Will the Church of England speak?

Does it have any comment on incipient Civil War?

It seems appropriate to be writing this today. St George pray for us.

When did you last hear a Bishop say 'Christ is Lord'? Indeed, have you ever heard a Bishop of the Church of England say 'Christ is Lord' unapologetically, outside of the liturgy? Have you ever heard a Bishop of the Church of England explain the supremacy of Christ in a public context? I'm sure it must have happened in the past, I just wonder when it last happened.

~

We in the church face a diabolical alliance between a secular, left-hemisphere dominated left, and an aggressive and increasingly assertive Islamic right. This diabolical alliance is in some measure inevitable, as both see success in this world as determinative, both therefore see the cross as nonsense, and both are therefore structured around the ways and methods of this world, and the prince of this world, focussed on skandal and offence and scapegoating. Their alliance can only be temporary, for the obvious contradictions between them would assert themselves eventually, yet for now 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend', and so we have 'queers for Palestine' and the rest.

In England this diabolical alliance has progressively dissolved the social glue that binds us together as a single people, and so we are on the cusp of a civil war, what I have been calling 'Starmergeddon' (and if the rumours about Mr Starmer are true then that would be a remarkably potent bit of symbolism). Some of the factions are confident enough to be obvious, hence the development of the 'Independent Alliance' but some are only now bubbling up from under the surface – I refer here to the increasing support for ethnically based nationalism and a desire for more or less comprehensive, more or less voluntary, remigration.

When I first became an incumbent (2003) I remember being asked then about the effect of Islamic immigration and demographic growth, and whether I was worried about it. I replied that I wasn't, because if it became large enough to become an issue then it would provoke a reaction. I was naïve enough to think that the reaction would have been non-violent, and take the form of a resurgence in Christianity. Such elements are still present but because I underestimated how far the state would take sides against the indigenous English population my expectation now is that we face a civil war. Listening to Dr Betz simply gave structure and substance to that expectation.

So my question is simply: does the Church of England have anything to say about this?

~

What might it say? Well, perhaps some or all of the following thoughts are worth pondering:

- a recognition and explicit acknowledgement that there is, in fact, a problem, that the social fabric of the nation of England is being torn apart. This would require stepping away from the metropolitan liberalism that characterises the House of Bishops, so my hopes are not high, but surely there are Bishops who read enough material other than the Guardian to provide a resource? Events, in the end, will force a confrontation with reality – indeed they are so doing for those with eyes to see – but are there any Bishops that are at least semi-detached from the bubble? That might hear the word of the Lord in this time and place?

- a recognition and acknowledgement that a society that turns away from the living God has begun to die – if there is one message from the Old Testament for today it is surely that – and that therefore the turning away of our society from Christianity has had consequences, and continues to have consequences, that destroy people, that take away the 'life in all its fullness' which the church was created to foster and invite people into. We do not need to go far for examples, but a theological perspective on the industrial rape gangs would be a good place to start. Have we ever heard a Bishop comment on that?

- a clear and explicit articulation that atheism is not just intellectually a dead end but that it is dull, that it gives no guidance to human beings in their lives; that scientism (the cultural default of our time) is immensely destructive of human beings and their habitats, that a reasoned faith is the only path out of ecological apocalypse and the limits-to-growth induced collapse of modern economies; that a living faith is not just intellectually satisfying but practically essential for guiding us in our life-defining choices; that secular liberalism is an intellectual and spiritual quicksand that the church needs to struggle against. Do we have a Bishop that believes this strongly enough to say so?

- a clear and explicit articulation that Jesus saves, that Jesus is Lord, and that there is no salvation in Islam – that Mohammed is a false prophet, and that there are real and identifiable consequences that follow from the contrast between these two historical figures. This is not to seek anything other than an expression of completely mainstream Christian teaching, and whilst that teaching might cause offence, the playing of the game of avoiding offence is itself not a Christian act, as it gives too much place for fear and worldly reputation. If we are to take Jesus as the pattern of our calling then being direct and challenging to false religious teachers must be the hallmark of our work. The assertion of Christ's supremacy is not about forcing a perspective upon the unwilling, it is about pointing out a truth – like saying that Everest is higher than Ben Nevis. What people do with that information is for them, but to share that information is not optional for Christians generally, and for Bishops – the custodians of our faith – it is not optional at all.

~

Racism has no place in a Christian understanding of the world, which is why the ethnic nationalism coming to birth around us must be opposed. Yet to say that risks straying dangerously close to the secular liberalism which is the progenitor for such wickedness, it is to make obeisance to the conventional post-war pieties that have finally run out of energy. What is most needed, and what the Church of England is most summoned to speak, is a positive vision of the future, not the negative 'boo boo racism evil' but the positive 'in Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek'. The difference between them is the articulation of a positive good – 'in Christ' – and beneath that, the idea, the truth that such positive good needs defending. Does the church have sufficient spiritual strength to defend a positive good? Can it speak up for Christ?

A few days after 9/11 I was teaching a sixth form general studies lesson at Sir John Cass school in Tower Hamlets. I took the opportunity to talk about just war theory, and to ask the class whether the attacks were justified. All the muslim boys loudly affirmed that the attacks were justified; the muslim girls kept quiet; all the other boys and girls said the attacks were wicked. As I reflect upon the shape of my life I realise that what happened in the classroom that day made a huge difference in my life. Along with much discussion over subsequent months, it was the one event – if any 'one event' could claim credit – that shifted me outside of 'the bubble'. Up to that time I was literally a Guardian reader, pro-EU, mildly sympathetic to the anti-US critique and so on. What I have come to realise is that if there is to be civil peace in the one land, there has to be one law and one (shared) language. To use the expression I'm working with at the moment, we have to embrace and advocate a multi-racial monoculture, and that monoculture, if it is to thrive in England, has to be rooted in Christianity. This is what the church has to speak into our situation.

Occasionally the Old Testament is referenced as a source for treating the immigrant well. There is, indeed, much in the Old Testament – and the New – about showing care for the alien, for remembering the state of the outsider, for the Jews were themselves aliens in Egypt (eg see Exodus 22.21, “Do not mistreat an alien or oppress him, for you were aliens in Egypt”). This is all true and to be affirmed. Yet what is equally true – indeed, what is more foundationally true – is that the people of Israel are to have no other god before them, that they are not to share in the worship of other gods, and that if they do then destruction will come upon them. This latter element is what is missing in our public teaching. It is perfectly possible to be kind to the alien when the home culture is robust, for that kindness flows from an abundance. Where the home culture is collapsing, and the abundance has been replaced by strife, then alien cultures are no longer guests but colonisers. In other words, the difference lies in the spiritual vacuum domestically. It is not the fault of the alien that their ways are different, rather 'with you is my contention O priest'.

~

The failure of spiritual leadership is always and inevitably a failure of love, a restriction of love to a favoured group and the exclusion of the 'other'. Jesus' ministry was therefore characterised by a ministry towards the 'other' – the prostitutes and the tax collectors and so on. If the Church of England is to follow the way of Christ it needs to recognise where it has fallen away from its calling to love the nation – as a nation – and most especially it needs to repent of its abandonment of those members of the flock who still love the nation, those indigenous people for whom England is and always has been our home. There are rather a lot of us.

Which brings me back to where I started. When did you last hear a Bishop affirm that Christ is Lord? If the Church of England is to have a future – and it might not – but if it is to have a future it will begin from that declaration and then work out the consequences.

In fear and trembling.