What should Christians make of Tommy Robinson?

The Bishop of Oxford is upset. Together with the Imam Monawar Hussain he has issued a public statement on the proposed debate on Islam on the University of Oxford debating society. Why would they object to a debate? Because one in all the speakers is Tommy Robinson. 

In their statement, they link the recent ‘Unite the Kingdom’ rally on May 15 and the San Diego Mosque shootings. They argue that the invitation to Robinson must be withdrawn, saying, “Those who’ve issued this invitation have to be mindful not only of the University of Oxford but of the town during which they live and study as students – a city which has a protracted tradition of hospitality to migrants and the poorest sections of society. This is a city during which there isn’t a room for hatred. The faith and civic leaders across the town have worked closely together for a few years now to combat hate and division. Those who’re temporary residents in our world-leading university and who lead the Oxford Union have an obligation of care to the numerous 1000’s of Muslims, Jews and others of various faiths in the town.”

Meanwhile at probably the most recent Church of Scotland General Assembly several speakers warned darkly concerning the Unite the Kingdom rally and the forces of ‘racist, anti-Muslim and much right elements. 

Of course we’ve been here before.   

I used to think that Robinson was the last person you’ll need to be related to Christianity. I believed it after I was told that he was a violent, lying, far-Right racist thug. The type of person you don’t invite to nice dinner parties, and also you definitely don’t co-opt on to the Christian side.   

But I actually have a basic rule – which applies to everyone. I prefer to hearken to those that I disagree with. So I did. I discovered Robinson’s original speech on the Oxford Union just over a decade ago to be enlightening and revealing. It has been watched by over 5 million people – I ponder if the Bishop of Oxford thinks that this must be faraway from YouTube as well?  

So, is there anything recent to be said? I believe so – not least for this reason fascinating interview between David Starkey and Tommy Robinson. 

There is way to disagree with, and agree with, in that interview. 

The emphasis on muscular Christianity, or associating Christianity with British nationalism is just too simplistic and never helpful. We must not ever tie the Gospel into one particular culture.  

While Robinson is true to precise concern concerning the growing violence in Britain – not least within the tenfold increase within the variety of rapes – he appears to be suggesting that the solution to cope with that’s to fight fire with fire – or at the very least that violence is perhaps a part of the reply. It’s easy for middle class Christians who live in relative security to warn concerning the use of force, while they themselves would in fact expect the police to make use of force to guard them.  

Personally, I don’t think I could go to a ‘Unite the Kingdom’ rally where explicitly Christian symbols were used to be able to advance a specific political cause. But on the other hand, I ponder if I’m being a hypocrite? After all, I used to go to CND rallies where overtly Christian symbols were getting used. 

And therein lies the issue. The condemnation of Robinson is straightforward. It’s low hanging fruit. But additionally it is hypocritical. Did the bishop and the imam condemn the Oxford Union once they had Miko Peled speak and describe the October 7 massacres as ‘acts of heroism’? Have the Church of Scotland and other religious leaders, who’re so quick to talk concerning the ‘Unite the Kingdom’, march condemned the pro-Palestinian rallies where calls for death to the IDF, and for the destruction of the Jewish state, have been loud and proud? If not, why not? Are some types of hatred acceptable? 

The bishop and the imam appear to see no contradiction in saying that they’re against hatred and division, while at the identical time expressing hatred towards Robinson and his followers, and in search of to divide the University from people like Robinson.  

And there may be one other problem. Who is listening to the established churches anyway?  Apart from the identical establishment who share the identical views. Starkey asked Robinson if he had consulted his bishop! His rejoinder was that the ‘awakening’ was happening on the streets, not of their churches.   

While it is straightforward to mock Robinson’s call for men to get physically fit, it shouldn’t be really easy to dismiss his concern that men don’t know methods to lead families and their communities – and that a muscular Islam is taking up in working class areas.     People may not just like the talk of globalists and jihadists, but is he incorrect? The established church tends to talk for the ‘anywheres’ moderately than the ‘somewheres’.    In all of this there may be greater than a whiff of classism.   

Conservative evangelical leaders have rightly warned concerning the dangers of Christians hitching the gospel to a political movement. But the Church has been doing that for years. There is an equal danger of just speaking out about that when it’s a political ideology we are usually not comfortable with. I could have missed it, but I can’t recall evangelical leaders condemning Christians for Labour, or Christians for the Conservatives or Christians for Independence. People are actually complaining about religion being wrapped within the Union Jack, but all my life I actually have been in churches where the Union Jack is flown, or the saltire. Why the sudden concern now?  

Every Christian should know that the weapons we fight with are spiritual weapons (2 Corinthians 10:4) and we don’t advance the Gospel through politics. But neither are we pietists. We cannot on the one hand lay claim to William Wilberforce and his intensely political campaign to finish slavery, while at the identical time ignoring the injustices of today – including the grooming gangs, the devastation of the family, the expansion of Islamism, and the ever-growing culture of death through abortion and euthanasia. 

We just need to be free to proclaim the gospel. But if there isn’t a freedom of faith, there can be no freedom of speech. In demanding that the likes of Robinson be banned from the Oxford Union, the clergy are in effect setting their very own limit on freedom of speech and freedom of faith. They are putting the noose around our necks, in addition to Robinsons. 

I object to being told what I should think and feel concerning the likes of Robinson. I object to the demonising of those that hold different views. I object to the rampant class snobbery. I object to the black and white progressive fundamentalism which suggests that if I don’t condemn Robinson, then I too have to be a far-Right sympathiser. There is not any nuance. No sympathy. And no reality. Robinson could also be for real, or he could also be a fraud. But then so may any one in all us. As someone once said, “Let him who’s without sin forged the primary stone.”

I appear to keep in mind that Jesus accepted not only the prostitutes but additionally the opposite outcasts just like the tax collectors and the right-wing Jewish zealots who got here to him. It is beyond irony that within the name of inclusion so lots of our church leaders need to exclude and forged out those they don’t like or agree with. God moves in mysterious ways – who knows but he may move and work through Robinson, just as he may through you and me?!

David Robertson writes on https://substack.com/@theweeflea