyway, the programme is worth a listen.
I will give this a listen when I have time.
Moltmann’s ideas of futurity and his debt to the Marxist philosopher Ernst Bloch (‘Das Prinzip Hoffnung’) are difficult to square with historic orthodoxy and God’s relation to time.
I read much of ‘The Crucified God’ as a theological student back in the day. A robust reply was given by the Catholic theologian Thomas Weinandy in ‘Does God Suffer?’, reaffirming impassibility.
I doubt if many ordinands today learn much about the classical ideas of divine impassibility and simplicity, much less understand them.
Moltmann then went on to write about the Trinity. I used to know an Anglo-Catholic theologian on General Synod, Fr Thomas Seville, who said to me once that Moltmann was a tritheist.
THANKS, Geoff, for the links you supply.
I have just finished catching up on my reading of same plus a digression into Moltmann
Heavy going for chaps on the Number 48 omnibus I must say, but informative to hear their views.
However, in my simplicity I turn to Psalm 37 AMPV.
7Be still before the LORD; wait patiently for Him and entrust yourself to Him;
Do not fret (whine, agonize) because of him who prospers in his way,
Because of the man who carries out wicked schemes.
8Cease from anger and abandon wrath;
Do not fret; it leads only to evil.
9For those who do evil will be cut off,
But those who wait for the LORD, they will inherit the land.
10For yet a little while and the wicked one will be gone [forever];
Though you look carefully where he used to be, he will not be [found].
11But the humble will [at last] inherit the land
And will delight themselves in abundant prosperity and peace.
12The wicked plots against the righteous
And gnashes at him with his teeth.
13The Lord laughs at him [the wicked one–the one who oppresses the righteous],
For He sees that his day [of defeat] is coming.
14The wicked have drawn the sword and bent their bow
To cast down the afflicted and the needy,
To slaughter those who are upright in conduct [those with personal integrity and godly character].
15The sword [of the ungodly] will enter their own heart,
And their bow will be broken…..
17For the arms of the wicked will be broken,
But the LORD upholds and sustains the righteous [who seek Him].
18The LORD knows the days of the blameless,
And their inheritance will continue forever.
19They will not be [b]ashamed in the time of evil,
And in the days of famine they will have plenty and be satisfied.
20But the wicked (ungodly) will perish,….
27Depart from evil and do good;
And you will dwell [securely in the land] forever.
28For the LORD delights in justice
And does not abandon His saints (faithful ones);
They are preserved forever,
But the descendants of the wicked will [in time] be cut off.
29The righteous will inherit the land
And live in it forever.
30The mouth of the righteous proclaims wisdom,
And his tongue speaks justice and truth.
31The law of his God is in his heart;
Not one of his steps will slip.
32The wicked lies in wait for the righteous
And seeks to kill him.
33The LORD will not leave him in his hand
Or let him be condemned when he is judged.
34Wait for and expect the LORD and keep His way,
And He will exalt you to inherit the land;
[In the end] when the wicked are cut off, you will see it.
35I have seen a wicked, violent man [with great power]
Spreading and flaunting himself like a cedar in its native soil,
36Yet he passed away, and lo, he was no more;
I sought him, but he could not be found.
37Mark the blameless man [who is spiritually complete], and behold the upright [who walks in moral integrity];
There is a [good] future for the man of peace. ETC, ETC.
I HAVE made my vows to God “What time I am afraid I WILL trust in the Lord”
May God grant me grace to perform my vows.
Ala, I wonder if you would mind not filling the comments with Bible passages. A reference is fine; we all have Bibles!
As the next post has already emerged and before this one dies the death of a thousand diversions, I would encourage PCI et al. to read Anton’s analysis in the previous post of the current ongoing political/religious input by Islamic forces into British life. I would also encourage you to read the Hamas Charter of 1988 which sets out, among other things , Hamas’s view of the ongoing conflict between it and Israel. Then ask yourself: is this conflagration simply concerned with the “resolution” of the perennial problem of bringing “peace” between two very disparate entities? And were the recent protest marches merely seen as a protest against Israeli incursions into Gaza?
The Jews were being persecuted throughout Europe and Russia long before WW2, then during WW2, then after WW2. So it was not surprising they wanted a homeland to feel safe in. However it was inevitable that there was going to be serious conflict when so many suddenly arrive in a land in which others were living. Although there may be continued anti-semitic feelings behind some of those protesting, I think many just see Israel forcing out others, particularly in the context of illegal (under International law) settlements, and now a perhaps disproportional response to the evil recently committed against them. I think many Jews living in Israel still have a sense of entitlement, something which Jesus did not approve of.
Having just watched a Gaza report on Channel4 News, and hearing a family member saying after yet another airstrike “Their bodies are in pieces, we’re still looking for the child’s head”, I think it’s time to stop.
Dear PCI On October 7th last year, Hamas took 250 hostages and massacred some 1200 people. Infants were burnt in ovens. women were raped , shot up the vagina, had their breasts cut off and ended up being decapitated. Hamas participants gloated via smart phones to their relatives. It is estimated that 40 of the hostages have been murdered!
Your appeal to*disproportionality* re violence is an appeal to a heinous doctrine without any basis in Christianity. What other country would have “turned the other cheek” in such circumstances?
” I think its time to stop” ?? Really? Where were you when Hamas used hospitals and schools for the storage of weapons? Where were you when under Hamas leadership children were indoctrinated with anti-Semitic propaganda?
I challenged you and others to read the Hamas Charter. Only you replied, but your reply only indicated a superficial grasp of Middle Eastern history. The Charter is available in *this* country. You can google it! Hamas is supported by a country which operates a TV network in *this* country. All of this convinces me that much contemporary Christianity has great difficulty in getting to grips with political realities ; aided no doubt by agencies (such as Channel 4) which have never been known for impartial in Jewish matters. and by this, I am not necessarily referring to the ME. What of the ongoing victimisation of Jewish people in the UK?
I now draw this contribution to a close , with a sense of deep sadness that so much time and energy has been devoted here to the internal workings Of the C of E vis -a vis sexual matters that “the greater picture” is being smothered either in pietistic evangelicalism or worse an arid intellectualism without a solid foundation.
I think if the end result of Israel’s response mirrors what was done to them – babies burnt to death, children losing their heads etc – I dont see how you can defend such action. It’s just easier to fire a missile but the results are the same – death all around.
The Israeli government says its mission is to wipe out Hamas. I would suggest that is not going to happen, just as the Taliban were never wiped out despite the best soldiers of the world fighting them. At this stage many thousands of ordinary people have been killed – men, women and children. I wonder how much hatred of Israel has now been stirred in the hearts of many due to their loss of loved ones? What Hamas did was evil and barbaric. but this continued action is not going to bring peace.
Peter, you have really got things the wrong way around. Muslims Arabs have been committing pogroms against Jews in Palestine since the 1880s—as well as in Arab countries.
The main Arab leaders spent time with Hitler in Germany, and took advice on how to exterminate Jews.
The term ‘Palestinian’ for Arabs of the region was only coined in 1964. The goal of the Arabs of the region has not been for a state until very recently; it was to establish a Muslim caliphate and exterminate all Jews.
I think one aspect I have observed is that as the youngest people who were adults during WW2 (including my grandparents) have become elderly and passed away, racism has become more and more popular once again, as well as blaming economic problems on immigrants.
You’re kidding, right? Have you never read about the Windrush generation?
When my mother come here from Ireland, people posts signs on their doors ‘No blacks, no dogs, no Irish’.
Indeed. Both my parents went to England in the 50s and 60s and saw those signs. Thankfully they found a landlady who offered rooms to anyone, Irish or black. Not sure about dogs though, she might have been allergic.
Ian, Im not quite sure what Ive said which is incorrect. Quite a few people in the UK, including some commentators here, complain about the levels of immigration into this country, leading to limited conflict. In Palestine/Israel, the Jewish population has increased from 5-7 % at the end of the 19th century to 53% by the end of the 20th. I would suggest conflict was inevitable, regardless of religious belief. Indeed, as I said, Jews were being persecuted in various ‘Christian’ European countries and Russia etc over at least the past 150 years which led to this mass immigration. So hardly just Muslims who have shown hatred towards Jews.
As for Hitler, you will know that leaders of the IRA met with senior Nazis, and possibly Hitler himself, in the late 30s because they thought it would help with their goal of forcing the British out of Ireland. So Muslim leaders were not the only ones conniving with Hitler.
Given this ongoing persecution and the events of WW2, perhaps it was inevitable that many Jews wanted a homeland, though initially not all Jews agreed with that idea. But I dont see how bombing the hell out of Gaza and killing thousands of men, women and children will do anything for peace there.
Peter
Conflict was only inevitable because Arab Muslims in the region have consistently refused to recognise any internationally ratified settlement, and deny the right of Israel to existence.
The goal of Hamas is not the establishing of a Palestinian state, but the extermination of all Jews (‘from the river to the sea’).
I agree that Israel’s current response is inhumane and will not bring peace. But given that the Arab Muslim groups don’t want peace at any price, I am not sure what the solution is.
Agreed… I’m not sure that many people realise that HAMAS has a significant constitutional, statement. So e brief extracts show the problem.
Article 11 includes… The Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS) that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf (endowed) to all Muslim generations until the day of resurrection. It is not right to give up any part of it”
Article 13 “There is no solution to the Palestinian problem except by Jihad. The initiative, proposals, and international conferences are but a waste of time and sheer futility…”
Neither can I see a solution.. apart from what God might do
Many said the same about NI – insoluble. Arabs living in Palestine do not equal Hamas, though given many thousands have now been killed by the Israelis noone would be surprised if even more start to support such terrorists. I would imagine many Jews there have a similar Art 11 – it is their land forever.