I wrote earlier this month about the need for national church leaders to speak up clearly on the issue of Christian Nationalism and why the Gospel and the Cross can have nothing to do with ethno-cultural nationalism, or to give it its proper name “fascism.” I wrote more because this is what should be happening than out of any great hope or expectation that anything would happen. I think the reality is that beyond those like John Stevens in the UK and Russell Moore in the US, we cannot really expect much more to happen.
Why is this? Well, I think there are three ways of illustrating the problem. First, we can quote again, Russell Moore’s words on the US situation:
“Some older leaders don’t take it seriously because they think the numbers of these young men are so few, and some because they think the numbers are so many.”
His point was that there are still a lot of people who don’t see the issue as that serious, they think it is limited to a few noisy people online. Moore points out that things can start small but have quite an impact quickly. Further, I don’t think it is a generational thing, many miss the extent to which social media and the internet democratises voices. Church leaders would do well to check the extent to which congregation members listen more to what they hear on podcasts and watch on YouTube than what elders in the local church say and certainly than what they might read in books. This is just as true in the UK as in the US.
Secondly, I want to pick up on the kinds of responses I’ve heard in private or at a more personal level. These are the kinds of things I’ve been hearing for some time and they run along the lines that people don’t really think they have much of a platform, their potential audience is small, they don’t have capacity/time to engage on this matter and that because people will have different political views, it will be divisive. It’s funny isn’t it how people have time to tell us why they don’t have time to say and do things when actually making a clear statement on a false and wicked ideology wouldn’t take any longer. I suspect that the crucial issue here is the fear that controversy will be followed by division and perhaps that churches, networks and organisations might lose people and support. Though, please note this, to choose to not speak out is to take a side. You are happily saying that you don’t mind losing people like me and then many others who are crying out for people to speak up.
Thirdly, I think that a major issue is crystalised by those comments to the effect that church leaders don’t want to get into politics, they want to be above the fray. This suggests that quite a few people still haven’t grasped what is at stake spiritually. This isn’t just about a bit of a difference between the political left and right within the confines of Evangelical diversity. Here for example is the response of Affinity, a grouping that brings together some of the key networks and charities on the conservative wing of Evangelicalism, to the Unite the Kingdom rally. Their National Director, Graham Nicholls writes:
“There is understandable concern amongst Christians that some of the organisers and speakers are convicted criminals and that some of the language used in speeches and by a few marchers was demeaning, insulting, and abusive toward people from other nations. Additionally, some violence occurred. Many worry that the use of Christian music, prayers, and people carrying crosses falsely appropriates and misrepresents the Christian faith.
We want to be clear that we condemn all hateful language and violent behaviour, and we recognise the need for careful discernment by Christians in the associations we form. As Affinity, we do not endorse the policy platform of any political party or movement.
Whilst Nicholls speaks up, as others have done about violence, abuse and criminality, he is quick to place Affinity as neutral on policy platforms and movements. The implication is that Affinity are neutral and do not have a stance on Tommy Robinson and Unite the Kingdom. Yet, this is to miss the point that Tommy Robinson is a former BNP member and one of the founders of the EDL. I presume and hope that Affinity are not neutral on those parties and the specific movement that they have been part of.
Further, Nicholls goes on:
Others have pointed out that a diverse range of people attended the march, including many young families, older individuals, and sincere, concerned Christians. These attendees were expressing their frustration that their voices are not being heard regarding the erosion of British values and the challenges posed by unsustainable levels of immigration.
While acknowledging these concerns, we see a broader opportunity in the march’s reflection of a desire for values that strengthen society. We welcome the recognition amongst many marchers that Christian values have a positive effect on communities and nations.
To be clear, we do not equate carrying a cross or using Christian symbols with being a Christian. However, we are glad that some people recognise the value of our Christian heritage and are, in some way, seeking to reconnect with it. Surely, this cultural moment presents many gospel opportunities for us
My concern here is that this starts to link specific political platforms such as the anti immigration platform with “British values” and then with Christian heritage and then suggests this is a cultural movement which gives us opportunities for the Gospel. Such a take is at best naïve. There is a failure to grasp the nature of the ideology that we are dealing with and the foothold that it is getting, through different expressions into parts of the church.
I was recently asked if I was worried about UTK marking a rise of the far right in allegiance with or within Evangelicalism. My response was that I wasn’t worried that we were going to see a great surge of far right support. Far more concerning to me is not what some very loud and vocal people are saying. It’s what too many leaders are not saying. This is not a time to be silent.
Faithroots 