Muscular Christianity has made Sky News and was suitably slammed, maligned, and disregarded by the disreputable news agency; there was a puff piece suitably villainising some of its proponents like his grace Bishop Ceirion Dewar; and attacking it as the sinister alliance of mutual co-opting between Christians and the extreme right. I am here in reply to the article written by Tom Cheshire. I’ve copied the relevant parts of the article below. My commentary on the article will follow the comments of the article.
Sly News writes: (no, it is not a typo)
‘Critics call Dewar “the far-right bishop” – a label he rejects. But he does represent a new type of Christianity – more militant, more political – and one that is on the rise…’
I would like to state for the record that, despite these left-wing media types believing that a man can self-proclaim his identity as a woman, they accept it without question, despite biology being a hard science. The same militants of leftwing journalism will not allow you to not identify as ‘right-wing’ if they have decided that you are.
Rather than represent the bishop for what he is, a Christian, performing evangelism, he wishes to reframe him as a political mix of right-wing politics and Christianity. He claims it is a new type of Christianity – ‘more militant, more political.’ This will play into his later framing it as right-wing politics. However, it is fair to say the bishop does represent a more ‘militant & political’ Christianity. This, however, is not new; Christianity has always been militant – the Church on earth literally refers to herself as ‘the church militant’ within its own self-reflections. Reflections based upon the apostolic teaching, which instructs us to be like ‘soldiers on active service,’ not concerning ourselves with civilian affairs. The moment Christians refused the ‘peace of the gods’ and rejected ‘incensing the Caesar’, it was a political movement. As there was no understanding of separation between politics and religion in antiquity, Christians do not accept a separation between politics and the Lordship of Christ. If you are a Christian, being a Christian informs your politics.
The article notes that the good bishop performed evangelism at the Unite the Kingdom rally, as part of its framing of the bishop before going on, to observe its fruits as converts have come to receive the sacrament of Baptism at a mass baptism event, before it goes on to say:
‘But Dewar’s appeal is not just religious – online he decries immigration and the influence of Islam, a message that “chimed”.’
Firstly, how is this not a religious message? What exactly is he trying to say it is? Does that mean whenever a progressive liberal Christian makes overt messages in favour of mass uncontrolled immigration, they too are being ‘political’? If they are, why is that not a ‘new militant and political’ Christianity? Everyone else with a brain will not miss the clear duplicity in commentary here; left-wing political messaging in Church is good – right-wing political messaging in Church is bad! However, let’s think a little deeper about the lack of deep thinking of Tom Cheshire. Are closed borders and being anti-Islam the prerogative of the right? Has Tom been to China recently, or North Korea, two left-wing governments which are both anti-migration and anti-Islam? Given this fact, why are these the markers of what it is to be right-wing? Clearly, this is just a classical trope – one often thrust upon Tommy Robinson (who is a textbook classical liberal, not far right). Christians have suffered for 1400 years of persecution under Islamic rule. Asking a Christian to like Islam is like asking a Jew to like National Socialism. Therefore, for a Christian leader to sound the alarm of the danger of Islamic teaching and practice is exactly what a Christian leader should do. The issue of immigration is a prudential issue – Christianity does not teach either closed borders or mass migration; it teaches us principles to work out, in practice, which, depending on the situation, can lead to more or less open borders, depending on the context.
“We are a Christian culture, a Christian nation. And I do feel like we have lost a lot of that.”
The bishop’s words are exactly right, technically and on paper. The British constitutional framework is one of a Christian theocracy – it has not acted like one in so long that no one thinks of it as such, but the bishop is correct. The British peoples and nations have all been so drenched in Christianity that, until very recent memory, literally everything about our lives socially, culturally, politically, legally, and economically was framed by our Christian heritage. Why is it wrong for a Christian leader to value that, to seek to preserve it, to want to uphold it? That is exactly what we (the Christian peoples) want from our leaders. We have lost a lot of it; the withering hand of liberalism, and the cancerous influences of progressivism have diseased our nation to the point that it is sickly and dying. We all sense it, we feel it, we experience it every day, as our society begins to totter, traditions evaporate. Malignant fruit becomes more and more evident, such as Jews being essentially barred from Birmingham – a fruit of Islam – that Tom seems to think is not worth as much investigation as a lonesome bishop baptising people and sharing a stage with Tommy Robinson.
The Sly News article continues:
“A month earlier, Dewar had addressed the 150,000-strong crowd at the Unite the Kingdom march in London, bishop’s crook in hand, his voice thundering out over Westminster: “God, you have not abandoned Britain!” When he looked out, he saw not just British and English flags, but wooden crosses and depictions of Jesus. It was not his first appearance with Robinson. The year before, he spoke at another rally in Whitehall and said: “This nation of ours is under attack! We are at war! We are at war not just with the Muslims, not just with wokeness.”
Here, Tom repeats the fake news that a mere 150,000 people attended the UK2 rally – it was actually over a million. However, the media are desperate for you to think that this is not a growing, strong, vibrant movement representing as many people as vote Reform, but rather, a small fringe contingent. You can compare the images of UK2 with those of the Notting Hill Festival (regularly attended by over a million people), and the two images are identical. We Christians do not accept the idea that the cross of our saints, George, Andrew, and Patrick, is anything other than a Christian symbol! The truth is – and it is an uncomfortable truth for Tom and others – that amongst the white working-class patriotic community, there is a wonderful, glorious, and messy, spiritual awakening. A Christian revival of a more muscular Christianity, that is playing itself out – and it is too early yet to see which way it will. The Unite the Kingdom movement is, in part, a Christian movement of revival; that can only be a good thing. Every true follower of Jesus will celebrate the fact that people are open and thirsty for the truth of Christ, and should celebrate the bishops and other faithful clergy and laity, who are making time to evangelise there. Christianity teaches that we are indeed at war’ against the principalities and powers of Islam and ‘wokeness’ (I am sure the good bishop will accept my humble correction that he misspoke and should have said ‘Islam’ and not ‘Muslims.’ As a public speaker, I know it is easy to gaff – when you are in the moment.) This ‘war’ against the principalities and powers is precisely what the Kingdom of GOD is meant to do – to liberate this world from the powers of Satan. So, this is normal Christian speak – even if, in this example, clumsily delivered.
The article continues:
‘This is something new and growing – a movement that has long marched against immigration, against Islam, is now marching behind the cross. I ask Dewar what for him, as a Christian, is the appeal of Robinson. “It’s not the appeal of Tommy Robinson, per se,” he says. “It was the opportunity that he afforded to me to stand in front of that many people and to both pray for the people and this nation.”‘
This is something Christian and growing – there is nothing new about Christians being political, nor is there anything new about Christians doing evangelism. There is no place where Christians accept that the gospel cannot be preached and evangelism done. Nowhere, whether it is Mecca, outside abortion clinics, or the streets of Soho. Nowhere on earth may exclude the work of the Kingdom. So, if the Church evangelises the patriotic movement, and more of it looks Christian, that can only be a good thing. The challenge for the Christians within the patriotic movement is to make sure it does not just ‘look’ Christian, but is Christian in its worldview. If there are any prophetic words to deliver, they are these: the Church is catholic and open to all tribes and peoples, and that the state serves the cause of the Church, not the Church serving the cause of the state; a point which will be relevant later. If, as many social elites and liberal Christians believe, these working-class people are beyond the pale, the ‘prostitutes and drunkards’ of our time, should we not seek to bring them to salvation? If we are to do this, how can we, unless we engage with the sinners where they are? As Christ ate and drank with sinners, should not Christians do ‘marches and protests’ with sinners, becoming all things to all men so that some might be saved if we want to reach them (so long as the point of the protest is compatible with the Christian faith)? I would strongly make the case that there is more legitimacy in a Christian being concerned about mass uncontrolled immigration and participating in a protest about it than there is in Christians celebrating Pride (incidentally, also extremely political in nature).
Sly News continues in its slippery article:
“Dewar was marching front and centre with Robinson. He may be borrowing an audience from Robinson, but he’s also effectively endorsing him, I suggest – and doing so in a bishop’s garb. “I don’t think that at all. I’m very clear on what I endorse, and my political views are public and well-founded. “My stand with Tommy is not necessarily political. It’s a man that has surrendered his life to Christ, and he’s on that journey of faith and trying as a good shepherd to help lead him in that and to shape that faith in a way that is beneficial to him.”
Now, bear in mind that the commentary on the article is done after the interview, and therefore, the clarification was given before the framing. It is utterly dishonest of the article to say that the bishop is ‘endorsing him’ when, before such commentary is written, the bishop had made it clear what he was doing: offering pastoral solidarity with a new Christian whose views are on record. This is the dishonesty of the lamestream media, and a clear attempt to gloss over the bishop’s self-description and his work. However, again, being anti-Islam – and anti-mass uncontrolled immigration, is not the purview of the right. China and North Korea are not right-wing governments; they are left-wing governments, and they have both these traits – so using these as markers of ‘alt right-wing politics’ is actually not helpful, or meaningful, but misleading.
The article continues to quote the bishop who, unsurprisingly and just as a Christian leader should, desires a more Christian nation which is driven in law by Christian teaching, and goes on to say:
“Many on the hard and far right agree with him – and increasingly link an anti-Islam agenda with a Christian identity. That also adds grandeur to grassroots street politics, elevating a culture war into a clash of civilisations.”
Here, I think the article is onto something, and like a faulty clock, even the lamestream media can occasionally say something insightful. The far right and hard right (not that these terms accurately describe the Unite the Kingdom movement) are seeing the wisdom of Christian teaching, discovering a Christian identity, and that means that they, too, want our laws to be governed by a Christian metaphysical and value framework. We Christians are happy about this, although it presents a challenge to us. That challenge is that, as each of us knows, we bring the world and our own sin into the Church at our conversion. In this wave of conversions, proper discipleship is provided so that these new catechumens fully understand the Christian worldview. That they recognise being Christian – supersedes – being British, even redefining it for them, for example, that the Church is universal, not tribal, that freedom and knowledge are connected, not freedom and choice, that a narrative of hospitality, not xenophobia, is what is expected of us; (and being a good guest to the host is expected of the other). Further, that love of the Church requires them to oppose Islamisation, Nazism, Fascism, and Communism, and their bastard children, socialism and progressivism. We believe in a Christian theocracy, not a liberal secular humanist state, amongst many other things. The conversion of large people groups, which evangelists like myself and the bishop are on the verge of accomplishing, encounters the danger of syncretism, which is something we must guard the Church against.
The article quotes the Samuel P. Huntington thesis of the 1990s – when it references the clash of civilisations. Clearly, Tom is a poor student of history, as there has not been a single year in the last one thousand, four hundred years, in which some Islamic army has not been attacking some Christian population somewhere in the world whilst crying out ‘Allahu Akbar!’ So yes, Tom, there is a clash; we Christians have been the victims of Islamic aggression for over a millennium, our churches destroyed, our peoples enslaved, subjugated, and made to live in an apartheid system known as dhimmitude. Suppose Tom and his liberal progressive friends are against all or some of the following. In that case, he too is in a clash with Islam: sexual slavery, cousin marriage, abortion, polygamous marriage, killing of apostate, discrimination on the basis of religion resulting in apartheid systems of law, child marriage, forcibly conquering other lands to spread your religion, and treating and valuing women as being less than men. These are Islamic practices that are justified in the Quran, the Hadiths, the Tafsir, and the books of Fiqh. If Tom is against these things, then he finds himself in the same clash with Islam that the Church is in, though for different reasons. Not all civilisations are equal; they do not all deserve the same degree of respect, and if one is superior, the inferior should make way for it! Does Tom seriously want a world in which we look benignly on slavery – because of cultural relativism?
The article continues:
‘UKIP, which has become more explicitly nationalist since the departure of Nigel Farage as party leader, says in its manifesto that it will “declare war on radical Islam and place Christianity back into the heart of government”.
Wait! Isn’t the liberal secular government of France and the United Kingdom also at war with radical Islam? I mean, we did participate in a bombing campaign against ISIS – that is literally war; we monitor 10s of thousands of radical Muslims, we thwart an unknown number of Islamist plots and lock up untold numbers of the same in prison – sounds like a ‘war’ on radical Islam to me! So why is it wrong to say out loud what everyone can see we are doing as a matter of state security? Now, that being said, I think UKIP precisely represents the danger of syncretism I have mentioned earlier. Nick Tenconi is a Christian, but he has not been fully, deeply, or fully formed in the faith. The pressures of his politics have meant that he has simply taken a package of right-of-spectrum political points and slapped the word Christian over the top of them, without finding himself good counsellors in the faith who know the Tradition and the Scripture, to help him think it through. I believe he wants his politics to be Christian, but has failed to develop a mature Christian ideology. Perhaps in time he will, and I do hope so, as it would be nice to be able to rally behind a Christian leader who has Nick’s fire, as the real Christian political party currently on offer, the Christian Peoples Alliance, is currently out of steam under the leadership of Sid Cordle – though its politics are more authentically Christian. However, what is wrong with Christians wanting our faith at the heart of government? Secular humanists, communists, Islamists, and environmentalists all want their own ideology at the heart of government – what is wrong with Christians wanting the same? The article leaves the question hanging in the air and merely seeks to ‘nudge ‘ or ‘imply’ that this is a bad thing to want – there is no argument against the idea offered. The article then simply blusters on about hyperbolic language of crusade – as is the crusades were bad, and other non-sequitur catchphrases and statements of different people like Katie Hopkins and others unnamed, chucking them all into the same barrel, whether they are or are not Christians, thus sullying Christians like the bishop in the process, even if we do not share their values, sentiments, or beliefs. This is all to set up the point of the article, the one aimed at his own echo chamber, the villainization of the Christian Nationalist movement.
The Sly News article continues:
‘Dr Maria Power, author of The Church, The Far Right, And The Claim To Christianity, describes this as “Christian nationalism” and says it has a precedent in the UK, especially in Northern Ireland, where Britishness and Christianity were often equated.’
I think we should correct Dr. Power: Northern Ireland was an expression of two forms of nationalism, connected to two forms of Christianity; why did she overlook the Catholic Republican element in her discussion? However, it helps us to elucidate this point, which is an important one. Christian Nationalism can refer to one of two things: one is a hyper nationalism, which can and is wrapped in a Christian veneer, the kind pushed by Alec Jones, for instance, and involves a cult based around Western ideas of freedom. The other, which is the only one I care about, is when Christians claim the reality of the Christian faith for themselves and live it out – that we, the Church, form our own nation, not one born of blood and soil, but born of the spirit and the blood, of baptism, and the covenant established by our GOD with us, His people. That then, being a people, we seek to live out the reality of being Christian, fully and completely in the world and in all spheres of life, including the political. The article seems at this point to confuse, let’s say, ‘ordinary’ nationalism, and the former possible meaning of the Christian nationalism in the article, and sloppily chucks this on any Christian who might have a non-progressive (the acceptable form of political Christianity to the social elites) point of view upon political matters, with the audacity to reason from their faith! I mean – how dare working-class people think for themselves and form opinions not shepherded by our social elites! Crazy right?
“But really, I’ve seen it increase since we’ve seen the power of Christian nationalism in the States develop. You start to see inklings of it, probably about four or five years ago. Particular pastors talking this way, podcasts emerging, and content emerging on places like YouTube. And it’s very easy to fall down the rabbit hole of the algorithm, isn’t it?”
Notice how everyone is just chucked together in a blasé, casual, and lazy way. You are left to infer this is somehow bad; that it is somehow sinister. No actual argument is being presented – it is simply being implied! Your imagination is left to fill in the blanks. So, let me help you – the people being referred to are people like me; and yet no one who knows what I stand for would say that I am a nationalist, in the same way as anyone on the right would be described. I am the latter definition of the term. However, they, the lamestream media, have sought to suggest that anyone who is not spouting off left-wing political sound bites, but claiming to be a Christian, is one easy group all wrapped up together.
‘Ceirion Dewar rejects the term Christian nationalism, which he sees as specific to the United States, a country that has a different tradition of public, political Christianity. And it’s true that he and others have been advocating and preaching a more muscular Christianity since at least 2016 and the Brexit referendum.’
The good bishop has been exercised by a more muscular faith, even before it became visible in the American context. I myself have been advocating this before Trump even ran for president. So, the suggestion left in the air, but then contradicted here, that an American import is influencing Bishop Ceiron, is seen to be untrue! Could it instead be, Tom, that we are reading the Bible and learning the Apostolic Tradition without the encumberments of the Enlightenment? Actually, Christians have all agreed that our faith should affect our politics. We are now asking, “What does a Christian politique look like?” Using the same sources, we are broadly coming to the same conclusion that Christianity, when one believes its teachings, leads one to conclude that we must allow Christianity to be the organizing principle of society.
‘One of his friends is Rikki Doolan… who “converted” Tommy Robinson to Christianity three weeks before the latter left prison earlier this year. Doolan says it is “a new journey” for Robinson.’
The article suddenly switches focus, having opened up issues that are left hanging over the good bishop’s head. Implications left floating, slurs not so much stated as suggested to our brother, and lay minister, Rikki Doolan, who has claimed on his X account, has felt ‘framed’ by Sky News for editing his denial of being a Christian nationalist out of the interview; the full version of which, he was smart enough to film himself. Despite a 30-minute interview, only the following is said in the article:
‘Doolan was also on stage at UTK. I ask him about some of the statements made there, including by a Belgian politician, that “Islam does not belong in Europe and Islam does not belong in the UK”. He says he disagrees with that “because it’s not realistic”. But “if we can’t fix the problem, then that makes more sense. But I would like to try and fix it first”.
Is it possible, ladies and gentlemen, for any fair-minded person who is not aware of the wider context, not to feel that this one snippet is designed to cast aspersions upon Rikki’s character by associating him with comments designed to make him look bad? The aim is to suggest that I believe that Rikki is a bigot; a man married to an African sister, and who I know loves Muslims. Would Tom think to question a Jew on whether they think national socialism is a problem? Why, then, given the history of raping, pillaging, oppression, persecution, discrimination, murder, slavery, robbery, would you ask a Christian if they think Islam is problematic, and whether we want to live under a religion that persecutes us for being ourselves? Perhaps Tom does not believe me, so maybe he should speak to Assyrian Christians, Coptic Christians, Maronite Christians, Nubian Christians, Nigerian Christians, Indonesian Christians, Pakistani Christians, Malay Christians, Greek Christians in Turkey, and from Northern Cyprus. Perhaps he should speak to Palestinian Christians or talk to the Filipino Christians trapped as slaves in the UAE, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia. Frankly, it is Tom who should humble himself and perhaps consider that the world is not how he thinks it is.
Tom continues in his article:
‘Doolan and Dewar stand outside the established Church. But the majority of Christians in the UK still belong to the Church of England.’
As a point of fact, Tom, the vast majority of Christians stand outside of the established Church. The Church of England actually represents only a minority of Christians in the country, less than a million, when practicing Christians are somewhere between 5 – 10 million (it’s hard to get a proper grip of the numbers as many Churches do not keep proper records). The Church of England, which counts for around 700k of that figure, is set to collapse. However, notice that now Tom IS allowing self-identification as the measure of religiosity. He gives out this misinformation because he wants his next interviewer to look more credible in the eyes of his audience than he actually is to any Christian (It took me five minutes of research to show that members of the Church of England are a minority of Christians in the country).
‘Dr Sam Wells is the vicar of St Martin’s-in-the-Field, a Church of England church on the corner of Trafalgar Square in London. He was holding an annual service commemorating victims of suicide when Robinson’s march came right up to the square, resulting in skirmishes with the police. Wells says his congregation was “hurt” by the Christian imagery on display.’
The ‘snowflake’ culture is on full display here. Firstly, it was probably Anti Fascista and Unite Against Racism that were involved with the scuffles with the police. Notice, Tom never said who, but as a witness to the event, I can assure you the march and main stage did not reach Trafalgar Square! Fewer people were arrested who were involved in UtK2 than at the largely peaceful Notting Hill Festival. It is irrelevant what Dr. Sam Wells really thinks about the march, the marchers, or their expressions of Christianity. We, the church in England, as opposed to the apostates of the Church of England, are offended by CofE ministers, prostituting our churches, sacraments, and imagery, to push trans ideology, support illegal migration, and turn our Churches into anything but places of Christian worship. I doubt he truly represents many Christians, and if there are any in his church, I doubt he speaks for them. The Church of England has been captured by the religion of humanity and the cult of self. The wolves in sheep’s clothing, who support abortion and aspire to build a multi-faith society, do not get to lecture Christians or represent them. We simply do not care about your opinions or hurt feelings. Dr. Wells exposes himself as not able to represent Christianity properly when he said this:
“The gestures of the cross, the Christian symbols, are about love and understanding and peace and gentleness and they’re being thrust in people’s faces as weapons,” he says. “I think that’s very painful.”
This is utter nonsense; the cross is a symbol of sacrifice, pure and simple, of the self-sacrifice of the Son, for the salvation of the world; it is a symbol of Christus Victus, and his triumph over the curse of death, the consequence of sin, therefore of glorification! It is a symbol of salvation; there is nothing in the tradition that supports the claptrap of Dr. Wells, who implies that it is a political symbol of ‘peace.’ It is not! Its only political meaning is to affirm Christ as King enthroned. The peace it references is between man and GOD, not between social communities, and there is literally absolutely nothing ‘gentle’ about it. How can you possibly take a symbol of torture and death, and describe it as ‘gentle’? The idea that a so-called Christian leader would attack Christians for carrying the cross (none of whom attacked anyone with them) demonstrates that, as always, the leaders of the Church of England are doing what they have always done as whores of the elites, lying on their backs to lie with the beast, not as followers of Christ, but of the state! Dr. Sam thinks it is painful to carry the cross in a political protest. Well, Shock! Horror! Christians have been doing that since before the Magna Carta and continued to do so at the marches that led to the signing of the Magna Carta. It’s a Christian tradition to display the cross in any great social endeavour! Pathetic, Dr. Sam, truly pathetic! The article continues to quote Dr. Sam, after noting that he had a public letter spat with his grace the Bishop Dewar, over the marches in which Dr. Sam continues:
“Christian values, what does that actually mean? I think it means love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness. An institution or a church or a preacher has a right to be called Christian if they look like Jesus. Those marches didn’t look like Jesus to me. They looked like the kind of people who were attacking Jesus in Holy Week.
The problem, one suspects, is that Dr. Sam, influenced by the religion of humanity, seems to separate the fruits of the Spirit (which he only partially remembers) from the kingdom of Jesus. Yet, taken seriously, the fruits necessarily shape one’s posture regarding abortion, contraception, the institution of marriage, sexuality, the rule of law, and political direction. In all these areas, I suspect that if probed, Dr. Sam’s outlook would reveal a striking absence of genuinely Christian conviction. Christianity IS NOT about being nice; it is about following Jesus and pursuing His Kingdom rule here on earth so that His will is done as it is in heaven. This is achieved by every Christian pouring out their lives as a libation unto the Father, as a nation of priests before a holy GOD! This transformative narrative is exactly what the many faithful Christians on the march and his grace, the Bishop, were doing – something I feel positively sure Dr. Sam knows nothing about! Flippantly, Dr. Sam says:
“I think they’re reading a different Bible from the one I’m reading.”
It is more apt to say, I think, that we are reading the holy Scriptures in the light of the Christian Tradition, and you are reading in the fog of the Enlightenment. We will take no lectures from you, Dr. Sam! You simply do not have the standing, as a Christian amongst Christians, to give them. Please stick to your humanist club and Sunday cos play, and let the men of the Church get on with doing the job of pursuing the Kingdom of GOD. If you would kindly hand back the temples of the Church and stop dressing as one of our leaders, because a leader of ours, you are not! It is Bishop Dewar, travelling the breadth of the country to seek the baptism of the poorest, the most dispossessed and neglected. The article notes the campaign of open mass baptisms launched by Servant Doolan and Bishop Dewar, saying that Christians like myself are ‘using’ the far-right to reach new audiences.
Considering that no clear marker has been offered to identify ‘the far-right,’ it is a slur on a good many people to describe both Tommy Robinson and the Unite the Kingdom movement as far right. What makes them far right? Any serious analysis of their political views would categorize them as classical liberals, such as those of Wellington, Washington, and Churchill, amongst whom we Christians are also included. In our understanding of faith, we seek to draw them to a Christian perspective, rather than a liberal understanding of politics. We are not ‘using’ them, and they are not using us. We are united around common concerns, which include the fact that a social experiment, voted against countless times in our democratic system, has effectively abolished the rule of law and the southern border of the country, and has eroded free speech in the country. We Christians are evangelising where the wheat is white in the field; something I suspect Dr. Sam would not have a clue about. We are standing in solidarity with the downtrodden and forgotten, the neglected, the poor, and the voiceless. We are sounding the alarm about an existential threat to Western civilisation and to holy mother Church, echoing the voice of countless Christians before us; hundreds of thousands who bravely gave their lives so that we could be free from Sharia Law and preserve the liberties of the Gospel. Your othering of this movement, Tom, only shows that your ideologically driven hit piece has finally noticed our existence. Yet, in one thing you said, you were right:
‘A new Christian politics, in all sorts of ways and all sorts of places, is on the march.’
GOD wills it!
From the days of John the Immerser till now, the kingdom of the heavens is achieved by force, and they committing violence seize it eagerly.
– Jesus the Nazarene!
