“Christ over all” says that it
“Is a fellowship of pastor-theologians dedicated to helping the church see Christ as Lord and everything else under his feet.”
Those are noble aims from a blog that says it comes from a “Reformed Baptist heritage”. With that in mind, I was saddened to see them publish this article. I note that the article fails entirely to engage with Scripture or the reformed confessions. Yes, a couple of Bible verses are superficially mentioned but these are not engaged with beyond surface eisegesis. I will return to those verses and how they are handled later on.
Fighting age men
However, what we are primarily offered is a rant and a highly manipulative one at that. Imagine if I were to describe to you how thousands of uninvited fighting age men are invading a place. How would that make you feel and what would you assume that I was talking about? To help you out “fighting age” apparently refers to men aged between 18 and between 42-60. In other words, depending on context I may or may not fall within that category. It simply means “fit and active” adults. It’s those of us who if there was a war could be called up. So, I could be referring to the many football fans who have arrived in the US over the past few weeks, the annual exodus of Brits to European beaches or indeed, the Tommy Robinson marches in London. And yes, to many of the inhabitants of those places, football fans, tourists and demonstrators are unwelcome. This is how Aaron Edwards, the blog author uses the terminology:
“Today, boatloads of fighting-age Muslim men are still arriving on British shores day after day, week after week, year after year, posing as refugees or asylum seekers.[4] They were not invited, and yet rather than being refused entry, arrested, or deported, they are instead welcomed with open arms, put up in free hotels, given free meals, even free phones.[5] If it all sounds a little mad, that’s because it is.”
Do you see what happens here? The author inserts that little phrase “fighting age” into the sentence as though it makes a difference. The intent is to give the impression that these are soldiers, dangerous and violent. Yet we might simply report that these are adult men.
Secondly, notice how they are described as “posing as refugees or asylum seekers.” There is an immediate presumption that this is not true, that it is fake. What qualifications, knowledge or experience in the question does Edwards have? My own competency in this area is that I read law and also have significant experience of working with asylum seekers as a pastor in an urban, multi-ethnic context. It is important therefore to note that the majority of asylum seekers to the UK come to the country from places where there is known and recognised conflict, corruption and oppression against those who hold minority religious or political positions. In the UK, currently around about 66% of asylum cases are eventually approved once a thorough process has been conducted and that figure rises to 80% from countries including Afghanistan, Eritrea, Syria and Sudan.
A further consideration to be aware of is that the asylum system sets assumptions in place which in fact make it harder not easier for people with more complex cases to receive a positive conclusion. Cases I know of personally include a family who were subjected to horrific torture by South American drug cartels. In another case, a mother and daughter eventually received asylum following fleeing years of domestic violence, rape and sexual abuse with the threat of FGM against the child. They were unable to gain justice or protection in their own country because of corruption and again the influence of gangs on the police and justice system. In a third case, a Christian family were able to gain asylum only when they were able to track down newspaper articles with photos showing that they were publicly known and under death threats.
Bad Samaritans
Edwards goes on to say:
“In my own homeland of Great Britain, mass immigration is justified by the relatively recent idea of “multiculturalism,” the idea that a diversity of foreign nationalities enriches a particular national culture far and wide.[2] It is described by its ardent defenders almost like a magic spell, a liberating force for tolerance and inclusivity. We are told we must keep believing this even when it becomes very clear that it fundamentally erodes vital aspects of that very national culture, leading to the loss of liberties and freedom of speech as a direct consequence.[3] Those who say otherwise tend to be shamed as lacking in education or empathy, leading more and more people to refuse to allow themselves to think or say otherwise.
There is much to unpack concerning the idea of multiculturalism and more than I can do justice to in this article. It is worth noting that the concept is one under debate at the moment. The current UK opposition leader, Kemi Badenoch, herself a Nigerian immigrant has argued consistently against multi-culturalism and there are those who argue that there should be a single cultural for a multi-ethnic society.
There are two challenges with regards to that. The first is as to “what then is that culture.” A simplistic response would be to argue that it is “Christian culture”. How though do we define Christian culture? Is there even such a thing as a single Christian culture? I would suggest not. My experience of Southeast English Reformed Baptist culture was different to the conservative evangelical Anglican culture I met at Theological College and different again to the kind of broader Evangelical culture of Yorkshire that I grew up in. The reality is that culture is diverse. Consider the differences between the cultural preferences of Gen Z v boomers, working class v Middle class, North v South, Scotland v England etc and the distinctions often formed around musical tastes, emo, grunge, hip hop and pop.
Multiculturalism may be a new term but it is arguable that it is not a new idea. In essence it is the belief that both unity and diversity are possible. The point is that there is at the same time, one culture and within it many cultures. For those who mock such a possibility as impossible, we might gently point them to the way that over the years, opponents of Christianity have mocked the possibility of one God and three distinct persons. Theologically, we recognise that the Trinitarian God created a world in which there is unity and diversity, called to himself a people who were a mixed gathering when they left Egypt, redeemed a multicultural people from all nations and will receive eternal worship from every tribe and tongue where the idea of “tongue” goes beyond the language you speak and reflects culture. Christians had better get used to multiculturalism now because they have an eternity ahead to enjoy it.
One of Edward’s tactics is to make claims about the advocates of positions he holds, selecting the “ardent”, failing to name or cite them and then attacking their presumed position. Who are these “ardent” defenders, what do they actually say and since when did it become academic methodology to attack at the extremes rather than engage the strongest case? Edwards claims that it is him and those who hold his position who are shamed and silenced but I would encourage him to evaluate the impact of his own rhetoric.
I don’t know if I’m counted as an ardent supporter but I know first of all, that as someone who has spent the majority of his life in multicultural contexts that I recognise the strains and challenges, the limitations of multiculturalism but I also have lived experience in the community and in church life of the positives.
I had not heard the term “bad Samaritan” used until I read this paragraph:
“It could be said that the European immigration crisis has essentially been made possible by a mutation in the logic of the Good Samaritan. That’s why even many Christians find it hard to say much against the immigration problem,[6] because secular globalists—in repugnance of the historic “Ordo Amoris” regarding the primary duty to care for one’s own family and people in the first instance[7]—have trained them to think that “welcoming the stranger” applies at a political, national level, even when it may threaten the safety of one’s own people. Those who oppose Islamic immigration too strongly are aggressively attacked and smeared for being “bad Samaritans.” Some are subjected to intensive lawfare in the hope of being driven to silence, while others may even be imprisoned for years for a single social media post in a moment of frustration.[8]
I am intrigued to know what this “mutation of the logic of the Good Samaritan” is and indeed what Edwards considers to be the actual logic. I note that his paragraph repeats JD Vance’s reference to Ordo Amoris first without consideration for whether we should prioritise historical tradition over Scripture and secondly, I’m afraid with the same misunderstanding of what Augustine’s Ordo Amoris was. The point of the doctrine was not that we prioritise our ethnic group over others. Rather, it is the proper ordering of our affections. We are first to love God and then our neighbour (including relatives, friends and even enemies) and these should be prioritised over self-love (or inverted love turned in on itself) and over things.
Indeed, that is the very logic of the parable of the Good Samaritan. The neighbour for whom love should be prioritised under love for God turned out not to be the one from the same ethnic or religious group but the one considered an enemy. Indeed, he turned out to be the one who acted as a neighbour, in other words, he acted righteously. On a side note, we might find it helpful to read the conclusion about the Samaritan in the light of Judah’s forced recognition that it was Tamar who had been vindicated as more righteous than him (there’s a discussion for another day).
Edwards wants to reverse victimhood and claim that it is not the asylum seekers who have fled extortion, blackmail, kidnap, torture, rape and the threat of murder but the native Englishman who is the victim in the parable of the Good Samaritan. He writes:
“Few globalists have considered that these “bad Samaritans” actually resemble the dying man lying on the ground, rather than the bandits who put him there. In a roundabout way, the liberal tolerance agenda that led to the multicultural ideology that permeates British institutions today displays more of a tolerance for the bandits than the actual victims of injustice. No case demonstrates this more prominently than that of the Englishman, Henry Nowak, an eighteen-year-old student who was stabbed by a Sikh man while on his way home from a night out, only for the man and his family to call the police and claim that Nowak had racially abused them. Due to the freighted “anti-racism” priorities of the British police, when the officers arrived on the scene they immediately favoured the Sikhs’ testimony while denying urgent medical care to Nowak, whose quiet pleas of “I’ve been stabbed” and “I can’t breathe” were initially not believed, ultimately allowing him to bleed to death in front of them. So entrenched is multicultural ideology that a spurious accusation of “racism” may even hold the power over life or death.
This is interesting on a number of levels. We have constantly been told that victimhood ideology is dangerous and yet we see it here at work. This flows contrary to the human to human logic of the Good Samaritan story where we are meant to want to be the Samaritan, the one who ends up justified. Of course, the Gospel kernel in the parable does invert that. We want to be the rescuer but end up being a combination of the as dead victim, the vicious bandits and the hypocritical religious men. We do need the rescuer and that is Jesus.
Secondly, Edwards repeats a number of incorrect claims about the Henry Nowak case. To correct the record.
- The police were not called out in response to a false claim of racial abuse but one of physical assault. In fact the technical legal term for the accusation is “assault and battery”. That’s what they responded to initially
- It is normal to respond initially to what the person who has made the call and presented as the victim of crime says. That’s what you expect the police to act on. If you called the police and said that there was a burglar in my house and they had attacked me, You would expect the police to come and arrest the alleged burglar. You would not expect them to immediately suspect me, arrest me and remove me from my house even though it may turn out later that you had deceived the police and in fact had dragged someone in off the street and falsely imprisoned them.
- Within a short time of arriving on the scene the police did established that Nowak had been stabbed. They called for an ambulance, attempted CPR and arrested the true perpetrator.
- The pathologist’s view was that earlier discovery of the injuries would sadly not have changed the outcome.
- The perpetrator has been convicted and given a significant sentence. His ethnic and religious identity did not mitigate this. Indeed, he appears to have been judged more rigorously for seeking to misuse his cultural identity and so bring dishonour on it.
- The police officers involved are subject to an investigation. It is recognised that they made mistakes. The question now is as to their culpability and the seriousness of it. The result is that they are specifically being investigated for gross misconduct.
Even if Nowak’s case did turn out to be as Edwards described, this would make it one example of failings due to racial factors where a white person was failed against the many examples available of where black and Asian people have suffered racially motivated violence. We as a collective entity are not the victims by a long stretch.
Islam and Muslims
Edwards has written frequently about the threat of Islam and I’ve responded in the past. It is important to make a comparison and a distinction. My parents lived in China for 10 years in later life. I note that dad was in his 50s so technically just about came into the fighting age category. They went there for work but believed God had not randomly placed them there for their own benefit. They used their time there and gifts to share the Gospel and encourage believers. A friend of mine spent a few years in China, intentionally going as a missionary in order to share the Gospel and make disciples. Meanwhile many western expats live in China, some professing faith, some as nominal Christians but there just to get on with their lives, work and enjoy another culture (though plenty actually collect together to avoid the local culture and live on MacDonalds and Pizza). The Chinese authorities are afraid of all of these “Christians” because they think they are there to take over the country and make it into a Christian state, The reality is that none of those people have that intention.
At the same time, in case we miss it, there are Christians that hold to a doctrine of Christian Nationalism whose intention would be to take over business, arts, education, science and politics if they were able to get a foothold in China. We understand the distinction when it applies to us. Or maybe those who hold to Christian Nationalism don’t. If they think that theirs is the only true expression of Christianity, maybe they can only see one true expression of Islam.
The reality is that there are those who believe pure Islam must be all consuming and so political. We cannot ignore their existence and agenda. However, there are also Muslims who want to share their faith and encouraged others to consider Islam. I’ve had Muslim friends attempt to covert me, inviting me to Iftar meals even as I’ve been trying to share the good news of Jesus with them and invite them to Messy Church or a carol service. In my experience, many Muslims simply want to get on with their lives. Some continue to practice their religion. Some are worried that younger generations are becoming increasingly secularised and indeed would prefer their children to go to a church kids club or even a Christian school than that.[1]
Again, space here prevents me from going into detail on Edwards woeful misrepresentation of crime statistics in detail. It is not the case though that crime has increased as a result of migration. In regards to rape, after significant criticism over many years, the methodology for recording rape and sexual assault was changed in 2014. This included a mandatory requirement for third party reports to be logged as allegations.
Misuse of Scripture
And so we come to the quick scripture grab at the end.
Christ mercifully forgave Peter his moment of cowardice when Peter said, “I do not know him.” But there is a worse cowardice even than that. Remember, He says to the Laodiceans: “because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth” (Rev. 3:16). He wants nothing to do with the kind of limp faith that cheerily tells people they stand for Christ yet refuses to actually stand up when it counts. We must not sell out to the world by offering them a superficial, cut-price Christ. He is king of kings and Lord of Lords with “all things” under his feet (Eph. 1:22). This is why He is not apathetic to what happens in culture. It’s part of His domain, and He calls upon His faithful followers to stand up and defend a culture with Christian ideals. Doing this allows us to continue the Great Commission in calling all nations “to observe all that I have commanded you” (Matt. 28:20) for the good of the nations and the glory of Christ.
What Edwards does here is he employs those texts to endorse not Gospel passion but a particular political agenda around immigration. This is an appalling misuse of Scripture. Indeed, it would be “lukewarm” and a failure to allow Jesus not to identify that.
Revelation 3 is nothing to do with what one or other person considers “limp faith”. Indeed, a close look at the text suggests it isn’t much to do with half-heartedness at all, as it has often been read. Look at the full text.
“15 “‘I know your works: you are neither cold nor hot. Would that you were either cold or hot! 16 So, because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth. 17 For you say, “I am rich, I have prospered, and I need nothing,” not realizing that you are wretched, pitiable, poor, blind, and naked. 18 I counsel you to buy from me gold refined by fire, so that you may be rich, and white garments so that you may clothe yourself and the shame of your nakedness may not be seen, and salve to anoint your eyes, so that you may see. 19 Those whom I love, I reprove and discipline, so be zealous and repent. 20 Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and eat with him, and he with me. 21 The one who conquers, I will grant him to sit with me on my throne, as I also conquered and sat down with my Father on his throne. 22 He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.’”
The problem in Laodicea was not limpness. Indeed, those believers may have been quite confident and robust in defending what they believed that had. They though they were spiritually wealthy but were poor. So, Jesus offers them his gold to pay off their debt and his clothes to cover their shame so that they would be clothed in righteousness. In other words, their need was not to be more fired up, more robust about this or that issue but rather, they needed the Gospel, they needed to get close to Christ again.
Ephesians 1:22 points to the eschatological reality that Christ is king over all things. Note that in Scripture it is God the Father, not us who puts all things under Christ’s feet. Remember that this is the conclusion of an incredible passage that points to how God has blessed us, his sovereign election and the salvation we have in Christ.
Edwards then talks about Matthew 28. The point of Matthew 28 is that we are to make disciples and they are to be conformed to Christ, to learn to obey him. At no point in his article does Edwards demonstrate that his position on immigration reflects in any shape or form Christ’s commands. Further, if I may be so bold, he puts himself in contradiction with the very people who have taken Christ’s command seriously and who live whether intentionally or not in contexts where many Muslims live and use that opportunity to seek to make disciples.
Conclusion
I’d like to conclude by asking what it does mean for Christ to be overall in the matter of immigration, asylum and multiculturalism. I have had this conversation with many asylum seekers over the years and for them it has been the challenging conversation about whether or not they are able to trust Christ whether or not they win their case, whether or not a return to their home country leads to further persecution and even death. It means for Iranian believers here that they have an understandable desire to get back one day to a free Iran but also the certain hope that in a CS Lewis Shadowlands kind of way, one day they will be truly home and free.
For white British Christians what does it mean though? Well, yes it does mean that we will have a concern for the public sphere. There should be freedom to disagree here. As a Christian I can disagree with other believers on the mechanics of economics (socialist or free market), nuclear deterrent or pacifism, climate change and republicanism v monarchy. We should be able to disagree over immigration policy.
However, what is important is that if Christ is Lord over all then, that will start with full Lordship in my life. It should mean that my affections are changed to reflect that order described above, love of God first, neighbour including perceived enemy second and myself and my comfort last. It should mean that my thoughts will be governed by trust in God not fear of others. It should mean a commitment to speaking the truth in any debate that is had.
[1] I’m aware of the concept of Taqiyya and the suggestion that this is all a great disceptation but such arguments misunderstand the nature of Taqiyya and indeed overlook the way that the very concept has found its way into the methodology of some Christian Nationalist advocates including those from a Federal Vision perspective.
Faithroots 