Is Tommy Robinson Welcome at Your Church?

Evangelical Anxiety, the "Far Right", and Christian Nationalism

When it comes to people on the Right, many evangelicals are not as evangelical as they thought.

It’s been a strange time for the Church of late. There has been a lot to take in, a lot to process. Many Christians have been coming to terms with Charlie Kirk’s death and the seemingly epic cultural implications. It has made a good deal of people think differently—more sharply—about the significance of the culture war and the vital role of Christianity within it, however much this may unsettle their previous expectations of what was expected of them.

We also recently lost Voddie Baucham, seemingly out of nowhere—another exceptionally powerful and bold voice that was much needed in these times. Both men were, in one way or another, Christian nationalists. Not necessarily because they went around declaring so but because they both believed that Christ’s lordship ought to have direct political implications for the good of the nations, and that this ought to affect the things we say and do about Christianity out loud, in the public square as well as in the confines of the Church.

This is what seems to cause all the trouble these days. People prefer a quiet and toothless Christianity to one that is serious about changing the world.

The Symbol of Christianity

In Britain, we saw this problem rear its head most recently in the aftermath of Tommy Robinson’s “Unite The Kingdom” rally in London, which happened just days after Kirk’s death. As with Robinson’s previous rallies of late, it appears that the proclamation of Christianity was central to what it would mean to unite the people of Britain in a way they have not felt united for some time.

For some, this is precisely where it gets “thorny”, however. In what sense was Christianity really being proclaimed at such an event? Was it Christianity or an infiltrated counterfeit? Did the people chanting “Christ is King!” really know who Christ is? Is Christianity merely being used, symbolically, for the purposes of a political movement? These are not foolish questions. They are the kind that certainly would have animated someone like Søren Kierkegaard, whom I’ve spent a good deal of time writing about over the years from an evangelical perspective, especially on issues regarding “Christendom”.

The issue here, however, is about discernment of the moment. It is not a simple case of saying, “is the Tommy Robinson event ‘true’ Christianity or ‘false’ Christianity?” It was not a “church” event, for one thing. But there were some church leaders there, many of whom I know, who were actively supporting and promoting it. Many of these Christians were there in order to reach the mass of British patriots with the Gospel, but also to stand with them, to say “we are with you”.

It is this second element—the support of the UTK movement itself—that appears to have made other Christians lose their minds, especially given that some of the leaders were holding large crosses as they marched.

It’s interesting that the cross—the primary recognisable symbol for Christianity to most non-Christians—has been especially “triggering” for some anxious types. Perhaps we might even call it their “stumbling block”?

A Troubled Letter

In response, the head of the Evangelical Alliance, Gavin Calver, proudly “stood” with a host of wildly unfaithful “Christian” leaders to condemn the “misuse” of the Cross at the rally by these leaders. These people were not there in person, of course, trying to reach the people or speak into the moment. They wrote their “open letter” from afar. In this letter, they said how “deeply concerned” they all were, how the event—especially the use of the Cross at it—led to many people having “felt anxious, unsettled and even threatened”, because of the “racist, anti-Muslim and far right elements” of the march.

Anyone who knew very little about the motives of the leaders in question, or about what Tommy Robinson actually stands for/against, would probably have been made even more anxious by the letter, no doubt. The assumption was that the entire event constituted a corruption of the Way of the Cross—a symbol of love and sacrifice, of course—rendered into a symbol of hatred, of “far right” sentiment (whatever that means anymore), of “racism” (what else?), and “anti-Muslim” emphasis (and?). This is the usual litany of liberal accusation against patriotic sentiment. What was especially amusing to me was this notion that Christian leaders are suddenly meant to be “pro-Islam” too!

David Robertson immediately offered a good critique of the letter in Christian Today:

“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.”

Hear, hear! I wrote about this very problem in my Soft Jihad series earlier this year, so no doubt I am now “far right” in the eyes of the anxious too.

But perhaps the most bizarre point in that circus act of a letter is when they say:

“As Christians from different theological and political backgrounds we stand together against the misuse of Christianity”

Do you, now? What a remarkable statement when one looks at the co-signatories, and what they stand for. I have met or had dealings with a good portion of them over the years, often in academic contexts. Some of the signatories included the General Secretary of the Methodist Church and other Methodist leaders, as well as Critical Race Theory academics Anthony Reddie and Robert Beckford, the post-evangelical apostate Steve Chalke, the CofE transgender archdeacon Rachel Mann, the liberal ex-Archbishop Rowan Williams, and of course, the evangelical multiculturalist extraordinaire, Krish Kandiah (whose anxieties we recently discussed on That Good Fight podcast).

The full list makes for quite the cocktail party! A huge volume of the co-signatories are miles away from Biblical orthodoxy on sexual ethics, some being so far gone that they would be unrecognisable as Christian leaders by the majority of Christian leaders in the history of the Church. These are the people with whom some prominent evangelicals chose to hold hands in order to condemn the Christians to their Right who stood at and with the rally for their “misuse of Christianity”.

I’ve spoken at the same conferences as Gavin Calver (head of the Evangelical Alliance) on at least two occasions, though I can’t remember whether we had a conversation. I expect he would say that in signing such a letter he is not automatically agreeing with the apostate views of his co-signatories but that he is merely trying to protect the Gospel from political corruption. But he seems to be unaware not only of how virtually all on that list already preach a politically corrupt Gospel, but that he and others have been used here as pawns so that those co-signatories can say: “Look, even the conservative evangelicals agree with us!”

This was the same tactic employed by the Methodist Church several years ago when they managed to get an evangelical leader to sign off on the infamous “God In Love Unites Us” report which ushered in same-sex marriage to the Church. In that case too, the evangelical leader in question was not technically “agreeing” with all the liberals, but he was enabling and promoting the erosion of his own convictions, and leading many others astray. Folly comes in many colours of the rainbow. Naturally that’s also what they think those on the Right are doing too, uncritically seeing support for the concerns of the political Right as being the same as support for sexual immorality in Christ’s name!

The patriot pastors who promoted the march—such as Brett Murphy, Calvin Robinson, Phil Harris—responded with an open letter of their own, the splendidly titled, “Rebuke to the arrogance of a Cowardly Clergy and a Misunderstanding of The Times,” in which they said:

“Let us be clear: the only betrayal of the Cross on that day did not come from those who carried it boldly through the streets of London, but from the bishops and clergy who have abandoned their flocks, the nation, and the truth of the Gospel. Preferring to retreat to the safety of their study walls and media offices while sneering at ordinary men and women who dare to raise their voices for change. You dare to lament the Cross being lifted high by the people, yet you yourselves have become ashamed of it. You are swift to condemn your fellow Christians for praying in public, but slow to speak against policies and agendas that dismantle families, erode communities, and sow division across this land. You prefer the applause of journalists to the cries of need from the people. You prefer to label the concerned flock as ‘far right’ than to shepherd them with compassion and courage. This is cowardice masquerading as virtue, and it demonstrates that your voices no longer represent the true Christianity of Britain.”

Hear, hear again! It reads like a polemic of the Church Fathers or the Old Testament prophets. We are not accustomed to seeing Christian leaders in this land speak like this. The dearth of discernible Christian fight-talk among our leaders might go some way to explaining the state of the Church in our nation, and even the state of the nation itself.

But it would appear that God is giving His Church a new voice, one that does perhaps “represent the true Christianity of Britain,” resembling its forebears in the faith far more than the polite but polluted conventions of secular multicultural ideology or evangelical niceness.

For many evangelicals, their commitment to not being associated with the Far Right trumps their commitment to think more deeply, and speak more boldly, about what Christianity should be saying in this peculiar moment.

Is Tommy Robinson Welcome at Church?

It is this willingness to meet the socio-political moment with robust Christian faithfulness by such leaders that has no doubt helped someone like Tommy Robinson turn to Christianity.

It is well known that Robinson has been speaking more about Christianity over the last couple of years, especially after his time in prison, where he was met by a pastor who undertook Bible study with him. He has been happier to welcome Christians like Bob the Builder and Brett Murphy onto his platform than he would have been, recognising that the fall of Britain is ultimately connected to the decline of Christianity. In a recent tweet, Robinson even went a step further, saying:

“Charlie [Kirk] has inspired me to attend church for the first time in years.”

I expect there are Christian leaders out there who are so obsessed with disassociating from “Right Wing people” that they cannot possibly see this as good news. My challenge to them is that if this is so, then perhaps they ought to stop calling themselves Christian leaders? In trying so desperately to stop the Gospel becoming “corrupted” by a form of politics which they dislike, they have shown their true political colours, neglecting the power of the Gospel itself to reach even the most uncouth of sinners.

One UK evangelical church leader said:

“We need to be 100 percent clear that you cannot claim to march under the banner of King Jesus and follow his lead whilst at the same time choosing to match under Tommy Robinson’s banner, following his lead.”

This is a classic zero-sum game framing: either you are with Christ or you are with Tommy Robinson. There is apparently no sense in which you could support, promote, or even follow Tommy Robinson on a political level and follow Christ. It has been decided that Christians are literally not allowed to support Tommy Robinson. This really is as divisive as it sounds, as he went on to show, saying:

“I do not see how it could be compatible for Christians or a church to be part of an Evangelical Gospel network or partnership and at the same time act or speak in a way that gives cover to the Far Right.”

Naturally, much depends on what is meant by “Far Right”. This is the chief problem, that many evangelicals simply don’t know enough about the Right because they have spent virtually all of their adult lives hearing it demonised.

They still imagine (because they have been told) that Tommy Robinson is some froth-mouthed angry racist, inciting violence and hatred against foreigners. It’s quite a claim to suggest that churches should essentially cut off other Christians because Right wing politics are actually deemed sub-Christian or inherently sinful. Why not say the same for Labour or Tory voters, whose parties support abortion? As ever, the call to be “wise” and “prudent” and “above politics” seems tilted in favour of an essentially Left-coded politic. Their scales are not as equal as they think, and many of them need the scales to fall from their eyes that they might see more clearly.

Thankfully, another UK evangelical movement, Affinity, did not take such unnecessarily divisive advice. Though certainly a little more cagey than the patriotic pastors, they were refreshingly more optimistic about the positives which evangelicals could and should be taking from the rally in their statement:

“We welcome the recognition amongst many marchers that Christian values have a positive effect on communities and nations. To be clear, we do not equate carrying a cross or using Christian symbols with being a Christian. However, we are glad that some people recognise the value of our Christian heritage and are, in some way, seeking to reconnect with it. Surely, this cultural moment presents many gospel opportunities for us.”

The is a more encouraging sign, and is evidence (perhaps) of a slight changing of the Overton window. Perhaps there will be more evangelicals in coming years slightly more willing to shake off their political cobwebs, wake up to the moment in which God has placed them, willing to meet it with faith and courage rather than with cynicism and fear.

Sadly, unencumbered evangelical optimism is still lost on a great deal of evangelicals in this nation. Another individual—a prominent evangelical activist with much experience working in and around Parliament—reacted online to a positive post I made about Tommy Robinson going to church, with quite the tirade:

“we have to be careful of right wing extremism taking over the values of the church... Odious terrorist Scum like Robinson need to be handled with extreme caution; he's a conman and a grifter using any bounce to protect his sorry pathetic causes. He has inspired division, caused rioting [and] hatred to fester in the united kingdom, he led a racist fascist group to run riots in the uk behind football hooligans and right wing thugs…”

He certainly wasn’t holding back! It would seem that any Christian willing to associate with Robinson is immediately compromised:

“ANYONE who promotes hatred like he needs to be handled with extreme caution; how can someone like him "come to god" when he's spouting racist hatred and causing unrest until he renounces his wicked vile ways then we should be wary of his presence… He is a vile human and someone who needs god in his heart and forgiveness but to do that he *NEEDS* to stop his hateful conduct of racist fascist intentions.”

Much of the vitriol shown to Tommy Robinson seems utterly bizarre. When I first came across him a few years ago, I expected to hear awful things in his speeches and interviews, but I only ever heard a reasonable but salty and impassioned Englishman who opposed Islamism, exposed political and journalistic corruption, and was unusually unwilling to back down under pressure. There was salty language and a combative spirit, for sure, but I waited to hear the supposed moments of fascist hatred which never seemed to arrive. If anything, it was obvious that he has always been treated this way by the established institutions—including the mainstream media—precisely because they are directly threatened by his approach.

The Christian should certainly be wise in whom we choose to align with (wiser, certainly, than those evangelicals who foolishly signed the aforementioned denunciation letter!) but we must also remember that Jesus was far less concerned about how things might “look” to the established authorities of “acceptability” in his time when conducting his mission:

“As Jesus passed on from there, he saw a man called Matthew sitting at the tax booth, and he said to him, ‘Follow me.’ And he rose and followed him. And as Jesus reclined at table in the house, behold, many tax collectors and sinners came and were reclining with Jesus and his disciples. And when the Pharisees saw this, they said to his disciples, ‘Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?’ But when he heard it, he said, ‘Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. Go and learn what this means: "I desire mercy, and not sacrifice." For I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.’” (Matt. 9:9-13)

Parallels abound. The Christians who have spent their lives seeing people on the Right as the “pharisees” may be in for a surprise when they realise it just might be they who have become the pharisees, after all.

As noted earlier, those most quick to blanketly denounce people on the Right for fear it will lead to an inevitable ideological political corruption of the Gospel perhaps show that they themselves already subscribe to a politically corrupted gospel. And I don’t expect them to be able to see it because most of them will still think of themselves as “conservative”. It depends, of course, on what it is you wish to “conserve”: the truth or your politically correct conventions?

Perhaps the best thing we can do right now for Tommy Robinson is to pray for him, and—for those close to him—to encourage him in the faith and seek to disciple him, rather than perpetually holding him at arm’s length from the Gospel until he becomes more “acceptable”. Robinson is certainly no saint. I saw a tweet by him the other day revelling in saying “F—- YOU!” to the Prime Minister. Whilst this may well capture how many British people currently feel about the national situation, it is obviously not how Christians should talk. But this is not to say he is thereby not sincere in wanting to be a Christian.

Some of Jesus’ early followers, remember, were also a little rough-cut, to say the least. Some wanted to call down fire from heaven to incinerate their opponents (Luke 9:54), while there were others whom Jesus called “Satan” (Matt. 16:23)! It took some time before they had learned the ways of their Master.

Even if the jury is still out on the fruit of the Spirit in Robinson’s life, who can deny that God is at work in all of this, in the shaping of hearts and minds more broadly in the peculiar socio-political situation in which we find ourselves? Louise Perry is the latest of a long line of people converting to Christ, who recently spoke of her conversion to Christianity having been persuaded of its “sociological” truthfulness, which led her to its “supernatural” truthfulness. Granted, we must always ensure people are truly hearing the Gospel and repenting of their sin, not merely assenting to a worldview, but it should be obvious that the so-called “culture wars” are far more evangelistic than many evangelicals give them credit for.

We should rejoice in Tommy Robinson’s turn to Christianity and pray that the seed would be planted in fertile soil, leading to long-term substantial fruit, not only in him but in many others who follow him, and who will come to follow Christ. The knee-jerk concerns espoused about even the idea of him coming to faith show how unwelcome he would probably be in many churches, however much it says “welcome” on their website.

Many of them know that if Robinson indeed has (or will) become a genuine Christian, he would likely not change his politics. This is what exposes the hidden political co-option within many churches: they don't want to welcome people like him until he first cleans himself up (politically) in accordance with their own conventional expectations, as though one of the Commandments was: Thou Shalt Not Be Right Wing.

Despite the recent surge on the Right in the UK, the mainstream media, government, and middle class elites in society still treat it less as a political viewpoint and more like a dangerous mental health condition. See, for example, this leaflet offering support for family members of people who have “far-right” views.

When I first saw this, I honestly assumed it was a satirical meme, but it’s actually a real leaflet!

As noted above, much depends on what is meant by “far-right,” of course. To most it probably does connote a kind of hatred of the Other that is irreconcilable with Christian love, however far from reality the description actually is from most people on the Right. Prime Minister Keir Starmer famously referred to those who protested the murder of the three young girls in Southport last year by an immigrant, as “far-right thugs,” insinuating that “far-right” includes a mere desire to protect one’s national identity and people from harm, and to challenge governmental hypocrisy or multiculturalism.

Most young men on the Right will now likely be seen with even more suspicion. Imagine some mother reading the “advice” of that leaflet and then reading all her son’s opinions through that lens, gasping as she hears his take on immigration: “The leaflet said you would see it like that!!” She will thus conclude her poor son has been infected with an incurable political evil, or perhaps a demon in need of exorcism!

It’s not to say there are no problems which may emerge from the new surge on the Right in Britain. But if anything, they will likely be a product of the Left’s own making, having so demonised them as deplorable “scum” that some of them end up fulfilling their own stereotype in retaliation. For the most part, I don’t see this as being anywhere near the problem at hand right now, regardless of the comprehensive scaremongering exemplified in that leaflet which is far more likely to stoke division between people than a “Unite the Kingdom” rally!

Reformation Required

In relation to the Church’s response to this new political moment, however, one thing is increasingly clear: Because we need root-and-branch revival of this nation, we will also need root-and-branch reform of the churches. Most churches in Britain today are not ready for the harvest God is raising for them on the Right. They are compromised with sub-biblical attitudes in more ways than they know. They often tolerate the Bible in order to keep up appearances, because they know they “have to,” but a good deal of it frankly embarrasses them, and they go out of their way to avoid applying it in real life, when it matters, when it hurts, when they will be called names for doing so.

Far from being places where rough-cut converts from the Right might be discipled and trained for ministry, such churches are more likely to turn away the very people God is sending them for fear that they are less politically “correct” than the usual clientele, rather than thinking that perhaps what is expected of “the usual clientele” is part of the problem. I expect many of the would-be converts from the Right will see this problem too, thinking, “I thought this was a church...? If I want to believe what secular liberal society thinks, I could have just stayed an unbeliever...! Why don't these people seem to believe their own beliefs anymore...?”

We must be ready for people to arrive in our churches whose clarity on some aspects of the truth, by God’s Spirit, will challenge many a timid believer hiding in the pews, and cause them to wake up to the battle in their midst.

---

Lord, send labourers for the harvest who may be worthy of the harvest. Be glorified through your Church that she may she once again be the city on a hill which you called her to be. Guide your Church to lead the way in showing the people of this nation the way to be great again as they come to recognise their failure to love, honour, and obey the King of kings in all of life, and as they are transformed at the foot of the Cross in the power of the Resurrection.