I am not a natural Tory voter. In my younger political years it was a truism amongst those of us who were involved in student politics that ‘the Tories’ were the enemy. Of course that is a juvenile and immature form of politics which requires a group to hate and someone to blame. Most of us mature out of it. Now that I’m all growed up I have discovered that the Tories are not the enemy and that there are good and fine Tory politicians ( as well as bad and rubbish ones – like in all parties!). I still have a reluctance to vote for them, but people like Murdo Fraser and Adam Tomkins in Scotland tempt me! As does Daniel Hannan in England. But there is one man who, if he were standing in my constituency would get my vote immediately – and if he were the leader of the Tory party I would be inclined to vote for them anyway. Jacob Rees- Mogg is considered a bit of a joke and is regularly sneered at by the Twitterati. But he is not a buffoon, a toff or a joke. He is a serious politician – intelligent, measured and sensible.
As a result of these qualities he is beginning to be taken seriously and as a result of that the media are trying to do a ‘Farron’ on him. Why? Because he is a committed Christian who is not ashamed of his faith and he is able to graciously articulate what he believes. Watch this pathetic attempt by Piers Morgan to try to trip him up.
The clash between Morgan and Rees-Mogg is a great example of the clash in our culture, between the dumbed down, emotive, self-important guardians of the culture like Morgan, and those who take a more rational, intelligent and humble approach. When Morgan says ‘I am a Catholic, but I’m for SSM’, he seems to think that is something he should be praised for, when in reality it shows how feeble and ignorant his Catholicism is. To say he is a Catholic and yet reject the teaching of the Catholic church is for him to say that he is a Catholic when it suits him and not otherwise. His ‘pick’n’mix’ approach to theology, morality and philosophy is in stark contrast to Rees-Mogg who holds the line and refuses to be bullied into giving up opinions and views which polite society tells him are ridiculous.
Of course the liberal establishment have gone crazy on mainstream and social media. Some pontificate that this will destroy his career, others want it to destroy his career. Take for example this article from the misnamed Independent which calls his views ‘incendiary’. Note the bigoted and ugly comments afterwards. The Telegraph had, as might be expected, a more balanced approach, but in general the BBC and others will just join in the mockery.
Take this disgusting cartoon from The Times – (in my view by far the most anti-Christian newspaper in the UK).
I loved this reply (which they have yet to publish) from Gavin Ashenden.
There is one thing that really surprises me. Jacob Rees-Mogg is being mocked and ridiculed for holding to the teaching of his church, the Catholic church. Are those who abuse him prepared to be consistent and mock and abuse the Catholic church? If not, why not? If his beliefs are so ridiculous as to deserve scorn, given that they are just the beliefs of the Catholic Church why not treat them the same way? Its inconsistent, illogical and cowardly not to do so. ( By the way, before I get all the letters let me point out that I don’t agree with Rees-Mogg on at least part of this interview – I don’t think marriage is a sacrament – but he does and guess what – in the grown up world of Christianity we can handle people not agreeing with us….its the snowflake world of liberal progressives who can’t cope with disagreement!)
However I think because Rees-Mogg refused to be bullied and because he was able to calmly and intelligently hold his position, this interview will not do him any harm at all. In fact I think it will enhance his popularity. Perhaps other Christian politicians should take note and learn that it is better to hold the line and give a calm, dignified and faithful response to the hectoring that our illiberal liberal media use? Far too many Catholic politicians take the Morgan easy way out. And far too many Evangelicals seem to lack the courage or wisdom to stand up and be counted.
God bless Rees-Mogg and may we see many more politicians like him.
For your edification have a look at these short videos – the first is Rees-Mogg campaigning for the Union in Dundee and Arbroath!
The second is this brilliant speech at the Cambridge Union –
The third is from his younger days – his handling of the most tricky interview of all – a mocking, sneering comedian…
And finally this wee classic from Have I Got News For You
your article sums up everything I was thinking today in exactly the same way
Rees-Mogg follows the teachings Rome, not those which the bible teaches. Purgatory, images, ‘Mary’ worship, the mass etc. are not biblical. His belief in abortion is not the same as those of an evangelical Christian who respects the situation where an expectant mother may require an abortion if her life is in danger. A Roman Catholic in a position of power would not be good for the UK.
People still think this way? Having a Roman Catholic in power didn’t do any harm to America under JFK, why is it a problem for Britain?
Jacob Rees Mog is a lot more savey than he seems to be. Your examples of the inteviews in this blog show that he knows and understands the media which is now apparently turning on him for expressing views that not so long ago would have been considered moral and normal. The latest one will at least get respect even from those who oppose him for being principled and sticking to them.
Good article David!
A recent example of the mockery in the mainstream media:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jul/20/jacob-rees-mogg-tory-leader-no-laughing-matter
“To say he is a Catholic and yet reject the teaching of the Catholic church is for him to say that he is a Catholic when it suits him and not otherwise.”
Not necessarily; it might be recognition of the fact that if you are raised as a Catholic, you are always a Catholic – it’s practically impossible to break the programming. Even now I feel a shiver when I see female clergy in the enlightened country in which I now live.
I find it interesting that Rees-Moog says he follows the teachings of the Church. I interpret that to mean that should the Catholic Church move its position, then he will follow.
People like Piers Morgan do not only reject the Catholic Church’s teaching on certain matters; they also reject something more fundamental. The Catholic Church claims to have been given divine authority to teach. It claims that the Holy Spirit protects it from teaching anything erroneous. (Just to avoid any misinterpretation I will add that that divine protection should be properly understood. It doesn’t, for example, pertain to anything the Pope may pronounce on the subject of climate change.) Anyone who rejects a particular doctrine of the Catholic Church must therefore reject the claim that the Church teaches without error when it defines what is to be believed. John Henry Newman, a notable Catholic theologian and Cardinal, wrote:
“And so again, when a man has become a Catholic, were he to set about following a doubt which has occurred to him, he has already disbelieved. I have not to warn him against losing his faith, he is not merely in danger of losing it, he has lost it; from the nature of the case he has already lost it; he fell from grace at the moment when he deliberately entertained and pursued his doubt. No one can determine to doubt what he is already sure of; but if he is not sure that the Church is from God, he does not believe it. It is not I who forbid him to doubt; he has taken the matter into his own hands when he determined on asking for leave; he has begun, not ended, in unbelief; his very wish, his purpose, is his sin.”
I liked Archbishop Cranmer’s expression for our illiberal liberals (his phrase too but more common) guardians. He refers to the ‘secular sharia’. It’s new to me anyway.
Thank you for this, as I was unaware of the breakfast TV, nor Times poison.
Me too – your views on Conservatives.
A word I find difficult to attribute to anyone with any depth is charming. He is robustly, unaffectedly, courteous, charming, with a humble intelligence that shines. I can hardly believe I’m saying this about a Tory.
As for sanctity of marriage here, near the end, is a sublime description by Ravi Zacharias
https://youtu.be/nPYRXop7aPA
It’s almost amusing to watch and listen to the gravity with which Zacharias deals with this question – as if his view on this “social issue”, as he describes it , has any relevance at all beyond the stage he is so self-importantly strolling around on. Look at all those people sitting there listening as Zacharias tells them what they should all think and feel about a section of our community.
Once Zacharias steps off that stage and beyond the confines of that room nothing he says about homosexuality matters. Absolutely nothing. Zacharias has nothing of importance to say to anyone other than Christians.
The only “issue” relevant with regard to Zacharias is how to ensure that his Christian view on homosexuality is kept out of the real world and the moment he even begins to suggest that he has any authority whatsoever to declare how members of our society should be treated he should be told to book another hall and fill it with Christians and tell them about it.
John, with respect you undermine your own position, by being dogmatic in the very way you decry.
In saying “the moment he even begins to suggest that he has any authority whatsoever to declare how members of our society should be treated he should be told to book another hall and fill it with Christians and tell them about it”, are you yourself not beginning to assert that you have authority to declare how members of our society should be treated?
You say “Look at all those people sitting there listening as Zacharias tells them what they should all think and feel about a section of our community.”
But look at yourself, telling us all what we should think and feel about Ravi Zacharias as a member of the community!
You show less tolerance than he does for those who hold to, and express, a differing view.
spsammy
It is in the nature of the Catholic Church that once something has been defined as a doctrine to be believed by all Catholics then the Church cannot change its position. The Catholic Church can change its mind on all sorts of things that are not things to be believed but not on things to be believed. So, at the moment the Church has a rule that priests must be celibate but that is only a rule. It is not something to believed. So that could change and there are, in fact, some Catholic priests who are married. But the all-male priesthood is not such a rule. That cannot be changed. It should be noted, by the way, that no Pope has the power to change Church teaching if by ‘change’ is meant to overthrow or reverse. Development of doctrine, on the other hand, is a different matter.
Thanks Mike17. I didn’t know that. Does gay-marriage and abortion fall under this category or is it possible that the Church’s teaching on it might change?
Didn’t the church change it’s teaching on “limbo”? Isn’t that a thing to be believed?
Thank you Rees – Mogg , and thank you David for highlighting this interview.
Reblogged this on Talmidimblogging.
I haven’t “reblogged”, but I have added a link to my own post on JRM (www.crazyrev.blogspot.com).
Whilst it is commendable that this Conservative MP is bold enough to stand by his beliefs regarding the sanctity of unborn life, the party of which he is part does not seem to hold the same values for those already living. The many people I meet who have desperate stories regarding the benefit system and NHS leads me to the place where I could not give them my vote. I cannot see a consistent view on the sanctity of life within this political party.
I agree.
Thanks for this David. I completely share your respect and admiration for Rees-Mogg. There is no politician around today that I respect more. I have one genuine question for you that is, I believe, important because it is to do with the use of certain words in these days of great confusion.. I have no doubt whatsoever that Rees-Mogg is a very devout and sincerely religious man and a committed RC, but I would be interested to know what you know about him that enables you to describe him as a “committed Christian”. I genuinely hope he is trusting only in Christ for salvation but I have seen or read nothing to that effect, only deep loyalty to the teachings of the RC church. In the same way that being Presbyterian or Baptist doesn’t, of course, in itself, make you a committed Christian, neither does being a devout RC. I would love to see this man become PM in UK, and even more so if he is truly my brother in Christ., though I seriously doubt the establishment will allow that to happen. If he is not truly my brother, that will be my fervent prayer for him.
He is but a part of the Conservative party that has no cohesive voice regarding the sanctity of life. It is an anti kingdom to the Kingdom of Heaven. He is but a part.
This is a somewhat strange comment from someone who clearly has a hatred of Christianity and a lack of acquaintance with the truth – or at least an inability to understand what ‘conservative politics’ is and an inability to see the wider issues being discussed. Its strange what weird roads of irrationality such prejudice leads!
Great piece this. My feelings (past and present) about the Tories and Jacob are very similar to yours. As someone who grew up in a traditional Labour town voting Tory is not a natural instinct. But Jacob is possibly the one man that would persuade me to do it.
The confected outrage over Jacob’s Catholic beliefs does confuse. Would the shrieking hordes prefer he lies about them and keeps his views hidden? That seems to be the modern left’s version of freedom of speech.