Back in the aftermath of the first big Unite the Kingdom rally and at the time when there was a lot of attention on Christian Nationalism, Aaron Edwards wrote an article asking “Is Tommy Robinson welcome in your church?” I wrote in response to the question here. At the time, some of Aaron’s article was behind a paywall, so I could only respond to what was in the public domain. However, he has recently reshared the full article. I didn’t expect the rest of his article to substantially change my argument and so it has turned out, except that I was intrigued to discover that later in the article, Aaron had quoted and disagreed with a couple of things I had said. I’ll give you the section in full.
In a recent tweet, [Tommy] Robinson even went a step further, saying:
“Charlie [Kirk] has inspired me to attend church for the first time in years.”
I expect there are Christian leaders out there who are so obsessed with disassociating from “Right Wing people” that they cannot possibly see this as good news. My challenge to them is that if this is so, then perhaps they ought to stop calling themselves Christian leaders? In trying so desperately to stop the Gospel becoming “corrupted” by a form of politics which they dislike, they have shown their true political colours, neglecting the power of the Gospel itself to reach even the most uncouth of sinners.
One UK evangelical church leader said:
“We need to be 100 percent clear that you cannot claim to march under the banner of King Jesus and follow his lead whilst at the same time choosing to match under Tommy Robinson’s banner, following his lead.”
This is a classic zero-sum game framing: either you are with Christ or you are with Tommy Robinson. There is apparently no sense in which you could support, promote, or even follow Tommy Robinson on a political level and follow Christ. It has been decided that Christians are literally not allowed to support Tommy Robinson. This really is as divisive as it sounds, as he went on to show, saying:
“I do not see how it could be compatible for Christians or a church to be part of an Evangelical Gospel network or partnership and at the same time act or speak in a way that gives cover to the Far Right.”
Naturally, much depends on what is meant by “Far Right”. This is the chief problem, that many evangelicals simply don’t know enough about the Right because they have spent virtually all of their adult lives hearing it demonised.
They still imagine (because they have been told) that Tommy Robinson is some froth-mouthed angry racist, inciting violence and hatred against foreigners. It’s quite a claim to suggest that churches should essentially cut off other Christians because Right wing politics are actually deemed sub-Christian or inherently sinful. Why not say the same for Labour or Tory voters, whose parties support abortion? As ever, the call to be “wise” and “prudent” and “above politics” seems tilted in favour of an essentially Left-coded politic. Their scales are not as equal as they think, and many of them need the scales to fall from their eyes that they might see more clearly.
I want to pick up on a few things here. First of all, in the immediate build up to quoting me, Edwards says:
“I expect there are Christian leaders out there who are so obsessed with disassociating from “Right Wing people” that they cannot possibly see this as good news.
The first thing to point out is that it is perfectly reasonable and exactly in line with my own position that we should be able to respond positively to news that someone is engaging with the Gospel. We should be able to welcome all kinds of people to come into our churches. So, I am encouraged that Robinson has shown an interest in Christianity and would rejoice to know that he has put his trust in Jesus. That does not mean that I have to then agree with the ideology he has been promoting, the words he has been saying or the actions he has been taking. That’s true as much of the unknown, anonymous enquirer as it is of the big name celebrity. Sticking though with another celebrity example, we can be encouraged that Russell Brand has professed faith and been baptised. This does not mean that we have to simply accept and agree with many of his past actions, it does not mean that we need to accept and agree with all the political positions or even theological positions that he articulates today.
Secondly in response to the first quote from my article, Edwards writes:
“This is a classic zero-sum game framing: either you are with Christ or you are with Tommy Robinson. There is apparently no sense in which you could support, promote, or even follow Tommy Robinson on a political level and follow Christ. It has been decided that Christians are literally not allowed to support Tommy Robinson. This really is as divisive as it sounds, as he went on to show, saying:”
This is an intriguing argument. First of all, if this is “a classic zero-sum game” then it is a game that Edwaards must presumably accuse Jesus himself of and the old testament prophets. The Old Testament prophets insisted that you could not tag idols alongside YHWH, Jesus said that we were either for him or against him. There is an exclusiveness to following Jesus, Further, there would be a number of banners that Edwards would say that we cannot and should not march under whilst claiming to follow Jesus, one example he has prominently talked about is the Pride/LGBT flag. Is that divisive?
The point is that I’m not merely suggesting that you cannot align with a politician whilst being a Christian. What I’ve been arguing is that the ideology behind Unite the kingdom as personified by Tommy Robinson (noting the use of the pseudonym rather than his personal name) is seriously wrong to the point of being idolatrous. I have set out in detail why this is so in my look at Christian Nationalism. I’ve also taken time to engage with what Robinson has said in his own words here.
This brings me to the third issue: I wrote:
““I do not see how it could be compatible for Christians or a church to be part of an Evangelical Gospel network or partnership and at the same time act or speak in a way that gives cover to the Far Right.”
Edwards responds by saying:
“Naturally, much depends on what is meant by “Far Right”. This is the chief problem, that many evangelicals simply don’t know enough about the Right because they have spent virtually all of their adult lives hearing it demonised.
They still imagine (because they have been told) that Tommy Robinson is some froth-mouthed angry racist, inciting violence and hatred against foreigners. It’s quite a claim to suggest that churches should essentially cut off other Christians because Right wing politics are actually deemed sub-Christian or inherently sinful. Why not say the same for Labour or Tory voters, whose parties support abortion? As ever, the call to be “wise” and “prudent” and “above politics” seems tilted in favour of an essentially Left-coded politic. Their scales are not as equal as they think, and many of them need the scales to fall from their eyes that they might see more clearly.
This is presumptuous. Edwards assumes that I don’t know anything about “the Right” and that all I’ve heard is its demonisation. So, let me go back on some background. I was born in 1974, that makes me a little older than Edwards. I grew up in West Yorkshire and yes, the dominant culture in northern cities was left-wing, old Labour. However, my own family had some history of supporting the Conservatives and I decided to make my own mind up, I was interested in politics. I joined the local Conservative Party association and at University started a branch of the Conservative Students before sitting on the students national executive as the Yorkshire Area chairman. I’ve done my time standing on a Student Union concourse engaging in debate , being heckled and indeed physically mobbed by the far left.
At the time, I would have identified as Thatcherite. I would have been pro low taxes, privatisation, control of inflation, strong defence, removal of union power etc. I would remain supportive of much of that now because I’m convinced that those are things that actually care for the must vulnerable in our society the best. I however would be cautious about those of us in public ministry getting too closely linked with party/tribal politics.
I would also have seen a commitment to law and order including capital punishment and wanted to see significant controls on immigration. I’ve changed my mind on those things as I’ve looked at them again and in the latter case from much personal experience as a pastor of working in a multi-ethnic context and with asylum seekers. Additionally, this gave me opportunity to reflect more deeply on my childhood experience growing up in a multicultural city.
Whilst I have come to different conclusions on those two points, I recognise that the opposing views are valid and that they reflect a substantial position within right wing politics. However, exactly because my political experience was on the right, I suspect that I may well be in a position to understand what the Far Right is. The Far Right is a different beast and whilst at times, we see examples of right-wing politicians engaging in rhetoric which seems closer to or designed to appeal to the Far Right, the difference remains. For example, I don’t consider Reform UK and Nigel Farage as being “Far Right”, though I would have significant reservations about the rhetoric and approach they have taken.
When we talk about the Far Right, we are specifically talking about an ideology centred around ethno-cultural nationalism. All policies from economics to immigration revolve around that. We also tend to see that such politics emphasises a strong leader and that there is a singling out and demonisation of one or more ethnic groups. Historically this has often taken the form of antisemitism but from the 1960s-80s it was black Afro-Carribeans who experienced such demonisation. Since the turn of the century, the focus has turned to South Asian, specifically Afghan and Pakistani Muslim immigrants.
I’ve repeatedly made those points and I await someone, whether Aaron or another representative of the Christian Nationalist movement to engage with the detailed substance of my argument.
In answer to Aaron’s question about why not say this about Labour or Torys due to their party’s support of abortion. There is a clear difference between a movement that unites around a specific ideology where that ideology goes against or rivals the Gospel and recognising that worldly political parties will be a mixed bag in terms of what they support and oppose. In the specific example, my understanding is that mainstream parties treat the issue of abortion as a conscience matter. There are many within those parties who disagree with those policies. In fact, in recent history, the Conservatives would have had a policy of reducing the time limit for abortion and seeking to make it rare. More comparable would be whether it is compatible to be a follower of Jesus with being part of a specific pro-abortion campaign such as Abortion Rights.
I’m not convinced from reading Aaron’s article that he has really understood or engaged with my position. Nor indeed and I convinced that he fully understands right wing politics or the Far Right. I’m open to conversation and discussion about that.
I’m sure that even if he hasn’t yet had chance to consider all of the issues and so isn’t convinced by my assessment of Tommy Robinson, Christian Nationalism and the Far Right that he can acknowledge that in principle it is not divisive to call for us to separate ourselves from idolatry.
For my detailed response to Christian Nationalism see:
Faithroots 