Paul Huxley has written for Christian Concern asking whether there is a genuine “right wing revival” by which he seems to be referring to a revival of Christian religion on the political right, rather than a revival of right wing politics, there may be something of the latter going on with Reform UK and the Conservatives accounting between them for 50% of voting intentions in opinion polls, but that is a different question.
Huxley argues that:
These politicians [on the right] and activists genuinely seem to want Christians to be around. For decades, the political establishment has largely related to Christians by occasionally inviting them to a multi-faith drinks reception where they are thanked for running food banks, helping people out of debt and helping with all the other social problems. But this ‘right wing’ bunch actually want Christians around. There are genuine, faithful Christians in their friendship circles. They value free speech. They recognise the danger of Islam.
This is where it is worth pausing for a first time to check Huxley’s reasoning. Some people may have anecdotal experience of this kind of positive response but there are two faulty presumptions here. The first is that we can simply, negatively write off the left, based on perceptions and filling in the gaps from ignorance. Do we know if left wing politicians have Christians among their friendship groups? Do we know that they simply want to thank Christians for helping out with social problems? Would it be a problem if this was their starting point. Or to put it a different way. Suppose we were to say that those identified as “on the right” are happy to have Christians around in order to help promote their view of cultural identity and to stand up for “family values.” The crux of the matter, is that you only really know whether or not Christians are wanted around when you dare to disagree with the political ideology. Just as a Christian at a liberal dinner party may cause an awkward silence by talking about abortion, so too, you may well find yourself met with a frosty reception if you start to talk at a right wing gathering about how we treat another example of these little ones (the asylum seeker) or challenge views that arise out of the idolatry of ethno-cultural nationalism.
This is important because the question Huxley begins with is “Is the political right co-opting Christianity.” A vital question but not one he seems to make any effort to answer. Indeed, instead of attempting to answer the question, he offers a distraction by suggesting that those sceptical of the right:
“might be nervous about Jesus Christ ever being cited in political debates – to them, the nation can never be Christian. National institutions should be neutral to Jesus Christ at most and, if pushed, they might say that the Church is best off in permanent exile, downtrodden and oppressed until Jesus returns. I do not see this expectation in the Bible, where kings and rulers are continually called to submit to the King of King’s authority. Rulers that suppress God’s people are routinely punished and there is not the slightest hint that a Christian ruler should leave their faith at the door when legislating or judging.”
This is a poor and shallow distortion of the current discussion about “Christian Nationalism.” It is worth remembering that many Christians have sought to be involved and engaged with the shaping of public life and this goes back to the roots of Evangelicalism. Christians have been concerned about slavery and the slave trade, the welfare of workers, protection and education of children, provision of healthcare, overseas aid, stewardship of the environment and welcome for refugees. The point is that these are all ideas increasingly associated with the left.
As for his attempt to seek Scriptural backing for his rather triumphalist form of Christian Nationalism:, yes Scripture consistently insists that all people should and will bow the knee to king Jesus including rulers and authorities but there is a difference between saying both that they should and will and saying that this will happen now. This relies on an over realised eschatology for which we find no evidence in the New Testament. Yes, we see rulers punished and God’s people vindicated during the OT exiles but that of course needs to be filtered through NT interpretation. Huxley confuses eschatological hope with present expectations. Christian Nationalism is at root another form of the Prosperity Gospel.
In a bewildering section, Huxley writes:
“Other Christians might agree that Jesus calls even political leaders to obey him but have very different ideas to these groups about integration and immigration. After all, the Bible has many verses calling Israel to be hospitable to sojourners (Leviticus 19:33-34, for example). There is a good Christian instinct to protect the vulnerable, which at least some immigrants clearly are.
These points can’t simply be dismissed as unimportant. Nevertheless, they need context. Sojourners in Israel were very much to be held to Israel’s standards. Even on seemingly religious matters like the Sabbath, there was one law for all. Israel’s law did not make multicultural allowances for Baal-worshippers to set up parallel worship and legal systems. They didn’t turn a blind eye to grooming gangs because they feared being accused of Philistine-ophobia. And there is some Biblical precedent for being sceptical about the identity of even Israelites seeking to pass through borders (Judges 12:1-6).”
There seem to be a number of misunderstandings and confusions here. First, it confuses an approach that is drawn from Biblical principle with prescriptive detailed law. When we talk about what Scripture says about the sojourner, we are not suggesting that this offers a blueprint for immigration processes. That would be to read a system and need into the OT Law anachronistically. In terms of what it means to welcome sojourners at a more detailed level, we need to remember that the relationship between the OT context and todays is applied through Christ to God’s people, the church. This must also apply to the other things such as what do you do about today’s equivalent of Baal worships or Philistines. As for the bizarre use of Judges 12:1-6 which has nothing to do with immigration policies, the less said the better.
Huxley continues:
Can we all at least agree that it’s worth sharing the gospel with these people? Some Christians only seem to want either to distance themselves or to oppose them directly. I want to say a big ‘yes’ to the Lord’s prayer, to “Christ is King” and then help them see what that means.
I would say to him directly, Paul this is a significant misunderstanding of both what it means to seek to reach people with the good news and also the nature of the critique made by those of us objecting to the way that some Christians have allowed Christian language and symbolism to be co-opted not merely by those “on the right” but specifically the ideology of the far right, its ethno-cultural nationalism.
Let’s deal with both distortions in turn. First, of all, it isn’t about reaching a political ideology or movement. Therefore, our engagement with people who need to hear the Gospel is not about joining them on marches. It’s about living our lives amongst people. It’s about sharing our faith day to day. It’s about churches planted and revitalised in those communities. I will mkeep repeating this because it is important. When you are doing those things, then you will neither need to join on marches nor want your friends and neighbours to either. It is also worth remembering that the vast majority of council estate people, even and especially those who may be struggling the most in terms of being left behind were not on the march last Saturday. Nor, will you really get to the depth of both honesty and complexity of people’s hopes and fears on a march.
Secondly, it is not about distancing yourself from people when we say no to a tocix, anti-Christ idolatrous ideology. It is that, and that alone that we directly oppose. Again, we engage with people in day to day life and it is exactly there where we “say a big ‘yes’ to the Lord’s prayer, to ‘Christ is King’ and help them to see what that means.”
As I observed in an earlier article, this means subversive fulfilment. There is of course the “fulfilment” bit, when we truly acknowledge Christ as King, we see that it is in him that our hopes for justice, for security, for identity and hope are met. First though, there is the subversive bit, the bit that seems to be skipped at the moment where we address the distorted nature of such hopes, in this case, specifically in ethno-cultural nationalism. This is important because it means a call for repentance and that repentance is not just from middle class shibboleths. If your objection was that men inserted the ‘f-word’ into the statement Christ is King more than the objection that they had been drawn into marching under Tommy Robinson’s banner then you are straining at gnats and swallowing camels.
I want to pick up on a classic misunderstanding of how political intimidation works. He says:
It doesn’t mean deliberately intimidating people based purely on their immigration status or skin colour. It doesn’t mean filthy or aggressive language that stirs up hatred. It doesn’t mean any kind of hooliganism. These concerns about right-wing gatherings are overstated by some. But they are features within this movement and it would be wrong for any Christian to overlook them.
Of course it was frequently argued during the pro Palestinian demonstrations that followed October 7th that they were largely peaceful with minimal violence. Yet, I argued then as now that it was sill possible to be intimidatory and therefore by nature, suc actions were and are not peaceful. There may have been only a few iyobbish incidents but people still felt unsafe on the streets of London and just as the post Oct 7 rallies with their “from the river to the sea” chant s left British Jews feeling less safe, the combination of this rally and the overnight appearance of flags in neighbourhoods makes many of my friends feel just that little bit less safe.
Finally, Huxely says:
“If this right-wing revival is real, we need to see a growth in holiness and maturity over time. I cannot see the hearts of this movements’ leaders but if there is a true seed of Christianity, it must grow.”
Well, yes we should see growth in holiness and maturity from those who have professed Christ, if it is genuine. However, this skates over two crucial factors. Holiness means being distinct from. In other words, if people on the far right have turned to Christ, they need to leave the Far Right, its agenda and its tactics behind. Second, whilst we should take care about judging the hearts of others, I think we can do some discernment when heartsd are worn on sleaves. We can watch the menancing swagger of wanna-be deamgogues on stage. We can listern to their wordfs and the words of those they invite to speak, how they speak of others, how they seek to motivate, what they motivate to.
Huxley may be well intentioned in his desire to promote faith in the Gospel here in the UK but his understanding of what is going on and our response is both hopelessly naïve and wrong.
Faithroots 