Moggmentum and the cultural moment

In a fuming ranty Guardian hit-piece (Jacob Rees-Mogg isn’t old-fashioned, he’s a thoroughly modern bigot, 06/01/2017, accessed 07/01/2017), Suzanne Moore sees red over Tory flavour-of-the-month, Jacob Rees-Mogg. Her much over-wrought hand-wringing is not because of his economic policy (which is barely mentioned and not at all discussed in any detail), or his self-admittedly naive and ill-advised address at the annual dinner of the Traditional Britain Group (which may reopen discussion of the double-standard keen to ignore Jeremy Corbyn et al's list of equally foolish appearances), or even his initial "support" (whatever that means in real terms) for Trump (which she admits he has now distanced himself from, omitting that his support was after Trump became the viable candidate and before the groping scandal). Rather she aims her vitriol squarely at Rees-Mogg's views on abortion and marriage, which are thoroughly consistent with social conservatism, and more fundamentally, with the orthopraxy of orthodox Christianity. Even deeper than his views on abortion and marriage, it seems it is the Catholic faith that undergirds Rees-Mogg's positions, which offends Moore most.

She writes:

As usual, Rees-Mogg’s religious faith is used to excuse his appalling bigotry. He is a Catholic and this kind of fundamentalism is always anti-women, but for some reason we are to respect it. I don’t. It has no place in public life.

"It has no place in public life." What is this "it" that has no place? Working our way backwards, we find that whatever "it" is, "we are to respect it" but Moore says "I don't". What is "it" that we are to respect? "This kind of fundamentalism" which she claims without any attempt at an argument "is always anti-women". And what kind of fundamentalism is that? "He is a Catholic" and apparently this, "his religious faith", is to blame for his "appalling bigotry". Bottom line: if you are any form of professing believer whose beliefs dictate an ethic contrary to the present worldview, your beliefs have no place in public life. Furthermore, unless you are willing to sit down and shut up about your own beliefs and stand up and cheer beliefs and practices that your conscience denies, then you yourself do not have a place in public life. 

Rees-Mogg is much that I am not and has much that I do not. In some areas, more unites us than divides us: shared humanity, basic Trinitarian theism, a broadly Judeo-Christian worldview, and I dare-say he likes a good suit and enjoys the finer things in life (who doesn't?). In some areas, perhaps more divides us than unites us: he looks and talks different than me and comes from a vastly different background; as a Roman Catholic, his gospel is of Christ's sacrifice supplemented with saints and sacraments, whereas I am a Reformation Christian with good news of Christ's sacrifice sufficient once for all; I believe I know where I stand, but cannot comment as to his motives and methods in economic policy, specifically as relates to the poor and vulnerable in society; I may like a good suit and enjoy the finer things, but I daresay he can actually afford them. These are not insignificant differences, but true tolerance and national unity allow for such diversity and need not divide.

Conformity to an agenda of uniformity does not allow for true tolerance, nor does it promote a unity that includes deep diversity. I would say that the mask has slipped, but in reality it was wilfully removed some time ago, revealing a monster of deeply illiberal totalitarian uniformity diametrically opposed to true tolerance, religious liberty, open debate, friendly dialogue, free discourse, and basic civility. Religion is OK, so long as you don't actually believe anything - and if you do, you must ensure your beliefs do not affect the decisions you make and principles you uphold. Classism is wrong, except when wielded against "poshos". Sexism is wrong, except when men (worse still, heterosexual with a wife and lots of kids) are singled out. Education is urgent and excellence encouraged, so long as your parents did not seek the finest education they could afford and your grades could obtain and that happened to be Eton and Oxford. Financial stability and prosperity is a wonderful dream, so long as you don't actually obtain it - and it becomes a nightmare if you happened to be born into wealth and increased it with shrewd investments and diversified interests. Racism is wrong, except when whatever ethnic group or skin tone is most unpopular in a particular sub-set of society at the time becomes the victim. Patriotism is awesome, unless your country ever did or does anything wrong - if so, you may still get a pass so long as you are not Britain or the USA. Democracy is good - except when you vote the "wrong" way in a referendum or election. The list could go on. 

We have reached a dangerous place in society. There is still free speech, but those nonconformists who dare to speak freely are battered to bits on social media and by increasingly tabloidised news services. These have become modern day pillories of pragmatism, where what is cool and safe wins out over the concrete and substantive and the sensational takes precedence over the factual. If Catholic politicians are too much for society to handle, we cannot expect them to be any more favourable to Baptist preachers. Which is fine. Whether it's Hubmaier who wrote against burning heretics and ended up burned to death himself, Helwys who addressed the king not to coerce religion or punish people based on differing beliefs and breathed his last in prison, Williams who moved to the reportedly more tolerant environment of the American colonies only to be banished for speaking against religious coercion, down through centuries of similar faithful men too many to count, all the way to Martin Luther King Jr., arrested and jailed repeatedly and finally killed for his dream of equal freedom for "black men and white men, Jews and gentiles, Protestants and Catholics", Baptist preachers are nonconformists through and through. That's not going to change, but we must be ready lest recent years' aberration of toleration prove to have softened our spirit and dulled our edge. Increasingly, our distinctiveness - indeed for many, downright weirdness - will be revolting to some. But it will be refreshing to others: there's something special about Christ's bread and water of life, that sets it apart from culture's empty offerings of bitterness, waste, and death.

I will conclude with quoting another Moore - Russell, not Suzanne. 

A Christianity that is without friction in the culture is a Christianity that dies. Such religion absorbs the ambient culture until it is indistinguishable from it, until, eventually, a culture asks what the point is of the whole thing. (Russell D. Moore, Onward: Engaging the Culture Without Losing the Gospel; Nashville: B&H Publishing Group, p. 08).