Christianity Online Articles Personal

Why was I Cancelled and Repented for by Premier Christianity?

Why was I Cancelled and Repented for by Premier Christianity?

I am going to tell you a story which is somewhat unbelievable – one which I am kind of reeling from.   One which for me personally has significant implications,  and I think (without I hope being too grandiose) has implications for the wider evangelical church in the UK.

On Monday evening, Sam Hailes, the editor of Premier Christianity magazine, wrote and asked the following: “Hi David do you fancy writing a blog on ‘The Christian case for NOT watching the Meghan and Harry interview’?”.  My initial reaction was no, because I was going to bed and he obviously needed it before the interview; besides  which I was writing an article on the actual interview for Christian Today.  However, because I like Sam, because I have written for Premier before and because the subject was on my mind – I got up early and dashed off a piece at 6 in the morning.

You can read my original article below. Sam thanked me and published it with, as I recall only one minor edit (the remark about the gender of their baby was too much!).     Then of course the Twitter and social media abuse began.   To question Meghan Markle means that you are a racist on a par with Hitler and an uncompassionate scumbag who does not care about mental health.  So far, so Twitter.   I was a bit surprised last night when Sam informed me that he had withdrawn the phrase ‘played the race card’ and issued an apology on the article.  When I asked him why he just simply stated that it was ‘against their standards’.   Again, echoing Big Tech when they censor people they disagree with.  I wanted to know what standard was being broken.  Is it verboten to question?   Does not one ever play the race card?

It got worse. This morning I was horrified to wake up to a curt note from Sam saying that the whole post had been taken down.  And then this apology appeared in its place on the Premier website.

Yesterday evening, shortly before the Harry and Meghan interview aired, we published a blog on this page, entitled ‘5 reasons you shouldn’t watch the Meghan and Harry interview’.

We have now removed this article and would like to unreservedly apologise for it, for the offence and hurt it has caused, and the damage it has done to the witness of Christians. We were wrong to publish it.

Although we initially only apologised for one phrase within the piece, we now understand the problems with the blog were far wider than one phrase. It was not a helpful piece of commentary, but instead has resulted in understandable anger and pain, especially for those who have experienced racism. 

My own personal view on the Harry and Meghan interview can be read here: “7 lessons Christians can learn from Meghan and Harry’s interview“. While I know this cannot repair the damage already done, my hope is this new article will prove to be a much more helpful contribution to these issues than what was published before.

Last year I wrote an editorial entitled ‘Why we’re saying black lives matter‘, which included the words, “I’ve made some decisions. No more defensiveness. No more excuses. No more deflecting.” I regret that I have not lived up to these words in the past 24 hours and ask forgiveness for all those who have been hurt by our actions as a magazine.

Sam Hailes

Editor

Premier Christianity magazine 

I was shocked by this.  It’s spineless pandering to the mob and cultural zeitgeist displays both a lack of insight and a lack of courage.  To add insult to injury Sam then tweeted with my name linked his apology and repentance for my article.  The message was clear.  I am cancelled.

 In today’s world I can hardly imagine a more damaging slur and accusation.

What Sam did not say in his apology was that he was the one who asked me to write the piece (I did not offer it) and he was the one who 24 hours before was quite happy to publish it and saw nothing wrong with it.  Now he writes an apology which absolutely trashes me as a racist and someone who does damage to the witness of Christians.  (I note in passing the people who will immediately say ‘no he didn’t do that, he just removed a post that was racist, etc’…. but that’s pedantic – it is in effect the same thing – I wrote the post!).   In today’s world I can hardly imagine a more damaging slur and accusation.   Here is the thing.  It will stick.  The level of personal abuse that I have received in public and private since then, including from so called Christian leaders, has been horrendous.  The gloating and self-congratulation ‘great we got it taken down’ from the mob is perverse in its schadenfreude,

I could write a great deal about the level of personal hurt, abuse, mental anguish and racism that I have experienced over many years – but who would be interested? My mental health is irrelevant – at least to those who claim to be upset about the Duchess.   Besides which I think it is wrong and indeed wicked to play the identarian politics victim game, in order to attack others.  All I will say is that even as I sit and write this, I feel physically sick at the level of abuse I am receiving – even more so when I see Sam staying silent about how this came about and in effect encouraging it.

I am still trying to understand why this happened?   I would expect a decent editor to say, ‘I don’t agree necessarily with everything David says, but it is an opinion piece which I asked him to write, he is not a racist and he is not attacking those who face mental health issues.   But why turn around within 24 hours and state that a piece you were happy to publish is now one that calls people to repentance?  Sam went on to publish his own puff piece to show how it should be done – a safe, sweet piece which shows how compassionate he is, how anti-racist and how kind – in contrast with the heartless scumbag who wrote the original article.  Meanwhile yours truly has been thrown to the wolves.

Did Sam have a Damascene moment?  A revelation from the Lord, revealing my sin?   I doubt it.   Nor was it the case that he published the article without reading it. He sent me a message at 8pm saying he was happy with it and was publishing it.  So what caused the change of mind?     I suspect it was just simply the mob.   The article may not be that well written and could have been expressed better but there was no racism or lack of sympathy for the mentally ill within it.  Unless you read it through the Woke glasses that say if you dare to question anyone who claims to have been a victim of racism then you are a racist.  I touched two of the shibboleths of today’s Millennials – racism (or white liberal guilt about racism) and feelings (or the right kind of feelings).

Where is the UK Church?

Apart from the personal impact on me – (I feel about as welcome in the UK church as Hilary at a Trump rally!) there is a wider issue.  Premier Christianity is one of the UK’s leading evangelical magazines.    Premier is quite happy to promote the likes of Steve Chalke and Brian McLaren – despite their attacks on Scripture and on Christ.  But I get cancelled.  The message is clear.  You can blaspheme Christ on Premier, but dare blaspheme Meghan Markle and you are toast!

The UK church is threatened with liberalism and legalism – but one greater danger (because it seems nicer and more biblical) is the kind of soft evangelicalism that Premier has now come to represent.  It’s a building without foundations.

Ironically, I recently received an e-mail from Premier encouraging me to fund their ‘essential Gospel work’.  It will be a cold day in Sydney before I do that!  Why should I fund something which promotes heresy and cancels someone who is seeking to be a faithful biblical Christian (however imperfectly)?  I speak only for myself- what others do is up to them.  Nor will I write for them again.  I have no desire to be associated with an organisation which treats its writers in such a brutal manner, or gives unto the Woke mob so easily.

What did I think I was doing?

You can now read the article below and judge for yourselves.  From my perspective I was writing in defence of the poor, against media manipulation, against people treating one another like dirt and the charade of using family squabbles to make entertainment and money.  I was critiquing celebrity pornography and suggesting that it is not good for us to buy into the celebrity circus. None of that was heard from those who are tone deaf to those issues which don’t fit on their agenda, but hyper-sensitive to what the current woke zeitgeist says is all important.     I said nothing that was remotely racist or against mental health – both of which I care passionately about.   Of course you can see that if you want to – but then you have to ask yourself the question – why do you want to?  The editor didn’t see it – until others ‘opened’ his eyes and he came on bended knee to beg forgiveness.

When I wrote the paragraphs on predictions, I was not claiming to be a prophet – I was just putting together the various trails that Oprah had been releasing as teasers.  I made no comment about these issues. I just simply predicted (accurately) what Meghan would say.   (I did comment on the gender and on forgiveness – re Harry’s Nazi uniform).   But it doesn’t matter what I said.  It’s what I didn’t say that sends me to the Woke stake.  I did not say that Meghan has been a victim of racism (I don’t know – and neither does Sam or any of the critics) – personally I am sure that she has in terms of social media, but there is no evidence of it from the Royal Family.   But that is not the issue.   In todays’ world you have to show due deference, commitment to the cause, and unquestioning acceptance of the world’s ideology.  Or you are cancelled.  By a Christian magazine…let that sink in….

The Banned Article

Will you/did you Watch THE Interview?

(Sam re-entitled this five reasons for not watching) 

 Will you be watching THE interview tonight? (Or if you are in the US or reading this later – did you watch it?).  Me?  I haven’t seen it and I won’t be sitting down in a few hours to do so.  I’d rather watch paint dry or go to the dentist than wallow in the shallow celebrity obsessed, narcissistic gossip that passes for entertainment in today’s celebrity culture.  I can think of one good reason for watching and several not to. Let’s begin with the latter.

Media Manipulation – We have all been played.  If you feel that your life will be missing something if you don’t watch it then you have been caught in the web that the mistress of spin – Oprah – has spun.  Through a series of neatly dripped press releases the media hype has been worked up into hysteria.  This is particularly true in the US – but also applies in some of the rest of the world – it was for example the first headline on the news here in Australia – even before it was aired.   If you buy into the hype – or even want to see what all the fuss is about, then you are aiding and abetting the manipulation and the farcical charade that masquerades as some kind of important ‘documentary’ or news.

Money –   The main reasons for the interview, alongside fame, revenge and online therapy, is of course money.  Oprah the multi-millionaire interviews another couple of millionaires about how poor and victimised they are – and how some other millionaires have treated them badly.  I don’t object to people having money – but I do object to the privileged and elite using the media, and their own image, to make more money out of the rest of us. When people are dying of poverty watching a mega wealthy couple complain about their victimhood, is more than my stomach can bear.

Manners –  The anti-slavery campaigner, William Wilberforce, had another great and lesser-known campaign – ‘the reformation of manners.  By that he meant how we treat other people.  It is no exaggeration to say that Wilberforce changed British society for the better.  Now our woke generation is changing all of that.  We are regressing to a society where people treat one another like dirt.  They gossip, blame, abuse and dish the dirt.  Whether this is done for money, revenge or just online therapy is irrelevant.   Why would I want to watch a privileged elite couple gossip about their family?    It’s just in bad taste.

Morality – By morality I mean the basic moral truths – love, justice, truth.  None of that will be served by a self-serving, carefully stage-managed publicity stunt.  So why should I be part of the crowd and join in?  Did Christians go to the Colosseum just to see what the fuss was all about and what really happened to the gladiators?   When two people started fighting at school it always drew a crowd.  I suspect if that were not the case there would have been a lot less fighting.   This is a form of celebrity pornography.  Why should I join in the voyeurism?

 Meaning –Even if you are naïve enough to believe that this has nothing to do with money and exploiting fame and privilege, what is the point of this interview?  TV therapy?    Why proclaim that you just want to be left alone and kept out of the press eye –and then hold a ‘tell all’ very public media circus?

There is one reason for watching it – and it’s the reason I will probably do so later. It’s the same reason I read the Ravi Zacharias report or Mein Kampf.  Not for personal pleasure but rather because as a social commentator, it is a moral obligation to read and try to understand the people and cultures I am talking about. Harry and Meghan are important – not because they have anything to do with Royalty (apart from the Queen I have little interest in that), but because they are rapidly becoming the ultimate celebrity woke couple in the US – and much of the rest of the world.

I suspect that I don’t actually need to watch the whole celebrity circus – after all a combination of press release ‘teasers from Oprah and a knowledge of the culture means any intelligent observer of the scene could write the script.  Meghan will play the race card, tell us how hard done by she is and how she contemplates suicide.  She will offer some salacious piece of gossip that some member of the royal family is supposed to have said.  They will tell us their baby is a girl  (they are not yet sufficiently or consistently woke enough to realise that gender is assigned at birth!).  Harry will come in as the dutiful husband and let us all know that his Nazi uniform wearing days are all over and that he has more than made atonement for his privileged past.   I find it fascinating that by today’s standards any celebrity caught dressing up as a Nazi at a party (even years ago) would be cancelled immediately.   They would not dare even mention racism, never mind claim to be the victim of it!   It appears that there is atonement and forgiveness in our society after all – at least for those who bow the knee to the current ideologies of our elites.    Or maybe we are just inconsistent?

Of course, I could be wrong.  It could be that Meghan and Harry will confess their privilege, admit their wrong, seek reconciliation, announce their retirement from public life so that they can focus on bringing up their family away from the glare of publicity; and donate some of their not inconsiderable money to the poor.    When people tell me the Bible is rubbish I usually ask, ‘have you read it?’  For the same reason as I will write about the interview – so I am obliged to watch it.  It’s the only reason.  But for those of you who don’t have to, I would suggest that, in the title of the old children’s TV programme – ‘why don’t you switch off your TV and go and do something less boring instead’?!  Or in the old word, more edifying.

David Robertson

Sydney

8th March

 

 

 

166 comments

  1. This is much more a statement on the bulk of evangelical media than on you Mr Robertson.
    A total lack of discernment, hey its all relative eh?
    Good in that it has shone a light on them for anyone to see who can stand separate from the current cultural values that are being fed to us in the West.
    Unfortunately it must also be seen as indicative of the credulous and naive mindset of a lot of evangelicals who are part of this culture since Premiere’ cowdice has no doubt been prompted by the ‘outrage’ that your article provoked.
    Perhaps the fact that we’re not living amongst a Christian culture but a pagan one has passed people by.

  2. Excellent article, both of them.

    I have disagreed with you on some matters in the past, but I will stand up and say that the way you are being treated over this is appalling. I have long had many concerns with Premier, trying to address which led to their blacklisting my email some years back, so in one sense I’m not surprised at the way they have behaved.

    I would, however, see this as the way which much of evangelicalism in the UK is going. For the head of one evangelical grouping to openly imply that any church leader that disagrees with the mainstream Covid narrative, and open their church for worship needs to examine their theology, is for instance, a falling into a level of support for the ungodly world position that is astonishing. This behaviour is exactly the same. We will pray for you tonight at our prayer meeting. Yes, our face-to-face prayer meeting where Christ will be with us as He promised.

    God bless you brother, strengthen you, encourage you, and give you that peace which only He can give.

    1. For the sake of balance, I’d like to point out that Christ will also be present among us at our zoom prayer meetings where attendees will be additionally blessed by a 0% chance of receiving a very nasty infection, or a criminal record.

      1. He won’t. And I have biblical mandate for that.

        2 Thessalonians 2:1.

      2. Hebrews10. 25 and 2Thess2:1 are the ONLY places in Scripture where the word used for “gathering” appears. If you’re happy to be gathered into the Lord by Zoom on the Last Day, go for it.

      3. Dominic, using the same word does not give us a ‘mandate’, even if we think that’s what we need to be ‘biblical’

      4. Do you out to shop or socialize? Is it just Christian gatherings you piously zoom?

  3. Poor, poor David Robertson!
    (Who wrote an article – for money – about why we shouldn’t watch the interview and then went ahead and watched it anyway so that he could write another article – for money – about the interview)

    And now the first article has been removed (imho for good reason) from the internet by the publisher. David naturally disagrees with this despite having had time to reflect on and reconsider his unsavoury words. Instead of repenting David now goes on the offensive with more unsavoury words – this time about publisher and others who disagree with him.

    Not nice when people write things about you that you don’t believe are true, is it David? But that’s what you did about the interviewees and now what you are doing about the publisher.

    Time to reflect, repent and apologise, David?

    1. Is unsavoury a test you are happy with for whether content should be expunged from our society?

      Just have a think of all the art – of all types – audio, visual, whatever – you have enjoyed in your years that at some societal time since it was created might have been described as “unsavoury”.

      Would you miss it?

    2. Grow up man.
      Jesus told us that we would suffer for our following of Him faithfully .
      There is a Great Shaking come over the whole earth and it is all on God’s perfect timing.
      Might I suggest that you ought to confess your walking away from the Narrow Path ?
      The wide highway to hell is heavily packed with very many Christians who like Sheep have gone astray .

    3. What exactly has David to repent for, do we not live in a free society?
      Oh I forgot there is no freedom of speech its all about wokeness and BLM. The fact that these two vindictive attention seekers called the BBC and DEMANDED that any white middle age men should not report on their interview says it all! I’m very disappointed that David’s article was removed it smacks of Nazi censorship!

  4. I feel sick with you. What a betrayal, throwing you under the bus to preserve themselves from what? Criticism. Words. The tiny minority of Twitters. Isn’t journalism supposed to be critical and even controversial? They aren’t even responsible for your opinions but now even Christian journalism must just be an organ of Wokery like some Soviet news agency. The script went as you said it seems, tho I have refused to watch it. All utterly predictable. Her ‘lived experience’ can’t be criticised as over-sensitive and manipulatory perhaps and ‘suicidal thoughts’ an invulnerable defence strategy. If you’re mentally vulnerable don’t have monetised media therapy before millions of people.

  5. A balanced article by you David. We see too many within the Church folding in our secular culture.
    Keep that big Scottish Highland chin up! We shall pray for you in all aspects of your work and just continue to be Christ centred and giving God the glory and our Lord and Saviour will bless you and your work. Be encouraged and persevere as in Galatians 6:9 “And let us not grow weary of doing good, for in due season we will reap, if we do not give up.”

  6. David, you nailed it. A billionaire interviewing two millionaires at a luxury villa. A couple who swapped one Royal family (Windsor) for another ( A-List Los Angeles celebrity), without the responsibilities. Ghastly.

  7. David
    I, I am afraid, that there was a fair amount of publicity involved, there is the opportunity for more interviews and I have no doubt that both the interviewer and the interviewees benefited.
    I am sure that there were hurts but feel that the opportunity to air them so publicly was “opportunitism”.
    Some of the complaints mentioned by the Dutchess we’re explainable but lack of knowledge in the audience obfuscated the truth about the perceived injustices.
    As you know sometimes any publicity is good publicity.
    Anyway, the editor should have indicated his unhappiness and requested revisions or at least discussed problems before publishing.
    Although I don’t always agree with you this was unfair to the writer of the article.
    KM

  8. thank you David!
    I didn’t watch it, and now know why I didn’t miss anything!

    Also, my husband and I just want to encourage you. We’re not on twitter, so we can’t rush to your defense there, but keep your head up.

    Debra

  9. Consider the times ~ 2 Timothy 4:3-4
    (The time will come when people won’t put up with true teaching. Instead, they will try to satisfy their own desires. They will gather a large number of teachers around them. The teachers will say what the people want to hear. The people will turn their ears away from the truth. They will turn to stories that aren’t true). I suspect you will have many more things like this happen to you if you keep telling the truth. Tell the truth anyway! Remember we are to keep shining the light until the end regardless of what happens.

  10. I agree with (nearly) all of the above. We do care about you David, and you have been seriously wronged.

    The editor’s comments clearly label you as a racist. I think his remarks are frankly libelous and do unjust damage to your reputation. Have you considered taking legal advice?

    The editor, in my opinion, should resign or be sacked.

    My wife wanted to watch the interview since it will likely be discussed for many years to come. I watched about 20 minutes while eating my supper, than lost the will to live and left her to it. In my view the “jaw dropping” moments were either scripted, or shot several times to make sure the right tragic tone was obtained. From Oprah’s reactions she clearly knew what was coming.

    I don’t often find myself agreeing with Piers Morgan, but for once he was bang on right. Total deception and media manipulation.

    1. It makes you wonder if someone else is pulling the editor’s strings. He’s certainly acted like a frightened rabbit!

  11. David,
    I am so frustrated at the way you have been treated….but unfortunately not surprised.
    I tried calling Premier, as I subscribe … but of course there was no one to take my call. I left a message, we’ll see if they call back.
    Your voice is needed…. keep going. I don’t think you are someone who is easily put off!But it is hurtful and frustrating when it comes from within.

    1. It’s an opinion piece, agree with it or not. It’s good to hear different opinions.

      Sorry you got cancelled. Not all in the UK church are like that, not all bow the knee.

      There’s a storm coming and now here. Many who seem strong will fall away, and many of the weak and despised will shine forth.

    2. I emailed Premier, asking “Have you published your side of the story? I think it matters”.

      The Deputy Editor, Emma Fowle, promptly replied:

      Thanks so much for your email and your interest in Premier Christianity. We did have a full conversation with David Robertson and exchanged several emails with him regarding this, much of which we have chosen not to make public, as I am sure you can understand.

      Our editor, Sam, did write an apology for the piece:

      https://www.premierchristianity.com/home/were-sorry/4020.article

      We tried our best to be balanced, did not name David in the apology or try to blame him in any way for something that we, as an editorial team, took full responsibility for.
      We hope that, whatever your opinion on this one specific incident, you still feel that Premier Christianity is of enough value and interest to you to still subscribe. As the UK’s largest media organisation, we’re committed to trying to help every day Christians live out their faith well. We don’t always get it right, but we are trying!
      Kind regards

      This does not bring me any closure, as their email exchanges were private . I’m inclined to continue supporting, and reading, David’s blog rather than Premier Christianity.

      1. I’m afraid that is part of the dishonesty. There was no balance and saying that they did not blame me is ridiculous. Of course they blamed me – I was the author of the piece that, in retrospect, was so bad it had to be pulled and apologised for. As far as I am concerned the e-mail exchanges were not private. Premier must have agreed because apparently Emma knows what I wrote to Sam and Peter Kerridge. Premier can feel free to share my or their e-mails as they wish. In not doing so they create uncertainty and hint that ‘there is something more’. They are as I pointed out. Premier for whatever reason decided to condemn me for writing a ‘racist’ article and then apologised for their not recognising it as racist quickly enough. Writing an apology for what someone else has written is pathetic.

  12. Good for you, David.

    It’s not where the secular culture stands on any issue, but where the Lord stands that really matters; and Premier Christianity should be standing up for that, not appeasing the woke mob. Perhaps PC (well-named!!!) should cancel themselves??

    However – your experience is very common now; in all Western democracies, the woke secular culture is running riot and real persecution is going to accelerate for those who really do agree with the Lord and say so, as opposed to those whose Christianity is partial and bends to the prevailing social shibboleths

    At the end though, The Lord is sovereign over all of this and will judge.

  13. Dear David,

    I felt sorry for the Sussex couple and sad for what they went through (as you were), but I was pleased for your balanced and biblical article. It is noticeable that the “Christian media” seem to be backing the couple rather than the Queen who is a Christian and testifies whenever she can. Why they should be protected when others have no voice, I do not know. They could have given a good interview in support of their work in aid of mental health issues, rather than attacking the royal family.

  14. Sadly Premier Christianity stands for all that is worst in UK evangelicalism at the moment. We need reformers and “prophets” to challenge the wishy-washiness.

  15. Keep on writing Rev David. We need truth, justice and mercy and that can only be found in God’s word. I have never subscribed to Premier – it never felt quite right. I am praying about speaking out at a Deanery meeting next month. I know it is going to be testing, but the truth needs to be voiced. Jesus’ told his disciples to shake the dust of their feet and walk away from those who would not listen – you are right to do the same to Premier.

  16. I watched the “interview”. I saw a young, albeit privileged, couple destroying themselves and their family. They were encouraged by those who see them as a nice earner and cheered on by the mod, who will fight to the last drop of anyone else’s blood. Both of these supporter groups will drop them as soon as they no longer serve their purposes.
    Similar in many ways to the comments on your blog. Leaving aside the mocking tone and the probability that Sjon does not actually believe many of their opinions to be humble, it is none the less the one comment that you may find to be the most helpful in the long run. I suspect that many of the others are happy to fight to the last drop of your blood.
    “Take time to reflect”, is usually good advice.
    “Repent”, always good advice, if, on reflection, you feel you have sinned against God.
    “Apologise”, whether warranted or not, a total waste of time.
    I see in your blog a man of God hurt by fellow Christians who are happy to attack him on the one thing he holds most dear, his Christian witness. They don’t get to judge you, or anyone else, on this issue. God will continue to use you for His own purposes and He will not dump you when that comes to an end.
    As for the evangelical church in the UK, that ship went down a long time ago.
    God bless.

  17. Like most other commenters above, I stand with you on this David. I read the article before it was altered or withdrawn and you articulated very well what I felt about the whole situation. I am appalled and saddened by the way you have been treated but somehow not surprised. Sadly this only proves the many predictions you have made about the direction that society and the Church has been going. I am not as brave as you but I thank you for writing and speaking about so many things that have been bound to have come to this point simply because the world hates THE truth.

    I don’t think it’s coincidence that recently, as in the sermon you posted, you have emphasised the need for all of us to refocus on Jesus and his glory. I have heard Martin Iles recently echoing this too. I hope you are encouraged and strengthened by the support people have written here but ultimately all of us need to look to him for everything we need. He knows exactly how you feel because it happened to him.

    God bless you for your perseverance. I will be praying for you and your family.

  18. Do you wonder David, why Premier contacted you for comment and at the last minute as well?
    While I’ve not watched the interview and have no intention, a question that is rarely asked is why do we get involved with what is euphemistically, but incorrectly called “public interest”. Why are we, the public, interested in what is little more than “secular media baptised” gossip.
    It was clear that it would be little more than self-justified, self-absorbed, one-sided, self-promotion. My dead uncle, a none Christian and certainly an anti- Royalist, would have been livid even by the publicity, let alone the content. Would he have watched it? Very doubtful, but if he had he would have been in a state of high dudgeon.
    As for Premier, selectively we listen to some radio, but a lot, especially when I’m washing the dishes, is little more than dross, chatter, with a few Christian words scattered about.
    But more concerning lately is Premier’s self-promotion and plea for funds as the Country’s biggest church! And there is the rub: you’ve been disciplined for breaching their unwritten, Statement of Faith.
    Put on Christ, the amour of God, for the battle is not against flesh and blood.

  19. I agree with quite a lot of what you wrote … but I still think it gives reasonable cause for offence.
    Using the phrase ‘play the race card’ tends to suggest you haven’t ‘got’ the depth of racism (I don’t suppose I have either).
    Seeming to disparage the ‘woke’ you risk writing off a whole world of concerns (some of which put the world of ‘bible-believing’ Christians to shame and some that are surely misguided).
    Given the strong feelings your piece was bound to arouse Premier would have been wise to think more carefully before publishing but I’m not sure why I should take Meghan Markle’s victimhood any less seriously than yours.
    I’d have welcomed a more forthright first paragraph about media manipulation: Oprah Winfrey is a player but the likes of Murdoch are bigger fish pulling strings that are wrecking Western societies.
    And even the privileged say things we can approve. For instance, in our culture the notion that we can love one without hating the other is worth speaking out loud.

  20. Hello David,
    JESUS was CANCELLED on the CROSS….They thought ….Premier CANCELLED you ….They think ….

    History as you know cannot be cancelled ,the births of your children cannot be cancelled and The Word of God cannot be cancelled…

    David you are not cancelled by God …He will continue to use you ….Jesus was crucified and cancelled from walking on planet earth the way the disciples had known him but more was to come !!!Jesus was not cancelled.

    Meghan and Harry and Edward V111 and Mrs.Simpson have something in common , cancellation…
    Edward V111 used Mrs.Simpson to abdicate and cancel being ‘ king’
    Meghan in her own inimitable way cancelled Honourable duty to Queen and country for Archwell ( spelling may be incorrect) and her own country!
    Harry followed ,why not ,he was never going to be King and not much going on ….

    Meghan and her agenda has achieved,according, to her last words to Oprah Winfrey …she has all she WANTS (I can’t remember exact words ) and couldn’t give us the exact month her baby daughter was going to be born, as all mother’s know , however was able to script her interview with Oprah articulately,polished and critiqued perfectly !
    Suicidal thoughts are not the deed and mental health comes and goes for all off us ,she is not alone but there are many others who are Lonely without conversation.

    Throwing in a sweeping statement about a known person who mentioned ‘ colour’ not size of nose or colour of eyes but skin …..seems a colourful arrangement for moving back to my roots ….

    We are all guilty of self interest and Meghan has a powerful seat now ,’Stand up Stand up for Meghan’ because I have power now and will use it for ME.
    As she said to Oprah ‘ I have all I want ‘ but for David ,The Royal family and others who don’t Stand Up for Meghan will be cancelled.
    Meghan said amongst her hens and Harry who was trying to sound like one ( shown on the interview)said she loved to rescue ….

    The interview left them laughing with eachother as Oprah watched on …I don’t think they knew the camera s were still running…. they looked thoughtless regarding racism and suicidal mental health ….because it didn’t matter anymore ,the interview was over and Meghan got what she wanted …..

    On the other hand as the old hymn sings out : ‘ Stand up Stand up for Jesus ‘ ♥️
    And that’s what you do ,David .
    Meghan and Harry will have a super life .Only God can bring in a new perspective which would lead them to repentance, reconciliation and duty !
    Gillian🙏

  21. I am a new reader to your blog from across the pond as it were. I have not seen the interview but read about it (thoroughly) and had read your piece (prescient I would say). I completely agree with you and was very surprised to see how utterly visceral so much of the response has been! My own mother has swallowed Ophra’s/Meghan’s angle, hook, line and sinker. I’m so sorry for you! They’ve seen blood in the water now. What a disappointment. I’ll be praying for you, truly.

  22. As you say David, any editor worth their salt who commissions can cover himself by saying something like ‘I don’t agree necessarily with everything David says, but it is an opinion piece which I asked him to write’ (ie the views herein are not necessarily those of the editor).
    This scenario smacks of fear on Christianity’s part, and it seems to me that someone who is financially backing them is threatening to withdraw a much-needed lifeline unless they toe the line and don’t print anything supposedly ‘controversial’.

  23. Thank God for your courage David, a true man of God who is standing up for the truth.
    What a brilliant article so relevant for today.
    We will be praying for you David

  24. Woke nonsense has spawned-Woke-and counter-Woke in churches. Legalism-licentiousness stalk the land. We have surrendered to post-modernity, or let it corrupt us, or responded in kind. The article here is fine, and says what many of us silently think. Apologies become meaningless, when they are given by proxy, for spurious reasons.

  25. David, your article seems fine by me – nothing that I cannot agree with. I did not listen to the interview, but heard on the news the chosen juicy bit that made Oprah gasp. Seemed like a normal question to me – did anyone ask what colour eyes he might have. Hope they both stay in the woke west – we are well rid of them and their wining.

  26. Hi David I read all this “ chatter” this morning before work and immediately thought of this verse and the scenario that preceded it
    1st kings 19 v 18
    Yet I have left me seven thousand in Israel, all the knees which have not bowed unto Baal, and every mouth which hath not kissed him
    Keep the faith
    Regards
    Paul

  27. David, don’t be too hurt by this? I know that’s easy to say. But people who have been listening to your sermons, reading your blogs etc over the years will see this as more of an indictment of the cowardice and scramble to be judged to have ‘acceptable’ values on the part of Premier than as a true reflection of your own personal values. Very disappointing but not really surprising?

    1. Hi David. The original article is very insightful into a whole range of behaviours and beliefs. When I read it though, I was surprised by you writing about playing ‘the race card’. That’s pretty crude. It suggests that you think Megan Markle is only mentioning race and discrimination in a cynical, self-seeking way. Or, worse, that you think mentioning racism is just a card to be played rather than something sinful. I assume you don’t. But also that you can see why it would create a reaction. I’m surprised your editor didn’t, um, edit this.

      1. What would you call the race card – so that it was less crude? The editor didn’t edit it because there was nothing wrong with it – until people piled in…

      2. What would I call the ‘race card’? I’m not sure, perhaps that Meghan would raise her experience of racism? The original comes across as quite pejorative.

        I enjoy your writing and not intending to join any pile-in on you…I thought otherwise the article made some excellent points.

      3. See my latest citation of Greg Sheridans article for an explanation. Incidentally why do we regard Meghan as ‘black’ – she is more ‘white’. Although I hate playing the skin colour identity game….

      4. Admf, you’re right about this. If I said David Robertson had “played the cancelled card” I think he would recognise a lack of sympathy.

      5. No – I would agree with you. Thats precisely what I did. Why should I have a problem with that? Its after all fairly easy to prove I played it correctly – I was cancelled!

  28. Well, you have something in common with Piers Morgan now.
    I wish I subscribed to Premier Christianity so that I could cancel my sub. How does it happen that some people are above criticism? Ali G used to say along time ago, “Is it because I’s black?”

  29. I read your Premier article first- and decided then not to watch the Oprah interview. I realized I was being tempted and seduced by Celebrity Porn. The lure to spend 2 hours being entertained by a princess in luscious surroundings – gently revealing, while blinking back the tears about how she was victimised because of the colour of her skin – her against the institution- all the while looking like the perfect princess – revealed to me my persistent mental health crisis – a Cinderella syndrome. OK so she’s not an actual princess but you know what I mean. She would not be rushing in at the last minute because she was running late, wearing the most decent garment she could find in her very limited wardrobe, feeling in any way self-conscious about the flaws in her appearance. She would have spent hours, days carefully crafting how she would look – along with her team of staff of course. She would not be having a bad hair day – of frizz. Her make up would be absolutely perfect. I’m sure I could be in as good shape as her – if I had a personal trainer and all that money too. Well that’s my excuse. She would have perfect hair, perfect eyebrows, eyelashes, lips, teeth, clothes, figure. She would not be worrying about getting childcare for Archie during this time – or the quality of the childcare. If she had been interviewed in my front room, wearing any of my clothes, no make-up, having a bad hair day- nobody would have watched. So what is all this really about then? I think it shows how utterly shallow we really are – and I for one am glad I escaped the lure. Thanks David for the warning. Further – when are we ever going to learn that there are 2 sides to every story? – and we may never hear the other side. We will certainly not hear Queen Elizabeth on Oprah saying “and I said and she said and then he said”. It won’t happen.
    While half the world is distracted by what one commentator called “the Duchess of Victimhood” – I am reminded as a Christian that I am to be the voice of those with no voice. Meghan does not fit into that category. It would seem that over the last few days she has had the loudest voice in the whole world. If she did feel suicidal – does that necessarily mean it was automatically the fault of ‘the institution’? If I don’t instantly melt into submission and agree that she must have been a victim of the institution because she was suicidal – then that makes me heartless. No it doesn’t – suicidal tendencies are incredibly complicated and should be understood and examined as such.
    As I said, while half the world is distracted by this so called victimhood – modern day slavery continues right under our noses. Children of all colours are sex-trafficked. Human trafficking is a global epidemic. Houston, Texas being a hub of sex trafficking. And also at USA’s southern border teenagers are being used to traffic drugs and often brutally and savagely beaten by grown men if they fail – I read of one report of a 15 year old boy having his buttocks basically being beaten off him with a wooden post by a grown man because of failing to smuggle drugs. While the leader of the free world defends China’s cultural norms – we can read reports of the most brutal, inhumane treatment of religious groups in China by the CCP. There are reports of brutal torture, perverse and cruel methods of sexual torture and abuse of both men and women – young and old. The gang rape of orphaned little girls. The president and vice president of the USA have removed protections for full-term babies in the womb and those born because of a botched abortion – under the sanitised label of ‘reproductive rights’. And here in the West we are frequently afraid to use ordinary language and express common sense because we might lose our jobs or be arrested for a hate crime and possibly jailed.
    As Christians – I believe we have more pressing issues to cry about and act on than Harry and Meghan’s supposed victimhood. So forgive me if the tears I shed are tears of anger against injustice. But don’t make Meghan cry – you might spoil her make up.

  30. Hi David, I don’t agree with what Premier magazine have done at all. However you didn’t have to agree to it. I’m getting really tired of the word “Woke” being thrown around when people are being confronted with what they have done/said. Its called holding you accountable. Christians shouldn’t get swamped in celebrity culture but oh you can still love and swoon over the royal family who are what? We are British and the Royal family are a huge part of British culture. If an interview is coming out where the GRANDSON of the Queen and her daughter in law are sharing their experience after not saying a word for years what is wrong with watching it? As believers what we will do and certainly what I did was pray after the interview for both of them and the family. Trusting that God can repair what is broken. Your article screams help I am being cancelled which is not nice of course but there is zero accountability on your part. Then when you are questioned it is now the woke mob that is after you. I’m hoping you can reflect on this and have take aways from it for the future.

    1. Woke – has nothing to do with people criticising me. That is not what makes people woke. Woke is when you are so scared of being accused of racism that you call everyone else racist who dares to question. I am not a Royalist and certainly don’t swoon over the Royal Family. Again what gives you the right to make those kind of judgements?

      Harry and Meghan have not said a word for years?

      There is plenty accountability on my part. And yes I was cancelled. Do you support that?

      1. Your definition of ‘woke’ helps you to bash ‘that lot over there’ but it won’t win friends for the gospel among many who are justice seekers. Besides, it’s not how the ‘woke’ define themselves so they will easily dismiss the best of what you have to say.

      2. Do you know what my definition of woke is? Would you say ; your definition of ‘racist’ helps you bash that lot over there but it won’t win friends for the Gospel?

      3. Your definition of ‘woke’ is irrelevant if everyone else understands it in the same way.🤷‍♂️

      4. Hi David
        I don’t know what “the” definition of woke is. You speak all in one paragraph of the “the mob” and of reading “through the Woke glasses that say if you dare to question anyone who claims to have been a victim of racism then you are a racist”. One of your subsequent comments has it that “Woke is when you are so scared of being accused of racism that you call everyone else racist who dares to question.”
        The definition I hear is that “woke” derives from an idea of being “awake” to injustice. “Wake up, O sleeper, and rise from the dead” comes to mind.
        I am far from defending all that is said to be “woke” and not far from agreeing with much of what you wrote.
        I don’t think I have offered the word racist in what I have written to you and certainly do not intend to have bashed you with it. I suggested that saying someone of mixed race will ‘play the race card’ “tends to suggest you haven’t ‘got’ the depth of racism (I don’t suppose I have either)”.
        Suggesting you had “played the cancelled card” I certainly intend to convey a limit to my sympathy for you.
        I’m not convinced you are listening to what other people will reasonably see in your choice of words.

      5. Words change. Woke no longer means waken up to injustice – just as gay no longer means happy.

        I listen to everything – but you need to understand that listening doesn’t mean agreeing. Meghan played the race card. There is no dispute about that. The dispute is about whether she was right to do so – or whether everyone who plays that card makes themselves immune from any questioning.

      6. I am going by your article. Again I don’t support Premier magazine for what they have done infact its disgraceful. However in your article you said Meghan will pull the race card. That in itself sounds dismissive as if to say she will blame her problems on this. Is race not a serious issue? Would it be surprising that race is brought up considering the way the tabloids have bullied her I.e referring to her as gangster royalty,her ancestors being from cotton farms,straight outta Compton and a pic with a child as a chimpanzee. I didn’t get the Christian perspective in your article. We are all one in Christ Jesus but your article offended a number of black Christians because it was dismissive. You said there is plenty accountability on your part so there are things for you to reflect on in future. Everyone has an opinion but when you are writing a public article as a Christian you need to ensure your words are seasoned with salt. I’m not a royalist either but I don’t like injustice across the board. Her words are her words if you don’t believe it to be true thats fine,don’t write about it and then encourage the Christian community to take on YOUR view.

      7. Anna – what do you mean by ‘the Christian perspective’?

        DOn’t believe everything you read in, or about, the tabloids.

        Race is a serious issue – which is why it should be taken seriously and not weaponised in a publicity stunt and an internal family squabble. Meghan treated her own family like dirt (none of them were at the Royal wedding except her mother)…she publicly trashes her in laws – throwing all of them under the bus by accusing them of racism (in a comment she did not hear and was not necessarily racist).

        My article was not dismissive – and a number of black Christians (I hate the term by the way – what right do we have to label people according to their skin colour?) wrote me to say they agree with what I said – they don’t like being used in this way. So who is right? Does that even bother you or is it just about perceived hurt feelings? And some people’s hurt matters more than others?

        OF course its true that our words should be seasoned with salt – but in saying that you are making the judgement that they were not. In other words you judge me based on your feelings and your judgement of my speech and heart. I’m sorry but I am not going to bow to that kind of emotive bullying.

        Her words are her words. As Oprah said – her truth is her truth. But that does not make it true. The fact that she made it in public – and they have gone all over the world means that they can be commented on in public. Ironically you are saying that it is perfectly ok for Meghan to trash her family – make millions out of doing so – speak her ‘truth’ – but I should be silent.,

        Your position is irrational and harmful. I agree we all need to reflect – I do little less nowadays. Perhaps you should do the same?

  31. Great articles Rev Robertson. As always, truthful with no hidden meanings, subtext or agendas. Thoroughly refreshing.

  32. Normally I am a chilled-out millennial. Today, I am a motivated one. I wrote to Premier. Enjoy.

    “Dear Premier,

    I was disheartened to see the cowardly decision of your editor to take down the article written by David Robertson about the Prince Harry and Megan interview.

    I found that his article brought some refreshing truth which spoke into the uneasiness within me about all the cultural undertones surrounding the interview with Harry and Megan. I was so thankful to see that there are some Christians able to interpret and give expression to the spiritual issues at stake within our cultural moment, which have been brought to the surface by The Interview.

    And yet – the article by David has been taken down, fawningly apologised for and replaced with a tepid article (“7 lessons Christians can learn from Meghan and Harry’s interview“) which does not address any of the unsettling yet urgent spiritual issues thinly-veiled beneath the surface of this topic. I look to Christian journalism to search for a spiritually discerning opinion – what I find is the same secular response I’ve read plenty of times already, peppered with one or two conveniently plucked Bible verses to dress it up a bit. So where is truth in 2021? Truth has stumbled in the streets, honesty cannot enter. (Isaiah 59:14)

    David Robertson’s article shone a light on the critical, albeit uncomfortable, questions at stake in our culture. And surely that is the heart of being a Christian: we are to be the ‘light of the world’ – people who expose the hidden truth and cut through the confusion with clarity in a world which is in darkness (Matthew 5:14-16).

    Jesus spoke truth into a hypocritical culture. It was unpopular, but it was still truth. He got crucified for it. Is Premier Christianity completely missing the point of Christianity?

    This move to ‘cancel’ those who try to boldly speak truth into the confusion of our culture is seriously alienating to all types Christian readers – including younger readers like myself. Whats the point of reading Christian journalism which is indistinct from secular opinions? Premier has “lost its saltiness”.”

    1. Absolutely ‘spot on’. I might plagiarise a bit of this for my own letter to Premier, cancelling my subscription to Christianity magazine.

  33. David –

    I’m very sorry to see the appalling, treacherous way in which you have been treated after merely doing what you were asked to do – offer an opinion, one person’s perspective. My impression of Premier Christianity magazine when I have occasionally seen it is that it is rather liberal in tone and not particularly concerned about holding to traditional biblical orthodoxy, but rather wishing to ‘reflect a wide range of perspectives in Christianity’. Which is an easy way to dodge any criticism. In such a context your clear-thinking and challenging opinion pieces were helpful in pointing readers back to biblical truth and principles. Without your input in future the magazine would seem likely to drift further from sound biblical foundations. So it’s their loss.

    Sadly this is yet another example (if we needed more) of a supposedly Christian ‘institution’ ceasing to be Christian in any meaningful sense. At least such situations help to demonstrate ever more clearly who is on the Lord’s side, adhering to and speaking his truth, and who has sold out to ‘the world’ for an easy life. If I was a subscriber to PC (apt initials eh?) I would write to cancel my subscription, but as I’m not I merely wrote to tell them in no uncertain terms that I was disgusted by their spinelessness. They may come to regret their hasty and cowardly decision. However on the other hand to be able to bask in the momentary approval of their woke readers may be sufficient reward.

    Keep up the good work!

  34. Hi David,
    I enjoyed your writing style. My prayer for you is that you keep close to Jesus and walk in forgiveness. It was good to hear your side of the story and read the article that you wrote.
    May God bless you and keep you close to Him.

  35. Absolutely shocking the way you were treated. Today in Scotland the so called Hate Speech Bill has been passed. Sad day for Scotland. Worrying times ahead, if one dares to disagree with the woke left. Keep up the good work. Don’t let them upset you or silence you. “Greater is He who is within you, than ‘he’ who is in the world”

  36. As they say, you couldn’t make it up. Except that in the mad world of wokery, nothing should surprise us. The current issue of PC magazine has an article (see link) on the problems with cancel culture and why we should be more tolerant of inconvenient opinions. Unfortunately it doesn’t mention David Robertson as an example of someone who has been recently cancelled. Perhaps the editor would like to issue an apology for this, and add you to the list?

    https://www.premierchristianity.com/Past-Issues/2021/March-2021/You-ve-been-cancelled

  37. David Robertson your post on Meghan was extremely disappointing. As a WHITE MAN how dare you decide what is racist to people of colour/black people?! Your use of the term ‘woke’ is disgusting dismissive and is fuelled with hatred.

    I’m so very disappointed in you. And you dare to call yourself a follower of Christ. You need to repent and apologise

    1. Thanks for this….I permit it for one reason. It lets people see the level of irrationality, hatred and racism I have to face. You havn’t the guts to use your own name and instead accuse me of racism by being racist. You think that my skin colour prevents me from knowing what racism is. I suspect you are probably white – and it doesn’t seem to prevent you! My use of the term woke is descriptive and is filled with love…..

      1. ‘My use of the term woke is descriptive and is filled with love…’ I’m not sure a term that is bascially an insult, in much the same way ‘cancelled’ is basically an exaggeration, can ever be used in love. Using these terms immediately places the user in a particular camp and not one that has covered itself in glory.

        Neither does the camp overflow with grace whihc is another thing I am not seeing much of on here andn imn the wider spheres these posts reflect. In it’s place we have opinion, quite a lot of arrogance (from all sides) and a great deal of drawing up on party lines – ‘we are right and they are wrong!’.

        It is the stance of the playground gang and the tabloid, and it is tiresome.

      2. Are you sure that the term ‘white washed tomb’ can ever be used in love? What about the term ‘racist’? Is that not an insult? Can it ever be used in love? Are you saying that you don’t think that you are right and others who don’t agree with you are wrong? Do you not think that calling others playground and tabloid and tiresome is also an insult and pejorative and not filled with love? So why did you use those words? You see what happens when you play those kind of games?

      3. Hello David,

        In response to your anonymous accuser, may I offer this testimony from a fiend of mine that is of a different ethnic origin to her husband?

        “I don’t understand the “racism” there. If both parents are from the same ethnic background, you don’t ask whom would the baby look like – colour, eyes, etc. In fact, it would be strange and nonsense to ask those questions. In my case, it never occurred to me to consider my own thoughts or my family’s or friends’ as racists: my husband and I are from two very different ethnic background and as an expectant mother one wonders with glee and joy how God would choose the shades of human skin and tint of the eyes for the new baby being knitted in the woman’s womb.
        And of course, there a vast array of opinions about this issues. I’m at peace knowing that we all come from one race, the human race.”

        Here’s the link for the context to this – https://www.facebook.com/adam.julians/posts/10159135733972114?comment_id=10159136030847114&reply_comment_id=10159137887222114&notif_id=1615448095014312&notif_t=feed_comment&ref=notif

      4. I don’t seem to be able to reply to your post replying to mine but maybe this will work.

        The only game played here is one being used to avoid addressing the point.

        Racist = loaded insult, judgemental. ‘You as a person are a racist, I write you off. ‘
        You are displaying racist behaviour = better, addresses the behaviour not the person.

        ‘the stance of the playground gang and the tabloid’ = that addresses behaviour not the person.

        Or is that all too ‘woke’ for a Thursday?

      5. No – its playing with words….saying I am not calling you a racist but your behaviour is racist is not really helpful!

  38. Does this not highlight where we have got to, not just within society, but also within many christian circles. It is very sad to say, but many within todays church look so much like the world; they do not want to offend anyone and will do their utmost to make sure they look whiter than white within the eyes of the world – and all the while satan just laughs.
    John MacArthur in a recent sermon stated to his congregation, “if you do not want to be offended by the truth, then this is not the church for you.” Paul said “I have become your enemy for telling you the truth?” THE TRUTH OFFENDS – why? – because if you are not with Christ then you are with the devil and he hates the truth – why? because the truth sets you free and brings you into eternal salvation with Jesus Christ. Many will say Lord Lord yet He will turn them away!
    David, I imagine deep down you are not surprised by this, but still, the realisation of how far we have sunk into a socially approved gospel is alarming. To the church in the UK – IF YOU ARE CONCERNED ABOUT KEEPING YOURSELF RIGHT WITH SOCIETY AND IT’S MANY CHANGING WAYS – THEN YOU ARE NOT FOLLOWING JESUS CHRIST!! Remember we are told that the road is narrow – the church was never meant to be popular or accepted by ALL. Yes we are called to love, but do so with a Godly love within the parameters laid out by Him. Jesus spoke the truth and even let many turn away but He still died for them. He laid the truth before them and said (in my words) “here you are folks, here is the truth. Will you follow? To do so WILL cost you for as the world hates me they will also hate you.”
    So, David, thank you for your unwavering stance and being prepared to speak the truth. All we can do is cry out to God for mercy for this nation and the world.

  39. Matthew 10:22. Be encouraged you are upholding the Truth, not someone else’s version of it. Unfortunately Premier is now part of the dross of secular liberalism and as such will have no enduring impact (Matthew 13:30).

  40. One of the deeper issues around this is surely that people seem to be increasingly believing that there is nothing wrong with humans that a bit of education can’t cure. And that today’s ‘truths’ have always been there. That being so, it follows more naturally that the past can be held to account by today’s ‘standards’. I already hear of funerals where the deceased is described as being ‘perfect’ Greta Thunberg is telling us that we need to be held accountable (presumably by her truths). Wisdom of older people doesn’t count. So the dinosaur Royal Family are clearly in the wrong when it comes to the younger generation’s opinions. Amongst the public there seem to be clear generational divides on opinion. Some of us are rather cynical that we’ve been here before, and that maybe there’s another side to the story.

    Also of course, the simple fact that people who approve of an article don’t generally write in to say so.

  41. As usual David, you are a beacon of Light and Truth. Consider it an honor that Premeire cancelled you, as you pointed out, they soft pedal heresey and are willing to tickle itching ears. Continue to overturn the moneychanger tables in front of the Synagogues. Your podcast and posts are small jolts of Christian motivation to a sister in Our Lord, who really begins to dispair when I think the entire world has lots its collective mind and sense of decency.

  42. As someone who considers the self to be not easily surprised by anything today,I’m gobsmacked, to see an interview which contained so many accusations and innuendos thrown left right and centre without a scrap of evidence being offered, choosing instead to say, you just have to believe my word and then, to see anyone who dares to question what has been said to be treated with less respect than Matthew Hopkins treated those accused of witchcraft has me feeling sick to the pit of my stomach.

  43. First they came for the readers, when Premier abruptly withdrew the ability of readers to comment on its online articles like yours, the culmination of a process of increasingly woke moderation that many of us could see wasn’t going to have a happy ending.

    But you were a writer, not a mere reader, so you did not speak out.

    In fact, you carried on writing for the new Premier, which had become deaf, arrogant and elitist – read-only media as far as the readers were concerned, not interested in how their news stories and opinion pieces were received, with the result that many of us stopped bothering to read Premier at all there and then. Why care what somebody thinks, who doesn’t care what his readers think?

    Now that they’ve come for you, I’m afraid there is nobody left to speak out for you. Premier fell to the enemy long ago. We were disappointed that you hadn’t noticed. At least you have noticed now, now that the fall of Premier has affected you personally. Join the club. We’d been expecting you for a long time.

    Be careful to practise what you preach. I was disappointed recently that you published only a handful of comments that expressed approval of the article by Janet Albrechtsen that you had reblogged. You no-platformed my comment critical of Ms Albrechtsen’s piece and your judgment in praise of it, a piece which I considered badly flawed, not in the least praiseworthy. You deleted my critical comment unpublished.

    1. John – my advice is that you need to get over yourself. I don’t publish every comment on here – because I don’t want this to become like so many things on the internet – dominated by those who have little to say, but keep saying it.

      I have always spoken out on Premier. Your comments on Albrechtsen were not worth publishing. If you think they are just do it on your own platform. I prefer not to allow too much nonsense on mine…sorry…

    2. It’s good that Premier turned off commenting. All that ever happened was shameful arguments about the things that divide believers, with plenty of trolls enjoying the fun. It helped no one. Good riddance.

  44. John Newton “On Godly Disputation” offers sage advice for us all…..
    “Dear Sir,
    As you are likely to be engaged in controversy, and your love of truth is joined with natural warmth of temper, my friendship makes me solicitous on your behalf. You are of the strongest side; for truth is great, and must prevail; so that a person of abilities inferior to yours might take the field with a confidence of victory. I am not therefore anxious for the outcome of the battle; but I would have you more than a conqueror, and to triumph, not only over your adversary, but also over yourself. If you cannot be vanquished, you may be wounded. To preserve you from such wounds as might give you cause of weeping over your conquests, I would present you with some considerations, which, if duly attended to, will do you the service of a great coat of armor; such armor, that you need not complain, as David did of Saul’s, that it will be more cumbersome than useful; for you will easily perceive that it is taken from that great armory provided for the Christian soldier—the Word of God. I take it for granted that you will not expect any apology for my freedom, and therefore I shall not offer one. For methods sake, I may reduce my advice to three heads, respecting your opponent, the public, and yourself.

    1. As to your opponent, I wish that before you set pen to paper against him, and during the whole time you are preparing your answer, you may commend him by earnest prayer to the Lord’s teaching and blessing. This practice will have a direct tendency to conciliate your heart to love and pity him; and such a disposition will have a good influence upon every page you write.

    If you account him as a BELIEVER, though greatly mistaken in the subject of debate between you, the words of David to Joab concerning Absalom, are very applicable: “Deal gently with him for my sake.” The Lord loves him and bears with him; therefore you must not despise him, or treat him harshly! The Lord bears with you likewise, and expects that you should show tenderness to others—from a sense of the much forgiveness you need yourself. In a little while you will meet in heaven—he will then be dearer to you than the nearest friend you have upon earth is to you now! Anticipate that period in your thoughts, and though you may find it necessary to oppose his errors, view him personally as a kindred soul, with whom you are to be happy in Christ forever.” Every blessing – Troy

  45. Hello David

    I am appalled by your treatment and will be cancelling my subscription to Premier. For a long time I have had doubts about them but thought it good they had a variety of opinions and so continued to support. But before I read this I had read an extraordinary article by Sam Hailes basically implying that if we didn’t believe what Duchess of Sussex was saying we should ask Jesus to do a deeper work in our hearts. That is not allowing for wisdom or differing views-it’s saying there is only one way to think about this and if you don’t have the same reaction as me then you are a bad Christian! This was swiftly followed by another article saying how to think about Piers Morgan. Can’t stand him and he deserves to be sacked as deeply unprofessional for walking off his show. But I’ll decide what I think thanks very much! Christian writers should use the framework of the Bible to offer perspective and opinions yes-but each one of us is accountable before God to exercise his gifts and make judgements as wisely as we can.
    Now I hear this. I thought your article good except for bit about race card-she has definitely been treated in a racist manner- but Sam Hailes response was excessive and the lack of love and support shown to a fellow Christian-even one we disagree with-is really upsetting.
    I shall now have the pleasure of cancelling Premier and using the money spent on supporting your blog. For the record I think you get it wrong on BLM -I am more akin to NT Wrights view. But there is an even greater principle at stake here. After all if we are liable to the fires of Hell for calling our brother and idiot-how much worse is it to call someone a racist. Blessings on you David.

  46. Thank you for this article, your comments, and the original submission,which rather reflect my thoughts on this sad debacle.
    There is no evidence whatsoever that Markle was mad unwelcome, for racism within the royal family, or for any of the other totally unsubstantiated allegations made. Your comments appear to be exactly appropriate.

    (Having said that, I have to acknowledge that I had never previously heard of “Premier Christianity”, nor the publication to which this entirely unchristian and unbiblical epithet is appended, and shall determine to avoid it in future)

  47. What Premier has demonstrated is that it is not a radio station for the UK. It is a station that speaks for woke Londoners.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

%d bloggers like this: