Christ the King and Christian Nationalism
Warning. This is quite long but I think it is important.
Today is the Festival of Christ the King. It is not an ancient festival, 100 years old today added by Pope Pius XI in 1925. It is yet more recent that other ecclesial households have adopted it as well. The gospel this morning was Luke 23.33-43, part of the crucifixion narrative, and we had an excellent sermon here which included a clear endorsement that this was what Christ’s kingship means, and not power in the worldly sense.
Back in September in the UK Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, alias ‘Tommy Robinson’, led a demonstration under the title ‘Unite the Kingdom’. A phalanx of demonstrators were carrying crosses and some people who self identify as ministers of religion led prayers. Research reveals that these were people who have no or irregular denominational status.
If you are in the UK you are used to nationalists on both sides in Northern Ireland espousing religious identity in support of their causes but in mainland Britain this is a new phenomenon. Hitherto these sort of movements appear to have taken it for granted that Christianity is probably inimical to their causes and that the respectable churches are likely to disapprove of them. That has so far been the case with Yaxley-Lennon's rally.
This post is written from a British standpoint, but this issue is not unique to Britain. There is a strong element of Christian nationalism in the Maga movement in the USA as also represented by the so-called Patriot Bible.
For me, I describe myself as allergic to the purloining of Jesus in support of an aggressive nationalism. It appears blasphemous. Claiming Jesus in support of a political faction also looks like wilfully choosing the third of the three Temptations in the Wilderness, and a complete denial of any understanding of what the implications of the crucifixion are for political philosophy. I strongly query whether nationalism is compatible with genuine Christian faith at all once it gets beyond a reasonable and understandable desire for subsidiarity.
Since Yaxley-Lennon’s march I have been to a talk which I thought was excellent by the Revd Dr Helen Paynter from Bristol Baptist College, who has been mentioned on at least one other thread, specifically on Christian Nationalism.
Recently, there has also been some quasi intellectual advocacy of some aspects of this from people such as James Orr at Cambridge and Danny Kruger, MP for Devizes, who recently defected from the Conservatives to Reform. I believe the Vice President of the USA, J.D. Vance, has also expressed some similar ideas.
What do other shipmates think about this? Here are some questions for discussion but feel free to raise others. : –
Today is the Festival of Christ the King. It is not an ancient festival, 100 years old today added by Pope Pius XI in 1925. It is yet more recent that other ecclesial households have adopted it as well. The gospel this morning was Luke 23.33-43, part of the crucifixion narrative, and we had an excellent sermon here which included a clear endorsement that this was what Christ’s kingship means, and not power in the worldly sense.
Back in September in the UK Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, alias ‘Tommy Robinson’, led a demonstration under the title ‘Unite the Kingdom’. A phalanx of demonstrators were carrying crosses and some people who self identify as ministers of religion led prayers. Research reveals that these were people who have no or irregular denominational status.
If you are in the UK you are used to nationalists on both sides in Northern Ireland espousing religious identity in support of their causes but in mainland Britain this is a new phenomenon. Hitherto these sort of movements appear to have taken it for granted that Christianity is probably inimical to their causes and that the respectable churches are likely to disapprove of them. That has so far been the case with Yaxley-Lennon's rally.
This post is written from a British standpoint, but this issue is not unique to Britain. There is a strong element of Christian nationalism in the Maga movement in the USA as also represented by the so-called Patriot Bible.
For me, I describe myself as allergic to the purloining of Jesus in support of an aggressive nationalism. It appears blasphemous. Claiming Jesus in support of a political faction also looks like wilfully choosing the third of the three Temptations in the Wilderness, and a complete denial of any understanding of what the implications of the crucifixion are for political philosophy. I strongly query whether nationalism is compatible with genuine Christian faith at all once it gets beyond a reasonable and understandable desire for subsidiarity.
Since Yaxley-Lennon’s march I have been to a talk which I thought was excellent by the Revd Dr Helen Paynter from Bristol Baptist College, who has been mentioned on at least one other thread, specifically on Christian Nationalism.
Recently, there has also been some quasi intellectual advocacy of some aspects of this from people such as James Orr at Cambridge and Danny Kruger, MP for Devizes, who recently defected from the Conservatives to Reform. I believe the Vice President of the USA, J.D. Vance, has also expressed some similar ideas.
What do other shipmates think about this? Here are some questions for discussion but feel free to raise others. : –
- How do you understand the kingship of Christ and, if your church has it, the Festival of Christ the King?
- Do you think that God, either as the Trinity or in the person of Jesus endorses your government as an earthly manifestation of that kingdom or favours one nation over any other?
- Are any of you able to persuade me out of my suspicion of Christian nationalism?
- Do you think there is any difference between the simplistic Christian Nationalism people like Yaxley-Lennon and his followers have claimed in support of their cause and the more intellectual versions presented by people like James Orr or Danny Kruger?
- How does, would or can a person reconcile these sort of political views with a genuine Christian faith?
- Is any sort of nationalism that goes beyond subsidiarity compatible with Christian faith?
- Is my aversion to nationalism too extreme?
Comments
I consider Christian Nationalism to be terrifying, and to be fought against with all our might. I don't believe that prior rulers in times and places were sinning in general by trying to be faithful Christian monarchs, as they understood it, but the bad things they did do in the name of Christ (including persecuting non-Christians, or Christians who were not orthodox as they understood them, etc., as well as other things) are a good reason to learn from the past and avoid doing that again.
As Lewis put it,
I think this applies to the use of religion as part of government principles as well--the church should not rule the state, at very least (there are other reasons), because of the danger of abusing that power, and we've seen that very badly over the centuries.
I've never heard of Yaxley-Lennon, Orr, or Kruger.
I don't believe God favors one earthly nation over another.
Well said
I've noticed more young people at my Catholic church which on the face of it is encouraging. If they are coming along in the hope to hear a message of Christian Nationalism, they are going to be bitterly disappointed.
I was preaching yesterday, and did commemorate Christ the King. The Epistle from Colossians 1 brought out the King of All Creation aspect that @ChastMastr mentioned - image of the invisible God, firstborn of all creation through whom all things were made, head of the church etc. The aforementioned Gospel with the crucifixion, sign "King of the Jews" and mocking of the crowd, with the recognition of Christ from the second thief, coupled with a reflection on the whole of the Incarnation presenting a very different kingship. A crown of glory and a crown of thorns, and we will never understand the Kingship of Christ without holding both of those in mind, He is a King who wears both crowns.
My sermon explicitly picked up the theme of Christian Nationalism, except I didn't use that phrase (IME it's more often associated with movements in the US, and though less relevant as a term in the UK - I talked about those who would claim the UK to be a "Christian Country", which is a very similar idea and IME much more common in the UK including being used by the far-right). I reminded the congregation that the Church in the past has often tried to make the Kingdom of Christ visible through the political or power structures of the day, whether that's establishing military orders to conquer people by force through Crusades or sending out missionaries with a gospel message that's a package deal including a whole raft of Victorian values. The concept of a Christian Country, or Christian Nationalism, is just another attempt to force the Kingdom into something that looks like the political structures of the world. But, the example of Jesus is that His Kingship was something different from that, something unexpected, something that turns notions of power and success on their head - who would ever have considered being executed a success, yet this was His great victory leading to the Resurrection.
My challenge for myself and the congregation was to reassess how we view the Kingdom, and more importantly the expectations of what demonstrates power and success, and be aware that the Kingdom of Christ would be expressed in unexpected ways, different from what the society around us would consider success. The Kingdom isn't going to be expressed primarily through TikTok influencers with millions of followers, through individuals leading movements that make them rich and get them the ear of Presidents or Prime Ministers, not even through churches with congregations of thousands bursting at the seams. Just as the crowd at the crucifixion failed to see Christ the King, even while they used the titles of King and Christ to mock Him, the Kingdom will often be unrecognised, with only a few seeing what is right in front of them.
The sermon yesterday was based on the crucufixion in Luke and ponted out that mercy, redemption and forgiveness are at the heart of it, not kingship in any political sense.
I pretty much agree with everything that's been said so far.
I've had this discussion with Christians who support Reform and there are activists, councillors and supporters from a range of ecclesial positions out there - and not just nationalistic fundamentalists or climate-change deniers either.
Like the RCs and evangelicals Protestants, we are seeing a good number of young men coming into Orthodoxy and some certainly have views of this kind. It tends to tail off over time but it's a worrying trend. Even thd bishops are beginning to take notice so it must be of concern... 😉
I don't know much about James Orr but my worry is that he could lend intellectual legitimacy to the populist rants of a Yaxley-Lennon.
As you'll all know, Orthodoxy is particularly prone to various forms of nationalism. For centuries it was beset by external enemies - the Ottomans, the Bolsheviks - Rome ... 😉 Greeks are still suspicious of nefarious Jesuit plots ...
But the biggest enemy lies within. Phyletism. A heresy by Orthodox lights but something to which Orthodoxy is all too prone.
Orthodoxy is very 'physical' - people, places, tracts of land, shrines, relics etc - so that can easily topple over into ideas like Holy Rus or Caesaro-Papism and all the evils those ideas can bring.
Heritage and history play a large part in it. I was struck during a recent visit to Albania how the Hoxha regime had bulldozed medieval churches and other historic buildings and only really favoured archaeology or historical enquiry about the country's distant antiquity.
Somehow a dim and distant ancient past was more acceptable as without many written records it was possible to reconstruct or read into it anything one wished.
On one level, I can understand fears about the eradication of our 'Christian past' but at the same time would agree that much of this needs evaluating and putting into context.
Alfred The Great's Wessex was no Shangri-La. Neither was Byzantium.
It can get silly. Anglo-Saxon England portrayed as some kind of Orthodox utopia before the Norman's spoiled it all and yoked us more closely with ... cue scary music ... dun-dahrn-dahrn ... Rome.
We need proper historical analysis not a populism of either right or left. Yes, nuns and royal or noble Anglo-Saxon women had 'agency' and clout. But it wasn't a feminist paradise.
Yes, England had become largely Christianised from the 7th century onwards but they still kept slaves, they still had wars and internal conflicts.
I know I do the both/and thing but this is an area where I think that kind of approach is required.
We can be proud of a Welsh, Scottish, Irish or English identity, a Polish or French or Scandinavian identity, an Asian, African or American identity... but that doesn't mean we should beat other people over the head with it.
There is a definite through line between these camps. In part because SYL himself seems to be getting it via popularisations of the more 'intellectual' stream of thought and in part because the more "intellectual end" of the spectrum haven't maintained much of a cordon sanitaire when it comes to their slightly more extremist colleagues.
I think much of it is simply contrary to the message of the Gospel. There may be space for some form of 'Christian Culturalism' but it's necessarily going to be a largely secular project. Ironically, their form of 'immanetizing the eschaton' is exactly what Kruger accuses 'the left' of wanting to do:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/nov/22/america-is-british-heaven-is-a-socialist-state-david-attenborough-is-anti-human-theories-of-reform-mp-danny-kruger
I've watched this movement develop for a number of years now, and it blew up in salience over Covid for a number of reasons, not least the atomising effect lockdown had on a lot of people with fairly loose social connections.
There are disparate strands on both sides of the pond, but it's generally well funded - often by fossil capital, associated with right wing politics, and pulls together strands like anti-feminism and climate scepticism.
The challenge for 'the church' is to reckon with the extent to which it's smuggled in via these other movements. The instinctive conservatism of parts of the church makes this harder.
Of course, and with the willing compliance of Patriarch Kyrill.
@chrisstiles - yes. We all need to recover a 'not of this world' ethos whilst somehow remaining 'in the world, but not of it.'
Monastics aren't immune from this sort of thing either.
How those of us who are reasonably conservative theologically can resist the pressure from the politically religious right is a challenge.
We've had someone with very populist right-wing views come along to our parish for a while only to move on when they found it wasn't an echo-chamber for their particular internet-fuelled conspiracy theory view of the world. At the same time, there are clergy saying things that encourage people like that.
The sort of people I am thinking of will not have heard of the word. Nevertheless, I can't help thinking that there is a strong flavour of phyletism in the history of the Church of England, its complacency and in some of the assumptions many of those of us who are within it have been brought up to take for granted. There has been among some establishment minded clergy and many of the faithful an assumption that church and state are there to prop each other up, and that major parts of the church's calling is to get people to behave and to encourage loyal subjects to feel good about themselves in their national identity.
I do not think this is as uniquely English as one might think. I have encountered a different version of this recently in a Scottish minister who, I suspect, gets part of his inspiration on the relationship between church and state, faith and patriotism, from what his understanding of Calvinism and Calvin's Geneva have given him. He is a Scottish nationalist but is very critical of the SNP as falling a long way short of his dream of what an independent Scotland should be. Inconsistently, he actually belongs not to the Church of Scotland itself but to one of the dissenting presbyterian denominations.
Sadly, that experiment did not last.
Apparently, when the very 1970s 'spaceship' church building was consecrated in 1972 they had all on to prevent the Greeks painting blue and white stripes on the ceiling!
In both North America and Australia there were attempts to set up pan-Orthodox jurisdictions but before too long they'd all grouped themselves by nationality.
In the 'diaspora' of course, many parishes are multicultural. Ours most certainly is but I do wonder whether that can last once a new Romanian parish gets underway. The Roman Patriarch wants to draw Romanians out of other parishes into purely Romanian ones.
Some say this is because Romanians can still vote in elections there and he wants to influence them to vote for right-wing candidates.
I've not heard this first hand but it has come from Romanian sources.
In the UK at least most clergy in parishes 'of Russian tradition' aren't actually Russian. I'm not sure if any are under Patriarch Kyrill's jurisdiction but @Ex_Organist may be able to shed light on that.
Language and cultural differences can be an issue but most Eastern Europeans I meet aren't particularly 'nationalistic' in their faith beyond assuming that if you are from Eastern Europe or the Balkans you must be Orthodox and if you are from Western Europe you must be RC or Protestant.
That's probably a factor. It would also explain why people from that stream - like Paul Marshall - are willing to fund and work with somewhat complementarian bits of the CofE like the HTB stream even if it don't comport perfectly with much more socially conservative ideals. Additionally, if you take Antony Barnett's view that English identity was long subsumed within a British (Imperial) identity, perhaps one result is to put a lot more weight on those institutions that are explicitly English.
I suspect much of it is just a transference of a North American model though - a lot of this movement has consciously modelled itself along American lines, even down to adapting organisational vehicles and adopting vocabulary (Turning Point UK, Reform's Doge UK and so on).
The other issue which irks Nonconformists and also the Welsh, Scots and Northern Irish, is the Lords Spiritual, which are specifically Anglican, English and in the Upper House of Parliament. (And yes, I do know that they do at times gently shake the status quo).
Oh yes - I also (as many on here will know) dislike the conflation of "Church" (usually CofE) and "nation" at great State Events. Make them secular or multifaith, and hold them in civic halls rather than cathedrals!
One response would be for 'the church' to stop taking their money. In relation to which I had also been thinking about the following, addressing HTB's funding: In more practical terms, individual churches could be clearer about not taking their money, and not associating with those who do.
I think this is capable of multiple readings, some of them contingent on the time period in which the Feast was inaugurated, it can read as both orthogonal and oppositional to all forms of voernment.
Right I'm all for some kind cordon sanitaire, but I feel the church wouldn't necessarily be comfortable drawing those boundaries, especially given some of the personalities involved and their proximity to 'state power' in the UK (to link it to Enoch's point about phyletism)
Danish Lutheranism was prone to phyletism in times past.
I don't particularly have an issue with 'state' services being held in cathedrals but that's only because I like cathedrals...
It'd be nice to see churches turning down donations but I can't see the Russian Orthodox turning down donations from oligarchs anytime soon.
On the HTB thing ... I detect a certain amount of this 'sort of thing' around the edges but don't get the impression that it's widespread. I can't comment on their funding.
On the whole, my impression is that UK evangelicalism has become more anti-European and somewhat more nationalistic than it was when I was involved, but that may be a view through rose-tinted specs on my part.
It is hard to generalise of course.
ETA: for the English, that is. Not sure if anyone has ever been foolish enough to assert that God was Welsh. Or possibly that she wasn't.
Patriarch Bartholomew famously designated 1st September, the first day of the Orthodox Liturgical Year as a Day of Prayer for the Protection of the Environment.
I'm glad he did but has this led to more Orthodox and other Christians being more aware of environmental issues?
Did the adoption of the Feast of Christ the King lead to more 'Western' Christians appreciating that, 'my Kingdom is not of this world'?
I know that, in and of themselves, such pronouncements don't have a 'magic' effect but if we were to take Patriarch Bartholomew's injunction seriously - working as well as praying - and Pope Pius XI's intentions also, might we see a difference?
It wasn't a comment on HTB itself (the particular tinge you mention is far more prevalent in Reform as was circles), but one of its primary backers and funders:
https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/ideas/media/65415/the-marshall-plan-paul-marshall-gb-news
Who among other things owns GBNews, The Spectator and funds the Arc Conferences.
I have, I seem to recall, heard it said that Welsh is the language of heaven which would, one assumes, imply that God is Welsh, or possibly Patagonian.
Thanks.
I was vaguely aware of some of this but not in as much detail.
CRT may be a worthwhile topic for a new thread.
Yes, I missed out the word 'less' while I was editing that sentence. As a previous post of mine mentioned, the majority of students at St Mellitus are female: https://forums.shipoffools.com/discussion/comment/752906/#Comment_752906
Is it within or without the parameters of theological legitimacy to present faith in Jesus as something to choose because it will 'transform our nation'? Is this a valid instance of economy, 'by all means save some' (1 Cor 9:22) or is it subverting the gospel, an exhortation to choose Christ, not for his own sake, but because doing so might further some other cause one regards as more worthy?
I think that is part of what this BBC article which @Sarasa linked to is skirting round and not really addressing.
If you hover the mouse/pointer over the time in the top right hand of a post, you can get a link to copy/paste.
Indeed.
I've heard rhetoric about 'turning our nation back to God' in Orthodox as well as evangelical circles. As if 8th century Wessex or an 18th century style 'Awakening' were feasible - or even desirable - in a 21st century pluralist context.
I'm not sure it's entirely fair to say that the BBC article is 'skirting round and not really addressing' the issue as it's a news piece not a commentary or editorial one.
As far as it goes, I think it's reasonably accurate.
I've come across Yaxley-Lennon supporters in church circles.
What to do about that?
Engage with them like the Bishop of Kirkstall appears to be doing?
Or boot them out and alienate them further, convincing them that the whole 'woke' world is against them and fuelling their paranoia?
I get the impression that most of the clergy/church leaders involved with this sort of thing are outliers of one form or another - 'continuing Anglicans' or various unaligned or loosely aligned independents.
I would be more worried if more 'mainstream' churches and church leaders jumped on this particular bandwagon, but I do find it a worrying development.
Well, same. But I think it is important to distinguish between those on the edges of being seduced by fascism, and actual card-carrying fascists. I think there is also a duty to be making the alternative more attractive (by which I do not mean a Starmer-style appeasement).
It's a bit like the parable of the wheat and the tares.
There can, of course be 'red flags' - not in the literal sense of course.
Ostracising people or being shirty with them can confirm them in their pre-suppositions. 'Ha! These lefty woke liberals are attacking me, I must be on the right lines ...'
There has to be a 'more excellent way' but I wouldn't go to a Yaxley-Lennon rally and shake hands with the participants to show them that I 'hate the sin but love the sinner' anytime soon.
Besides, we can only wield bell, book and candle within our own circles. We can't do it for that church down the road ...
Much as we might like to.
There may be other issues if someone joins a congregation and very quickly sets out to correct what is being taught, especially if that's done in a way that disturbs the worship service or publicly challenges people who are not comfortable with defending what they believe. I would expect that in that instance senior members of the congregation (elders/deacons/stewards) or the clergy will need to take someone aside and request that they be a bit more circumspect in expressing views that differ from the beliefs of the congregation - of course, that doesn't need to be a far-right person, I can see many churches who would struggle to handle a forthright charismatic-evangelical bursting into ecstatic utterances midway through the prayers and asking everyone when they were born again, or for that matter someone from a contemplative tradition trying to show a con-evo congregation that they "need to shut up and listen".
There is a ministry of reconciliation that rightfully tries to defuse anger and hate and bring communities together. A podcast I follow when preparing services last week included someone who goes to the hostel protests locally and talks to the far-right protestors to encourage them to be more considerate of others and move protests back a bit and wind down the volume and rhetoric - armed with the secret weapon of cake (people seem to struggle to shout anything, much less hate, with a mouth full of cake). But I'd say that's a very specialised calling and a difficult line to walk that's not seen by some as empowering the protestors.
Maybe an exorcism?
That would imply fascism was something other than a choice they made.
I’d prefer that, obviously. Well, I wouldn’t prefer the possibility that demonic possession was not genuinely rare, but so widespread as that, which would be horrifying in a different way.
I think that saying that Satan misled you is an easy "get out of jail free" card for people who know exactly what they are doing.
I think I would be simply astonished if MAGA people, or technically former MAGA people, particularly a significant number of them, claimed they voted for Trump because of demonic possession.
(I don’t believe that most, or possibly any, people voted for Trump because of that, though I do believe that demonic possession, and exorcism, happen, just very rarely.)
Absolutely, but how do we know when someone has crossed that line?
They are hardly likely to draw attention to themselves by goose-stepping around with a swastiki arm band.
To quote the article, someone who comes into a church with this mindset is unlikely to stick around for that long:
I suspect even in the 'Continuing Anglican' circles, far-right ideas with any kind of motivated belief is likely to be rare, and what they are more likely to attract is Christians who are going in the other direction (which certainly seems to be the case in the US).
This can run the gamut from a vague feeling that more Christians would change the orientation of society somewhat, through Kruger's ideas above which seem to be a combination of this and the idea that the orientation of that society would necessarily then change in a socially conservative direction along the lines he advocates, through to ARC end of things which seem to involve a lot more hierarchy, social conservatism along with libertarian economics and traditionalism.
So it depends on what they mean when they say it, and whether they are aware of alternate meanings.