I was so appalled at the ‘open letter’ signed by some evangelicals re the Unite the Kingdom march that I wrote this article on Christian Today – you can get the original here
Disuniting the Kingdom – an open letter to evangelical signatories of the anti ‘Unite the Kingdom’ letter – CT
To those evangelicals who signed the ‘Unite the Kingdom’ letter:
Dear Brothers and Sisters,
I am deeply concerned that some of you as evangelical leaders have decided to sign an open letter condemning the use of Christian symbols in the ‘Unite the Kingdom’ march.
Your letter will be widely reported as showing that the official church was opposed to this march. I am not referring to the liberal and ‘progressive’ signatories who, as we all know, regularly use Christianity to proclaim their particular political views. My concern is with those of you who profess to be evangelical and to speak on behalf of your fellow evangelicals.
Double Standards
Your first objection is that many individuals and communities “felt anxious, unsettled and even threatened by aspects of the march”. Of course this is true. When you play the ‘feelings’ card it will always be true for some people. My problem is that although this could be said of many marches, you did not say it on those occasions. Did you write an open letter concerned about the use of Christian symbols at Pride parades or anti-Israel marches? Many individuals and communities feel anxious, unsettled and even threatened by aspects of these marches. Do their feelings not count?
You are also concerned that the rally included “racist, anti-Muslim and far right elements.” Can I simply point out that every march I have ever been on contained people who had more extreme views. Would you have advised me, as a student Christian activist, to stay away from CND ‘ban the bomb’ marches because they contained communists and far left elements? Should I have avoided supporting Scottish independence because there were some people who were racist and anti-English?
Did I miss your letter advising Christians not to go on pro-Palestinian marches because there are people chanting for the elimination of Israel and the Jews? Or do you operate on the principle that not everyone should be tainted with the views of those on the extremist fringes? So why the double standard in this case?
Far Right?
As evangelicals you know the importance of words and truth. So why use the pejorative and increasingly meaningless term ‘far right’? Do you not know that in today’s world those of us who are evangelicals who hold to the Bible are regarded as far right because we are opposed to abortion, same-sex marriage and transgender ideology? Are you de facto condemning all of us?
Pro-Muslim?
I was just as surprised to see you complaining about being “anti-Muslim”. Of course we are to love the people and welcome the stranger, but we certainly do not have to welcome the ideology, especially if we think it is fundamentally harmful and will destroy this country.
Are you not aware that Islam is as much a political ideology as it is a religion? When the new blasphemy law regarding ‘Islamophobia’ comes into force can you not see that any Christian who denies Muhammad is a prophet or the Quran is the word of God could be found guilty? Do you think the growth of Islam in this country is good for either the country or the church? If you do, how can you possibly call yourself an evangelical? If not, then why not speak out and say so? At the very least please stop condemning those who warn of the growing danger of the Islamisation of the country.
Excluding by being Inclusive
I would expect evangelicals to speak in the clear language of Scripture, not the coded memes of contemporary society. For example, you write “any co-opting or corrupting of the Christian faith to exclude others is unacceptable”. Of course, we are all for ‘inclusion’, but it really does depend on what you mean by the term. The great danger is that you equate the virtue of inclusion with your political values and end up excluding and condemning all who disagree with you.
I am sure that there are people you would want to exclude in some way. Being inclusive doesn’t mean you affirm or accept every lifestyle or point of view. I’m not over keen on including paedophiles, fascists or misogynists – although I would be more than happy to include them in the gospel call to repentance and renewal. The irony is that by adopting in the name of Christ the exclusion view of inclusion – so beloved by illiberal progressives – you are yourselves co-opting the Christian faith to exclude those who don’t agree with you.
Patronising
There is another problem here. It is the deeply patronising tone of your letter. You recognise “the deep sense of frustration at feeling unheard and forgotten in the democratic process”, and suggest that this wound would be healed if the Church and society as a whole does more to address the issues of “poverty, inequality and exclusion”. That is about as tone deaf as you can get.
Many middle-class churches talk about poverty, inequality and exclusion. But you offer no solutions. You think that the poor are just not educated or intelligent or nice enough to get your solutions – and so you smear them with the brush of fascism. Perhaps if you would learn to listen to people then they might not feel so unheard and forgotten? The problem with the political establishment in the UK at the moment is that every major party seems to be singing from the same hymn sheet – and it is not a particularly Christian one. Why join their choir?
What Fellowship does Light have with Darkness?
And then there is the real elephant in the room. You don’t seem to see the wood for the trees – or the beam in your own eye. Some of your co-signatories are doing the very thing that you accuse the marches of doing. They take all the trappings of Christianity – the language, the clothing, the rituals and the Bible – and use them to further their own political and socio-economic views. They don’t believe the Bible, but they are prepared to use it. Steve Chalke for example condemns you for “excluding” those who want same-sex marriage – he even suggests that Jesus got it wrong.
Steve is not the only one. You, as evangelicals, have joined up with people who deny the Scriptures and who use the symbols of Christianity to promote their own political/social agenda, rather than Christ.
You say you are doing this unapologetically in the name of Jesus Christ. But which Christ? The Christ of the Scriptures or the Christ made in the image of progressive liberalism? I fully accept that there is a danger of cultural Christianity – where Christ and the Bible are hijacked by those with a more ‘right wing’ agenda. But there is also the danger of a cultural Christianity where Christ and the Bible are hijacked by those with a more ‘left wing’ agenda. In co-signing this letter, you have allied yourself with one group – at the expense of the Gospel.
Personally, I support the likes of the Evangelical Alliance and the Bible Society precisely because they do not take a political stance. By allying yourselves with one side of the culture war you have changed that. You have alienated millions of people who need to hear our message by implying that they are associated with Nazis. By taking such partisan political action, you will divide the Kingdom, rather than unite it.
Our Only Hope
You say that you are committed to “building a more United Kingdom where the values of love, humility and compassion shine through in every community”. Like motherhood and apple pie, that’s all good and well, but how is that going to happen? Is it going to be a smorgasbord of multiculturalism and different incompatible religions and philosophies? I think that at best, that is a well-meaning but dangerous fantasy.
Our only hope is not in nationalism, progressivism or conservatism with a Christian veneer. It is for a real renewal of the Christian Gospel. That will not happen if we turn Christianity into a progressive Hallmark style ‘thought for the day’ just echoing the politics and values of what all the ‘nice, decent’ people in our society think. Nor will it happen if we turn it into some kind of conservative political movement.
Real Christianity is much more radical than that. Can we please have some more of the real stuff – not just the shadowy imitations of whatever political philosophy happens to be in vogue? Can we have more of the prophetic, and less of the political? More of the powerful Word and less of the progressive platitudes. And above all, give us Christ and his word – in all its hope, challenge, uncomfortableness, truth and joy.
Yours etc
David A Robertson
Quantum 374 – Is Charlie our JFK Moment? Marching in London. Killing in the Congo
Charlie Kirk’s assassination exposes the heart of darkness in these troubled times – CT
Very, very well said, David. May God richly bless you in your ministry.
Thank you for your letter. I thought it explained the nuance in issues and the dangers of losing touch with biblical wisdom. in the political sphere.
That letter manages to express little more than the unexamined prejudices of the soft left. I didn’t recognise any of the signatories as being evangelical: I don’t think that having the word in a person’s job title qualifies.
I did of course recognise the name of Steve Chalke who has enjoyed (if that is the correct word) great notoriety for his views on the atonement of Christ. A man who sets himself up to deprive the message of the cross of all its saving power has more to worry about than having a problem with people, in his view, misappropriating the symbol of the cross.
There are some good evangelicals in there – including somewhat disappointingly the head of the Evangelical Alliance and Krish Kandiah and others. That’s why I wrote the letter.
I think that the only surprise to me was the Bible Society – but only because I know very little about it. Both Calver and Kandiah were entirely predictable, based on my observations over the last few years. Both are entitled, self-regarding latter-day Pharisees and self-styled “leaders” who view themselves as called to a mission, which includes disparaging, moralising about and sneering at those who differ from them politically.
Of course, there are differences. Calver trades on the myths of the EAs history, basking in the reflection of its imagined glories, claiming proprietarial rights to the use of the term “Evangelical”. This is despite only representing a tiny minority of evangelical Christians in this country. Kandiah is a ridiculous me-me-me self-promoter, a self-styled “social entrepreneur” – aka interfering busybody – who has an opinion on everything, thinks he has a monopoly on how to be compassionate, and whose output is riddled with hypocrisy and double-standards. His self-righteous posture as a “bridge” is entirely bogus because, as we have both discovered, he is trigger-happy with the block button if he does not like what you say; he also (and he actually boasts about this) regards his appearances on places like GB News as an opportunity to educate and inform those morally inferior to him, not to debate and learn.
As for the other signatories, despite the media hype what struck me most was the fact that it mainly consisted of “B-listers”, has-beens, wannabes and a few grifters who habitually hijack Christianity for their political purposes.
Thank you, David. Spot on. I feel this applies to us in the US as well.
Progressive liberal “Christianity” is causing divisions not only in the Church but also throughout every stratem of society.
Very well said. I am disappointed with a lot of church leaders who support unlimited immigration but have no answers as to what to do with these people. I think we need law and order in the UK and controlled borders but my church leaders don’t agree. Really glad with what you wrote, thanks
I’m not sure who these “lot of church leaders’ are who support ‘unlimited immigration. There are numerous leaders who have objected to specific proposals for a variety of reasons but that is not to do with “unlimited immigration.” There are limits now and much of the debate is around how effective they are and can be. There is a legitimate debate around state managed migration/controlled movement of people v free movement of people. My settled view is that if you want free movement of goods and services then you have to accept free movement of people too. But that means that like other things there are limits, just like with the market. The limits are natural limits. Things tend to balance out over time. And that does mean that we have clear answers about “what to do with people.” Controlled borders? What exactly do we mean by this. The borders are controlled, there \are passport controls. There are vast parts of the coastline of course where people can enter the country, we aren’t in a post ion to build a wall but the controls are there in that someone entering through those points still at some point will be held accountable for why they are in the country. So the question isn’t about controlled borders but whether we stick with the convention that those who enter the country may claim asylum and that this has to be considered. Similarly, saying you want “law and order in the UK” needs defining. Do your church leaders want lawlessness or is it that they have differences on what that law and order entails and how it is accomplished?
Whilst I agree with comments on holding to Biblical truth I am worried that the focus on salvation brought by the cross is not also matched with joy for the inauguration of the new kingdom which calls us to love our enemies and work for compassion and justice for the poor and foreigner? Whether right or left are we in danger of fear taking over?
Hello brilliant , couldn’t agree more, I hope and pray they take note. Blessings to you and Annabel.
Thank you for this. You have articulated some of my own thoughts about Evangelicals joining with liberals and those who try to marry Christian teaching with the Queer religion, Critical Race religion etc.
Well said! If we don’t stand up for biblical truth now and the church doesn’t find its voice we will lose the right to do so. Jesus was a radical in his day. I am not far right but we are losing our free speech and it is time for us to stand and have a voice before it is too late.
So Gav Calver and Krish Kandiah know for sure that those people carrying those Christian symbols were not actually Christians? Was it the tattoos and general working class-ness that gave it away? No plaid shirts?
How fascinating that we assume automatically that they were working class. A check of the bios of the “patriot pastors” even throws up an old Etonion. There is a presumption that the kind of politics and ideology that underpins this is appealing to the working classes. The reality is that the vast majority of working class/ council estate residents were no where near this. Beyond that there was some march I think most people are more concerned about who keeps coming round and putting flags up on lamposts
Another example of a two-tier society. Thank you for expressing the thoughts of the silent majority, increasingly silenced by two-tier justice.
Amazing when a person first professes faith how they feel hurt when an atheist says: “Your belief system is a bag of XXXX”. I now relish debate with those people of integrity. But I now struggle much more, decades into my Christian life, with half-way house extreme or so-called liberal “Christians”. It is possible to have great debates with those who earnestly, but naively, seek to extinguish the Cross from our culture. But ‘half-believers’ of the Apostle’s Creed are a waste of time often……………..
Clearly articulated, as usual. May the Lord continue to bless your ministry.
Unfortunately, I was not surprised by the letter. At some point soon, the remnant within the church will have to acknowledge that they dwell within an apostate church. They will have to come out of her so as not to share in her sins. It is then we will probably see the last true reformation and the Lord will finally have His bride! This remnant church will go to the highways and the byways at the direction of the their Lord. This is after the mainstream church had been invited to the feast but refused to come and cited worldly excuses for not being able to attend.
An excellent critique. Thank you for articulating the Biblical position so clearly. The Lord bless you and may He help us all to stand for His Truth in these last days.
Your view, “Our only hope is not in nationalism, progressivism or conservatism with a Christian veneer.” which I agree with, surely means that you too, must agree with the concerns raised by evangelicals in regard to this event?
And yes, you should have stayed away from CND, and yes, if Scottish nationalism had been framed in terms of a codependent work of Christ, you ought to have stayed away.
Because a “a real renewal of the Christian Gospel.” will not happened wrapped in politics or a flag.
Christ alone, means, Christ **Alone**.
I have no problem with people raising concerns. I have a problem with both how they did it and the fact that they only raised concerns about this march and not others. And no Christ alone does not mean that you stay away from other things – like politics, sport, culture, economics etc. It is CHrist alone for salvation…not Christ alone for how we govern our country!
Of course we can be involved in politics or sport or culture, I didn’t say we couldn’t.
I said that a real renewal of the Gospel won’t happen wrapped in a flag, that a renewal of the gospel requires Christ alone.
What Christian nationalism does is to conflate salvation and the Gospel with national governance.
Put it this way, how many would have filled the streets if the call had been to personal repentance, submission to Christ and no flags?
I completely agree….so your point about CND or Scottish independence wasn’t really relevant – because I was not involved in these as an attempt to spread the Gospel! I don’t really know what Christian nationalism is…so cannot really comment…
Good comment on the Bible Society. I was involved with the Open the Book project for10 years. I retired when I received a letter from a Ms some body, who informed me that they were replacing all materials, including the Hartman Bible and writing all their own materials. Their previous materials were not brilliant and certainly not as good as the Hartman Bible. Plus we would have to pay for all the new materials. Money making exercise I thought and led by this feminist woman – no thanks.
I was not sure if you would publish my previous comment (“I think that the only surprise to me was the Bible Society …”) as even I thought it might be too direct and rude while I wrote it!
It may interest you to know that Danny Webster, one of Calver’s sidekicks at the EA, has published a defence of the letter on his SubStack in which your CT letter receives a mention. Despite a number of flaws and a staggering piece of hypocrisy, it is actually not a bad effort to be neutral in the face of his obvious prejudices.
However I wanted to reply to it and as posting on his SubStack requires a paid subscription I e-mailed him directly, including some criticism of Calver in it. The outcome was astonishing. As it happens Calver is preaching at my church this Sunday and so he decided to call my pastor to ensure that I was not likely to cause issues. So I guess I have to know my place. It is acceptable for self-styled “Christian leaders” like Calver publicly to denounce and deplore other Christians who do not measure up to his standards of acceptable political discourse, but perish the thought that anyone who is so very important as he is should himself be thus embarrassed and held accountable for his actions.
True story.
Thanks….I’ve just read his article….its not bad. But it still has some glaring inconsistencies which someone who is the director of advocacy for EA should not be making…
I note that three of the arguments he was arguing against were not ones I made – although by citing my letter as the main critique the impression is given that they were.
1) The idea that “Someone using their platform on a ‘freedom’ march to call for the banishment of non-Christian religions from public practice is enough for me to want to classify this as a far-right march.”. If that is the definition of ‘far right’ – then Muslim marches are far right, communist marches are far right…humanist groups are far right. Furthermore the tainting of the whole march by what is said by some is not logical nor fair.
2). Danny says “But being opposed to Islam should never lead to Muslims feeling afraid.”. What a strange criteria? Being opposed to Muslim is almost guaranteed to make Muslims feel afraid. If the EA standard is that we should never oppose anything if it makes people afraid – then we are in a mess. And Danny ties himself in knots when he states that he is opposed to ‘Islam theologically’…what does that mean? That he supports it in other ways? As though theology were just an intellectual pursuit with no practical consequences!
3) He doesn’t answer the question as to why they spoke out on this issue and not on others. Remember that the concern of the letter was the use of Christian symbols. Why is the EA ok with the use of Christian symbols on pride marches? Or others?
4) AS regards signing with liberals he doesn’t answer my point – which is that in being a co signatory, rather than sending your own letter, you are making common cause with those you sign with. The EA signs a letter about the misuse of Christianity and Christian symbols – WITH people who themselves misuse Christianity and Christian symbols. That is at best naive – at worst hypocritical. It’s almost as though the EA are saying – its ok we just have a ‘theological disagreement with these people but on the really important stuff we are one’!
5) I totally agree with Danny’s final paragraph “I also think we need to be careful not to loudly critique the co-option of Christianity to one set of causes and quietly accept it to other causes. Perhaps the metaphor of a frog in boiling water helps, maybe we have become slowly acclimatised to secular progressive values that we don’t notice the problems there for Christianity, whereas the stark appearance of Christianity aligned to strong right wing politics is more immediately apparent .” The irony of this is delicious. It’s as though the frog knows it is in boiling water – but prefers to remain there! The EA’s big mistake (and sadly I now have to give up on my hope that this was just an aberration by its leader – it is clear that this is EA policy) was to identify, on behalf of Evangelicals, with one particular political cause. Sadly in doing so they have negated the core of their mission – to unite evangelicals, not to divide us….but still its just theology!