These days, the pace of ‘events dear boy’ has increased to such a degree that there is a dizzying speed at which issues are arising, concerns to be addressed, and challenges to be faced. Whilst I have often sought to highlight issues that are often ignored, I thought it would be beneficial in this article to address some of the issues that everyone is discussing and offer a Christian perspective. Obviously, my concerns will be centred in the anglosphere; I am sure there are great issues to be discussed elsewhere, but I am simply not as well-versed in speaking to them as I am to those of my own situation. Also, in this article, I am not going to talk about what I think are the big issues for the Church: demographic collapse, Islamisation, Liberalisation, and the need for unity. Rather, I intend to speak, for better or worse, right or wrong, about what the wider culture is discussing to some degree, but I want to approach it from a Christian perspective. The first point is to acknowledge that what the world considers the big issue or how we respond to it is rarely the way of the Christian. I would like to share some reflections on the growing tensions within the UK, Israel, and Palestine, the rise of AI, the Green agenda, the Trumpian Revolt, and the quiet revival of the Church in the UK (and France). My aim is not to provide a lengthy diagnosis, but rather to offer a summary and some commentary, with a non-comprehensive view on how the Church should respond.
Tensions are essentially rising in the UK between two camps and a third; the first camp we can call the patriotic movement, the second the internationalists, and the third the Muslims. The fault lines stem from the lack of integration among the three, with visible and tangible mutual contempt. It’s a strange dynamic where the internationalists vent their full disdain on the patriotic community, but not on the Muslim community, which finds most of what the internationalists value in the world to be reprehensible. This three-way tension, expressed through protests increasingly spreading across the country, finds three totems upon which the causes hang other issues; for the Muslim community, it is Hamas’s Palestine, for the Patriotic movement, it is against mass uncontrolled immigration, and for the progressive internationalists, it is against racism. Now, believing Christians can and are found at all three protests, which surely screams to the world that we lack a clear cohesive Christian political agenda – and this is true as we lack a clear sense of our own identity as ‘Christians’. I was recently at an Anglican Church in which there were prayers in the intercessions against the far right, not against the militant left harassment of Christians, or Muslim persecution, but rather against the broadly sympathetic to Christianity Far-Right. I believe, more than ever, Christians amid these tensions need to ‘know’ their identity as the ‘people of GOD’ and then build solidarity with one another out of that and let that solidarity guide their politics. Interestingly, there is now talk of civil war in the UK. It certainly feels like it is one possible horizon, but not a sealed fate! What, then, should the Church be doing in this climate of tension? The civic Christian answer would be to be ‘peacemakers,’ which in practice would mean ‘how can we accommodate your demands to support sharia law and terrorism further, whilst fighting with you against the patriot community?’ I would like to offer a different answer that, in these times of tension, the Church needs to consolidate geographically, toughen up physically, mentally and spiritually, and propose a new way for the world to go; one that will bring peace through order and strength; that being a new Christendom, and push for a Christian society, one in which Christianity is the leading force. This is something that many patriots are open to, for example, UKIP and Tommy Robinson. This, therefore, is the place for the Church to build strategically and tactically; forming strong base communities that can create a society within a society; the Kingdom within this dis-united Kingdom! Peace, which all Christians must commit themselves to building, may best be served by a non-progressive route, an expectation of integration that is non-negotiable, along Christian lines, stopping well short (I would argue) of forced baptisms.
This first issue has been inflamed by the second, which is the issue of Israel and Palestine, and many Christians have fallen afoul (again because of a lack of Christian identity and the incumbent solidarity) of a binary choice to which our own worldview as Christians does not submit or allow. Christians, we should not take the side of Israel or Palestine, nor, as the civic Christians would tell you, take the side of ‘justice,’ which ends up being whatever the Liberal Elites tell you it is. We should take the side of the Church – and her alone! The Christians of the world should be concerned for the Christians in Gaza, the Christians in Israel, and the Christians of the surrounding regions. The Israeli state means nothing to us, the terrorist state of Gaza, even less! We also need to simply apply wisdom; Israel is, at times, a regional threat and a regional ally of Christians, aiding in the extermination of the Christians of Artsakh, Armenia, but holding back the Islamists of Syria. Everything is put through the calculus of what safeguards Israel’s survival; in other words, it can be influenced by Western Christendom. Hamas, however, like Hezbollah and ISIS, is driven by an internal Islamic narrative of sharia dominance and imposition, and, thus, cannot be negotiated with. There is no calculus that can be used; even the threat of overwhelming force is not a deterrent. Islamists cannot be stopped; they can only be crushed, as we are witnessing in this very conflict. The quicker the West reconciles itself to this fact, known throughout the entire Christian period, but forgotten due to the ravages of the Enlightenment on the West’s cultural identity, the better. Therefore, the Christian world (if it exists at all) should be pushing Israel to be a friend of the Christians in the region. This would mean working with all Israeli Christians to evangelise the Muslims of Gaza, whilst it is under a strong security blanket of Israel. Christians from around the Middle East should be encouraged to settle in Gaza, whilst making the situation intolerable for all Islamists, putting Christians, over time, in charge of all aspects of Gazan life, including national security. Once Christians have a firm grip on the country, handing it off for a second time to the Palestinian people to have as their own country, a Christian Gaza, it will be a Mediterranean Singapore. Christians should not be frightened to sanction or challenge Israel on its abuses of Christian communities in the Middle East, and the extremist settler movement should be suppressed outside of the clear borders of Israel and controlled completely, as too many within the settler movement are rabidly against anyone who is not Jewish.
I will turn now to the Trumpian revolution, as it most naturally follows from this latter point. It is, I am sure, a major item on his agenda, for he stands as the only significant champion the West currently has, whether the West wants him to be or not, and therein lies the issue. The internationalists spoken of earlier also exist in the USA. Their progressive agenda has been hard-baked into aspects of American Society for generations, as was seen by the lawfare launched against him between elections. Trump represents, it seems to me, the success of the ‘Tea Party’ that took over the American Republican party; a movement of revolt, from the right, against the status quo or progressive Liberal ideology, norms, and assumptions. Trump is no saint or a perfect man, but then who is? However, for his revolt to succeed and be more Christian, Christians must do all they can to help JD Vance become the next president of the USA. They must correct the ‘America First’ rhetoric, and replace it with ‘Christ First, Christ last, Christ all in all’! The next Trumpian president must fill as many of the ranks of the state with those who agree with the Trumpian revolt. Also, there needs to be a concerted effort to hard-bake Christianity and the Trumpian rebellion into the US infrastructure. However, Christians within the movement, such as in the UK’s Patriotic movement, should not shy away from changing and eliminating the un-Christian elements of the movement and its ideology. There is no place for a state ‘god’ in Christianity, or for ethno-nationalism, or for a lack of solidarity with other Christians, or raping of the world natural resources, or a salvific faith in the free market, to name a few of the bed fellows moving currently within the Trump camp seeking to influence him (some more successfully than others). Remember, our loyalty as the Church is to the Lordship of Christ and His Kingdom! Don’t let the Republicanism of the Trump kind fashion how you view Christianity. Let Christianity influence your Republicanism. You may wonder ‘why no mention of the Democrats’; the answer is simple: a party that commits its election campaign to murder children up to birth is no longer part of the panorama of Christianity.
Essential to the Trumpian revolution is a rejection of the Green Agenda, and, for sure, I can agree that there are things that could be done better, or things attached to the Green Agenda that have nothing to do with helping the planet. However, regardless of whether the planet is or is not in danger (environmentally), as Christians, we have a very clear concern for the planet as it is GOD’s, not ours, and needs to be stewarded and not damaged, cultivated and not raped. I DO believe that the planet faces an ecological crisis, that human behaviour since the Industrial Revolution has resulted in, which, left unchecked, will force man to the edge of survival. The science is sound, the evidence overwhelming. Even if you do not believe in climate change, can you accept that man has wiped out large swaths of habitat, and that has led, and is leading, to more extinctions of larger creatures? Blue Wales, Elephants, Rhinos, Tigers, Orangutangs, the common Bee, wild flowers, etc. This point is not disputable (to those who can think and handle evidence). Since the garden of this planet was given to man in trust, we need to take stewardship responsibility for it; the question is not whether there is an issue to tackle, but only how big the issue is. This is a keen example of how ‘right-wing political narrative ‘ can distort Christian faith, every bit as much as progressive politics, and we should be equally as resistant to both. By not developing a fully Christianised political vision, Christians must borrow from other people’s narratives, rooted in other people’s philosophies and ideologies, which, therefore, is being unevenly yoked with the unbeliever. Christians must come to their own conclusions on the environment based upon their faith, and there is only one Christian answer to that; it belongs to GOD, and we must take care of it!
The environmental crisis is directly due to a revolution, the Industrial Revolution. It was the unforeseen revolutionary effects that have placed us in the Environmental battle we must win. Yet, whilst we face the unforeseen consequences of the revolution from some two hundred years ago, we find ourselves stumbling into a new one, or rather three, each emerging from the fruit of the Industrial Revolution. These are the emergence of AI, the advent of genetic manipulation, and the development of human augmentation. Each has the potential to ‘revolutionize’ what the world understands as human, altering our genetic makeup, augmenting our human bodily functions, merging with or being ruled by AI. These pressures, brought on by technology, have, and will continue to give rise to, a transhumanist subculture, which, for now, still feels scientific, but does Tran-genderism feel real? A hundred years ago, that was the stuff of science fiction; now it’s a scientific fact! The Church, I imagine, will be as swallowed up by the world and the world’s answers as it ever has been, because of our lack of vision about what a Christian civilisation looks like. I want to suggest some ‘rules’ for Christians to adopt regarding these technologies. All gene editing should be limited to correcting genetic abnormalities to the normative state alone; only if it can be done without distorting the normative nature of human genetics; that is, not by introducing genetic material from any third species, or in the embryonic stage, a third person. Human augmentations, even where the technology of the augmentation allows it, should not go beyond the normal capacities of the human organ or limb that they are replacing. Thus, we cap the augmentation at replicating the limbs or organs of the human being that need them; that is to say, we do not give people the ability to see like snakes or bats, nor allow them to run like cheetahs. I think these lesser-known revolutions have potentially far more profound impacts than the AI revolution, which may or may not lead to self-thinking, self-aware machines—the debate is still out on this. I do accept that AI could potentially have a profound impact on the way we work, learn, and on some industries. To these latter points, rather than the former, we should prevent AI teaching materials from being hijacked by political or cultural ideologues. It is a great resource for learning, but it can also be a tool of elite control over learning.
Throughout history, industries and sectors of work have dried up and been replaced by technological development, and I do not think we should stop that to keep people in a job. However, we should ensure that as this technology transforms sectors and the economic infrastructure. There is a concern, particularly for the least skilled, least educated, and economically mobile, to help them deal with the transition. We can address concerns about the poor while promoting economic development. At the same time, we have a wealth of failed attempts and the consequences of trying in economic history to prevent this from becoming an economic harrowing of the most economically vulnerable. Plato once said, “The strong do what they will, and the weak suffer what they must” (Thucydides, History of the Peloponnesian War 5:89). I would like to suggest that we should invert this logic; let the fittest survive and help the weakest! I don’t know if we are near self-thinking, self-aware machines; a lot depends on what you define as self-aware intelligence, and many of those who say we are reaching the singularity have a mechanical view of human nature and consciousness. I am not saying they are wrong; I am just saying that it depends on the definitions and understanding of consciousness and intelligence, which determine whether we are close or nowhere near. However, the economic learning impacts seem clear and profound, and we should be preparing for them in advance.
These issues scream to the Church for a revival —a revival of Christian identity, culture, politique, economic practices, and society. A quiet revival is now underway within the Anglo-Franco world. However, this revival, if forced to adapt a church it had already rejected, will be short-lived; the Church must recognise that we are in a generational opportunity: people are giving the Church a chance, especially young men. To capitalize on this, we must build a spirituality and church life that allows the Church’s young men to be exactly that – young and masculine; energetic, confrontational, competitive; harnessing and directing these masculine traits and abilities towards the Kingdom of GOD and the service of the Christian community. This spirituality should challenge them to be the optimum Christian, not force them down avenues of soy piety or endless prayerful devotions. To do this, we should not shy away from a ‘them v us’ dynamic and recognise that, truly, the Church has her enemies, and that these young men play a role in protecting the people of GOD. We need to capture the narrative and interest in the rise of populism, which shows openness to faith. We should be evangelising amongst them and setting the agenda (if only we had a fully worked-out agenda to set). We need to instill pride in being Christian and give reasons for it. The church has done so much to be proud of! We need to create cultural, social, and economic ties that bind Christians together, especially new Christians; the more they invest in the faith in their lives, the more it will mean to them. This new spirituality should consciously reject and eschew the quietist post-enlightenment settlement of a Church that is the conscience of the nation, sort of crap, where its sole roles are charity and civic ritual. Equally, it should reject the post-enlightenment consensus that has emerged as that of a social club and community networking. The Church must be clear – we are the people of GOD, a holy nation, a royal priesthood, a people set apart – with an identity of our own, leading to a unique culture, and civilisational project expressing itself not just individually, but collectively, in economic, social, and political solidarity. If we, the Christians who were here from before the quiet revival, just settle for a few more bums on seats, without such a change in emphasis, without such a change in vision and direction, we will find that this quiet revival will count for as little as the Welsh Revival, which, due to the fact it never became institutionalised into the Welsh fabric, evaporated as quickly as it arrived. We must lead the way not by seeking to have others follow us or by following others, but by carving out a whole new direction, and as that new path gains visibility, people will join us.
