John Steven’s post about the Russell Brand case is excellent
I wanted to say a little more first to help us think through why people might end up saying the kinds of things they have about the case, secondly to highlight why the implications are serious and thirdly to suggest what taking forward his conclusion looks like.
First why do professing Christians end up making comments saying they stand with Brand, excusing his crimes and siding against victims. Really this is to perpetuate conspiracy theories. It’s based on misunderstandings of the history. To be clear, yes for many years Brand was indulged. However, I think a careful look back will show that this was not because his politics aligned with others (progressive left) but first because society generally believes it has to tolerate people’s lifestyle choices even if we find them repugnant. Secondly, he was indulged as a celebrity. Like a number of others, he was able to “hide in plain sight” even as the warning signs were flashing red. It is worth noting though that concerns grew well before his political transition and religious awakening. Things cannot stay hidden from the light and so his behaviour towards Andrew Sach and his daughter did draw censure.
What made the material difference was not his profession of faith or that he suddenly began to challenge the establishment. He had always sought to present himself as anti-establishment. Rather it was that people began to come forward with serious allegations. These led to charges, jury trial and conviction. It was the bringing to light of criminal behaviour that changed things. Sadly and ironically the inconsistency is with the very people who would have spoken up generally about sinful lifestyles in the past but seem too ready to minimise, question or excuse when that moves to criminal conviction.
A second reason seems to be that people don’t understand how the justice system works. It is important to state again that this is a case that has been investigated, where the evidence met the threshold for the CPS to prosecute and where a jury of Brand’s peers was able to to reach a verdict that he was guilty beyond reasonable doubt. It is important to understand that this is not a case of “her word against his”. Evidence will have been collected and checked through investigation and trial to determine if it was internally coherent, corroborated and plausible. This is a high threshold.
I think we also have to recognise that we can all be biased. We don’t want those we agree with politically to be accused. We don’t want horrible things to be true. Christians want to believe the best of other Christians. However, I am concerned that it does look like some are so wedded to an ideology and agenda that goes well beyond this and that’s serious.
Why does it matter. Well the question is whether or not we are going to be on the side of truth, justice and the victim. Remember that many of the comments made, often sadly by men about the victims reflect exactly the very reason why rape goes under reported. Shame and disbelief acts to silence far too many victims.
For those reasons, I beleive John is rightly identifying the seriousness here. Jesus had strong words for those who call good evil and evil good. He is right to insist that it brings shame and he is right to advocate for action. We cannot just make some nice but uncostly words. What does this look like?
Well first, I believe that it means other Christian leaders need to step up and stand up with John, for righteousness and by victims. I worry that too often when someone like John speaks on their own there’s a lot of “yes…but” commentary” No ifs, no buts, we need to identify sin for what it is.
Secondly, it cannot be left to individuals. Christian Organisations need to speak clearly. I think particularly of THE FIEC, Affinity, TGC UK, the various New Frontiers Spheres, The Evangelical Alliance and Christian Concern.
Thirdly, I know that some of those who have made these horrendous comments would strongly disagree with me about pretty much everything theologically and politically. This goes beyond politics and theology. We need to see real repentance but we also need those who share politics and theology not to be silent., Rather, they need to be clear that this is wrong. That they disagree.
Fourthly, it means that the Christian media needs to be careful. It’s so tempting to give provocative voices a platform and of course there is a place for that but this goes beyond that. Pleasxe don’t give interviews or invite onto panels those who should not have their voice amplified.
Fifth, there is a challenge to the local church. It’s important that churches are clear that they have nothing to do with rape apologetics. Churches stand with truth, justice and victims. That might mean looking carefully at the links you make. It may sadly also involve church discipline as you seek to restore brothers and sisters.
I’ve commented a little bit more on these issues here https://faithroot.com/2026/11/08/celebrity-conversions-and-convictions/
