Relatable with Allie Beth Stuckey - Ep 625 | The Church of England, Academia, & Meghan Markle: The UK's Progressive Problem | Guest: Calvin Robinson

Episode Date: June 7, 2022

Today we're talking to our new friend across the pond, Calvin Robinson. He's a longtime educator, broadcaster, and political commentator who was well on his way to being ordained by the Church of England until the powers that be decided he was just too conservative for them. His intolerable belief? Simply that England and the church are not systemically racist. Robinson tells the full story, and we discuss the effect that leftism has had on the U.K. in other areas like the response to COVID and gun control. You'll find that wokeness in England is pretty much the same destructive force as it is in America — liberals are free to loudly espouse their beliefs while conservatives are asked to keep quiet about things. You'll definitely want to stick around for the full conversation, because at the end of the interview Robinson tells us how he really feels about Meghan Markle and the effect she's had on the royal family. --- Today's Sponsors: Carly Jean Los Angeles — use promo code 'ALLIEB' to save 20% off your first order at CarlyJeanLosAngeles.com! Birch Gold — text 'ALLIE' to 989898 for your free no-obligation info kit on gold! Good Ranchers is giving away 2 FREE 18 oz. prime, center-cut ribeyes when you use promo code 'ALLIE' at checkout on GoodRanchers.com/ALLIE. --- Buy Allie's book, You're Not Enough (& That's Okay): Escaping the Toxic Culture of Self-Love: https://alliebethstuckey.com/book Relatable merchandise- use promo code 'ALLIE10' for a discount: https://shop.blazemedia.com/collections/allie-stuckey

Hey, this is Steve Day. If you're listening to Allie, you already understand that the biggest issues facing our country aren't just political. They're moral, spiritual, and rooted in what we believe is true about God, humanity, and reality itself. On the Steve Day show, we take the news of the day and tested against first principles, faith, truth, and objective reality. We don't just chase narratives and we don't offer false comfort.

We ask the hard questions and follow the answers wherever they leave, even when it's unpopular. This is a show for people who want honesty over hype and clarity over chaos. If you're looking for commentary grounded in conviction and unwilling to lie to you about where we are or where we're headed, you can watch this D-Day show right here on Blaze TV or listen wherever you get podcasts. I hope you'll join us. Hey, guys, welcome to relatable. Happy Tuesday. This episode is brought to you by Good Ranchers. Go to Good Ranchers.com slash All right, guys. I am super excited for you to hear this interview today with our new friend Calvin Robinson. He is a British political commentator. He's a journalist. He's a policy advisor. And he is also the senior fellow at the Research Institute Policy Exchange.

The reason I wanted to talk to him today is because he was rejected for a position within the Church of England because of his politics, specifically because of something that he said about institutional racism in the UK and really denying its existence. And so I thought it would be interesting just to hear his story. Why he is a conservative both politically and theologically, we ended up getting into a lot of stuff that I didn't realize we were going to get into. COVID policy. We talked a little bit about the difference in gun policy in the United States versus the UK. We talked about what the Bible says, about marriage, about women being ordained, why he does not believe in his words that racism is lurking around every corner in the UK. he's a fascinating person, so insightful. Of course, he's got that wonderful British accent, and so he just sounds more sophisticated just because of that.

We are also going to end the conversation with a little fun bit. We're going to talk about the Platinum Jubilee, of course, that's celebrating the queen in her 70-year reign, and I'm going to ask him what he thinks about Megan, Markle, and Harry. You might be able to predict a little bit about his opinion, but it's really fun. So you're just going to love this conversation. You're going to learn a lot.

And I enjoyed so much talking to him. I really hope that we get to have him back. Hey, this is Steve Day. If you're listening to Allie, you already understand that the biggest issues facing our country aren't just political. They're moral, spiritual, and rooted in what we believe is true about God, humanity, and reality itself. On the Steve Day show, we take the news of the day and tested against first principles, faith, truth, and objective reality. We don't just chase narratives and we don't offer false comfort. We ask the hard questions and follow the answers wherever they leave, even when it's unpopular.

This is a show for people who want honesty over hype and clarity over chaos. If you're looking for commentary grounded in conviction and unwilling to lie to you about where we are or where we're headed, you can watch this D-Day show right here on Blaze TV or listen wherever you get podcasts. I hope you'll join us. Mr. Robinson, thank you so much for taking the time to join us today. For those who may be unfamiliar, can you tell us who you are and what you do? I love that question because I never know how to answer it. But thank you for inviting me.

I have just finished studying theology at Oxford, so I was an ordnand. Before that, I was a teacher and a deputy head teacher and a school governor. I come from an educational background, but I also do political commentating. I'm a TV presenter on GB News. I talk about faith, education, and cultural issues. So before we get into what happened with you in the Church of England, which is primarily why I wanted to have you on today, you said that you come from the world of education and yet you described yourself as a conservative, correct?

Yeah, I know. How did that happen? Yes, how did that happen? Tell us a little bit about that. Well, I got into education by accident. I was actually an industry making money and living the high life before. And I got to a point in my life where I wanted to do something more rewarding, more fulfilling. I wanted to give something back.

And I got into teaching because I was a computer programmer, a computer scientist. And I thought this is an area that we need more teachers in. I could make a difference to it. And I did for a while. I loved it. But I did soon find out that it's no place for conservatives. And this was, you know, this was bewildering to me coming from industry where you're sitting next to lefties, rightist, centrist.

Like it doesn't matter your politics. You just get along and, you know, you work together. You drink together. But in education, it was very much an echo chamber. It was a hive mind of group think mentality. It was quite actually disturbing. In fact, this is how I became a conservative commentator because I started. started writing about the left wing indoctrination that I was seeing in schools.

And I stuck my name to it because there were a lot of people that call themselves the secret teacher and the secret blog. And I was like, no, I own this opinion because what I'm seeing is wicked. And parents need to be aware of it. Have you always been conservative then? No, I suppose I started out more liberal, at least libertarian, the classical liberal, not the new modern liberal that are actually illiberal and intolerant. But I think the older I get, the more conservative I get.

I suppose that's the case in many people's lives. When you're invested in your community, when you're invested in whether it's property or paying taxes or, you know, when money comes into it, people tend to lean more rights. But also socially, I think as we're seeing our way of life, the Western way of life, be rapidly destroyed. It feels like the fall of Rome. I think people are leaning more rights because they want to protect what's important to us. I know that we here in the states are very familiar with the liberal indoctrination and the group think and really the witch hunts that you kind of described is happening there. It's also happening, of course, here in academia. Could you talk a little bit more about that, about that experience, what you started writing about, what you recorded seeing in academia there?

And what was the response to your observations? Oh, absolutely. So, I mean, first of all, it started during a general election that we had over here, voting for our government of power. And in the staff room, in the common room, teachers will say, so who you're voting for? And I honestly didn't realize that this was a rhetorical question, that you're supposed to say the Labour Party, which is, of course, the left-wing party over here. And when was this? When was this? This would have been 2015. So this was before the Brexit referendum, before Donald Trump, before all of that, before politics went absolutely crazy. But I said, you know, I'm voting for the Conservatives. And jaws literally dropped. People were astounded by this. They couldn't believe it. But you don't hate children. Well, how would you vote for the Conservatives?

It's like that false dichotomy. Yes. But from then on, any time the Conservative government implemented any policy that they didn't like, it was my personal fault. You know, they come up to me and blame me for the situation. I don't believe in all the policies that the Conservatives are putting forward, mostly because they're not conservative enough. Right. No. I'm not in government.

It's not my fault. Right. And so that's kind of how this, that's how it all started. It was, were you surprised by their surprised reaction to you? Oh, absolutely. Because as I say, working in industry, I'm surrounded by true diversity, diversity of thoughts and opinion of and of politics. In education, that's not the case.

We've seen from the polls that between 70 to 80 percent of teachers vote for left-leaning parties and a similar number of teachers voted for a main in the Brexit referendum. And this is another thing that I saw, you know, after the referendum, the day actually that the results came out of the referendum, I was pulled aside in my school, because I was still teaching, pulled aside, and the executive headmaster, you know, the principal of the school said to me, Calvin, we're aware about your thoughts on Brexit, but please don't mention them in school. My initial response is, well, of course not, because I'm here to teach kids programming.

I don't see how Brexit would come up. But fair enough, I won't mention it. But going around the school, the rest of that day, I understood very quickly that I was the only person they'd said that too. Because all the Ramona teachers, all the remain voting teachers were saying, oh, it's so awful. Oh, it's, you know, and we love our European friends and thinking it's an anti-European thing when, of course, it was an anti-federalist thing, but also saying, oh, I know, we're going to see the same situation in America. We're seeing the same thing with Donald Trump. It's like this natural assumption that Brexit is bad. Donald Trump is bad. Anything slightly right or center is not just

wrong, but bad. But they were allowed to say it. They were allowed to express those thoughts and opinions to the young kids, to the children. And this is why we have a whole generation of indoctrary to children. Yes. And I'm finding myself having more questions than I thought that I would about this segment of your story. So I do want to get into everything that happened with the Church of England, but I'm just curious. As a conservative in the UK, I mean, I remember when Boris Johnson was elected and it was kind of seen that, oh, what's happening in America with Trump is also happening in the UK. But from my understanding and observation of commentators like you, Boris Johnson has kind of been a disappointment to the conservatives, correct? Well, yeah, somewhat.

I mean, we mostly voted him to get Brexit done and he did get Brexit done. But since then, I think his response to COVID was atrocious. But his gut reaction was spot on. You know, he is, well, I thought he was a libertarian. So I thought he'd be protecting our civil liberties and he'd let us get on with our lives and give us advice as a government, but not dictate our lives. Unfortunately, he capitulated and went down the same route as all other Western governments and took away our civil liberties in this country. An Englishman's home is his castle. No one in the law or otherwise should have any right to say who you invite into your own home.

But we did get to that stage where you were dictated to on how many people were allowed in your house, who they were, whether you were allowed to touch them, whether you could hug a loved one or not. These were all in government guidance and regulations way overstepping the mark. So he's disappointed me on that regard, but we found out through leaks that his initial response was to be the mayor from drawers, you know, just open up the beach and let people get on with it. I think that might have been a better situation because locking down the country has actually resulted in more deaths through undiagnosed cancer, through mental health crises and suicide rates, but also, of course, the economy is kapot. So why do you think that he denied his own instincts on that? Do you think it was because he was just afraid of the constituency? Does it have anything to do with? I know some people have talked about him being.

buddy, buddy with the World Economic Forum, like a lot of our leaders here and just being afraid of what the WHO would say? Or do you just think it's just, you know, sheer politics? He just thought it politically would be more advantageous for him to be a little bit more restrictive. I think at first it was a scary situation. He didn't know what to do. And he is a politician that takes advice on board. Unfortunately, quite, you know, too often. We often hear that Boris Johnson goes with whoever's the last person to speak to him. But, you know, the problem is. The problem here is that after he did that initial lockdown, he doubled down on it because then it became political. He didn't want to be seen to have made a mistake. So, of course, we had more lockdowns

and then we had the same situation with the vaccines. Like, this was seen as our way out. Whether they worked or not, whether they were good for kids or not, we've seen them being pushed down our throats because this is the political answer rather than the right answer. Do you think that the same phenomenon happened in the UK as it did in the US? And that some, more moderate and even liberal people realized because of the restrictions that came with the lockdowns, that came with COVID, that the government really isn't your friend, and that maybe giving over all of your rights to the government isn't a great idea. Like, did you see that kind of shift happening in people who don't necessarily consider themselves conservative? I wish. I saw the opposite.

And it goes along with the old saying, doesn't it? The scariest words, words to ever hear are, we are the government and we're here to help you. But actually, I thought this was a country built on freedom, built on liberty, much like America. But I found out that it's not. And most people care more about safetyism than they do their own liberties. And people would happily give away more freedoms in order to feel safe, whether it was truly making them safe or not. They were happy for that feeling. And part of this is down to Project Fear.

You know, our government enforced a lot of poor draconian regulations, but also, it's the propaganda that went along with them. We had official government slogans saying, don't kill granny, for example. How horrible is that to tell a young child that by hugging their grandparents, by showing love and compassion to their family, that they are potentially going to kill them?

And the problem with all of this is that propaganda worked, and it's so difficult to reverse. You know, people know now, well, they knew then, I suppose, that mosques don't really work. They don't really do anything for an aerosol virus. However, we still see people walking around with them on because they're afraid. People are terrified for their lives. People are terrified.

And also, as you said, it's propaganda and it's moral extortion in the form of propaganda. Because if you believe and have been told and just have it ingrained in your mind that you were a good caring person, a good Christian even. We saw a lot of that propaganda here that you're really loving your neighbor if you wear a cloth mask or if you don't go see your grandmother who has been isolated in the nursing home for the past. past six months, that's you being a good person. People are still attached to that outward signal of virtue. And if that becomes a form of your identity or that becomes a form of what you think is morality and expression of virtue, that is very hard to let go of. It's very hard to let go of such a deeply ingrained idea, but even more than that, it's hard to let go of an identity that you have put on of being the good American, the good American, the responsible and

scientific citizen. I think that's part of it too, that people have just gotten so wrapped up in what they think the COVID restrictions represent as far as someone's morality goes. 100%. But it's not about being a good person, really, is it? It's about being seen to be a good person. It's much harder to actually do good. This is why virtue signaling is so popular, because it's far easier to look like a good person than it is to be a good person. And I think you're writing that the Christian angle of this was really used and abused, actually. We had the Archbishop of Canterbury, who is, of course, the primate of the Anglican communion saying that, well, effectively moralising the vaccine, suggesting that to be a good Christian, you have to love your

neighbour, and therefore, in order to love your neighbour, you have to take a vaccine. That doesn't actually protect your neighbour. You know, the whole purpose of it was apparently to protect you, even though it doesn't actually do that either. But just using the faith as a political weapon, that is wicked. You know, we saw churches and cathedrals say you could only enter if you could prove your vaccine status. Jesus Christ mingled with the lepers. And people with COVID are just people carrying a cold or a flu for goodness sake. They're not even as bad as lepers. So of course Jesus wouldn't close God's house to people.

But the church did. And it went further than that. You know, the government suggested that non-essential businesses had to close for the lockdowns. The churches went above and beyond and closed the churches too, even though the government didn't recommend that at first. And not only did they close the churches to the people, the faithful masses, the congregations, they closed the churches to the priests. They said, you can no longer go in your parish church and pray for your parishioners. That, again, is wicked. Oh, that is wicked. And that's a perfect transition into what I originally wanted to talk to you

about today, because you have seen the consequences, you have experienced the consequences, you have experienced the consequences of the politicization of the Church of England and the Archbishop of Canterbury, if I am understanding correctly. Now, here in the United States, especially we Protestants here in the United States, we don't totally understand kind of the governing structure of the church in England. So if you could just take us kind of from the beginning, I know that you just said that you studied theology at the University of Oxford. And from what I understand, you are looking for a particular position in the church

of England and you were denied that because of your politics, because of specifically, I think, things that you have said about institutional racism in the UK. So can you just start us from the beginning? Talk to us in layman's terms as Protestants in the United States. You don't know anything about the structure of the Church of England. What exactly happened? I'll try. This is the greatest shame about the formational training that I've received in that they don't just teach your theology. they teach you a whole new language and then you get wrapped up in it and you get caught in a church,

you bubble and you say a load of words that don't actually mean anything. So I'll try and break it down to normal language. So towards the end of your tricks, so I was doing two years at Oxford and at the end of your first year you tend to be assigned a parish, a church that you will work in

as an assistant priest, we call it a curate, once you leave. So you have to have it kind of lined up before you start your second year or your final year. And I did. So I was assigned by my bishop at a parish. I met the priest there. We built a good relationship. I've been to services there. I met some of the people. And we were looking forward to working together. I was looking forward to my curacy.

And things went quiet for a while between my bishop and I. And I understood, so there's a hierarchy of bishops and my bishop doesn't really have any jurisdictional power because my bishop is what's called a flying bishop, he's responsible for traditionalists within the Church of England. So people like myself who don't believe in the ordination of women, don't believe in that the church should head towards homosexual marriage, people who believe in Christian teaching, essentially, and believe in the faith that was handed down to us from Christ through the apostles in the Bible. But there is provision available for traditionalists within the Church of England. and my bishop, although he is responsible for me, has no direct power.

His boss is the Bishop of London, who is a lady bishop. And she took issue with my politics. And I knew this because obviously, you know, I'm a political commentator. I'm quite outspoken. But I try to at least centre all of my positions around my faith. So I try to be a good Christian. And of course, being a good Christian means that we understand that we're all fallen. None of us are perfect.

So we do make mistakes every now and then. So I would have appreciated some charity. But what I quickly came to learn is that the Bishop of London did not want me in her diocese, in her area, in London. She didn't want me ordained in London, even if it wasn't by her. And I had a chat with my bishop, the Bishop of Fulham, and I said, you know, what's happening with my curacy? You know, I thought it would have been announced by now. And he said, no, we've had to delay the announcement. And I eventually got out of him.

He said, the Bishop of London does not want you ordained in her diasties. but I'm going to tell her the next time I see her that if she wants to, I'm not going to do her dirty work. If she wants you gone, she's going to have to do it herself. And then I heard nothing for weeks. And then it became months and I chased up my bishop again and said, can we have a chat? And he did, we had a chat. And he said, look, it's not going to work. There's going to be too turbulent. Too many people will complain about you and what you say in public. And I was taken aback. But I was willing to work through it. I said, okay, so if people are complaining, about me, if it's too turbulent, show me the complaints, I'll pray on them, I'll discern on them,

and I'll improve. I'm not trying to cause offence. I'm trying to proclaim the truth. And that can be divisive at times. I get that. But he said, no, we can't share the complaints with you. So I'm stuck in a rut here. I'm like, you know, my curiosity has been cancelled or taken away or indefinitely postponed because of complaints, but I'm not allowed to see them. So I don't know what to do. So I sent a subject access request. So this is like freedom of information. request but for personal information. And by UK law, any organisation that holds your personal data, now that could just be your name, your data birth, your telephone number.

It doesn't have to be really intimate. But anyone who processes or holds your data has to share it with you if you request it. So I put one of these into the church. And then it was like Watergate because I found out that actually they'd only been less than a handful of complaints about me. And for someone with, you know, I've got quite a significant following on social media and I'm on national broadcast. I expected quite a lot more, to be honest.

I was a little bit disappointed. But I had less than a handful, and they were silly. Calvin Robinson went on TV last week and said that men need to be more masculine. Uh-oh. Yes. Yes, I did. Men do need to be more masculine. We have a massive issue with fatherlessness.

We have a massive issue with men not taking responsibility. And this is why we have such high abortion rates. And this is why we have such high single-parenthood rates. And this is why also we have so much crime and homelessness. and mental health. And all of these, a lot of this revolves around men need to be more masculine and forget this whole toxic masculine argument because it's just making us more effeminate and it's the downfall of a society. But anyway, that's one of the complaints. But what I found actually, Ali, was that there were more complaints about me from within the church. And I noticed that there's

one bishop who had been complaining about me consistently from before I started my training to the Bishop of London but also to the Archbishop of Canterbury so all the way up the top of the hierarchy he'd been sending complaints saying look at Calvin Robinson's tweet and the issue that he had against me was that Calvin Robinson

does not believe in institutional racism and I did further and he said Calvin Robinson does not think this country is institutionally racist therefore we should keep a close eye on his ordination i. We should not ordain this man because he doesn't fall in line with our politics. And you know, I don't think this country

is institutionally racist. I think the United Kingdom is one of the best places in the world to live. I think we have equality of opportunity. We have equality under the law. If you work hard enough, you can achieve anything, you can reach the highest office just as you can in America. And I think that's something to celebrate and promote. And I'm sick and tired of people taking on board critical race theory and dividing us based on the color of our skin. And it's, you know, people like this bishop are always the metropolitan liberal elite. It's always the white middle class with their guilt that are actually the racists first and foremost.

And they accuse everyone else of being racist. They're projecting because it's that we want you to be a good little black man and take on board the opinions that we think good little black men should have. We don't want you to form your own opinions. We don't want you to have your own politics. You should do as you say, and we'll patch you on the back. And maybe we'll give you a little bit of a promotion every now and then. But, you know, when the time's right and we don't want to replace ourselves.

And I was outraged. So I spoke to the Bishop of London, and then I said, you know, I think it's quite divisive when you say that the church is institutionally racist. But she put her arm on me and she said her hand on me. She said, but Calvin, I can tell you as a white woman, the church is institutionally racist. And then I realize I'm lost. So she's white. For people who are just listening to this, you are not white. She is white.

And she is correcting you, telling you that the church is institutionally racist. And I guess she has some authority to do so. And you ask the question. an op-ed, basically, why is it a problem? I'm paraphrasing that you don't believe that racism is lurking around every corner. Why is that a problem? Of all the things that you believe, I would actually think that your views on LGBTQ, your views on women being ordained. Of course, I agree with you on both of those things. That's considered very controversial, even here in the United States. So I imagine in the UK that I think is probably even more liberal, that that's

very controversial. But it was this, it was this, that. As a black man, you are not allowed to argue with the existence of institutional racism. Why do you think this was the sticking point? Because we're stuck in critical race theory. It's everywhere. So the church put out a report called Lament to Action that claims that the church is institutionally racist. It said it's deeply institutionally racist. And we should apologize for our horrible past.

And I tried to find evidence for this claim. But there was none. The only evidence was the Archbishop of Canterbury. claiming this. And then the church put out another report claiming that the country is institutionally racist. So I tried to find evidence of that. And it just pointed back to the previous report, which pointed back to the Archbishop of Canterbury making a statement. You know, there is no first principles involved here. There's no actually looking at the issues in order to find the problems so we can solve them. It's just this self-flagellation. It's all built on white guilt.

It's all from a very patronizing, old-fashioned form of racism, actually. And the church, put forward, you know, affirmative action. It put forward what they call positive discrimination. Now, I don't think any discrimination is positive, but they've put measures in place now that every leadership position in the church must have a shortlist when it's advertised of 30% what they call UK minority ethnics, what you guys would know as bi-pox, or over here we usually use the term BAME. All of these terms I find offensive because it just homogenizes all non-white people under one bracket as if we all think alike, vote-alike, talk-like, and pray alike, which is, of course, nonsense. That in itself is racist.

But to suggest that 30% of all leadership positions must have a shortlist of ethnic minorities, in a country that only has between 12 and 14% ethnic minorities, and half of those are Muslims, I don't understand where the church thinks it's going to get these people from. Wow. Yeah. But it's virtue signaling, isn't it? It's just looking good. It's like, yeah, we want 30% of, Yeah, we need more of you, brown people. I'm going to say, stop it. It's one kind of diversity. Obviously, they don't want ideological diversity.

They don't want theological diversity. They don't want any other kind of diversity. They only want the kind of diversity that you can see, which goes back to our conversation about virtue signaling, that they really only want diversity of melanin. Here in the United States, they definitely, the left wing in this country certainly believe that there is going to be this coalition of non-white people who are going to raise their fist for communism and overtake capitalism and what they see is the white supremacist majority, whatever it is.

But they are also being disappointed by the fact that demographic change isn't necessarily equating to more democratic voters. I mean, there are a lot of Hispanic voters that are becoming more Republican. And so as you said, just because you have a certain melanin count or a certain nationality that does. not necessarily mean that you are going to be on the side of the left. So that's going to be an interesting evolution over the next few years. But how is this particular situation for you going to evolve? What's next? Is it done? Are you still trying to take this particular position within the Church of England? Or are you just kind of saying, fine, you don't want me, you don't want my views, I'm out. I'll answer that. But just to address your point a minute ago, we're seeing the same thing

over here as well as you're seeing in the UK. The ethnic minorities are voting for the right-wing parties and it's the white liberals on the left who are saying, no, because we don't want to be seen as racist, we must vote for the left-wing parties. They're not listening. Even though they're saying, we need to listen to more ethnic minority voices, they're only listening to the ones that sound like them. It's so sad. But what am I going to do next? I honestly don't think there's a place for me in the Church of England. I don't, even if they turned around to me tomorrow and said, look, okay, we'll take it all back. We'll ordain you. I don't think in good conscience, I could, If an organization sees itself as racist institutionally and the top three most powerful influential people in that organization

happen to be white, middle class, and they're not doing anything about it. Either they're complicit in this structural racism or they're incompetent. And they should step down and by their own ideology, they should be replaced by, I think, minorities. So of course, it's just virtue signaling again. They don't want to actually do anything about it. But I couldn't. So I've moved to Gaffcon, which I understand is a. much bigger organization or movement in the United States than it is here, but I'm hoping to

provide some momentum because Gafcon is a group of Anglicans around the world. You know, Anglicanism is massively orthodox in Africa on the African continent, for example. It's Anglicans that have seen the way that the church is going, you know, very woke, very liberal progressive, and trying to essentially rewrite scripture in order to look better by modern day standards. And that's not what the faith is about. So the Gaffcom movement says, no, we are adhering to the faith, adhering to the scriptures, and we're going to be Orthodox Anglicans. So I'm very happy to be joining that movement, and I'll be ordained in a few weeks, actually, as a deacon in a church in London. That's great. I heard you say in an interview recently, which I just thought was a great way to put

it, that relevance is irrelevant when it comes to theology, when it comes to the direction that the church should go. The people who were interviewing you were kind of, taken aback by that, well, you want the church to go back a thousand years. That's got to be a terrible thing. And you basically said, no, that would be, that would be a great thing. We should be staying steady because the scriptures haven't changed, right? Yeah, absolutely. It's this idea that we need to chase social norms and liberal progressive views. That's, you know, that's counter to what we should be doing. Because I think the way that society is changing is so rapid. People can't keep up. You know, people who have celebrated one moment like J.K. Rowling or canceled the next because

you can never be woke enough and the movement is evolving at a speed that normal people can't keep up with unless you're obsessed with the movement itself. And the church or the faith should be a shining light in an ever-darkening world. It should be countercultural. It should stand out and say, here is an alternative. If you're sick of being lied to, if you're sick and tired of being told there are 99 genders when you know there too, if you're sick and tired of being told that you're oppressor or racist because you're white, whether overtly or covertly, and you can't escape it because it's the new original sin. And if you were sick and tired of being told that you're a victim because you're black, even though you know you can succeed and you have made a lie for

yourself, and you're sick and tired of all these lies being pushed down your throat all the time. Here is the truth. The truth is in this book. It is the Bible. The truth is Jesus Christ himself. And he teaches us how to live. He teaches us what's right and what's wrong, what's good in what's bad. And we shouldn't be looking to these woke ideologues to tell us otherwise. Yep. You described cancel culture so well in that the standard of morality is ever changing because it doesn't actually have a foundation. It doesn't have anything to stand on. And because it doesn't have a foundation, it has no limiting principles. So of course it's just going to be dictated by social whims. Of course it's going to change on a day-to-day basis. But as you

articulated so well, Christianity stands firm because Hebrews 138, Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever. And if he is what we stand on, then of course our theology should not be changed by the progressive whim of the moment. And I'm interested to hear you articulate. If you can just kind of summarize. We've talked about it many times on this podcast why we believe in the importance of the definition of marriage, as we see in Genesis, as we see reflected in revelation,

as we see reiterated throughout scripture as between one man and one woman. but I'm interested for you to hear you. Summarize your perspective on that or your view on that in why you are against the sanctioning of homosexual marriage within the church, as well as your view on women being ordained. These are two of the most controversial stances that you can take even in the states, even in evangelicalism in the states. So I'm just interested to hear your defense of that. Well, for me, it comes down to the family, first and foremost. The family is the cornerstone of Western democracy. It's the cornerstone of our way of life.

And this is why the communists, the neo-Marxists, always want to destroy it. This is why they say that a child belongs to the state. It's the state's role to bring children up rather than the parent, because we know fundamentally that it's a parent's role to educate their children. It's a parent's role to pass on values to their children. And it's a parent's role to make sure that they are producing a good, positive, I would say a good Christian. But if you're not faithful, you could say just helping produce a good character

to send out to be a contributor to society. Now, if we want to have community, if we want to have a sense of belonging and love and be, live in a good place, live in a good society, families where that starts is the first community that we're involved in. And then we have the wider, we have the parish, we have the wider social community, we have our school or our workplace. And then we have our nation. And this is why nationhood is also very important. And this is why if you look at what the Marxists are doing or the neo-Moxists, whatever you want to call them, they're breaking down the family unit. They're saying, actually, we want to destroy heteronormative families because that's going to fundamentally take children away from their parents. But also it's going to stop our reproductive cycles because the whole purpose of having family being or marriage being one man, one woman is for procreation.

And if you say that heteronormativity is bad and one man and one woman marrying each other is an old-fashioned idea, then you're going to go down a different route that actually takes away the procuration and the, the spreading of the seed and the and the multiplying and creating nations and creating disciples. But also on a, so that's on the family side of things, but also on a wider structural situation, what we're seeing is, you know, that all these movements that say they are anti-capitalist or actually anti-democracy, because the opposite of communism isn't capitalism. Capitalism isn't an ideology. Capitalism is a mechanism. It's a tool set that we use to get by. The opposite of communism, is liberal democracy. And that's what we have in the West.

And that's essentially what they're trying to destroy by destroying the family. Yeah, you're absolutely right. I think that's a really good way to look at it. We typically use an alliteration when we're talking about biblically why we believe in the definition of marriage. It's rooted in creation. It's reiterated throughout Scripture. It's repeated by Jesus in Matthew 19.

It is representative of Christ and the church in Ephesians 5, and therefore it is reflective of the gospel. Yes. This is what I forget. I'm on an American show right now. We can actually talk about the faith without being embarrassed. It's fantastic. Yes.

So I'll answer the second part of your question on why I don't believe in the ordination of women. And it is for several reasons. But first of all, the priest is in persona Christi. The priest at the altar during the sacrifice is representing Christ himself. And when Christ became a man, when God became man incarnate, he chose a man. Like Christ chose when he was going to be born. He chose where and he chose in what setting. On purpose, he doesn't do anything by accident.

God does not do accidents. So first and foremost, impersonality is a man. Secondly, it's not in the Bible for female ordination, whether it be presbyter or episcopate. So whether it be priest or a bishop, there was no such thing. And again, that wasn't by accident. Christ chose his 12 apostles to be men for a reason. And that's not, you know, people will say,

What about equal rights? There's nothing to do with rights. It's nothing to do with equality. You know, the Bible clearly shows that men and women are equal, but different. Equal does not mean the same. That's another misnomer we have going on at the moment. That equal seems to mean that we have, there is no difference between us. There are very clear biological differences between men and women. Men are tend to be physically stronger, which is why now that we're allowing men into women's sports, we're seeing women get demolished. It's just, it's natural. It's not a good thing. But the whole point of complementarianism is that women are better at other things, such as being more maternal.

And even saying that, I know that people are going to frown upon it, suggesting that women are more caring and empathetic than men. But it is, you know, it's a biological truth. And when Christ talks about situations of mothering, as he does, he says, you know, in times God mothers all of us as his children, that's the wording he uses because that that's what it means to be maternal. However, when he tells us to talk to God, the father, he does use that word father. He uses that word Abba. And so all of these progressive movements that are saying, you know, oh, maybe God's a woman. Maybe we should call God she or how do you know God's gender? Actually, God told you his gender pronouns. And if you want to disregard them, that's on you. That's your blasphemy. Yep, exactly. It reminds me of Genesis 1 when God creates man and says, let us make man in our image. It seems like that's what human beings are doing today. Let us make God. in our image trying to turn God. Right, those two things from Genesis. God made them male and female and God made them in his image. So those two things suggest that, first of all, God designed you the way you are, either man

or woman. And because he designed you the way you are, you are your body. And he loves you and your body because you are your body. He loves you for who you are. Therefore, you should love yourself for who you are. And this idea that we can change our body and change our gender, whether it's surgery or whatever you want to call it mutilation, that is an affront to God. That is disregarding his love.

Yes, I read this book. I don't know if you've read it. It's called Love Thy Body by Nancy Piercy. And she does a wonderful job of talking from both a theological and also philosophical perspective of why Christianity regards the body the way that it does. I think a lot of people have this idea that Christianity is just about denying the body and denying bodily passions. and it's not. It's about putting bodily passions in the right context and using our bodies,

stewarding our bodies, how God created them, that we actually have a tell us, a purpose, that we were made teleologically in the sense that our bodies have a purpose that we cannot decide, that we cannot declare, that we cannot choose because God created us, he not only tells us what our bodies are, but tells us that our bodies tell us who we are. And those two things cannot be detached, but you can kind of see in this whole progressive postmodern world where you think that you are self-creating, self-decifying, that you do detach the body from the mind to say that the mind can dictate what the body is. Christianity, as you mentioned earlier, has to be a refuge against not just what is confusion, but also is moral chaos and anarchy. And as we have seen so many times, ends in destruction, not just for society at large, but also. so for the individual.

I need to get you to come and preach in my church, honestly. You're fantastic. But you're spot on. And a lot of it is our inside. I'm assuming you're on the right of politics here with this. Because the left are massive collectivists. And they want to put us in these big boxes. We talked about BIPAC, BAME, UK, ME, whatever.

They label us by our immutable characteristics so that they can own us, they can control us. And they can say, you know, as Joe Biden has said, you know, if you don't vote Democrat, you ain't black. Like it's this assumption that by your immutable characteristics, you owe them your vote. But our response on the right is hyper individualism. It's actually that each person owns their label and owns their immutable characteristics to the point of you're still identifying as Afro-American or African-American or black British or whatever and you're putting your own personal identity in front of everything.

And this is why we have black theology and queer theology and all of these things because we are creating ourselves as individual gods. And the Christian answer is somewhere in between, as if we are individuals and we are unique and special and loved by God. But we're also, we have that collective element too, in that we have a sense of obligation and duty to our community, to our family, and we can't get by on our own. But more importantly, there's something bigger than us.

There's something bigger than us as individuals, and that is God. And that's the whole point of the Christian faith, teaching us how to enter that relationship, that ever evolving, that loving relationship, of God, which is why he is a Trinity, God, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, because it's an everlasting relationship of love. And we're invited to join that. And the moment we step away from it and create ourselves as God, we are turning our back on him, turning our

back on love. And that is sin. Yep. And that also reminds me what you said of God being in perpetual community with himself, perpetual fellowship with himself. And we are made in his image, which means that we also need community and fellowship, not just to thrive, but also to survive. That also goes back to why COVID lockdowns didn't work because it goes against human nature. It is cruel. That's why something like solitary confinement is even sometimes seen as cruel and unusual punishment. It's the worst thing that you can put someone through because we are made in God's image, who, as you said, is in perpetual community with himself.

I want to get your perspective on something that is not necessarily theological, although I guess you could argue that everything is essentially theological. Can I just put a quick challenge out based on what you just said? Yeah, go for it. Go for it. Go for. I want to challenge the Christians, because a lot of Christians, especially who are on our side, have said to me, well, what's happened to you is all for Calvin. I don't need a church. I'm a Christian.

I'm at home. I do my own prayers. I say my own prayers. I don't need to go to a church. I just want to put a challenge out there because it's so important because our faith is not something you can do on your own. It's not an individualistic faith. The scriptures say is that when two or three are gathered in his name, he is with a

does. We have to be in a community. And of course, it's difficult because we're all fallen. Therefore, institutions that are made up of people are also fallen. But our challenge is to be a part of that community for the reasons you just articulated. Yes. And I think that they can also take cues from you in seeking a church and seeking a community that is based on the scriptures and is not being dictated by the latest demands of the social justice elite and making sure that they are orthodox in their theology. All right. The next question that I have, there's not really like a smooth transition into it.

I'm just curious and was curious as you were speaking about this from your British perspective. I know that you're conservative. That doesn't mean we necessarily see everything the same just because culture is different. So I'm curious about your answer to the question. If someone were to ask you, what is the difference in Britain and the United States when it comes to guns in crime because of course there's crime and murder there in the UK but one question that a lot of conservatives are asked because we have so many guns here in the United States and we have a second amendment is why do the kind of mass shootings that we see in the US not happen in somewhere like

the UK is it just because of the gun laws I had a follower who lives in the UK say well actually she believes that it is because in the UK people are generally less vitriolic they're less angry online, they're less kind of impassioned in the debates and the conversations that they have so there's not as much anger. I have no idea if that's true. I'm just kind of curious what you think about that. Yeah, I don't think I'd subscribe to that generalization. I think people in general are roughly the same, especially in Western nations. We're becoming more tribal, more polarized and actually more vitriolic. And I think the internet is the devil's playground. The internet has a lot to answer for in that regard because we're all finding our own individual silos

with people that think like us and agree with us, and we're living in our own echo chambers. So the moment we see or hear something we disagree with, we don't know how to handle it anymore. And I think the church used to be a good answer for this, because the church is the true home of diversity, because you have young and old, white and black, male and female, everyone coming together from a place, rooted in a place. And we don't have place anymore. People live together, don't even know their next door neighbors anymore, never mind people from their local church. So I think that's part of it. But back to the guns, We did have, so we have stricter gun controls, obviously.

We used to have the right to bear arms in this country. That was taken away a long time ago, but I think it was taken away at a time when it was possible. Obviously, with America now having more guns than people, by a big count, it's not possible. But also I struggle with it because biblically, Christ says we should all own swords. And if you don't own one, sell your clothes, you know, sell your cloak and buy a sword. And I think there's something in that, having the ability to protect yourself, not just from other people, But from the government, I really do truly believe in your Second Amendment. I think it's fantastic.

Well, sorry, is it first. It's second. It's second. You're right. Oh, it is second. First is free. All right. No, I think it's fantastic.

The second protects the first, we say. Right. But it is an issue. And I think if we look at other countries for comparison, we have to look at other countries with guns. And Israel is a good example. They don't seem to have as many school shootings because the teachers have guns. And I know that's a controversial thing to say. And I know Trump said something similar.

But perhaps. there's something in that. I don't know. It's too difficult to judge at the moment. Yeah, I do think it's difficult to judge. I mean, of course, the easy thing to say is because we have more guns and we have less restrictive gun laws. But as you kind of mentioned with Israel, it's a little bit more complicated and nuanced than that, actually. I do think it goes a lot deeper than simply the ownership of guns. America has always had guns. We've always had millions of guns. We've always had a very strong gun culture. And we haven't had the same problems that we are having today. So I just want to throw that out there, but I appreciate your perspective on that.

Last question I want to ask you, and this one is kind of fun. Tell me about the significance of the Platinum Jubilee. I think most people know what it is, but as someone who lives in the UK, is this something that you really care about, that you're excited about? And just in general, I know that we could probably talk about this for a long time, but what are your feelings about the royal family and about Megan and Harry? We have our own feelings here about Megan and Harry, but just tell me in general, kind of what you think about it all. I think Her Majesty of the Queen is fantastic. She's been serving this country for 70 years.

And, you know, I'm a big fan of America for a lot of reasons. But one of the things I don't like about America is that the president is the head of state. Because we're seeing America get more divided. You know, the left are getting more left wing. The right is getting more right wing. And this has been going on for years and years. There's very little common ground between the two parties now. And, you know, even when, for example, Trump put a really good executive order in against discrimination and against

critical race theory and all that stuff. The left Tory top as soon as they got in, not because they are pro-discrimination, but because it was something that he put in. So it's all getting very polarised, but her majesty of the queen is apolitical. And having an apolitical figure, or head of state

is fantastic because first of all, she can hold our prime ministers to account. So she has weekly meetings with our prime ministers, but also she's above the political system. So we've had, what, 14 prime ministers under her rule. And she's

been the consistency there all the time. But she's also a figurehead that brings us together. And I know there are a great number of Republicans in this country, but they are still a minority. Most people do support the royal family because it's the epitome of Britishness. It is a symbol. Much like you guys have your flag,

you unite under your flag. Well, we have a living embodiment of Britishness. I think that's quite special because not a lot of places still have that. And celebrating the Jubilee for me has been the highlight of my year so far. Just because we're so divided post-Brexit, post-COVID, post all of these issues that are going on. And it's something that just brings us back together, reminds us that we are stronger together

as a British people. And we're British first and foremost before being black, gay, straight, whatever. You know, they left the woke lot keep telling us that we have to be divided based on our immutable characteristics. Things like the Jubilee are what unites. And the last time we had that was London 2012 with the Olympics. And of course, that was before all of the Brexit. and all of the politics took off. So it's a reminder of a better time, I think. Yeah, we have nothing like that in the United States. Unfortunately, we really don't have anything that I could even see possibly bringing us together. So I certainly can see how, at least from a symbolic standpoint, that that is a unifying force. Do you have any comments about,

speaking of unifying, the people who seem the opposite of unifying and very divisive are Megan and Harry, at least from my vantage point? What is your perspective on that? I can. can guess, but I'm curious. Yeah, I knew what it goes to let me get away with that. I don't like Megan. I really, really don't like Megan. And what I don't like about the situation of Megan is that anyone that says they don't like her, at least in this country, well, yeah, but anyone in this country that says they don't

like her is accused of being racist just because she happens to be brown. It's almost as if she can do or say anything and she's above reproach because she's brown-skinned. I find that repulsive. if we want to live in an equitable society, and I'm not saying we do, but if we want to live a society that's more equal, at least, everyone should be able to hold opinions about anything, whatever their skin color. And for her to come over here and, you know, I know you don't have a royal family in America,

but you have a very high celebrity culture. And she's brought that over here and assumed somehow that that's what the royal family is. But no, they're a family rooted in duty, service, obligation, Christian values. And I don't know if she knows what any of those, words mean, but she's wanted the fame and the glamour and the glory, but without all of the work that comes along with it. And I don't think she liked what she saw, and she sulked and obviously took Harry off to America with her. And not only did she do that, but she belittled the royal family and the monarchy. And that is a British institution. You know, the queen isn't just a person.

She is an institution. So when Megan attacks the royal family by throwing out these random allegations of racism without anything to back them up, she's tearing down a British. institution. I think that's her borrowerant. And I dislike her for that. As well as many other things, you know, she's lied plenty of times in that Oprah Winthropy interview that, you know, proven lies. She's just a despicable person. It's a great shame that Harry has fallen for her. But, you know, hopefully he'll come around and hopefully he'll bring her with him because obviously I don't believe in divorce as a Christian. So I'm hoping that he can show her the truth, show her the light. He looked, he looked very sad. He looked very regretful on his recent visit for the Jubilee. It looked like he was

missing his old life. And it's understandable. Yeah, I think that that's one thing that we do observe that he does kind of seem like a sad and sullen person that's just kind of being dragged around now. I think the important thing to remember, though, is that they want privacy. They did the Oprah and Winfrey interview to ensure that they got privacy. They had the Spotify podcast to ensure that everyone knew that they wanted to remain private. They've talked about their mansion and released pictures of their kids just so everyone knows that they want to remain private has nothing to do with celebrity at all. So at least they're humble if there's one good thing that we can say about them. Well, thank you so much. I have so, so enjoyed this. We had some

cheers actually over behind the camera when you said that you didn't like Megan Markle. So I think that, I think that we are in agreement over here. But I really, really appreciate you taking the time to come on, give us your insight on all of these issues and to tell us the story of what happened with the Church of England, extremely insightful. So I just appreciate you sharing all of that with us today. Ali, anytime. And like I said, I would love you to come and preach at my church once I'm ordained. I think you're a fantastic preacher. Keep preaching a good word. Thank you. Thank you. I appreciate that so much. I hope you have a great rest of your day. God bless. Hey, this is Steve Deast. If you're listening to Allie, you already understand that the biggest

issues facing our country aren't just political. They're moral, spiritual, and rooted in what we believe is true about God, humanity and reality itself. Steve Day Show, we take the news of the day and tested against first principles, faith, truth, and objective reality. We don't just chase narratives and we don't offer false comfort. We ask the hard questions and follow the answers wherever they leave, even when it's unpopular. This is a show for people who want honesty over hype and clarity over chaos. If you're looking for commentary grounded in conviction and unwilling to lie to you about where

we are or where we're headed, you can watch this Steve Day Show right here on Blaze TV or listen wherever you get podcasts. I hope you'll join us.