In amongst the responses to the Tommy Robinson march, I came across this one from a pastor who had been part of the march.
It’s not an easy listen but worth persevering with. You get an insight into the arguments and methods used by those seeking to justify Christians marching under the banner of the far right.
In terms of the general tactics note that there is a lot of attempting to justify marching because “the Gospel was being preached.”. Now I cannot comment on what was said but there are a few questions I have. First, has the Gospel been preached if we have not challenged the specific sin and idolatry present? What Gospel was preached? In what way does this justify marching under the far right’s leadership and banner?
Also note the emotional blackmail. There are a lot of big claims that this is where God is moving. Therefore if you are against this far right led march, you are somehow against the Gospel and what God is doing. I want to counter that with two important points. First, there are Christians witnessing , living and serving in deprived working class communities who opt not to participate. I am more interested in what people are doing for 365 days than for one. Second, what about what many of us are seeing happen amongst immigrant communities and asylum seekers. It is arrogant on any level to claim that the thing you are passionate about is the thing and place, the only place where God is moving
Most disturbing of all is the man’s handling of Scripture. His talk is peppered with references to “the Greek”, I must admit that the more that phrase appears in a talk, the less I’m convinced that the speaker is conversant with NT Greek. It is a good signal to check things out. So let’s just check out two things he claims about Matthew 16:18.
First, he says that the verse uses two different terms for rock, one to refer to a stone in the hand and the other to a giant mountain like rock “you are a little rock and in this big rock I will build my church.”. Except in reality, the same root word is used “you are petros and on this petra I will build my church”. The ending of nouns change not to significantly change meaning but to indicate whether you have a subject, object or dative and to distinguish things like feminine and masculine endings . In this case, petros is masculine and petra feminine. It is possible that a distinction is being made between an individual rock and a rock formation. This helps us to distinguish that the church isn’t built on an individual but rather the confession is made. It is this that would be more important not the size of either. However, it could be simply that petra is amended to a masculine ending to adapt its usage as a man’s name.
I’m not sure though as to why the preacher makes such a big deal of something that isn’t a big deal in koine Greek apart from that it gives him an air of superiority over his hearers.
Secondly, he talks about the word ekklessia, usually translated as “church” but referring to assembly is a reference to the Roman idea of an assembly as the place through which government will be exercised. Therefore, Jesus is saying “the gates of Hades will not prevail against my government”. This is a classic example of a half truth. Yes, the idea of an assembly as a means through which to exercise Roman rule and dominion, however I’m not convinced he has grasped quite how that functioned. Secondly, in Jesus’ case, speaking to a Jewish audience, he does not need to pull on a Greco-Roman concept. Rather, his hearers would be familiar with the OT concept of the assembly of God’s people.
Now, yes, there is a sense in which the point is that nothing can prevail against Christ’s rule and authority in the text but the point is nothing to do with nations and politics but everything to do with God’s people.
Sure, there is a political dynamic to the Gospel as it confronts worldly powers but that includes confronting demagogues and their marches just as much as prime ministers and presidents.
It is saddening not just that God’s word was manipulated for a person’s political agenda but also that instead of this being challenged, it was applauded.
Faithroots 