I’ve just made some updates to my book “Against Christian Nationalism”. One important inclusion is a chapter on how the movement has engaged with the issue of antisemitism. I’ve included it below. To be clear up front, the thesis of this chapter is not that prominent UK Christian Nationalists are intentionally promoting antisemitism. Rather, it’s that how the movement is engaging the issue needs deeper analysis.
Aaron Edwards writes on his blog, The Good fight about “the dubious fear of antisemitism and the curious promotion of a new magic term.” [1] The “new magic term” in question is “Judeo-Christianity”. Edwards asks:
“Why has the use of the term, “Judeo-Christianity” become a new gatekeeper? Why are so many Christian leaders promoting it? Why are some Christians getting in trouble for opposing it? What is at stake when we lessen the distinction between Jews and Christians? ” [2]
The magic term gate keeper
For Edwards, the issue here is the relationship of Christianity and Judaism. He goes on:
“The topic of “Israel” and “the Jews” is so fraught with controversy from so many different angles today that it becomes difficult to wade in unless you have a very good reason to do so. [3]
He writes:
“The use of “Judeo-Christianity” did not come from nowhere. Its normative use—like many things today which we are told to just accept—came within that most troubled of ideological eras, the 20th century. I had previously thought it was invented in the 20th century but have since been corrected by some who have seen evidence of it in the nineteenth century too. Whatever the precise birth of the term itself, it has not been around long at all relative to most of church history, and it seems to have come to ever-greater prominence in the 20th century, especially post-WWII. The first time I came across it being used was not among faithful church pastors; it was either from academics or now-apostate “emergent church” leaders like Pete Rollins or Rob Bell in the mid-2000s.
Now, the term may be novel in that it dates to within the past 200 years, though many other terms and concepts have similar and shorter histories. It may or may not have been used substantially by the emergent church, though however I must admit that I’ve not tended to see the term used in a sinister fashion.
Essentially the term is used to indicate a shared heritage between Christianity and Judaism. Christianity originated out of Second Temple Judaism and shares the Hebrew Scriptures, or Old Testament with Judaism. I would assume that this is uncontroversial. Initially the term seems to have been coined in reference to Jewish converts to Christianity. It also has been historically used in order to push back against antisemitism. Further, some have employed it to emphasise continuity between Judaism and Christianity.[4]
In terms of contemporary usage, I’m most often seen it used in reference to ethics. Again the aim here seems to be to acknowledge a continuity between Christian and Jewish ethics with Christian ethics drawing much on the Law of Moses including the Ten Commandments and the command to love your neighbour as yourself. And to be fair, most of our ethical arguments whether on right to life, gender or sexuality do tend to be rooted in the same Scripturaly commands that Christians and Jews share though I would add that as Christians, we should have more to add because, as Oliver Donavan argued in his book, Resurrection and Moral Order, a truly Christian ethic is gospel centric and rooted in the fact of Jesus’ death and resurrection. Again, I would have expected this to be uncontroversial. However, here is an extended quote from Edwards:
“Ultimately, the danger with the Judeo-Christian concept is that people end up thinking, “Oh, so I guess you don’t need Christianity per se because it’s more like a ‘bolt-on’ to Judaism, or an ‘optional extra’?” Alongside such thinking, Christians—as noted earlier—can be subtly taught to see the Old Testament as a “Jewish” book rather than a Christian book, something over which contemporary Jewish rabbis have some kind of equal interpretative claim.
Christians too easily concede on this point. Indeed, if the Old Testament is not seen as a Christian book—if it is seen as the true spiritual “property” of the Jews and really only “on loan” to us, or only ours “second-hand,” as it were—then neither can the New Testament be considered a Christian book. Why? Because the New Testament’s revelatory authority in and through the Messianic fulfilment in Christ is wholly reliant upon it being a faithful fulfilment of what the Old Testament actually teaches, not what the apostles later decided the Old Testament teaches retrospectively.
This is not mere nit-picking. It’s hugely significant. If you dilute the authority of the Old Testament as being a book that truly belongs to the Church alone—a book that is primarily for and about the Church—if you think of it really as a book primarily for observant Jews irrespective of their belief in Christ, you have not only short-changed the message of the New Testament, you have also short-changed the Old Testament itself. The Old Testament points to the New as the faithful fulfilment of the Old for the whole people of God, inclusive of Jews and Gentiles. This was always God’s plan through his promise to Abraham, whom Paul refers to as being justified by faith in the same way as all Christians (Rom. 4:3), who are themselves blessed “along with Abraham” (Gal. 3:9).
The Biblical foundation of Christianity is certainly Hebraic, and Gentiles have been grafted onto the tree that was once not their own, and so have no cause for arrogance (cf. Rom. 11:18). But that is now unmistakeably a Christian tree, not a “Jewish” tree (the way most people understand what it is to be Jewish today, whether culturally or religiously). Nor is it even a “Gentile” tree, or a “Judeo-Christian” tree. It is a Christian tree all the way down, whose branches are comprised of those saved not by their ethnicity or their observance of the Law but by Christ alone.” [5]
I think it is worth picking up on some points Edwards makes here that are worthy of consideration and do push us in the direction of truth, even if that truth is controversial. The question about whether Scripture is Christian or not matters. I would not, however, be having that conversation about separate elements of Scripture. What I would be saying is that all Scripture is a unit together. I think that does better justice to the crucial point that it all finds its telos in Christ.
Further, I want to emphasise that you need the whole to understand any part. The Gospels and Paul’s letters make no sense if read without a deep understanding of the Law and the Prophets. Revelation needs Genesis, Daniel and Zechariah. This must work both ways though. The Law, Prophets and Writings only make sense in Christ. So of course, Jesus’ challenge to the religious leaders of his day came down to whether or not they really understood Scripture. All the same, I don’t think that, biblically we can simply say that this means that Jews have forfeited ownership of their Scriptures. Even Paul does not seem to go that far. He writes:
“Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision? 2 Much in every way. To begin with, the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God[6]
Note, though that there is a crucial word there. Those oracles were “entrusted”. We should be wary about talking about Scripture as Jewish or Christian, it’s God’s Word. Neither religion can have any claim on ownership. God’s precious words do not work like that. The Hebrew Scriptures were entrusted to the Jewish people and in that sense continue to be entrusted to them for a purpose, to lead them to the Messiah. They have also now been entrusted to Gentiles as well. Further, the Gospels and Epistles have also been entrusted to both Jew and Gentile alike, it is down to them whether they choose to accept them.
However, Edward’s expressed fear, that references to Judaeo-Christianity are leading to us thinking of Christianity as a mere bolt=on seem unfounded. Indeed, the whole point is that the Gospel isn’t a bolt-on, an afterthought but rather the natural and necessary fulfilment. It’s not “Christian all the way down.” It’s Christ all the way down.
What this means though is that the question of who owns Scripture isn’t so much to do with the ethical question. The ethical question is more to do with the cultural and ethnic questions that Christian Nationalists are raising. I believe there are two factors at work here. First of all, I am going to share a hypothesis here, it’s only a hypothesis at the moment as I’ve not seen enough discussion on this particular subject yet. Christian Nationalism in its contemporary form relies heavily on Theonomism or Reconstructionism. This is the idea that the laws of our country are given by God, reconstructed from the Old Testament Law. My hypothesis is that in order for this to be so, in order for those laws to be seen as the laws of Christian nations, they need to be decoupled from Israel and the Jews. The Christian Nationalist needs full ownership of them.
Secondly, the form of Christian Nationalism we are seeing is ethno-cultural. That kind of ethno-cultural nationalism must exclude non-native cultural expressions. This has been made overtly clear in calls from nationalists to ban the public expression of non-Christian religious rituals and worship including Halal slaughter. To be consistent though, if they are to ban Halal, then they must also ban Kosher slaughter as well because the argument against Halal is to do with animal welfare. We are seeing that nationalist politicians such as Rupert Lowe are displaying that consistency. However, this consistency also required Jews who have been part of the fabric of English culture for nigh on one thousand years must be treated just as much as alien and just as much a threat as the recent arrivals, Muslim asylum seekers. So, we find ourselves talking about antisemitism.
Antisemitism
Edwards writes:
“This year I attended the Jordan Peterson-influenced Alliance for Responsible Citizenship (ARC) conference in London, which—like the NatCon conference I’ve written about before—regularly mentions the “Judeo-Christian” term as the descriptor for the values that need preserving in the West. ARC has its own quirks, of course, as it’s not officially Christian—despite clearly attracting a critical mass of Christians to it, and with various speakers this year overtly commending Church or Christianity in general. Even so, officially speaking, it is secular, and is more overtly committed to the concept of, say, “western civilization” than the religion of Christianity in particular, despite the obvious and inevitable crossovers.
One of the final talks of this year’s ARC conference was by Os Guinness, a Christian apologist and author now in his mid-eighties. At one point during his talk, his usual measured tone seemed to disappear and he suddenly erupted in anger, shouting out the word “antisemitism!” with particular venom. This got a rapturous round of applause, as if he was saying something that desperately needed to be said and there was no one else willing to say it (or rather, shout it). These are the kinds of emphases that make me dubious.
Sitting behind that comment was, I imagine, a denunciation of typical Left Wing political support for Palestine in light of the Oct 7th attacks, or simply the baseline antisemitism shared by many active Muslims. Even so, it seemed strange that the most visceral reaction was reserved for an issue which is hardly rampant, let alone being anywhere near being the main problem western civilization faces today.
Indeed, increasingly, the intended targets of such warnings appear to be “right wing” Christians who are beginning to voice concerns over undue Jewish influence within western nations, thus insinuating the inevitable comparisons with which our age appears to have been plagued.” [7]
Is Edwards right? Are claims of an antisemitic threat overstated? Well, first of all, Edwards describes antisemitism as “hardly rampant”. Yet, it is not just that there has been left-wing support for Palestine. Remember that over a significant period of time, substantial elements of antisemitism were identified within the Labour Party, at that time the main UK opposition party. Remember too that those supposedly pro-Palestinian protests have often included antisemitic chants and banners. Consider too the reported increase in attacks including terror and arson attacks against Jewish synagogues, homes, property and businesses in recent years.
Recent history seems to link antisemitism with the Far left. This recent danger on the r left seems to have come from association with concerns about middle eastern politics. A genuine and legitimate concern for the plight of Palestinians and criticism of Israel’s politics has led to alignment with anti-Zionism. This also reflects a hostility to what is perceived as hostility to imperialism and colonialism whether British or American with Israel regarded as a puppet or extension of that imperial power.
However, there is also a tendency at both extremes of politics towards a kind of conspiracy theory which seeks to find a specific group to blame. When that group is seen as rich capitalists and many of those wealthy capitalists and their families turn out to be Jewish … well you can see where the problem begins to take shape.
That conspiracy theory tendency to seek out scapegoats might be seen on the right in terms of a fear overall of immigration. Hence, we’ve seen much scapegoating and demonising of asylum seekers. We see here the negative dynamic to nationalism in contrast to a kind of patriotism or nationhood-ism. Nationalism has a tendency to see the nation as both a protector and in need of protection. We might even observe here how that fits with idolatry. We look to our idols to protect and provide for us but it terms out that they need much looking after themselves as our gods need to be fed, clothed, cleaned, appeased. In any case, historically we have seen an overt link between far right nationalism and antisemitism. So, I’ve been concerned to see proponents of Christian Nationalism aligning with and excusing the Far right.
What we have seen in the US context is some deeply concerning statements from prominent Christian Nationalists. For example, in his 2025 interview with Tucker Carson, Nick Fuentes talked about how “organized Jewry” held outsize influence”. [8]
Another example would be pastor, Joel Webbon. By the way, when Edwards identifies people labelled antisemitic for expressing concerns about undue Jewish influence, it’s to an interview he conducted with Webbon that he links. Webbon is on record as saying:
“the problem with American politics is Jewish supremacy. Gay Jews on the left and war Jews on the right.” [9]
By Jewish supremacy, Webbon means
““Jewish Supremacy, or Jewish Specialism, is the ideological conviction that Jewish people occupy a categorically unique position in the human family that entitles them to rights, protections, exemptions, and deferences not extended to other ethnic or religious groups. It is the belief, variously sourced in religious tradition, ethnic identity, and post-Holocaust political architecture, that to be Jewish is to operate under a different moral and legal ruleset than the rest of humanity. The single greatest obstacle to Jewish reception of Jesus as Messiah, in the first century and in every century since, has not been Roman persecution, Christian failure, or deficient apologetics. It has been Jewish Specialism: the deep, structurally embedded conviction that to be Israel is to occupy a position so categorically elevated that the terms applying to the rest of humanity simply do not apply. The apostolic message to Jewish audiences was not “you are uniquely special and history owes you deference.” It was the opposite. It was: you are sinners like everyone else, the Messiah came, and you missed him, and the only path forward is the same faith available to every Gentile on earth. That’s not hatred. That’s the gospel.”[10]
As with Edward’s comments on the term “Judeo-Christian”, we might distinguish out to elements here. First there is the theological question concerning response to the Gospel and then there’s the wider socio-ethical question concerning Jewish ethnic and cultural identity. With regards to the former, Webbon argues that “The single greatest obstacle to Jewish reception of Jesus as Messiah …. has been Jewish specialism.”
There is perhaps something in that claim from a Biblical perspective. Here is the apostle Paul recognising the danger for himself:
“I myself have reason for confidence in the flesh also. If anyone else thinks he has reason for confidence in the flesh, I have more: circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the law, a Pharisee; as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to righteousness under the law, blameless.
Then we have some of the debates recorded in the Gospels between Jesus and the Pharisees. For example in John 8, Jesus’ opponents seek to rely on their Abrahamic ancestry to demonstrate their freedom and righteousness. It is of courser this dialogue which will culminate in Jesus insisting that he is greater than Abraham: “Before Abraham was, I AM.”[11] John describes the argument as follows:
“ So Jesus said to the Jews who had believed him, “If you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” They answered him, “We are offspring of Abraham and have never been enslaved to anyone. How is it that you say, ‘You will become free’?” Jesus answered them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who practices sin is a slave to sin. The slave does not remain in the house forever; the son remains forever. So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed. I know that you are offspring of Abraham; yet you seek to kill me because my word finds no place in you. I speak of what I have seen with my Father, and you do what you have heard from your father.” They answered him, “Abraham is our father.” Jesus said to them, “If you were Abraham’s children, you would be doing the works Abraham did, now you seek to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. This is not what Abraham did.”[12]
In the conversation, Jesus will of course conclude that these opponents are not so much children of Abraham as of the devil. This is reflected in his argument that ancestry is demonstrated by character and action. So, Jesus is himself the Son of the Father and the evidence for this is that he has been granted the same characteristic, “life within himself” as the Father and does the same works as shown to him by the Father. [13]
This description of Jews as children of Satan is among Bible passages that have at times been perceived as antisemitic. Indeed, it has arguably been used by some in an antisemitic way in order to argue that Jews and Judaism are demonic. However, this is to miss two crucial points. First, that the charges are brought by those who are themselves ethnic Jews, Jesus, John and Paul. It is a critique from within. Secondly, the criticism is levelled not at Jews in generally but at specific Jews due to their direct, murderous opposition to Jesus. These points apply equally to John’s reference to opponents of one early church as “a synagogue of Satan.”[14]
It is also worth remembering two further points. First, that whilst Jesus and his early, Jewish followers recognised the danger of Jewish exceptionalism, this does not mean that they insisted it was a given. Ona side point, I think this is one of the problems with the arguments of the New Perspective on Paul. It is striking that when the scribes comes to Jesus in Luke 10 asking what he must do to receive eternal life, he is making it clear that he does not consider ethnicity on its own to guarantee participation in the eschatological kingdom.
The further point to make is that warnings against Jewish exceptionalism are not themselves exceptional to Jews. Remember that Paul in Romans 11:18 warns Gentile believers against arrogance and pride. There is a danger in all of us towards pride in general and ethnic pride as a specific example. American and British Christian Nationalists should be wary of the temptation of seeking to deflect from their own ethnic pride and exceptionalism by critiquing Jewish exceptionalism.
We would at this point be dealing with a purely theological debate except that Webbon goes beyond seeking to analyse a challenge with evangelism to the Jews. He broadens this out by saying:
“Jewish Supremacy, or Jewish Specialism, is the ideological conviction that Jewish people occupy a categorically unique position in the human family that entitles them to rights, protections, exemptions, and deferences not extended to other ethnic or religious groups. It is the belief, variously sourced in religious tradition, ethnic identity, and post-Holocaust political architecture, that to be Jewish is to operate under a different moral and legal ruleset than the rest of humanity. “
Note particularly the way in which he treats the Holocaust as something used as an excuse for such an exceptionalist treatment. I believe this to be a gross misrepresentation of the position of Jews and other campaigners against antisemitism. Remember that whilst the Holocaust presents us with perhaps the most grotesque and deep reaching example of antisemitism, it is sadly not unique nor the first example. Our own history here on these islands includes discrimination, expulsion and massacre of Jews going back to the 1100s. Secondly, observe these crucial words in the IHRA working definition of antisemitism:
“Manifestations might include the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectively. However, criticism of Israel similar to that levelled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.”[15]
This makes explicitly clear that Jews are not seeking special and exceptional treatment but rather to be treated, whether as individuals, diaspora communities in countries such as the UK or in the form of a national entity in the same manner we expect to be afforded to other people groups.
Finally, it is perhaps worth picking up on a UK based example lest we end up thinking of this as a typically US problem. Canon Brett Murhpy recently preached a sermon “Who is the true Israel”. This has been picked up on by a number of critics, including the National Secular society due to comments he made concerning Jews and Judaism. It is important not to respond in a knee-jerk fashion to the out of context, selective and truncated comments from secular opponents with their own agenda. To be clear, Murphy gives time to insisting that we should not tar all Jews with the same brush.[16] If there is antisemitism in his sermon, I do not believe that it is intentional. However, let’s pick up on two specific things that he says. Note that he does not say that Judaism is itself demonic but refers to specific sects. He comments:
“In fact, the truth of the matter is, and it’s uncomfortable to talk about, there are some sects within modern Judaism which are a very far cry from their Old Testament form. Modern Judaism contains demonic cults such as the Kabbalists and the Talmudists who practice black magic and teach vile and reprehensible blasphemies. So disgusting I will not even repeat them aloud.”[17]
This seems to be based on a misunderstanding and perhaps on picking up on rumours that have circulated around the Kabala over time. However, whilst Kabala encourages a form of mysticism, there is no evidence of black magic practice and those rumours seem similar to the kinds of speculation that were put out concerning early Christians that they practiced incest, human sacrifice and cannibalism.
What is particularly concerning here though is the suggestion that some Jews practice things and teach things “so disgusting” that they cannot be mentioned. Given the history of conspiracy theories and especially the blood libel concern Jews, it is at best deeply unwise and reckless to talk in such terms.
Then shortly later, Murphy says:
Pastor Doug Wilson often says when they’re good they’re very very good and when the Jews are bad they’re very very bad. Now there are some Jews doing very evil things in the world today. The Epstein files prove that George Soros is a living example of that.[18]
The first question that comes to mind here is why Doug Wilson would be singling out Jews as sometimes good and sometimes bad. Surely that is true of all of us. Further, it is plain weird to suggest that one ethnic group live their life in extreme black and white, only ever very good or very bad. Surely this is an example of Jewish exceptionalism.
However, the main here in this statement is that Murphy picks up on George Soros being mentioned in the Epstein files and uses that to claim that he must have been doing something “very bad” and further to link that to his Jewishness. Whatever he might say about not tarring them all with the same brush, it is Murphy who is linking Soros and his behaviour to his Jewish identity.
What is more, there is simply no evidence to suggest that Soros or other Jews were named as being involved in wrongdoing in the files. Remember that numerous people are named where their connections to Epstein were incidental or at times because Epstein or others in his circle passed comment on them. This seems to be just another example of attempts to spread conspiracy theories about Soros and other notable Jewish families. Again, it was at best reckless and tasteless for Murphy to repeat the conspiracy theories and specuiation.
With all of that in mind, we can turn our attention to the question of whether those like Webbon and Fuentes along with others expressing concern at supposed undue Jewish influence have in fact crossed the line or whether they are being unfairly attacked. Here is what the IHRA definition offers as a specific example of antisemitism.
“Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing or stereotypical allegations about Jews such as the power of Jews as a collective – such as, especially but not exclusively the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.”
The statements made by Webbon and Fuentes I’ve mentioned here may not go quite as far as to claim a “world Jewish conspiracy”. However, we cannot ignore the environment in which they speak where such conspiracy theories have become all too commonplace notably the Great Replacement Theory with its intrusion into the debate about immigration and asylum as well as links to conspiracy theories concerning the COVID pandemic and vaccination programmes.
What they explicitly do in relation to the IHRA definition is to make allegations about Jews holding power in politics, the media etc, exercising “undue influence.” This goes beyond simply arguing that some people due to connections or economic clout have a disproportionate level of influence nationally or internationally. It specifically claims undue influence and attaches it to Jewish identity. We can reasonably conclude that this falls within the IRHA definition. There can be no place excusing or justifying this.
Conclusion
Nationalism, especially in its explicitly fascist or national-socialist (Nazi) forms has a long and ugly association with antisemitism. Whatever our other disagreements with Christian Nationalism we would hope to see professing Christians at least give this and other forms of racism a wide berth. It is therefore grievous to see its proponents excusing, minimising and flirting with antisemitism.
[1] On Judeo-Christian Christianity (part 1) – by Aaron Edwards
[2] On Judeo-Christian Christianity (part 1) – by Aaron Edwards
[3] On Judeo-Christian Christianity (part 1) – by Aaron Edwards
[4] C.f. Judeo-Christian – Wikipedia
[5] On Judeo-Christian Christianity (part 1) – by Aaron Edwards
[6] Romans 3:1.
[7] On Judeo-Christian Christianity (part 1) – by Aaron Edwards
[8] Tucker Carlson’s interview with far-right antisemite Nick Fuentes divides conservatives | Tucker Carlson | The Guardian
[9] Joel Webbon: We Need a Christian Nationalist Caesar to Protect Us from ‘War Jews’ and ‘Gay Jews’ | People For
[10] Joel Webbon on X: ““Jewish Supremacy, or Jewish Specialism, is the ideological conviction that Jewish people occupy a categorically unique position in the human family that entitles them to rights, protections, exemptions, and deferences not extended to other ethnic or religious groups. It is the https://t.co/yizUHhnI8a” / X
[11] John 8:58.
[12] John 8:31-
[13] See John 5:19-29.
[14] Revelation 3:9.
[15] IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism.
[16] See for example at 0.49 where he warns against “complete rejection of the Jews which sometimes unfortunately transgresses into open anti-semitism .” Who is the true Israel? Sermon Preached Sunday 2nd August 2026, by Rev’d Canon Brett Murphy.
[17] Who is the true Israel? Sermon Preached Sunday 2nd August 2026, by Rev’d Canon Brett Murphy. – YouTube
[18] Who is the true Israel? Sermon Preached Sunday 2nd August 2026, by Rev’d Canon Brett Murphy. – YouTube
