Earlier this year I engaged in a lengthy and frustrating but very revealing debate with a Christian who supports Reform and who thinks Yaxley-Lennon is the bee's knees and can do no wrong.
I won't outline their arguments in detail here but it very much mirrored the sort of thing Sarah Pochin is coming out with. They were also convinced that Bill Gates and environmentalists in general were out to prevent people from eating meat in order to starve them into submission. The liberati wokery are out to destroy or hobble the proletariat in order to conserve resources for themselves and deny them to everyone else.
And so it went on ...
Whatever Farage's personal and private wariness about Yaxley-Lennon, and I see no reason to suspect that this isn't real, some of his supporters, including some of those with a Christian faith, see him as a somewhat prophetic figure, highlighting issues that the rest of us are too scared or too liberal to address.
How widespread this tendency is among Reform supporters I can't say. But it's definitely there and, I'd suggest across the more populist right more generally.
Reform is very much Farage's own personal fiefdom. Farage Inc.
As or if the 'movement' gains momentum it's likely that these sort of views will gain traction, irrespective of whether he holds them himself, which I rather doubt.
Whatever his personal views he is providing both an umbrella and a platform for what most of us here with a Christian faith would regard as 'out there' and rather paranoid.
I wouldn't want to exaggerate the conservative Christian tendency within Reform but it is there. It flourishes amidst a welter of conspiracy theories, a rejection of mainstream or 'legacy media' in favour of unregulated news sources and a whopping big persecution complex.
It is interesting and concerning to me that Trump and MAGA have explicitly supported Yaxley-Lennon over against Farage whom they seem to regard as weak and compromising. It is also concerning to me that evangelical Christians in the US are so solidly behind Trump (breaking something like 90%-10% I believe). This would seem to line up with the sort of thing @Gamma Gamaliel is describing.
The late Tony Campolo observed that the ‘marriage’ between Christianity and Right Wing US politicians looked likely to put back the cause of the kingdom 50 years in the USA. Sad to say, it’s not just the USA.
The privatisation of the gospel is just poisonous.
The late Tony Campolo observed that the ‘marriage’ between Christianity and Right Wing US politicians looked likely to put back the cause of the kingdom 50 years in the USA. Sad to say, it’s not just the USA.
The privatisation of the gospel is just poisonous.
Would I be right in thinking that the only way those on the Right are able to make use of the gospel is by perverting it?
The late Tony Campolo observed that the ‘marriage’ between Christianity and Right Wing US politicians looked likely to put back the cause of the kingdom 50 years in the USA. Sad to say, it’s not just the USA.
The privatisation of the gospel is just poisonous.
Would I be right in thinking that the only way those on the Right are able to make use of the gospel is by perverting it?
Personally I think that would be an unjustified thought. Being on the Right politically does not mean having the same motivations as Melkor or Voldemort. I would be more inclined to say that intending to "make use" of the Gospel is a bad sign in itself, rather like "using the stairs of heaven as a short cut to the chemist's shop" as I think Lewis once said.
It's [almost] always the case that looking to the Bible, or part thereof, to support a political position derived from other considerations is a perversion of the gospel. It's also likely that taking the gospel message and distilling it into a political position is also very likely to distort the gospel - which is more than just how to love our neighbours (though IMO can't be less than that).
Though I do freely admit that I struggle to see how an economic right wing position that (rather crudely) comes down to "get rich and don't care who you trample on to get there" could easily find support from the Bible. And, likewise a right wing social position of (again, rather crudely) "hate everyone but those who look like you" doesn't seem to be easily supported from the Bible.
I think it’s important to recognise both personal and social responsibility. Both are taught in scripture and tradition.
It’s probably true that the politics of the Left emphasises social responsibility, the politics of the Right emphasises personal responsibility. It’s a factor in pointing to preferences for big governments or small governments. On the one hand, criticising unbridled capitalism, on the other the nanny state.
At its best, Christianity teaches us to hold both in tension when considering what constitutes best behaviour. So I think it’s incorrect to doubt the faith of people on the Left or the Right, but correct to point out a lack of balance between the importance of the personal and the social.
As an Archbishop is famously quoted as pointing out. “When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why they are poor, they call me a communist.” (Helder Camara, a liberation theologian who changed in his life from being an advocate of the Right to an advocate of of the Left).
At its best, Christianity teaches us to hold both in tension when considering what constitutes best behaviour. So I think it’s incorrect to doubt the faith of people on the Left or the Right, but correct to point out a lack of balance between the importance of the personal and the social.
Thing is, there is nothing on the left inherently against personal responsibility, whereas the right is all about the denial of social responsibility. the "both sides"-ism doesn't work here.
In the past, the right did tend to stress philanthropy to support the poor and vulnerable, that individual responsibility is to more than just oneself but is also a responsibility towards society. That position worked when philanthropy was a top up for the most seriously disadvantaged - I've never come across anyone advocating for a philanthropic model to support universal healthcare or education, much less policing and defence. The old right (in the UK at least) had a balance of government funding for universal provisions, but encouraging philanthropy to support what they considered "non-essential" provision including some support for the poor and overseas aid. The new right seems to be both increasing the list of "non-essential" services to include teaching our children and caring for the sick (Reform in particular advocating full privatisation of the NHS), and also stressing the responsibility of people to become rich and care only for themselves thus cutting out the inferior safety net of philanthropy.
I think it’s true that many Right Wing governments have been moving away from forms of social responsibility that were previously supported by the Right. And there has been some support for these moves in the teaching in the US by some right wing Christians. It’s a depressing element of the zeitgeist.
I can’t find the source but I remember finding some teaching which was used in Bible Studies in the White House during the first Trump Presidency. It proclaimed that the sequence of responsibility for the disadvantaged was firstly personal, then family, then the church. Government responsibility should be confined to justice, policing, and military defence against external aggressors.
The author seemed never to have read Amos for example. Or Matthew 25, for example, with its condemnation of leadership indifference.
The lack of balance does seem to be getting worse.
At its best, Christianity teaches us to hold both in tension when considering what constitutes best behaviour. So I think it’s incorrect to doubt the faith of people on the Left or the Right, but correct to point out a lack of balance between the importance of the personal and the social.
Thing is, there is nothing on the left inherently against personal responsibility, whereas the right is all about the denial of social responsibility. the "both sides"-ism doesn't work here.
I would disagree. I think there is an element of Marxist thought suggesting that personal responsibility (and sometimes morality in general) is part of bourgeois false consciousness and that everything is really determined by the class struggle for the economic means of production.
At its best, Christianity teaches us to hold both in tension when considering what constitutes best behaviour. So I think it’s incorrect to doubt the faith of people on the Left or the Right, but correct to point out a lack of balance between the importance of the personal and the social.
Thing is, there is nothing on the left inherently against personal responsibility, whereas the right is all about the denial of social responsibility. the "both sides"-ism doesn't work here.
I would disagree. I think there is an element of Marxist thought suggesting that personal responsibility (and sometimes morality in general)
Personal responsibility and morality are two different things, and Marxism isn't determinist in that sense.
At its best, Christianity teaches us to hold both in tension when considering what constitutes best behaviour. So I think it’s incorrect to doubt the faith of people on the Left or the Right, but correct to point out a lack of balance between the importance of the personal and the social.
Thing is, there is nothing on the left inherently against personal responsibility, whereas the right is all about the denial of social responsibility. the "both sides"-ism doesn't work here.
I would disagree. I think there is an element of Marxist thought suggesting that personal responsibility (and sometimes morality in general) is part of bourgeois false consciousness and that everything is really determined by the class struggle for the economic means of production.
I'm not overly up on the details of obscure Marxist theory, so you might be correct, but it's not something that plays out in left wing policies or rhetoric in any nation that I'm aware of.
Interestingly, liberation theology did make some use of Marxist ideas of exploitation and oppression. It tended to label these things as structural sins. I’m comfortable with that. Personally, I think that the Marxist diagnosis of the exploitation and oppression of the poor is a pretty correct moral analysis of the sins of the rich and powerful. It echoes some of the prophetic insights of the Old and New Testaments.
Of course Marxism was also highly critical of organised religion as an opiate and supporter of the social status quo. It was also essentially materialistic. But it was not without moral considerations.
At its best, Christianity teaches us to hold both in tension when considering what constitutes best behaviour. So I think it’s incorrect to doubt the faith of people on the Left or the Right, but correct to point out a lack of balance between the importance of the personal and the social.
Thing is, there is nothing on the left inherently against personal responsibility, whereas the right is all about the denial of social responsibility. the "both sides"-ism doesn't work here.
I would disagree. I think there is an element of Marxist thought suggesting that personal responsibility (and sometimes morality in general) is part of bourgeois false consciousness and that everything is really determined by the class struggle for the economic means of production.
I'm not overly up on the details of obscure Marxist theory, so you might be correct, but it's not something that plays out in left wing policies or rhetoric in any nation that I'm aware of.
There is a substantial gulf between Marxist theory and the practical implementation of Socialism within major political parties. Though, it's not uncommon for some commentators to take isolated sections of academic Marxism and make out that these parts of Marxist theory that many Marxists would be unaware of as arguments against all forms of Socialism - it's always easier to argue against a strawman than what people actually believe in and call for.
There's two Marxist thoughts - there's the official line in which morality is part of bourgeois ideology, the bourgeoisie are just acting out their parts in the economy, and Marxism is a scientific socio-economic analysis. And then there's the unofficial line in which the bourgeoisie are all villains to be denounced at every turn.
There's two Marxist thoughts - there's the official line in which morality is part of bourgeois ideology, the bourgeoisie are just acting out their parts in the economy, and Marxism is a scientific socio-economic analysis. And then there's the unofficial line in which the bourgeoisie are all villains to be denounced at every turn.
That’s true as far as it goes. But I suspect that the critique of the morality of the bourgeoisie was more directed at the extent to which organised religion supported the social status quo and was embraced by the bourgeoisie for that reason.
Not surprisingly I’m reminded of the infamous lines from All things Bright and Beautiful.
“The rich man in his castle
The poor man at his gate
God made them high and lowly
And ordered their estate”
Not a message that the poor “heard gladly”. A mile away from the origins of Methodism. And a far cry from the late Bishop David Sheppard’s book “Bias to the Poor”.
I'm completely prepared to accept that a left-wing outlook is very compatible with a belief in personal responsibility, both in theory and in practice. After all the old saying was that the Labour Party (and this was the old-style Labour Party) "owed more to Methodism than to Marxism". It's just that I can see some elements in the inheritance, especially along the Rousseau - Robespierre - Marx - Lenin line, that definitely worry me and always have me jumpy.
It's just that I can see some elements in the inheritance, especially along the Rousseau - Robespierre - Marx - Lenin line, that definitely worry me and always have me jumpy.
Pick the spectre you are worried about I suppose, but picking something unlikely seems to be a case of motivated reasoning.
Comments
I won't outline their arguments in detail here but it very much mirrored the sort of thing Sarah Pochin is coming out with. They were also convinced that Bill Gates and environmentalists in general were out to prevent people from eating meat in order to starve them into submission. The liberati wokery are out to destroy or hobble the proletariat in order to conserve resources for themselves and deny them to everyone else.
And so it went on ...
Whatever Farage's personal and private wariness about Yaxley-Lennon, and I see no reason to suspect that this isn't real, some of his supporters, including some of those with a Christian faith, see him as a somewhat prophetic figure, highlighting issues that the rest of us are too scared or too liberal to address.
How widespread this tendency is among Reform supporters I can't say. But it's definitely there and, I'd suggest across the more populist right more generally.
Reform is very much Farage's own personal fiefdom. Farage Inc.
As or if the 'movement' gains momentum it's likely that these sort of views will gain traction, irrespective of whether he holds them himself, which I rather doubt.
Whatever his personal views he is providing both an umbrella and a platform for what most of us here with a Christian faith would regard as 'out there' and rather paranoid.
I wouldn't want to exaggerate the conservative Christian tendency within Reform but it is there. It flourishes amidst a welter of conspiracy theories, a rejection of mainstream or 'legacy media' in favour of unregulated news sources and a whopping big persecution complex.
The privatisation of the gospel is just poisonous.
Would I be right in thinking that the only way those on the Right are able to make use of the gospel is by perverting it?
Personally I think that would be an unjustified thought. Being on the Right politically does not mean having the same motivations as Melkor or Voldemort. I would be more inclined to say that intending to "make use" of the Gospel is a bad sign in itself, rather like "using the stairs of heaven as a short cut to the chemist's shop" as I think Lewis once said.
Though I do freely admit that I struggle to see how an economic right wing position that (rather crudely) comes down to "get rich and don't care who you trample on to get there" could easily find support from the Bible. And, likewise a right wing social position of (again, rather crudely) "hate everyone but those who look like you" doesn't seem to be easily supported from the Bible.
It’s probably true that the politics of the Left emphasises social responsibility, the politics of the Right emphasises personal responsibility. It’s a factor in pointing to preferences for big governments or small governments. On the one hand, criticising unbridled capitalism, on the other the nanny state.
At its best, Christianity teaches us to hold both in tension when considering what constitutes best behaviour. So I think it’s incorrect to doubt the faith of people on the Left or the Right, but correct to point out a lack of balance between the importance of the personal and the social.
As an Archbishop is famously quoted as pointing out. “When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why they are poor, they call me a communist.” (Helder Camara, a liberation theologian who changed in his life from being an advocate of the Right to an advocate of of the Left).
Thing is, there is nothing on the left inherently against personal responsibility, whereas the right is all about the denial of social responsibility. the "both sides"-ism doesn't work here.
I can’t find the source but I remember finding some teaching which was used in Bible Studies in the White House during the first Trump Presidency. It proclaimed that the sequence of responsibility for the disadvantaged was firstly personal, then family, then the church. Government responsibility should be confined to justice, policing, and military defence against external aggressors.
The author seemed never to have read Amos for example. Or Matthew 25, for example, with its condemnation of leadership indifference.
The lack of balance does seem to be getting worse.
I would disagree. I think there is an element of Marxist thought suggesting that personal responsibility (and sometimes morality in general) is part of bourgeois false consciousness and that everything is really determined by the class struggle for the economic means of production.
Personal responsibility and morality are two different things, and Marxism isn't determinist in that sense.
I'm not overly up on the details of obscure Marxist theory, so you might be correct, but it's not something that plays out in left wing policies or rhetoric in any nation that I'm aware of.
Of course Marxism was also highly critical of organised religion as an opiate and supporter of the social status quo. It was also essentially materialistic. But it was not without moral considerations.
That’s true as far as it goes. But I suspect that the critique of the morality of the bourgeoisie was more directed at the extent to which organised religion supported the social status quo and was embraced by the bourgeoisie for that reason.
Not surprisingly I’m reminded of the infamous lines from All things Bright and Beautiful.
“The rich man in his castle
The poor man at his gate
God made them high and lowly
And ordered their estate”
Not a message that the poor “heard gladly”. A mile away from the origins of Methodism. And a far cry from the late Bishop David Sheppard’s book “Bias to the Poor”.
Pick the spectre you are worried about I suppose, but picking something unlikely seems to be a case of motivated reasoning.