Aaron Edwards asks
“Why does it seem strange for white people to think or speak of their ethnic heritage positively in ways that would not seem strange for, say, black people? And why might this be something Christians should care about?”[1]
I think that’s not a bad question to be asking, providing we keep the question open, long enough to properly gather evidence. However, I would argue that Edwards closes it down with answers too quickly. Specifically, he begins to shut down the question by supplying answers that raise their own questions rather than completely answering his original. Let me at this stage run through some examples and show how and why they do that.
Edwards says:
“We live in a time in which racial tensions in the west never seem to die. Even when they seem to drift out of view for a period, there always seems to be a sense that they are just simmering and waiting to boil over again at the “appropriate” moment. This makes objective conversations about race and ethnicity very difficult because the atmosphere is already so loaded and freighted towards animosity, suspicion, and fear.”[2]
To be sure, racial tensions are significantly high right now. However, the way that Edwards loads this issue, in an article which quickly moves on to the usual rhetoric about the problem with “wokeness” fails to ask the question “why are there racial tensions”. That question may of course include answers relating to fear of immigration and a sense of being “left behind”, especially in working class communities. However, that’s only one part of a story. If we are going to get past the loaded atmosphere of “animosity, suspicion, and fear”, then we are going to need to hear all stories and maybe tone down the very language that stokes fear such as describing one ethnic group as having undue political influence or categorising asylum seekers as an invasion of fighting age men.
Edwards then goes on to say:
“For white people in the west, in particular, this means we allow all manner of untrue and unjust things to be said or done simply to “keep the peace”. And even then, we might still be accused of being “paternalistic” towards other peoples or races, as though insisting upon being in control of the peace-making. Thus, in an almost inevitable way, even attempting to solve racial hostility can still get you called “racist” in the end, let alone whether white people might actually say anything positive about their people or lineage per se.”[3]
There are a number of questions that arise from this. First, is it true that all white people have consistently allowed these things to be said? Secondly, what are the things that are “untrue” and thirdly, how do we know they are untrue? Fourthly, does he have evidence that genuine efforts to resolve hostility and keep the peace are attacked in the manner he suggests? It’s difficult to judge because we are not offered an evidence trail to follow up and check. Finally though, there is a big question. What if a desire to keep the peace, a willingness to remain quit actually reflects the culture he wants us to admire and preserve. After all, it has long been the policy of the Royal family not to engage in rebuttal and refutation of rumours, smears and allegations.
The final example I would give where Edwards’ “answers raises more questions than answers is where he talks about the connection between Christianity and whiteness. He says:
“A proper defence of Anglo-Saxon civilization is much needed. When speaking of these issues, as when I met him a few months ago after one of his speeches, Charlie Downes usually emphasises the Christian element too. “White” in and of itself isn’t really a sufficient term; it’s just more convenient to use to rile those opponents who are often literally racist against white people, while still pretending to hold the moral high ground on issues of “social justice”.
But if we take the pre-Christian white people of the pagan Anglo-Saxons, or the many self-hating white liberals of our time, we would be less inclined to celebrate “white” culture or history per se. Clearly, caveats are required! The greatness of Great Britain was the combination of the particular people in a particular place in God’s particular providence via obedience to His Word. That is what truly matters, however annoying this may seem to those who are so fed up of anti-whiteness that it seems feasible to just “go the other way”. The reality is that white and/or Anglo-Saxon civilization is not “great” by blood and soil alone but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.
This raises numerous questions. First, what is the aim of making arguments around ethnicity and “whiteness”. Is it primarily to “rile” those who will remain entrenched opponents because of their commitment to progressive or left-wing ideology. Or is there any desire to reason and convince? If the latter is absent, then what does that tell us about the Christian Nationalist project in general?
Secondly, I note the familiar structure of some language and its echoes. First, is Edwards aware of the loaded nature of the term “blood and soil”? It is particularly associated with German agrarian, romantic movements but was particularly associated with Nazi thinkers during the 1930s, rural workers were contrasted favourable with a rootless, particularly Jewish urban population. Another, perhaps less explosive echo is that of Graeme Goldsworthy and Christopher Wright’s language of “God’s people, in God’s place under God’s providential rule”. Is Edwards; reference to the British as a “particular people in a particular place in God’s particular providence via obedience to His Word” intentionally echoing the Biblical Theological paradigm and if so, to what extent is that helpful and unhelpful?
Thirdly, Edwards seems to be drawing specifically on the Christian heritage of white British people today. This raises a subset of questions all of its own. To what extent is it helpful to identify this “Christian culture as “white”? Is Edwards saying that “white culture is Christian culture, or is he acknowledging that there is a particular subset of white culture that we might define as “white-Christian.” Similarly, we might ask whether Christian culture is itself “white”? Or is there “Black-Christian culture” as well?
I am also left wondering if Edwards has proved both too much and too little in this move. Can white British people be proud of Boudicca and Beowulf? What about cultures that have never been overtly Christian or where much of the heritage and pride arises from pre-Christian times. Is a Greek or Italian patriotism acceptable given that cultural pride is rooted in the Greek and Roman civilisations that predated Christianity. What about the Egyptians and Chinese? Has Edwards accidentally emptied patriotism and national identity of its actual distinctive content?
The existence of these questions matter because they relate into how Edwards responds to critique and challenge of his position. First of all, here’s an example from my own interaction with him on Facebook where I posed some of the questions to him that I’ve outlined above. Edwards’ response was to ask:
Dave Williams it depends whether you believe there is such a thing as black culture. Would you tell a black person who was celebrating or describing “black culture” that they were wrong to do so because such a thing either doesn’t exist or is not the best way to describe it?
Now, given that I was not questioning the existence of whiteness or the good in white/British/European/American patriotic identity but rather specifically seeking to think through his linking together of whiteness and Christianity, his response seems to be something of a red herring. However, let’s pause for a moment and consider what a response from my perspective might be. I think I would be able to answer him as follows.
I don’t have a problem with white people having a sense of patriotic identity, a pride in their particular culture and heritage. It is important though that when talking about white and black culture that we compare like for like. When someone talks about black culture, I do not presume that they are referring to a monolithic or homogenous identity. Rather, I presume that they are contextualising black culture. They will be talking specifically about Black British culture or such like. There would be connections and commonality across black culture. This would include a shared geographical heritage, that Black people in America, Britain and the Caribbean and in Nigeria share historical roots in Africa. Further, shared history, especially shared historical struggles, in particularly the slave trade but also other linked aspects of struggle such as apartheid, segregation and colonialism shape the prism through which those cultures interpret the world. This would be similar to Jewish experience of exile, persecution, pogroms, antisemitism, the holocaust and the development of Zionism. Indeed, that comparison reminds us that for there to be shared heritage does not require that you or your ancestors must have directly experienced it or that every person will reach the same conclusions (consider how a significant number of Jews disagree with Zionism as an ideology). This also raises questions for us to consider. If we are seeking to identify a sense of white pride and white culture, then is there a similar level of shared heritage, a shared narrative?
Another example of how Edwards engages those critiquing his position is in his next article: Why Evangelicals Lose Their Minds on Race. It is fascinating that the response to any critique of Christian Nationalism seems to be framed by accusations that those who object are duped, surrendering, freaking out or losing their minds. In fact, I’ve chosen to title this article “Are we losing our minds” because I wonder who really is doing that.
The article’s subheading makes it clear that Edwards is specifically accusing John Stevens, the National Director of the FIEC of losing his mind, though he goes on to complain about various people’s responses in his Facebook comments. This particular observation though is particularly ironic:
“It’s as though a switch is flicked and otherwise reasonable and friendly people suddenly become highly delusional and aggressive in how they choose to see you once you transgress their fabricated rules about what “good” people do or don’t talk about. If you fall somewhere outside that window, you become a “bad” person and seemingly must either be placed in therapy or custody.[4]
I would encourage Edwards to recall the proverb about the pot and the kettle before revisiting his own language and that of his fellow Christian Nationalists when speaking of and speaking to their opponents, not least in this very article. Furthermore, there is a tactic at work here. He wants to critique Stevens but frontloads his article with examples of quick, emotional reactions on his social media as though Stevens fits within that category. He then goes on to address Steven’s specifically:
“In one or two of my talks on Christian Nationalism over the last few months, I have often cited the perspective of the national director of the Fellowship of Independent Evangelical Churches, John Stevens, who continues to speak as though “Christian Nationalism” was the greatest threat facing the Church or the nation in our time. He and I had a brief exchange of views on social media recently on such matters, after he posted in support of the Conservative party leader Kemi Badenoch’s speech, which defended her Englishness (despite having explicitly identified as “African”, “Nigerian”, and even “Yoruba” at various other points in her political career) and rubbished the apparently crazy idea that you might not be ethnically English if you’re not ethnically English. .[5]
Notice the first fallacy to crop up here. John Stevens has spoken and written about Christian Nationalism. That includes on his social media and by invitation for specific publications and events. That is far from all that he speaks and writes about. Most frequently on social media he has shared thoughts on Romans, reviewed books and engaged on issues such as concupiscence, complementarianism and the Quiet Revival. There’s a bit of an overlap between what he engages with and what I do, perhaps he is just reflecting what people are talking about. However, just identifying Christian Nationalism as a threat does not mean that he sees it as the greatest threat. Indeed, if he did see it as the greatest threat that would not mean he was necessarily being hyperbolic or wrong. A sober reflection might lead us to conclude that yes it is one of if not the greatest threat we are experiencing at the moment.
Secondly, he is quick to belittle Steven’s support of Kemi Badenoch’s conservative Party conference speech. He seems to overlook that Badenoch was not engaging in some rarified academic discussion about the relationship between ethnic identity and DNA. Indeed, if we are going to go down that route, I would defy anyone to identify people that can truly be described as pure “English” if such an “ethnicity” exists. I would also point out that Israel’s identification of Jewish ethnicity does not make a judgement based on skin colour. Badenoch’s comments were responding to those who seek to question her identity as English based on her skin colour and not just hers but of others such as England footballers. There is clearly a political, dog-whistle agenda to the questioning. Indeed, we might note that Black England footballers tend to be seen as English when they are on course for the World Cup final and winning the golden boot. It’s when they miss a penalty in the shoot out (despite that probably being the most English of all attributes) that their English identity is questioned. With Badenoch, it takes a more sinister twist. The implicit question is whether or not a black woman would be acceptable as our next Prime Minister.
Edwards then goes on:
“Stevens was recently asked by one prominent Christian Nationalist why he so often conflates Christian Nationalism with “Ethno-Nationalism”. I think Stevens defines ethno-nationalism as the idea of not wanting people of other ethnicities in your country at all. This is a view I’ve never heard from the lips or pen of any actual Christian Nationalist, but as ever, people prefer the phantom to the reality because it’s easier to dispell.” .[6]
You will observe that he is seeking to define what Stevens means by ethno-nationalism. It isn’t in any shape or form close to either official dictionary definitions or what Steven’s has actually said. And this matters because Edwards claims to be an academic theologian but we see him demonstrating a woeful inability to represent a contemporary interlocuter accurately. Can we rely on his representation of people from history?
Ethno-nationalism is primarily about a belief that national identity and membership is through ethnicity and that the state has a role in preserving the identity and culture of the indigenous ethnicity. I personally prefer to talk about ethno-cultural nationalism as I think that gets more to the point. Steven’s critique (and mine) of ethno-nationalism does not require the assumption that it means “not wanting people of other ethnicities in your country”, though it is worth observing that Restore Britian, a party promoted by Edwards openly advocates the mass deportation of people from other ethnicities. You don’t need to express the cude words yourself if the party you strongly advocate for does the dirty work for you. And we will come back to that point shortly in terms of its more general implications. Rather, ethno-nationalism is overtly seen both in the questioning of Kemi Badenoch and various footballer’s identities (noting that a few of those footballers are professing Christians whilst Badenoch clearly identifies as a cultural Christian).
In a further paragraph, Edwards “not on our lips” argument takes another form. He quotes Stevens explanation for why he links Christian Nationalism to ethno-nationalism:
““Very simple. Because some self-identifying Christian Nationalists in UK think that the nation ought to be Anglo-Saxon and white, and that to be English you have to be white. Whilst it is entirely appropriate to reject mass immigration, and to want to see Christian influence, there is a strand of racism within Christian Nationalism. In Northern Ireland there was the recent spectacle of white Christian Nationalists burning black Christians out of their homes because of opposition to immigration and Islam. That is the problem, and it needs to be confronted. Too many of the Christian Nationalists on the right fail to call this out in their own constituency or in the political parties they overtly support, where candidates are put forward who have expressed racist or anti-semitic views.” .[7]
He then says:
“It’s all so tiresome to behold. How can he think this is a fair way of viewing the Northern Ireland situation or Christian Nationalism (on any understanding of the term)? Stevens’ primary point, no doubt, is really that those (like me) who hold to some form of Christian Nationalism ought to denounce such actions occurring “within our own constituency,” and insinuating that perhaps this shows the poverty of Christian Nationalism in its entirety if it can lead to such actions. But who on earth would think that such actions really are “within our constituency” ?.[8]
I would say there is precisely zero chance that any genuine professing Christian Nationalists were attempting “to burn black Christians out of their homes” at such a protest. I doubt that “Christian Nationalist” is even how such people would have described themselves. But Stevens again highlights the phantom in order to point out that “we” are apparently giving racist arsonists a free pass to attack fellow Christians on the basis of the colour of their skin! It seems beyond preposterous. .[9]
Now I understand that Steven’s was actually referring to how conservative commentators from Northern Ireland have described the race riots there. However, we see the equivalent to “not on our lips”. No Christian Nationalist would “burn black Christians out of their homes”. Yet, one of the concerns expressed about how politically extreme rhetoric on both left and right works is that it will normally avoid explicit incitement to violence and even discourage criminality but what happens is that events and rhetoric give space for extreme violence to happen. When you describe immigrants as a threat, an invasion, characterise them as “fighting age men” and tar all of them with the criminality of a few, suggesting that immigration increases the threat of sexual violence, then do not be surprised when some people see this as justification for racial violence which they will label as “self-defence”, doing what our government will not let the armed forces do.
In a further article, a series of three dedicated to John Stevens, Edwards suggests there is two tier racism and attacks what he calls “Evangelical Awokening”. What I think the article displays is a trap we can all fall into. We reach a hypothesis of what we think the case is and then instead of carefully assembling and engaging the evidence we can, we start to state and critique the position we believe others have. We begin to tell their story and we presume their motives.
In this article he does that in two, possibly three ways. First he tells John Stevens story. He tells us that John’s view on race and multiculturalism is dictated (note not just shaped, dictated) by his upbringing in Birmingham. Now to be fair, yes we are shaped by our experience growing up. Thst will be true of those of us who grew up in multicultural cities and small monocuktural towns.
It is also worth observing that in my experience, growing up in Bradford leaves me sceptical of Christian Nationalism but it doesn’t automatically lead to a naive acceptance of secular multiculturalism. I have seen its failings. However I believe a Christian multiculturalism offers a better alternative to both secular pluralism and supposedly Christian ethno-cultural nationalism.
Edwards also attempts to tell the story of church response to Black Lives Matter. This involves him recreating George Floyd’s story. Now, Edwards may believe that a mythology has grown up around Floyd but Edwards creates his own myth. To him it’s just the untimely death of a career criminal.
Consider the actual facts. First Floyd’s own story was more complex and messy, just like the stories of many people that those ulof us engaging in frontline pastoral ministry have experiences. Floyd did have a track record of criminality and drug dealing and addiction. However, he also engaged with a church, we do not know what that meant in terms of the Gospel and sought to engage in the Gospel. He was a man who tried to get rehabilitated but also had relapses
Crucially, Floyd was murdered. He wasn’t just someone who met an untimely death. He was murdered by a policeman, someone meant to uphold the law. When people hear his murder reduced to untimely death, they may well ask “do Black lives matter?”
Then there are the churches. I was a pastor during the pandemic and I find Edwards account to lack any awareness of what was happening or how pastorak ministry works. We didn’t just decide or get manipulated into taking a secular line. Rather, our response came out of listening to the experiences of members of our churches. In our church at the time, we had an elderly lady who had come with the Windrush. Her husband died at the beginning of COVID. They were a godly couple but for some reason never were called into leadership. Their experience of church in the early days includes rejection or being treated as servants. They stuck it out because they believed God told them to.
That’s one story from within the church, I could tell more. Then there were the stories of every day racism and then there were the experiences of the asylum seekers who had come through the system and experienced the hostile environment.
It was awareness of those real life situations that showed our response. However even more importantly it was about allowing God’s Word to disagree with us.
Conclusion
I’m not going to go so far as deciding that some people are losing their minds and adjudicating on who. However, there is no evidence that critics of Christian Nationalism are losing their minds or freaking out. If Christian Nationalists want to rebut the accusation against themselves, then they might want to consider engaging fully and reasonably with the questions and challenges raised over their approach to ethnicity.
[1] Can White People Defend Their Culture? – by Aaron Edwards
[2] Can White People Defend Their Culture? – by Aaron Edwards
[3] Can White People Defend Their Culture? – by Aaron Edwards
[4] https://thatgoodfight.substack.com/p/why-evangelicals-lose-their-minds
[5] https://thatgoodfight.substack.com/p/why-evangelicals-lose-their-minds
[6] https://thatgoodfight.substack.com/p/why-evangelicals-lose-their-minds
[7] https://thatgoodfight.substack.com/p/why-evangelicals-lose-their-minds
[8] https://thatgoodfight.substack.com/p/why-evangelicals-lose-their-minds
[9] https://thatgoodfight.substack.com/p/why-evangelicals-lose-their-minds
