Tag Archives: Far right

We face a choice: the power of Herod or the power of Jesus

Posted on by symonhill

This morning (Sunday 28th December 2025) I led worship at New Road Baptist Church in Coventry. I was honoured to be asked to do so, as this is the church that I attended for years when living in Oxford, and where I served as a deacon.

Below is the text of my sermon. To be clear: this is basically the text that I wrote beforehand but in practice I deviated from the wording at times and added in a few extra comments.

The picture below shows a scene from The Massacre of the Innocents by Leon Cogniet.

The sermon followed two Bible readings:

Matthew 2, 13-23

Hebrews 2, 10-18

King Herod was frightened. He was not frightened of an invading army, or violent rebels, or a rival politician, or even the Roman Emperor who had given him his power. He was frightened of a baby.

Who’s frightened of a baby? King Herod the Great, as he was known, understood something about power. He ruled over a sizeable chunk of the area that we now call Israel and Palestine, which was then part of the Roman Empire. Herod was declared by the Roman Senate to be “King of the Jews”. He was really a puppet ruler for the Roman imperial authorities.

So when the magi turn up and ask where the “King of the Jews” is to be born, Herod is alarmed. He is the King of the Jews! On one level, it’s a bizarre question. It would be like asking Keir Starmer where the Prime Minister is, or asking Donald Trump where you can find the person who really should be President of the United States.

So Herod tricked the magi, and asked them to let him know after they have found Jesus, so that he can visit him. His real purpose, we soon learn, is to kill him. That brings us to the part of the story that we heard earlier. This horrible, terrifying story that tells of how Herod massacred children to try to ensure that Jesus was dead.

Now this may not seem a very cheerful story to be discussing in the Christmas season! Sometimes we don’t know what to do with this story. It often isn’t included in readings at events such as Nine Lessons and Carols. If we include it in Christmas services, we are tempted to brush over it, an inconvenient disruption to the smooth flow of a comfortable story. Although today, 28th December, is observed particularly by our Catholic and Anglican friends as the Feast of the Holy Innocents, when these murdered children are remembered.

I want to suggest that recognising this horrible atrocity – and others like it – is very relevant to the hope and joy that we talk about at Christmas.

This is because the birth of Jesus isn’t simply a reason to feel cheerful for a day at Christmas. In Jesus, God is with us not only when we’re celebrating or feeling cheerful. God is with us however we’re feeling. Whether you love Christmas or dread it, Jesus’ birth is good news. The nativity is a story of hope in the midst of despair, love in the face of violence, solidarity in the depths of loneliness and power of a sort that the Herods of the world do not understand.

As we discussed earlier, Jesus was not visited by three kings, but by an unspecified number of magi, or wise men. Ironically, however, the story of Jesus’ birth in Matthew’s Gospel is a story with kings in it – not three kings, but two kings. On the one hand, we have King Herod, described by the Roman Empire as King of the Jews. On the other hand, we have Jesus, described by the magi as King of the Jews.

Thus Matthew’s Gospel places before two very different belief systems, two different sets of values, two different notions of power, two different calls for our loyalty – King Herod or King Jesus.

To understand this more, let’s get back into the details of the story. I think this account in Matthew’s Gospel is very relevant to life today. Scholars debate and disagree with each other about its historical accuracy. However accurate Matthew’s account is in historical terms, it is widely accepted by historians that Herod was a brutal ruler. I am not going to go into questions of precise historical fact now, however. I want to focus on how in this story Matthew presents us with truths about Jesus and about the choices that face us.

This story may seem to be full of things that seem alien to us, but if we dig a bit deeper, we will find many aspects that are really quite familiar. Herod had the sort of power that is maintained with violence and fear. I dare say he may not have been able to imagine a king who would reign in any other sort of way. Accustomed to violence and fear as he was, he responds to the birth of Jesus in the way he knows how. He orders a massacre of children in Bethlehem to ensure that the threat of Jesus is ended before it has begun. He is prepared to sacrifice the lives of many, many innocent children for that aim.

It is very hard to imagine the fear that must have gripped Mary and Joseph when Joseph was warned in a dream about Herod’s murderous plan. Did he wake up, screaming and crying perhaps? He must have woken Mary and told her about the dream. We can imagine them hastily picking up Jesus and grabbing what few possessions they could, all the while fearing that soldiers would burst through the door. That fear may well have gripped them every minute of every day until they made it to Egypt as refugees. And what of the fear and horror of the children who were killed, and their parents?

There are a few Christmas carols that do mention Herod’s massacre. The carol Unto Us a Boy is Born speaks of Herod killing the boys in Bethlehem “in his fury”. The Coventry Carol refers to Herod “raging”.

What rage? What fury? Matthew’s Gospel says that Herod was infuriated when he realised he had been tricked by the magi. But did he order this massacre in a fit of rage? Well, he might have done. But it’s also possible that this massacre was ordered not in a moment of anger but as a calm, calculated political decision. Perhaps Herod sat down with his advisers and concluded that the only way to be sure that he had dealt with the threat posed by this baby was to kill all the babies in the area.

Did Herod find some way to justify this massacre to himself? We can imagine Herod’s advisers gathering around him, telling him what he wanted to hear. Perhaps they feared that this surprising baby could become the focus for a new rebellion against Roman rule. I can imagine them telling Herod, “Well, your majesty, if this baby becomes a focus of rebellion, then there could be a violent uprising, and the Roman authorities will retaliate, and far, far more innocent people will be killed”. And they might go on. They might suggest that it is better to kill a few innocent children now so as to avoid a rebellion that could lead to far more innocent people being killed overall. 

Now that argument might not sound very convincing. But it is of course the sort of argument that certain types of politicians and commentators use all the time.

This year that is now ending, 2025, marks the 80th anniversary of the nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Nobody denies that those nuclear weapons killed innocent people – including far more children than Herod ever killed – but many will justify that massacre on the grounds that it saved more lives overall. There are people who are prepared to defend killings of Israeli children by Hamas, and other people who justify the killings of Palestinian children by the Israeli armed forces. Once you start talking about the “greater good”, you can end up justifying pretty much anything.

This is the sort of argument that the Herods of the world understand. This is the sort of power that they know about. What Herod could not have understood was that this Jesus was not merely a rival for the title “King of the Jews”. He posed a challenge to the whole structure of power and violence that Herod and the Roman Empire – and many others like them – represented.

The Herods of the world think that power comes with violence and control. Yet as he grew up Jesus lived so much by the power of love and justice that the Roman Empire considered him a such a threat that they executed him.

By the time Jesus was an adult, King Herod the Great was long dead. But Herod’s son, Herod Antipas, executed John the Baptist and was involved in the events leading to Jesus’ own execution. And the Roman imperial authorities to whom the Herods owed their loyalty made another attempt to get rid of Jesus. They thought they could rid of this troublesome Jewish peasant by crucifying him. He did not seem to have any power or strength in the way that the Herods and the Ceasars understand power.

But with Jesus’ resurrection, God confounded the world’s notions of power. The forces of sin and injustice were put on notice that their days are numbered. In Jesus we hear the good news that God’s subtle, transformative power of love and justice is on the way to winning. As Martin Luther King said, “the moral arc of the universe bends towards justice”.

Jesus calls us to live by his power. But unlike a tyrant who demands obedience, Jesus simply, gently invites us to follow him. As we heard earlier in the passage from the Letter to the Hebrews, Jesus is not afraid to call us siblings.

But it is hard sometimes to really trust in Jesus’ sort of power. We are all, I think, tempted at times to fall back on trusting in Herod’s sort of power.

Two weeks ago, I was in London, watching a group of far-right activists celebrating their racist, xenophobic and homophobic beliefs. These sort of rallies sadly happen quite often. What was unusual about this one, however, is that it was described as a “carol service” .

As many of you will know, a number of British far-right activists are claiming to defend Christianity and what they call “Christian Britain”. This is often a thinly veiled excuse to attack migrants, Muslims, Jews or LGBT+ people. On the platform at his bizarre event were several people dressed in clerical collars – clergy from fringe right-wing denominations, giving theological sanction to the far-right.

I cannot of course see into the hearts of the people on that platform. It is not for me to question the sincerity of their faith. Only God sees into their hearts, as only God sees into mine: God will judge them and me. But I can say that I do not recognise the Jesus who such people claim to be promoting.

Tragically, as Christians, we have all too often tried to turn Jesus into Herod. We have justified violence and coercion in Jesus’ name, we have insisted that Christians should have privileges in what we call a “Christian country”, and if we do not actually send people to kill the innocent, we shut the doors of our hearts and the borders of our countries and send people back to die.

Before we judge others for doing these things, let’s ask ourselves how often we have been tempted to slip back into trusting in Herod’s sort of power rather than Jesus’ power. Sometimes we are tempted to believe that only violence, coercion and privilege will be successful. If we find ourselves using the sort of arguments that Herod might have used, it is time to stop and think.

We are all challenged to make the choice between the power understood by the Herods of this world and the alternative sort of power embodied in Jesus. This is a challenge that faces us every day, in decisions big and small.

Of course, Jesus’ call is not the same for everyone. Jesus calls us to varied tasks and I do not think that he expects us all to agree about everything. But we do not have to share all the same views to take the power of Jesus as our starting-point.

And we will be tempted, and sometimes we will fail. We will face the temptation to trust in Herod’s power, to accept the idols of money, military might and selfishness. But as the Letter to the Hebrews says, Jesus himself has been tempted and he is able to help those who are being tempted. Every time we fail, God calls us again to turn around and follow the power found in a refugee baby lying in a feeding-trough.

Today and every day, in the coming year of 2026 and in every year, we face a choice: the power of the tyrant or the power of the baby. It’s up to us.   

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

My book, The Upside-Down Bible: What Jesus really said about money, sex and violence (Darton, Longman and Todd, 2015) can be bought in paperback or e-book, priced £9.99.

Don’t let the far-right steal Christmas

Posted on by symonhill

I wrote an article for yesterday’s Morning Star, encouraging readers of all faiths and none to challenge the far-right’s attempts to co-opt Christmas and Christianity to promote values that are utterly at odds with the teachings and example of Jesus.

You can read the article on the Morning Star website, but it is also reproduced below.


Britain’s best-known fascist is angry about Christmas trees.

Tommy Robinson, also known by his original name of Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, has denounced Tesco for selling plastic trees as “evergreen trees.” He insists they should use the word “Christmas.”

Robinson and his followers have been ridiculed by people suggesting that the far right are too stupid to recognise Christmas tree unless they are labelled. But while Robinson is a nasty racist bigot, he’s not stupid. He’s clever, manipulative, and knows exactly what he is doing.

In this case, he is jumping into the annual Christmas culture wars. Every year, there are people who complain about local councils using expressions such as “winter lights” or “festive markets” without the word “Christmas.”

Speaking as a Christian, I think the birth of Jesus is more important than the name that corporations give to plastic trees. Many Christians find the controversy ridiculous. Sadly some other Christians get swept up in the outrage.

These are the people who the far right are trying to recruit. They insist that Britain is a “Christian country” and that British people must observe Christmas.

In reality, nobody is trying to stop them putting up Christmas trees (a German tradition), promoting Santa Claus (based on a Turkish bishop) or celebrating the birth of Jesus (a Middle Eastern refugee).

While the British far right often claim to defend “Christian Britain,” there has been a significant shift recently. At least three things have changed.

Firstly, far-right figures are focusing more on Christianity. This may be due to Robinson’s reported conversion in prison. I can’t read his mind, so have no idea whether he genuinely had a conversion experience. It seems, however, that he doesn’t think that turning to Christ requires him to repent of racism and violence.

Secondly, a handful of far-right clergy are making themselves more visible in working with Robinson at anti-migration protests.

Thirdly, it is increasingly clear that far-right groups are not only nominally pro-Christian but that a minority of their members are active churchgoers, some in mainstream denominations.

Far-right leaders hope to see movement in the other direction also. They want to draw Christians to their cause. Some are using slick, subtle and deceptive advertising to try to draw them in.

This Saturday, an event will take place in Whitehall called “Putting Christ Back Into Christmas.” It will involve carols and prayers and is organised by “Unite the Kingdom.”

It was Unite the Kingdom – whose aim is to divide the kingdom – who organised the far-right rally in London back in September, with speakers including Tommy Robinson, along with Elon Musk by video link. Musk – who is funding Robinson’s legal fees – said “violence is coming” and urged his listeners to “fight back.”

Other speakers included Brian Tamaki, a right-wing Christian preacher who called for all non-Christian religions to be banned.

None of this would be apparent to the casual observer of the carefully constructed video made to promote this supposedly innocuous Christmas carol event on Saturday.

The video begins with a cheery hello from Christian minister Rikki Doolan, who witnessed Robinson’s conversion in prison. The video does not mention that Doolan is an Islamophobic conspiracy theorist who belongs to the far-right Advance UK party.

A homely scene features a smiling Canon Phil Harris in a jumper and clerical collar. Many viewers will have no idea that Harris is an out-and-out racist who claims that Britain is being “overrun” by migrants who “seek to subdue us.” During the racist riots of 2024, Harris described the rioters as “concerned citizens.”

Only after a succession of people with crosses and clerical collars does Tommy Robinson appear. His name is not given.

The first hint that this is about nationalism is when far-right Pentecostal pastor Chris Wickland declares that this is “a moment for believers, families and patriots.” It is then stated that the event is organised by “Unite the Kingdom” – but not everyone will know what this means. It is quite possible for someone to watch this video without realising that this will be a far-right event.

It is vital that we expose the reality.

Thankfully, a number of left-wing Christians are committed to being present in central London on Saturday to make sure that a very different message is heard.

There will be various nonviolent events to challenge fascism, involving people of many faiths and none.

It is likely, however, that local far-right groups in various parts of Britain will try to misuse Christmas and Christianity to push their vile agenda. If your local anti-racist group, or union branch, or student society or other group is resisting this sort of thing, I suggest contacting local churches – and other faith groups – and asking them to join you in speaking out against it.

Whatever you make of Christianity, the New Testament tells the story of Jesus, who became a refugee as a child, who grew up to side with the marginalised, challenge the powerful, proclaim love for all and get executed as a rebel by the brutal Roman empire. Whether or not you believe he was resurrected, it is clear that his life and message are the opposite of the far-right’s pseudo-gospel of hate. Now is the time to say so. 

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

My book, The Upside-Down Bible: What Jesus really said about money, sex and violence (Darton, Longman and Todd, 2015) can be bought in paperback or e-book, priced £9.99.

Make sure no-one’s fooled by the far-right’s Christmas event

Posted on by symonhill

Well done to the Church of England, who have sharply criticised Tommy Robinson’s far-right Christmas-themed event planned for London this coming Saturday.

I was getting a bit frustrated with the CofE for their failure to condemn the event sooner, but I’ll happily put that aside and focus on the fact that they have done so now. In the case of some CofE leaders, they have done so more strongly than I had dared to hope.

The Baptist Union of Great Britain, the Methodist Church and the United Reformed Church had already condemned Robinson’s plans, along with various other churches and Christian groups.

Some Christians would prefer just to ignore the far right. I understand about denying them the “oxygen of publicity”. The problem is that if they’re already getting publicity for the lies they tell, we need publicise the truth.

Robinson’s and his band of far-right clergy have put out a slick and sophisticated video and social media posts. The video includes a handful of racist and homophobic clergy, mostly from tiny right-wing denominations. They claim that this event is “not political”. They clearly want to give the impression that this is an innocuous Christmas carol event.

Their propaganda seems to be working. I have been saddened and disturbed to read posts in Christian Facebooks groups from people either approving of Robinson’s rally or urging people not to condemn it. Some of these are not from out-and-out racists; some are even from people who might be considered theologically progressive.

The far right event is called “Putting Christ Back Into Christmas” and involves carols and worship in Whitehall on Saturday. It is organised by “Unite the Kingdom” (UTK), whose aim is to divide the kingdom. This is the group who organised the racist rally in London in September, which included violent assaults on people of colour and peaceful counter-protesters.

For resisting the far-right’s narrative, and for reaching out to people who are taken in by UTK’s claims about the nature of the event, there are some helpful resources out there:

  • The Centre for the Study of the Bible and Violence have collated a range of resources – from artworks to writings to discussion materials.
  • The Joint Public Issues Team – who represent the Baptist Union, Methodist Church and United Reformed Church – have links to various resources on their website.
  • Jon Kuhrt has written a helpful article contrasting the organisers’ claims about the event with Robinson’s description of it to his own supporters.
  • There will be some alternative acts of worship on the day, not all of which can be publicised in advance. Please let me know if you are interested in details (although I don’t know about all of them!).
  • There is a counter-demonstration for people of all faiths and none at Downing Street from 1pm on Saturday.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________The above image of the Bus Stop Nativity is produced by Andrew Gadd, who is kindly allowing it to be reproduced for free.

I’m a Christian, and I don’t give a toss what Tesco call their trees

Posted on by symonhill

Some people are getting very angry with Tesco for calling their Christmas trees “evergreen trees”. The usual claims of “they’re banning Christmas” are especially loud this year, backed not only by the usual culture warriors but by full-on violent far-right figures such as Tommy Robinson.

In a year that has seen the far-right advance further in the UK than at any time for decades, they’re making big claims about defending Christianity. They are backed by a handful of far-right clergy, mostly in tiny denominations, and unintentionally helped along by a greater number of clergy and churches who are dithering about how to respond.

As well as talking endlessly on social media about Christmas trees, the far-right are trying to drum up Christian support by getting angry about Christmas markets being called “festive markets” and local councils putting up “winter lights”.

Culture warriors and right-wing nationalists say that people are trying to “ban” Christmas. In reality, nobody is doing anything to stop them using Christmas Trees (derived from a German practice) or traditions of Santa Claus (based on a Turkish saint) to celebrate the birth of Jesus (a Middle Eastern refugee). With no sense of irony, they will do all this to show how British they are.

It is not the name changes, but the people who jump to criticise them, who are trivialising Christmas.

I celebrate the birth of Jesus because it is about things far more important, exciting and life-changing than what what a corporation call their plastic trees.

There will be hundreds of people sleeping rough in unbearably cold weather on Christmas night. There will be many, many more freezing indoors because they can’t afford the heating, while others remain on seemingly endless waiting lists for physical and mental health needs. And that’s just in the UK. Might Jesus not be more concerned about meeting these people’s needs than about whether celebratory trees bear his name?

If you go on Twitter (or “X”), it quickly becomes clear that the far-right’s love of Christmas trees is less about supporting Christians and more about attacking people of other faiths, particularly Muslims. They claim that Tesco and local councils are avoiding the word “Christmas” so as not to “offend” Muslims. I don’t know how many Muslims these people actually speak to, because in reality it would be quite hard to find many – or any – Muslims in the UK who are offended by Christians celebrating Christmas, let alone people who want to “ban” them from doing so.

It is easy to laugh at the far-right’s absurdity. Indeed, sometimes I do. But we are in danger of overlooking a serious threat. Far-right rhetoric has become mainstream in the last year in ways that some of us could not have imagined. With Reform UK leading in the opinion polls and a Labour government pandering to their rhetoric, this is not the time for churches to faff about.

Neutrality in the face of injustice is no part of the calling of a Christian. We must speak out firmly against the far-right’s claim to be defending “Christian” Britain. We must uphold the value and dignity of all human beings as central to what the New Testament, and Christian discipleship, are all about.

If churches don’t act clearly and strongly against the threat, the far-right will advance further. And they will advance in British churches.

There is a lot of talk about “listening” to the concerns of far-right protesters and so on. Of course Christians should listen to everyone. That does not mean we should be neutral about them. We need to listen and challenge. We should be open to challenge ourselves of course. That is no excuse for inaction.

Ironically, it is within Christian teaching that we find the very means to resist people while also listening to them and not hating them. Jesus taught the love of enemies. Paul and other New Testament writers also taught the love of enemies. The love of enemies is central to Christian ethics. It is odd how rarely we talk about it in most churches.

The love of enemies does not mean having no enemies.

Racists are our enemies. Fascists are our enemies. We are called to love them. We are called to see the image of God in them and recognise them as equal human beings. And we are called to stand against them, oppose and speak out against all that they stand for. Love is not neutrality. Love is not passivity. Love is a refusal to descend to the level of those who preach hatred.

Middle class Christians sometimes talk unhelpfully about far-right protesters’ “legitimate concerns”. They often mean concerns around housing, NHS funding and so on, which the far-right blame on migrants. Of course it is right to be concerned about such things. It is not remotely legitimate to blame migrants for them. We need not only to listen to the concerns but to challenge the narrative that the concerns are misused to justify.

I suspect that many far-right leaders know that migration is not the cause of these problems, even if their foot-soldiers have been fooled. Instead of legitimising the far-right’s arguments, we need to put forward a bold alternative vision that champions the rights of migrants and people born in Britain to decent housing and healthcare and public services. These problems are caused not by migration but by inequality and sinful economic structures.

As Christians, let us speak up for the Christ who championed the poor and marginalised, urged the rich to repent, resisted unjust systems and broke down barriers that divided people based on nationality or prejudice.

This is the Christ we need to proclaim loudly at Christmas. This call for love and justice is what Christmas should be about – not the names of commercial trees.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

My book, The Upside-Down Bible: What Jesus really said about money, sex and violence (Darton, Longman and Todd, 2015) can be bought in paperback or e-book, priced £9.99.

Ant Middleton wants a leader with ‘Christian values’- but Christian values are the opposite of his far-right nationalism

Posted on by symonhill

I recently wrote an article for Premier Christianity in response to Ant Middleton’s claim that he wants to defend “Christian values” as a candidate for Mayor of London. They published it in on 18th August. Below is a slightly extended version of the article.

As followers of Jesus, we are taught to be “wise as serpents and innocent as doves” (Matthew 10:16).

I am alarmed therefore by how many Christians are cheering politicians who promise to protect “Christian values”. We should not be so naïve as to welcome such comments without asking what is meant by them.

Celebrity and ex-SAS soldier Ant Middleton recently posted on X: “Our Capital City of our Christian country needs to be run by a native Brit with generational Christian values, principles and morals coursing through their veins”.

But what does he mean by “generational Christian values”? Following Jesus is not hereditary. It is a personal choice, albeit with major implications for society. Middleton also argued that only people born in the UK, and whose parents and grandparents were born in the UK, should hold “top tier government positions”. He may have overlooked the fact that this would rule out several former prime ministers, including Winston Churchill.

To attack a political opponent on grounds of ethnicity is to undermine the Christian values that Middleton claims to defend

Middleton made the above remarks amid an announcement that he planned to stand in the 2028 London mayoral elections. He was initially tipped to be the Reform UK candidate, but recently announced that he would stand as an independent to defend “British culture”. In his post, Middleton took aim at current Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan. Whatever we might think about Khan’s policies, the birthplace of his parents should be irrelevant.

Breaking down the divide

I cannot see into Middleton’s heart or question the sincerity of his faith. Only God sees into his heart, just as only God sees into my heart or yours. I can, however, say that his comments seem utterly incompatible with Jesus’ teachings.

Jesus broke down hostility between Jews and Samaritans, and Jews and Gentiles. The New Testament is full of challenges to ethnic and social divisions so that “there is no Gentile or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all” (Colossians 3:11). To attack a political opponent on grounds of ethnicity is to undermine the Christian values that Middleton claims to want to defend.

We should note that many who use the rhetoric of “Christian values” also talk of defending “British values”. Many also tend to be strongly nationalistic and anti-migrant. In the 2015 UKIP manifesto, Nigel Farage MP, now leader of Reform UK, said Britain needed “a much more muscular defence of our Christian heritage and our Christian Constitution”.

Independent MP Rupert Lowe recently launched a new political movement, Restore Britain. On X, he said it’s aim was to “slash immigration, protect British culture, restore Christian principles, carpet-bomb the cancer of wokery”.

Yet both men consistently use demeaning language when speaking about migrants and refugees and rely on highly questionable statistics. Farage recently claimed that Afghan men in the UK are 22 times more likely to be convicted of rape than British-born men. He did not, and could not, cite the slightest shred of evidence for this claim, which was later disproved by critical journalists. Despite this, it was repeated without evidence by his supporters on social media.

I do not expect all Christians to agree on all aspects of migration policy – or any other issue. Christian values cannot, however, be squared with demonising particular people groups, dismissing the needs of refugees or showing less concern for people of one nationality than those of another.

Scripture is full of commands such as: “The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the Lord your God” (Leviticus 19:34).

A Christian Britain?

Nationalistic and anti-migrant parties mistake Christianity for Britishness – and for their very narrow notion of Britishness at that. If you visit parts of social media inhabited by these groups, you will find simplistic equations between being British, being white and being Christian. The reality that a large percentage of British Christians are not white seems to pass them by.

The central role of Christianity in British history is difficult to overstate. While Jesus’ teachings have at times inspired people with power in Britain, they have on many more occasions inspired people to resist the powerful.

Following Jesus is not hereditary. It is a personal choice

Jesus’ teachings inspired anti-slavery activists. In the 17th century, they inspired people to stand up for religious liberty against the monarchy, leading to the emergence of Baptists, Congregationalists, Quakers and other Christian movements we still recognise today.

Christian faith has been central to peace workers and war resisters in Britain and around the world, including people working for justice and reconciliation in Northern Ireland.

The nationalistic and authoritarian attitudes of Middleton, Farage and Lowe have little in common with these people’s values. They are more comparable to the values of the rulers and powerful bodies who many of them campaigned against.

Christian values continue to inspire British people to take action. “I believe Jesus actually meant what he said and he modelled nonviolent resistance to oppressive power,” said Baptist Pastor Sally Mann, who was arrested in London on 9th August. Sally had peacefully declared support for Palestine Action, a group banned under the Terrorism Act despite destroying weapons rather than using them.

On the same day, Rev Robin Hanford, a Unitarian Chrisitan minister, was assaulted by far-right demonstrators in Nuneaton for supporting refugees. They tried to pull off his clerical collar and accused him of being a “traitor to his religion”. But it is Robin’s views and not theirs that are consistent with Jesus’ approach to nationality.

“Not everyone who says to me ‘Lord, Lord’ will enter the kingdom of heaven,” said Jesus (Matthew 7:21). The nationalistic politicians and candidates who want to preserve Britian’s “Christian values” seem less keen to pay attention to Jesus’ words.

I pray that God will give us courage to follow Jesus’ example of standing with the marginalised and pulling down barriers, rather than falling for the claims of those who misuse Christian language to attack people different to themselves.

Reform UK’s MPs are ready to justify violence – whether it’s carried out by the police or used against them

Posted on by symonhill

It has not taken long for the five MPs from Reform UK to reveal themselves as a gang of far-right thugs in suits.

Nigel Farage has spent much of the last two days denying that he stoked up the racist violence in Southport on Tuesday. The reality is that Farage recorded a video only hours before the violence began in which he challenged the police’s statement that the murders of children were “not terror-related”.

Farage told his viewers:

“I just wonder whether the truth is being withheld from us. I don’t know the answer to that.”

Farage is right about one thing: he does not know the answer to that. He knows no more about this horrendous attack than most of us do – which is very little. He also knows that despite saying he does not, know, his comments were likely to be heard as strongly implying that the truth is indeed being withheld from us.

Yesterday, he defended himself on GB News, claiming that the police should have been clearer about the identity of the murderer. Disgracefully, Farage claimed:

“That’s what led to the riots last night. That’s what led to people being outside that mosque in Southport. You know, sometimes just tell the public the truth and you might actually stop riots from happening.”

If Farage is implying that people would not have attacked a mosque if they had known the murderer was not a Muslim, then he is in effect suggesting that it would have been acceptable to attack a mosque if the killer were a Muslim.

Reform UK leader’s reluctance to believe police statements contrasts remarkably with Reform UK’s attitude when a police officer was filmed jumping on a suspect’s head as he lay prone on the floor in Manchester airport last week.

Reform MPs rushed to defend the police involved, saying that police officers had been viciously attacked, including by the person whose head one of them later jumped on.

They missed the point that nobody was defending violent assaults on police officers. But Reform MPs defended equivalently vile behaviour – because it was done by police officers. There is no context in which it is acceptable to kick and jump on someone who is lying prone on the floor, whatever that person has done.

Tice went so far as to post a photo of a young police officer with blood on her face, claiming she had been attacked by the men in Manchester Airport. The picture turned out to have been taken in Leicestershire four years ago.

A week later, this demonstrably false photo is still on Tice’s Twitter feed.

Tice, however, must cede the award for most ludicrous response to his fellow Reform MP (and former Tory MP) Lee Anderson – the man known for telling refugees to “fuck off”, telling anti-monarchists to emigrate and telling people in poverty that it is possible to cook a meal for 30 pence.

Anderson didn’t just try to shift the focus away from police violence. He actively welcomed the violence. He wrote on Twitter:

“The vast majority of decent Brits would applaud this type of policing. We are sick of the namby pamby approach. Time to back our boys in blue.”

This is the first time I have known the phrase “namby pamby” used to mean “not jumping on people’s heads”. Anderson (as usual) cites no evidence that “the vast majority of decent Brits” are in favour of police assaulting suspects as they lie prone on the ground.

But Anderson surpassed even himself in his comments in a BBC interview, saying:

“The message I am getting loud and clear from my constituents is they are fed up with seeing police dancing around rainbows and being nice to people and running off from rioters. They want police to do their job, and I think these police yesterday should be commended. In fact, I’d give them a medal.”

You might need to read that again. The most shocking statement from Anderson is not that he wants to give a medal to people engaged in a violent assault. It is that the police behaviour to which he objects include “being nice to people”.

Yes, he really said that. He said his constituents are fed up with seeing police “being nice to people”.

What an outrageous way to behave – being nice to people. This is a party whose MPs defend people who engage violence against a man lying prone on the floor, but who object if those same individuals are being nice to people.

Reform’s enthusiasm for the police suddenly changed, however, when it came to the horrific murders of children in Southport on Monday.

With the Manchester airport incident, Tice, Anderson and their mates had taken it for granted that everything said about the suspects’ attacks on police was true. Now it may well be true, but it’s worth noting that they did not even stop to consider whether it was.

In contrast, the police statements that they do question are not those involving the disputed details of a violent incident but factual statements about an arrested individual.

The police in Southport said that the individual they have arrested is 17 and was born in Cardiff to parents from Rwanda. Today a court ordered that his name be made public. The police have said the incident is not “terror-related”, which I think is a bizarre expression but basically seems to mean that the motivation was not an attempt to bring about political change.

While I have little or no faith in the police, the police statements that seem to me to be most likely to be accurate are those concerning the age, nationality and so on of suspects.

This has not stopped far-right types claiming on social media that the killer is a Muslim and/or an asylum-seeker. But as he was born in Cardiff, he literally cannot be an asylum-seeker. A Rwandan family is pretty unlikely to be Muslim. Even if he were Muslim, this would not take away from the reality that Muslims in Southport are as appalled as anyone else by the horrific murders of children.

Farage’s language about the truth being withheld played directly into the hands of those who claimed that the basic factual statements about the arrested individual are not true. Reform MPs were too late to undo their damage when they took to social media on Wednesday morning to condemn the violence in Southport the previous night.

Within less than a month of Reform UK gaining five MPs, they have revealed the reality that they side with violent thugs – whether those thugs are attacking police officers, or are police officers themselves.