Anna Coxon reviews ‘The Virtue of Nationalism’ by Yoram Hazony (2018, Basic Books)

Is this the start of a new era of hope?

Mr Boris Johnson fulfilled his lifelong ambition this week to become British Prime Minister. The rogue old Etonian began in his usual breezy style of easy optimism. But however much we may wish him well in tackling the multiple crises in the nation, realistically the challenge facing any new Prime Minister is no different from that which plagued – and overcame - Theresa May’s administration. The question is: can a new government do anything new?

The challenge of which I speak is that we have an elected parliament that defies the electorate. Whatever deal the new PM does with Brussels in order to fulfil his promise to leave the European Union by 31 October 2019, the possibility of getting the approval of this Parliament (without divine intervention!) is virtually nil. He not only faces the opposition of Labour, the LibDems and the Scottish Nationalist Party, but he also faces the threats of rebels on the Tory backbenches who say they are willing to bring down the Government rather than agree to leave the EU without a deal.

Today, Britain is a more divided nation than it has ever been since the days of the Civil War between Cromwell’s Parliament and supporters of Charles I. How should Christians understand what is going on in the nation? And are there any signs of hope?

Reflecting on the Past

In last week’s editorial we were asking “Is there any word from the Lord?” This led us to some of the things Britain has done wrong on the international scene and especially the need to recognise and say we are sorry for the dreadful things we did to Jewish survivors of the Holocaust back in 1947. Recognising that injustice would be an act of righteousness that I believe would be pleasing to the Lord.

I believe there is a real message of hope and good news in the midst of all the doom and gloom we’ve been hearing for a long time. But we ought also to recognise where we have gone wrong: not only abroad, but also in the things we have done at home in Britain. As we have said many times in these editorials – turning away from biblical values has led to the present days of crisis. This era of great cultural change began with a political Act of Parliament in 1951.

Today, Britain is a more divided nation than it has ever been since the days of the Civil War. What is going on – and is there any hope?

Political Decisions, Cultural Consequences

It was the Fraudulent Mediums Act which abolished the Witchcraft Act that had been on the Statute Book of Britain for centuries. In 1951 witchcraft was legalised. All occult activities were made legal, in direct defiance of biblical teaching:

Let no one be found among you who sacrifices his son or daughter in the fire, who practices divination or sorcery, interprets omens, engages in witchcraft, or casts spells, or is a medium or spiritist or consults the dead. Anyone who does these things is detestable to the Lord… (Deut 18:10-12)

This political decision to defy the Bible was taken by the Government led by Clement Attlee, a Jew-hating atheist, and paved the way for other major policy turnarounds which precipitated great cultural changes in the nation.

The first great cultural change was in the 1959 Obscene Publications Act which paved the way for the legalisation of obscenity in publications, film, video and the internet.

The second cultural change was in the Abortion Act (1967) which made it legally acceptable to kill unborn babies. Currently, about 450 babies a day are killed in British hospitals, bringing the total since 1967 to over 9 million. 2018 saw the number of UK abortions reach an all-time high, and our dysfunctional, rebellious Parliament has now ruled to impose abortion on the only part of the British Isles that still upholds biblical values, defying the wishes of the people of Northern Ireland – as we noted last week in an excellent article from our Managing Editor.

These changes follow the classic path to the corruption of civilisation noted by the Apostle Paul in the first chapter of his letter to Rome. He says that once we stop believing in the God of Creation and start suppressing the truth, we believe anything. We “exchange the truth of God for a lie” and then we abandon all restraints upon our behaviour.

The Apostle Paul says that once we stop believing in the God of Creation, we believe anything and abandon all restraints upon our behaviour.

Church Leaders Responsible

But God does not expect an ungodly nation to repent of things that are not even publicly recognised as being wrong! The history of Israel in the Bible teaches us that God holds the religious leaders responsible for the moral and spiritual state of the nation – it was they who had the truth and the responsibility of declaring it to the people, who otherwise remained ignorant.

Applying that teaching today, God holds church leaders responsible for the nation. But can we expect repentance from them? The bishops in the House of Lords didn’t even bother to turn up for the vote on forcing same-sex marriage and abortion upon the people of Northern Ireland last week. If they had been there, they would probably have voted in favour of imposing LGBTQ+ values upon Ulster.

Hope for the Future

Amidst this seemingly lost situation, God is doing two things: he is blessing the many thousands of local fellowships, large and small, where the word of God is faithfully preached and taught. And he is withdrawing his blessing from those churches that have turned away from the word – including churches within the traditional denominations, which are crumbling, losing members and closing buildings as a result.

The hope for the future lies with the faithful remnant in Britain of Bible-believing, praying people who refuse to be driven by the values of the world and are prepared to take a stand for truth whatever the cost. God is faithful to hear and to heed the prayers of the faithful remnant who grieve over the state of the nation; who repent for our silence when ungodly laws were being passed in our Parliament; but who nevertheless cry out to the Lord to have mercy and to bless the new Government.

We should be appealing to God to remember his covenant relationship with our forefathers, who placed the Bible at the centre of the British legal system, governing the nation, and made it part of the Coronation Oath sworn by our Queen, whom God has wonderfully preserved for these perilous times.

We should be appealing to God to remember his covenant relationship with our forefathers.

There is a solid biblical principle for such an appeal to God on behalf of the nation. Paul says that as far as the Gospel is concerned the people of Israel put themselves outside God’s protection, although he himself would never break his covenant promises “on account of the patriarchs, for God’s gifts and his call are irrevocable” (Rom 11:29).

This is undoubtedly a special passage concerning Israel, but it also shows that God respects the spiritual heritage of a nation. As he has blessed Britain in the past, using Britain to get the gospel to many nations, we can call upon him to bring us through this time of trial and to restore faith and belief – especially among young people in the United Kingdom – to give us “a hope and a future” (Jer 29:11) as he promised to the people of Jerusalem enslaved in Babylon at the worst moment in their history.

Life on the front line of a changing society.

Editorial introduction: With the new Government pledging a huge recruitment drive for the police, it is timely to ask what life is like for officers (especially Christians) policing in 21^st Century Britain. Interviewing a Christian police chaplain, Paul Luckraft finds out what it’s like to work on the front line of a changing society.

With many changes happening in Britain, and not always for the better, it is natural to assume that those working in front-line services are subject to new pressures and increasing burdens. Those who have been in such jobs for a considerable period may now find things are very different from when they started. How do they cope? And will their situation become more difficult as society continues to decline, morally and spiritually?

One vital sector of our public services is the police force (or, more properly nowadays, police ‘service’), with their dual function of care and control, of serving the public and their needs while maintaining the law of the land.

What is it like to be a Christian in modern policing? What problems do officers and their support teams face in this era of political correctness, diversity and cultural Marxism?

To find answers I talked to a chaplain in the Metropolitan Police Service, to whom I will refer as ‘J’. The picture I gained wasn’t as depressing as I had feared - nevertheless, the policeman’s lot can hardly be described as a totally happy one.

Growing Discontent

According to J, one significant area of discontent among officers, especially senior ones, is the lessening sense of professional ‘family’ within particular stations and boroughs. Cost-cutting has meant facilities such as canteens have been reduced and opportunities to share together are more limited. Officers no longer feel cared for, or that they have the time to develop closer relationships among themselves that will benefit them in their work.

Cost-cutting has meant shared facilities have been reduced and officers no longer feel cared for.

This is just one small way in which they feel less respected and valued – but there are others, J went on. Those above them, local and national politicians, make decisions which make their jobs more demanding, but perhaps even worse is the attitude of large portions of society which routinely see officers as racists, bigots and/or as corrupt. Compounding all this is the media which frequently judges them, highlighting complaints and running stories which show them in a bad light.

‘PC’ PCs

Moving to the topic of political correctness, J illuminated how this radical social force no longer allows for traditional policing approaches, which worked extremely well in the past but which would now be frowned upon. Contentious methods such as ‘stop and search’ have to be handled with extreme care to show fairness and balance. Even when the main suspects are clearly known, the police dare not be seen to show bias against the criminal. As a result, time is wasted in searching others in order to avoid charges of targeting certain groups.

In the past, J continued, older officers would mentor younger ones and train them in ways which they knew worked. This doesn’t happen any longer and creates a disconnection between age groups, which is frustrating for senior officers as they cannot pass on best practice. Instead, new recruits come from police colleges already ‘fully trained’, which really means being taught how to behave as ‘PC’ PCs.

J reflected that being the custodians of the nation’s laws is a difficult enough job in and of itself; but nowadays society seems to have its own ‘rules’, separate and distinct from the laws of the land. One obvious example is that of drug-taking. The law may say one thing, but if large numbers of people are gathering despite this to smoke cannabis (for instance), what should the response be? In one case, J opined, thousands occupied Hyde Park for this purpose. Although the event was policed, all the officers could do was watch on.

Restricting Freedoms

One main concern is how to police the new laws on hate speech. In some cases, the required response might be clear, but in general this area is fraught with difficulty, especially if preaching the Gospel is involved. How should a Christian policeman react to being told to arrest someone preaching on the street, or giving out a tract? J summed up the overall dilemma caused by the hate laws succinctly: “Freedoms are being restricted in the name of freedom”.

According to J, the hate laws can be summarised as freedoms being restricted in the name of freedom.

It was pleasing to hear that at present, J finds no problems in representing the Christian faith within the Met itself. Good relations prevail with the top commanding officers who are always glad of his input and have an open door for him. Opportunities for J to speak and pray are regular, including at training days where it might be thought more problematic. Although individual officers may be less than enthusiastic, in general there is little opposition and many are glad of the listening ear and support that a Christian chaplain can bring.

Bettering Society

The goal of every police officer is to make society a better place. But today it is difficult to answer precisely how this ought to be done, especially in a way that all officers could agree with.
Speaking with J inspired and reminded me that as Christians, we should remain grateful for and supportive of our police officers, praying for them and encouraging any that we know personally, pointing them in the direction of the only true Way in which British society can genuinely be transformed for the better.

Find out more about how to encourage and support Christians in the police by connecting with the Christian Police Association.

While Iran threatens to annihilate Israel with nuclear weapons, even Jews in the UK are no longer safe.

As Britain enters stormy waters with Iran (more of that later), a senior Iranian lawmaker has said the Jewish state wouldn’t last half-an-hour if the U.S. attacked his country.¹ And in east London, a knife-wielding man threatened to behead an Orthodox Jew as he walked down the street.² Jews are feeling increasingly trapped in what is virtually a déjà vu moment for God’s chosen people – except this time they do have a place of refuge. However, with Israel too under severe threat from all sides, they have the potential for being caught in a trap once again if we keep giving way to dictators who hate them.

A mass exodus of UK Jews is a real possibility in light of rising anti-Semitism and the prospect of Jeremy Corbyn becoming Prime Minister. And yet the man who has signally failed to deal with Jew-hatred within his party has inadvertently also caused Jews to reconnect with and proudly embrace their heritage, as journalist and online columnist for The Daily Telegraph, Miranda Levy, has pointed out. Writing for the New York Post, she said: “…over the past few months, both my political sensibilities and my sense of cultural identity have radically changed.” She also quoted Jewish Labour MP Margaret Hodge as saying: “I remember my dad tried to make me Jewish and failed. The local rabbi tried to make me Jewish and failed. It took the leader of the Labour Party to do that.”³

A mass exodus of UK Jews is a real possibility in light of rising anti-Semitism and the prospect of Jeremy Corbyn becoming Prime Minister.

The Purposes of God

The increasing unease in which the Jewish community finds itself reminds me of the mother eagle who, when teaching her young ones to fly, gradually removes the comforting straw of their nest. Not that Mr Corbyn has the best interests of Jews at heart, but the God of Israel surely does (Jer 31:3) and ultimately plans to bring them all back to the Promised Land. Nearly seven million are already there within just a couple of generations of its rebirth. Their return is in perfect fulfilment of many Old Testament prophecies. For example, Isaiah writes: “‘Do not be afraid, for I am with you; I will bring your children from the east and gather you from the west. I will say to the north, “Give them up!” and to the south, “Do not hold them back.”’” (Isa 43:5-6a).

Such an exodus could inflict serious damage to our economy, possibly on a bigger scale than Brexit, but it’s a price we may have to pay for our silence on the issue of anti-Semitism on the one hand, and the fulfilment of God’s word on the other.

Bear in mind that it was God’s purpose for Jesus to die for our sins (Isa 53:10), but the man who betrayed him did not go unpunished (Matt 26:24). In the same way, it is God’s will that Jews scattered across the globe should be restored to the Holy Land before he reveals his face to them (Num 6:22-27; Ezek 39:27-29). Nevertheless, those who have mistreated them will come under a curse (Gen 12:3; Joel 3:2).

“‘Do not be afraid, for I am with you; I will bring your children from the east and gather you from the west. I will say to the north, “Give them up!” and to the south, “Do not hold them back.”’” (Isaiah 43:5-6a)

The Iranian Crisis

Meanwhile Britain has now become a target for Iranian revenge after we seized an oil tanker believed to be headed for Syria in defiance of sanctions against that country. Iranian vessels subsequently attempted to capture a British oil tanker in the Persian Gulf, but were successfully warned off by a Royal Navy frigate which finally aimed its guns at them. An alarming development indeed!⁴

The crisis has revealed the ineptitude of Britain in being party to a deal that was never going to work, especially in light of evidence that Iran has exceeded the limit of enriched uranium to which it had agreed.⁵ And President Trump has been proved right for having pulled out of it last year. As the first line of defence from any fallout over the spat, Israel is right to question the commitment of nations, including Britain, to its welfare. “Iran has violated its solemn promise under the UN Security Council not to enrich uranium beyond a certain level,” said their Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, asking the signatories to the agreement: “Where are you?”⁶ Well, Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt has said Britain would pull out if Iran breaks the deal⁷ – so watch this space.

But with our stubborn refusal to follow the US lead on this, as well as recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, we are allowing Iran to play off key allies against one another, thereby strengthening the position of the world’s leading sponsor of terror. I realise our appeasement of Iran is for economic reasons, but there comes a point when we need to do the right thing. And since we are not blessing Israel by kowtowing to Iran, but rather inviting judgment on ourselves, siding with America on this issue would obviously be the right move.

Britain’s Second Chance

Britain is privileged to have played a special role in Israel’s restoration, though tragically we have also betrayed them over the years – even now most of our churches ignore their well-being. But now we have another chance of coming to their rescue. As God once spoke through Isaiah of how he would use Cyrus, the Persian emperor, to rebuild his city and set his exiles free – “but not for a price or reward” (Isa 45:13) – we too must do the right thing by his people.

References

1. Jerenberg, B. Iran threatens: If US attacks, we'll wipe out Israel in half hour. World Israel News, 2 July 2019.
2. "I’m going to chop your head off’: Orthodox Jew chased down London street. World Israel News, 3 July 2019.
3. Levy, M. How Anti-Semitism in Britain’s Labour party made me feel Jewish again. New York Post, 6 July 2019.
4. Iran demands Britain release seized tanker, saying action will 'have consequences'. The Telegraph, 12 July 2019.
5. Iran Exceeds Permissible Limit For Enriched Uranium. Jerusalem News Network, 5 July 2019.
6. Netanyahu asks world leaders on Iran: 'Where are you?'. World Israel News, 7 July 2019.
7. UK's Hunt says if Iran breaks Nuclear Deal we are out as well. Jerusalem News Network, 5 July 2019 (scroll down the page).

Why is the British Government Attacking Christian Leaders?

Readers of The Times last Saturday were presented with an astonishing attack upon Evangelical Christian leaders which was said to have been issued by the British Foreign Office. Their criticism was directed at a small group of Christian leaders who have made several visits to Syria during the past nearly 8 years of conflict. The group that includes well-known Evangelical leaders such as George Carey, former Archbishop of Canterbury, Michael Nazir Ali, former Bishop of Rochester and Baroness Caroline Cox, have had meetings with President Assad in Damascus.

According to the report quoted by The Times the British Foreign Office says that their visits are undermining British Government policy which is aimed at overthrowing Assad. It is notable that the BBC never refers to the ‘Government of Syria’ or to ‘President Assad’: it is always ‘the Assad regime’. This is part and parcel of the British Foreign Office policy of trying to airbrush Assad out of the picture.

Is this a Humanitarian Policy or a Political Ploy?

But is this policy really based on humanitarian principles or is it simply a political ploy because we don’t like Assad being supported by Russia and Iran and we want to cosy up to Saudi Arabia who are fighting a proxy war with Iran in the Yemen and they hate Assad’s tolerant form of Islam?

Few Westerners UnderstandSyrians fleeing violence in their country crossed into Turkey, in Reyhanli, Hatay / See Photo Credits

There are few Westerners who really understand either the politics or the cultural complications of the Middle East with their many different branches of Islam and different social structures stemming from their different interpretations of their religion. It is nevertheless extraordinary that the British Foreign Office have mounted such an attack upon a highly respected group of Bible believing evangelical Christians.

Why issue such a statement just now, when the last visit of the group was back in April and the previous one was November 2017? Is the Foreign Office afraid that the war in Syria will be won by the Syrian Government forces by the end of this year and that Assad will still be in power? But surely that would make diplomatic talks even more important!

Significance of The Visits

The significance of the visits of this little group of evangelicals lies in their great concern for the small Christian minority that still exists in Syria. They certainly would not be supportive of Assad’s brutal policies that have brought tragedy to Syria, cost hundreds of thousands of lives, destroyed countless cities and caused millions of refugees. Assad undoubtedly is a monster; but the fact is that he is still the leader in Syria and someone has to talk to him about the future of Christians in his country.

Assad’s brutal policies that have brought tragedy to Syria

The interest of the Evangelical Christian leaders is that traditionally the Assad Government has been very tolerant towards Christians and has allowed them complete freedom to practice their faith in Syria without let or hindrance. This is in total contrast to Saudi Arabia where there is no tolerance of other religions and Christians are even banned from taking a Bible to the country: to establish a church would be utterly unthinkable! So why does the British Government unquestionably support Saudi Arabia, even despite the brutal murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi? Is it purely because we want their oil and we make vast sums of money by selling them bombers and weapons to kill and maim civilians in Yemen?

Who Will be in Power?

When peace is restored to Syria and elections are held, Assad, if he is still in power, will depend upon the support of Christians who traditionally form 10% of the population. I have not seen accounts of the discussions between the British evangelicals and Assad, but they will certainly not have avoided talking about the pursuit of the war and the inhumane use of barrel bombs and shelling of civilians. Their objective is to try to change the culture of Assad, not to get involved in political conspiracies to change the Syrian Government. In any case, a different leader, following a different form of Islam, might be less tolerant to Christians. This might be a case of the devil you know may be better than the one you do not know.

Christians in Syria would have been wiped out or reduced to slavery

The British evangelicals know that if the Islamic State fighters had won the Civil War and overthrown Assad’s Government, all the Christians in Syria would have been wiped out or reduced to slavery. The only hope for the future of Christianity in Syria is through negotiations with whatever Government that emerges after the civil war. This is the policy that the British Government should be pursuing.

British Foreign Office Bias

The British Foreign Office has never been supportive of the Christian gospel. 200 years ago, the East India Company, supported by the Foreign Office, bitterly opposed the sending of missionaries to India. It was the Clapham Group of Evangelical Christians led by William Wilberforce who forced a change of policy. And it was the anti-Semitic Foreign Office policy that undermined the Balfour Declaration during the British Mandate in Palestine which exacerbated the division between Arabs and Jews and led to the tragic situation that exists today.

When will the British stop interfering in foreign affairs in countries where they do not understand the culture? But Britain is not the only nation to do this. Most Western nations try to impose their type of democracy upon the rest of the world. Hence the tragic situations we see all over Africa, the Middle East and Asia.

Paul Luckraft reviews ‘Guardian Angel’ by Melanie Phillips (Bombardier Books, 2018).

This is an intriguing look at the life and career of one of Britain’s most forthright and controversial journalists who regularly champions our national identity and Judeo-Christian heritage. Here we discover what shaped her early life and the key factors and influences that precipitated, in the words of the subtitle, her “journey from leftism to sanity”.

The book is perhaps better seen as a memoir than an autobiography but it does nevertheless take us chronologically from Phillips’ childhood in London through her career path to where she is now.

Poignant, Personal, Illuminating

The opening chapter is by far the longest as Phillips describes the angst and anxieties she experienced as a child. Clearly her family home was not a happy one, although it provided the moral foundation she would need in later life.

It is interesting that after describing her (Jewish) parents and upbringing in some detail there is little about her own family. We learn how she met her husband and that she has two children, but almost nothing about them. Later family relationships are also noticeably absent. It seems Phillips wants her personal story to be understood more in terms of the social and political changes that have happened in Britain during her professional lifetime (though intuitive readers will undoubtedly feel keenly the ways these have intersected with her family life). 

This is an intriguing look at the life and career of one of Britain’s most forthright and controversial journalists.

In the second chapter Phillips describes how she learnt her trade as a reporter and eventually joined the staff of The Guardian as a promising writer, by all accounts. Later chapters recount her ups and downs (mainly downs) at that publication in a way that is eye-opening and often entertaining (at least for those of us simply reading about them). We are led through the inner and outer turmoil she experienced as she gradually became aware of and came to terms with the vast ideological differences between herself and her co-workers.

Her account is deeply personal and yet illuminating for anyone learning their way around the problems with the ideological left-wing (cf. classic liberalism, Phillips’ background) and desiring to work through them intelligently and face the consequences bravely.

Overall, the account of her career path away from The Guardian is a poignant one - a move as traumatic and bewildering as any she could have imagined, but which was necessary if she was to remain true to her principle of “following the evidence where it led, and only then reaching a conclusion” (p119).

When towards the end of the book she states that “I believe what has happened to me illustrates what has happened to British society and western culture during the past three decades” (p172), we can readily agree. This is not over-inflated egotism but a logical conclusion that clearly follows from what she has recorded of her experiences.

Alfred and Mabel’s Daughter

Anyone familiar with Melanie Phillips’ writing will find this informative and for those who are not regular readers of her articles or blog, this is an excellent introduction to a social commentator who is both prescient and provocative.

An excellent introduction to a social commentator who is both prescient and provocative.

In some ways the book comes across as a sort of self-explanation, an attempt to understand what actually happened to her, personally and professionally. Certainly the book helps us understand her better and appreciate her even more.

When summing up who she is, Phillips concludes that she is neither on the left nor the right: “I am simply Alfred and Mabel’s daughter, a Jew who believes in helping make the world a better place and a journalist who believes in speaking truth to power” (p175).

'Guardian Angel' (175pp) is available on Amazon for £12.50 (paperback) or £5.91 (Kindle). Melanie Phillips writes regularly for The Times, the Jewish News Syndicate, the Jerusalem Post and for her own blog, at www.melaniephillips.com.

Middle East foreign policy contrast of ‘special relationship’ partners

Britain’s dithering contribution towards peace in the Middle East was well illustrated by last week’s Parliamentary debate on terrorist group Hezbollah.

While it was heartening that MPs on both sides of the House called for a complete ban on the organisation, it was hardly surprising that no action was promised as ministers resisted pressure to proscribe the organisation’s political wing.

Worse still, the advice to their MPs from the Labour leadership – Her Majesty’s official opposition – was as shameful as it was lame, explaining that outlawing Hezbollah in its entirety could hamper diplomatic efforts towards peace.

False Distinction

Britain applies a distinction between the organisation’s political and military wings, with the former effectively allowed to freely operate in the UK despite its declared intention to destroy Israel. Whereas the United States, France and even the Arab League apply a full ban, and the terror group itself does not accept this distinction.

The poorly-attended debate was secured by Labour Friends of Israel chair Joan Ryan who said Hezbollah was “driven by an anti-Semitic ideology that seeks the destruction of Israel” and that the UK distinction was “utterly bogus”.¹

But Security Minister Ben Wallace and his shadow, Nick Thomas-Symonds, defended the Government’s position.

Hezbollah’s ‘political’ wing is allowed to freely operate in the UK, despite it being designated a terrorist organisation by the US, France and most Arab League nations.

A Hiding Place for Terror

All this obfuscation comes amid increasing ignorance and denial of history, with the Polish parliament passing a Bill banning reference to their country’s involvement in the Holocaust.²

Labour MP Ian Austin criticised his leader Jeremy Corbyn for having referred to Hamas and Hezbollah as ‘friends’ back in 2009, adding that Mr Corbyn had later explained that he had used the term in a ‘collective way’. But Mr Austin said these groups had made it clear they had “absolutely no interest in the peace process”.³

Joan Ryan later told Jewish News: “It is deeply disappointing that the government has yet again refused to act decisively against Hezbollah.” She said such anti-Semitic terror groups should have no hiding place, yet the UK was continuing to provide them with one.

London’s ‘Hezbollah Problem’

It's worth pointing out that Hezbollah is backed by Iran – the world’s leading sponsor of terror organisations – who have fired 23 ballistic missiles (16 of them with nuclear capability) since signing the 2015 nuclear deal designed to maintain peace in the region.⁴

Meanwhile former Israeli Ambassador to the UK Ron Prosor said Hezbollah had been given freedom to operate in Europe and elsewhere by the alleged distinctive wings⁵ and Conservative MP Theresa Villiers said they posed “a serious threat to the citizens of the UK”, adding that a new poll revealed that 81% of Britons support a full ban and that the annual Al-Quds Day march through central London, during which anti-Israel protestors wave Hezbollah flags, was “a scandal” and “an embarrassment”.⁶

American counter-terrorism expert Dr Matthew Levitt has said that “London has a Hezbollah problem”, explaining that Britain’s partial ban was not working and had resulted in the organisation carrying out illegal activities including drug-running and fundraising for military campaigns.⁷

Britain’s partial ban is not working and has resulted in Hezbollah carrying out illegal activities including drug-running and military fundraising.

Jihad is Political and Military

CALL TO PRAY: U.S. Vice-President Mike Pence is proud to stand with Israel and pray for the peace of Jerusalem. Picture: Charles Gardner

I believe the debate was really about war and peace; the Hezbollah flag features a machine-gun and does not distinguish between its so-called armed and political wings. Not surprisingly, therefore, the organisation has no wish to discuss peace – they are, after all, engaged in jihad (holy war), as their flag demonstrates.

And on this and other points, the British Government is dithering. We can’t make up our mind whether to support war or peace in this instance and so we sit on the fence while Iran’s terrorist proxy builds up further weapons with which to bring murder and mayhem to the Jewish state.

It’s a bit like the dithering we demonstrated in the years during and after the Holocaust itself (as a television documentary screened on the More 4 channel on Sunday 28 January showed⁸), shelving promotion of a gruesome film, including particularly harrowing scenes, for fear it would demoralise the German people in the wake of their crushing defeat. The Americans at the time, under the direction of legendary Hollywood producer Alfred Hitchcock, went ahead with a condensed version incorporating some of the British army footage.

US Leading by Example

And what a contrast we see again today in the way the United States handles the Middle East diplomatic impasse head-on and with unusual clarity – by recognising Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and announcing that the US Embassy will move there by the end of next year.

Vice-President Mike Pence, in making this announcement to an Israeli parliament (the Knesset) willing even to give up precious land for peace, littered his speech with biblical references as he spoke to a packed room, emphasising the Bible’s command to pray for the peace of Jerusalem.

The British Government can’t make up its mind whether to support war or peace, so we sit on the fence while Iran’s terrorist proxy invests in murder and mayhem.

Paraphrasing Psalm 122:6f and Zechariah 3:10, he said: “The USA is proud to stand with Israel and her people, as allies and cherished friends. And so we will pray for the peace of Jerusalem, that those who love you will be secure, that there be peace within your walls and security in your citadels. And we will work and strive for that brighter future, so everyone who calls this ancient land home shall sit under their vine and fig tree, and none shall make them afraid.”⁹

What’s it to be? War or peace?

Notes

1 MPs clash over move to fully proscribe Hezbollah as a terror group. Jewish News, 26 January 2018.

2 Netanyahu slams Polish Holocaust bill, says ‘one cannot change history’. World Israel News, 28 January 2018

3 See note 1.

4 Edson, R. Iran has fired 23 ballistic missiles since start of 2015 nuclear deal, explosive report shows. Fox News, 25 January 2018.

5 Prosor, R. Hezbollah is a clearly a terror organisation. Parliament should treat it as one. The Telegraph, 25 January 2018.

6 See note 1.

7 Bentham, M. Hezbollah agents ‘run drugs on London streets’. Evening Standard, 25 January 2018.

8 Night Will Fall.

9 Full transcript of Pence's Knesset speech. Jerusalem Post, 22 January 2018.

As remembrance events are held today to mark the end of World War II and the sacrifice of so many millions, FIFA is still making headlines for banning players from wearing commemorative poppies.

Today is Armistice Day, and England and Wales are this evening set to defy FIFA's long-standing ban on all "political, religious or commercial messages", and allow their players to wear poppies on their shirts during the World Cup Qualifier match.

This is not a new row – it erupted in 2011, resulting in players being allowed to wear poppies emblazoned on armbands, but not on their shirts.¹ Nevertheless, this year FIFA has stood its ground, and debate has once again erupted in the media over the politics of the poppy. Meanwhile, the rest of the British populace rolls their eyes at political correctness gone mad, wondering when it became unacceptable to commemorate the ultimate sacrifice made by so many millions during the two world wars. How have we got to this point?

The Race to Escape Politics

The debate over whether or not the poppy is a political symbol is an interesting one, but not what I wish to focus on here. Instead, I would like to draw attention to a different, but no less key, aspect of the whole incident: FIFA's blanket refusal to make what could be construed as a political statement.

Like so many institutions and establishments today, FIFA would rather keep its nose (at least, its public nose) out of politics, religion and commerce, even to the point of avoiding any cause that could possibly be construed as such. Contrary to media headlines, FIFA has not deliberately banned the poppy – but they have refused to "pre-judge" whether or not it counts as a political symbol, instead referring the case to a disciplinary committee, which will decide whether or not the rules have been broken.²

Perhaps this is understandable in the light of FIFA's recent political scandals. But ironically, the poppy 'ban' is probably causing more controversy than it prevents. Whether the primary driver here is a fear of losing mass support or a fear of inciting a lawsuit from some avid poppy-haters, it is a sorry state of affairs when concern for self-protection leads an organisation to pass up the opportunity to support a good cause, just because it could be labelled 'political'.

The Poppy Appeal has become collateral damage in a rather inconsistent attempt to erase all trace of politics from football (or at least from its public face). What does this say about the state of our society?

It is a sorry state of affairs when concern for self-protection leads an organisation to pass up the opportunity to support a good cause, just because it could be labelled 'political'.

The Postmodern Hatred of Politics

This may be a controversial point to make, but I personally believe that the essence of all politics is actually moral – since politics is about making arguments, statements and rulings about the good (and the bad) of society. It involves saying what we believe is good and worth pursuing (/legalising/promoting), and what we believe is evil and needing to be fought (/prohibited/eradicated), not just for ourselves but for the collective. When one shows support for a political symbol, message or cause, one is effectively making a moral statement about what one believes is good (or bad) for society. A political statement is a moral statement (and the reverse is also true).

The trouble is, in today's world, we have cut ourselves loose from the objective morality given to us by God – the true word of Scripture and the guidance of the Holy Spirit which help us to distinguish right from wrong. We have rejected the Ultimate Source of morality. And so in Western culture, in the absence of a true, objective definition of right and wrong, morality has become relative – what's right for you might not be so for me. We each 'do as we see fit' (Judg 17:16, 21:25).

And as morality has become an individual, private matter, so has politics. They are two sides of the same coin. Declarations of right and wrong – declarations about what is objectively good and bad – are increasingly unwelcome in the public realm, because public means that which is shared, communal, universal, applicable to all. And how can there be a morality that is universally applicable (or a politics that is universally beneficial) if there is no higher moral authority than the individual? How can anyone 'pre-judge' what is good for all?

Public Declarations of the Good Increasingly Difficult

By rejecting God, we have argued ourselves into a corner – and our establishments are in a bind, increasingly unable to enforce one moral law for all. We lose our ability to distinguish between the immovable, universal rights and wrongs God has instituted, and our personal preferences that arise chiefly from taste and character – God-given diversity. As man becomes god, so we conflate the two.

This is why our entire society is suffering from a lack of direction, a lack of convicted leadership and an unwillingness amongst the establishment to engage with controversial issues: because the tyranny of political correctness stops us from standing up, above the crowd, and making a broader statement about what is morally right and good for everyone. Those who are brave enough are usually sued – because our legal system has become about protecting the individual, above all else.

The upshot of this is that the moral pillars of society become judged by and subjected to the moral vagaries of the individual, not the other way around (e.g. FIFA avoids all political or religious messages because they might upset or disagree with some individuals). And because these shifting sands are such a nightmare, it becomes easier to put a blanket ban on everything that might be controversial.

When the moral pillars of society are subjected to the shifting sands of individual hearts, it becomes easier to put a blanket ban on everything that might be controversial.

Should Christians Care?

Let's go back to the humble poppy. FIFA will not publicly endorse the Poppy Appeal, presumably for fear of being branded 'political' – of making a statement about something other than football that splits people and causes it to lose support. Players may be allowed to wear poppies on armbands (i.e. a matter of personal choice – individual politics/morality), but not on their shirts (collective uniforms, symbolising the position of FIFA as an organisation).

In this particular instance, it takes something as seemingly innocuous as the Poppy Appeal to open our eyes, albeit briefly, to the realities of the political correctness nightmare. But it isn't about the poppy, or about war, or about showing respect for bravery and sacrifice in the face of horror. It's about a much bigger, more endemic cultural disease: amorality.

The problem, of course, is that life is inescapably political and religious. Just as attempts to erase religion from the public realm are doomed to fail (as atheism is itself a faith, and secularism itself a religion, rather than the absence of one), so attempts to depoliticise football are also futile.

But that doesn't mean that attempts to enforce the semblance of political and moral neutrality won't be pushed through – with this false neutrality becoming a Trojan horse for the promotion of unGodly values and ethics. Because again, this isn't about the poppy, and it isn't about FIFA. It is about a growing prohibition of public statements of morality – which is already extending to include expressions of Christian truth in schools, on the streets and even in churches.

That's why Christians should take notice of the poppy debate – and refused to be cowed by the spirit of the age.

"They shall grow not old as we that are left grow old; age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn. At the going down of the sun, and in the morning, we will remember them." ~ For the Fallen, Robert Laurence Binyon (1869-1943)

References

1 Is the poppy a political symbol? Who, What, Why, BBC Magazine, 1 November 2016.

2 Conway, R. England v Scotland: Fifa says Poppy ban reports a 'distortion of facts'. BBC Sport, 11 November 2016.

3 One might also point out FIFA's symbolic inconsistency in featuring the logos of ethically dubious corporate sponsors – such as the Nike logo that adorns all England shirts and the Adidas logo graces the shirts of Scottish players. The poppy is apparently a step too far, however (or perhaps not lucrative enough?).