The Bishop of Oxford is upset. Together with the Imam Monawar Hussain he has issued a public statement on the proposed debate on Islam at the University of Oxford debating society. Why would they object to a debate? Because one of the speakers is Tommy Robinson.
In their statement, they link the recent ‘Unite the Kingdom’ rally on May 15 and the San Diego Mosque shootings. They argue that the invitation to Robinson should be withdrawn, saying, “Those who have issued this invitation need to be mindful not only of the University of Oxford but of the city in which they live and study as students – a city which has a long tradition of hospitality to migrants and the poorest sections of society. This is a city in which there is no room for hatred. The faith and civic leaders across the city have worked closely together for many years now to combat hate and division. Those who are temporary residents in our world-leading university and who lead the Oxford Union have a duty of care to the many thousands of Muslims, Jews and others of different faiths in the city.”
Meanwhile at the most recent Church of Scotland General Assembly several speakers warned darkly about the Unite the Kingdom rally and the forces of ‘racist, anti-Muslim and far right elements.
Of course we have been here before.
I used to think that Robinson was the last person you would want to be associated with Christianity. I believed it when I was told that he was a violent, lying, far-Right racist thug. The kind of person you don’t invite to nice dinner parties, and you certainly do not co-opt on to the Christian side.
But I have a basic rule – which applies to everyone. I like to listen to those who I disagree with. So I did. I found Robinson’s original speech at the Oxford Union just over a decade ago to be enlightening and revealing. It has been watched by over 5 million people - I wonder if the Bishop of Oxford thinks that this should be removed from YouTube as well?
So, is there anything new to be said? I think so – not least because of this fascinating interview between David Starkey and Tommy Robinson.
There is much to disagree with, and agree with, in that interview.
The emphasis on muscular Christianity, or associating Christianity with British nationalism is too simplistic and not helpful. We must never tie the Gospel into one particular culture.
While Robinson is right to express concern about the growing violence in Britain – not least in the tenfold increase in the number of rapes – he seems to be suggesting that the way to deal with that is to fight fire with fire – or at least that violence might be part of the answer. It’s easy for middle class Christians who live in relative security to warn about the use of force, while they themselves would of course expect the police to use force to protect them.
Personally, I don’t think I could go to a ‘Unite the Kingdom’ rally where explicitly Christian symbols were used in order to advance a particular political cause. But then again, I wonder if I am being a hypocrite? After all, I used to go to CND rallies where overtly Christian symbols were being used.
And therein lies the problem. The condemnation of Robinson is easy. It’s low hanging fruit. But it is also hypocritical. Did the bishop and the imam condemn the Oxford Union when they had Miko Peled speak and describe the October 7 massacres as ‘acts of heroism’? Have the Church of Scotland and other religious leaders, who are so quick to speak about the ‘Unite the Kingdom’ march condemned the pro-Palestinian rallies where calls for death to the IDF, and for the destruction of the Jewish state, have been loud and proud? If not, why not? Are some forms of hatred acceptable?
The bishop and the imam seem to see no contradiction in saying that they are against hatred and division, while at the same time expressing hatred towards Robinson and his followers, and seeking to divide the University from people like Robinson.
And there is another problem. Who is listening to the established churches anyway? Apart from the same establishment who share the same views. Starkey asked Robinson if he had consulted his bishop! His rejoinder was that the ‘awakening’ was happening on the streets, not in their churches.
While it is easy to mock Robinson’s call for men to get physically fit, it is not so easy to dismiss his concern that men don’t know how to lead families and their communities – and that a muscular Islam is taking over in working class areas. People may not like the talk of globalists and jihadists, but is he wrong? The established church tends to speak for the ‘anywheres’ rather than the ‘somewheres’. In all of this there is more than a whiff of classism.
Conservative evangelical leaders have rightly warned about the dangers of Christians hitching the gospel to a political movement. But the Church has been doing that for years. There is an equal danger of just speaking out about that when it is a political ideology we are not comfortable with. I may have missed it, but I can’t recall evangelical leaders condemning Christians for Labour, or Christians for the Conservatives or Christians for Independence. People are now complaining about religion being wrapped in the Union Jack, but all my life I have been in churches where the Union Jack is flown, or the saltire. Why the sudden concern now?
Every Christian should know that the weapons we fight with are spiritual weapons (2 Corinthians 10:4) and we don’t advance the Gospel through politics. But neither are we pietists. We cannot on the one hand lay claim to William Wilberforce and his intensely political campaign to end slavery, while at the same time ignoring the injustices of today – including the grooming gangs, the devastation of the family, the growth of Islamism, and the ever-growing culture of death through abortion and euthanasia.
We just want to be free to proclaim the gospel. But if there is no freedom of religion, there will be no freedom of speech. In demanding that the likes of Robinson be banned from the Oxford Union, the clergy are in effect setting their own limit on freedom of speech and freedom of religion. They are putting the noose around our necks, as well as Robinsons.
I object to being told what I should think and feel about the likes of Robinson. I object to the demonising of those who hold different views. I object to the rampant class snobbery. I object to the black and white progressive fundamentalism which suggests that if I don’t condemn Robinson, then I too must be a far-Right sympathiser. There is no nuance. No sympathy. And no reality. Robinson may be for real, or he may be a fraud. But then so may any one of us. As someone once said, “Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.”
I seem to remember that Jesus accepted not only the prostitutes but also the other outcasts like the tax collectors and the right-wing Jewish zealots who came to him. It is beyond irony that in the name of inclusion so many of our church leaders want to exclude and cast out those they do not like or agree with. God moves in mysterious ways – who knows but he may move and work through Robinson, just as he may through you and me?!
David Robertson writes on https://substack.com/@theweeflea
