Church Address:
Holmes Lane,
Rustington,
BN16 2PYRecent Posts
- Statement on “earned settlement” proposals February 12, 2026 9:49 am
We are deeply concerned by Home Office plans to establish a so-called “earned settlement” scheme that would judge those with a higher salary, better education and from a more fortunate background as more worthy of living settled, secure lives in the UK. This is contrary to our understanding of the equal value and dignity of every human being and ignores the particular responsibility that, in our view, government has to attend to the needs of those who are most vulnerable and marginalised. Many of our congregations are blessed with the presence, gifts and service of those who are in the UK having immigrated from Hong Kong, are refugees or are of other immigrant backgrounds. The current proposals will create anxiety among each of these groups, particularly severely impacting the ability of refugees to live settled, healthy lives in the UK. Some of our congregations are also faithfully served by ministers from overseas and we view these proposals as placing overly restrictive barriers in front of those hoping to take up God’s call within the UK church. We are particularly concerned that the retrospective application of these new policies would be unfair to those who have already begun to make their lives in this country on the basis of the current immigration rules, and made decisions and plans based upon an expectation of a being able to follow a pathway to settled status and citizenship. We urge the Home Office to reconsider these proposals and listen to advocates who are showing the evidence that enabling shorter, less complex paths to settlement delivers benefits to not only the individual but the community they make their home. Crucially, any changes must take into account the real-world circumstances faced by many immigrants and not push those already at the margins of our society into further destitution and uncertainty. The Baptist Union of Great Britain, Methodist Church, United Reformed Church and the Church of Scotland have each submitted responses to the ongoing Home Office consultation detailing our stances and we will continue to follow this process with interest and concern. Source
- Rebuilding global solidarity for climate action February 6, 2026 12:01 pm
More worrying climate news. Is our international system still up to today’s challenges? Earlier this month the EU’s Copernicus research institute revealed that 2025 was the third hottest year on record globally. The first and second hottest years were 2024 and 2023 respectively. We are dangerously close to crossing the 1.5°C global warming threshold which governments across the world agreed to try to prevent in the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement.* Yet prospects for the global cooperation that is vital to addressing this global crisis seem to be at an all-time low. When Donald Trump re-entered the White House just over a year ago, he immediately triggered the 12-month notice period to withdraw the US from the Paris Climate Agreement. The US government continues to publicly dispute the international consensus that the climate crisis is a global threat of epic proportions. This isn’t the only area where Trump is challenging international institutions and collaborative efforts – read Paul’s recent blog here for more. Have we given up international climate cooperation? It’s not just Trump and likeminded world leaders who are casting doubt on international collaborative efforts to tackle climate change. In polling analysis by Global Nation looking at trust in international institutions, just 35% of the global population said their taxes should go towards solving global problems. A larger group, 57%, said that international institutions should have the power to enforce rules on global issues including climate change – just seemingly not with their taxes. Even though that measure shows majority support, it has fallen four percentage points in just the last 12 months. The sense of global solidarity seems to be diminishing. Perhaps this should not be a surprise. Every year, there appears to be as much media coverage debating whether the UN’s climate negotiations are worthwhile as there is coverage of what is actually being negotiated. The most recent iteration, COP30 in Belem, Brazil, hit the lowest attendance figures for official government representatives since before the Paris Agreement was signed in 2015. The US sent 234 delegates to COP29 but 0 to COP30 as Trump changed the country’s direction once again. Most concerningly of all, young people, who will be the most affected and are therefore often the most worried and compelled to act on climate change, are the least likely to put their trust in these international institutions. In that same polling, just 33% of people said they felt more like a global citizen than they did a citizen of their own country. This very question sets up an unhelpful dichotomy – that we either see ourselves as British, American or Chinese etc, or we’re global citizens. But we can and should be both. As Christians we’re called to be citizens of God’s kingdom and to work to bring about that kingdom in our surroundings. However, those surroundings shouldn’t be limited to our towns, cities, regions or country. We are called to recognise the face of God in all humans and as the global ramifications of our actions (or inaction) become better understood we have a duty to do what we can to reduce our impacts on our global neighbours. How do we turn the tide back towards collaboration? While we tend to focus on the international systems that are stumbling, it’s important to remember that a lot of successful cooperation is still taking place. Ironically, Copernicus, the very project that allows us to know for certain that we’re rapidly heating our planet and conclude that international cooperation is faltering, is itself a product of international cooperation. The only reason we don’t have a catastrophic problem with ozone layer depletion is that countries came together in the 1990’s to agree a solution under the Montreal Protocol – a system of international cooperation that is still making advancements today and is often regarded as the world’s most successful environmental treaty. In some ways, it’s a victim of its own success. The fact it was able to quickly begin to remedy the problem with broad global support meant that it dropped out of the public consciousness, and many people forget (or, for those born since, were never taught about) the dangerous potential of an ozone hole. There are also other ways of doing international collaboration. Much of the discussion around the climate crisis happens in multilateral spaces (meaning everyone can have a say but also often means they can only move as fast as the slowest member) but increasingly, with initiatives like the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty, countries have been creating smaller groups that are taking more ambitious commitments voluntarily or bilaterally. In Global Nation’s analysis, they also talk about “communities of the willing”. They define these as communities of responsible citizens, businesses and civil society groups, including faith organisations and charities that are collaborating and taking more local action. With both these community initiatives and international groupings, the effects ripple outwards into communities and nations not part of these schemes. History shows that this approach can make an enormous impact, even in the face of apparently immovable forces. One example is the campaign to end the racist apartheid system in South Africa which, in addition to the tireless, brave efforts of in-country campaigners was brought down by an international movement that struggled at first to find global consensus. However, countries surrounding the apartheid state began boycotting goods and wielding their somewhat limited diplomatic power, at times this was costly to their economies and therefore their populations. Gradually companies, individuals and campaign groups in countries across the world joined the boycott. Eventually, many more countries, including the US, backed calls for apartheid to end. Many individuals and churches are leading the way on building such “communities of the willing” for climate action. As we take action for a cleaner, greener future, through individual lifestyle choices, net zero commitments and programmes such as Eco Church, we show that it is possible to make a meaningful difference on these issues – and that it’s important to us and should be to […]
- Will anything other than might be right? January 28, 2026 10:04 am
“Enduring solutions will not rest on the logic of force, but on the foundations of justice, equality and the right to self-determination.” (Statement from Palestinian Christian leaders in 2025)1. Current news headlines illustrate that we are witnessing the clash of two fundamentally opposed understandings of international relations. The understanding that has largely prevailed since the Second World War was that peace and prosperity are built through multilateral co-operation within a framework of International Law. Recent US actions exemplify a much older approach to international affairs grounded in power, acquisition and unilateral action. The use of US economic power through tariffs and trade restrictions has already had direct consequences throughout the world, including the UK. Military power has been used seemingly without regard to International Law. The reality of such enormous power being untethered from such rules is frightening to many – and it seems that may be the point. A determination to avoid the mistakes that led to two World Wars The preamble to the United Nations Charter is an extraordinary statement of values. It was initially agreed in 1945 by 50 nations and eventually signed up to by 193 states. The nations declared they were determined to “save succeeding generations from the scourge of war”, by acknowledging the “dignity and worth of the human person”, “promote social progress and better standards of life” and fostering the conditions for international law to be respected. The preamble is premised on the idea that peace is something that flows from justice. It is built through lasting co-operation between nations that respects both the law and the dignity of all people. Two devastating World Wars which had caused unimaginable suffering led the authors to reject the old ideas that armed conflict was an acceptable foreign policy tool, or that that military might – no matter how vast – could protect a nation from the horrors of war. Peace was to be built on the pursuit of mutual prosperity and co-operation. Building the “rules-based order” This belief was central to a process of creating numerous multinational organisations, some under the UN, and others like the World Bank or the World Trade Organisation (WTO) through other treaties, to build a “rules-based order”, which regulated how countries interacted with other: ostensibly to promote peace through shared prosperity and development. There is a lot to criticise about these institutions: how they were too often bent to the will of the powerful and embedded existing economic and political power. How in reality the rules of this system did not apply equally to all. How the benefits and protections of the system were not equally shared. But this system’s lack of perfection should not bind us to their improvement over the great power, imperial politics, that had gone before – where domination and intimidation were open and even respectable forms of diplomacy – which seemed inevitably to lead to repeated and sometimes catastrophic wars. Setting a norm of behaviour The UN charter’s vision of how nations should relate was an aspiration, but over time it also set a norm of behaviour. Therefore, even those who did not genuinely subscribe to it, who breached both its spirit and its letter, felt the need to pay it lip service. It was important to state that actions were compatible with International Law and respect for human rights, and deny that any use of force was for raw self-interest lest they become pariahs, ostracised by other nations. Over the past year that basic norm appears to be crumbling with no ideal to put in its place, beyond the old and dangerous “might is right”. Creating a “Board of Peace” President Trump’s proposed “Board of Peace” is a reflection of a view of international relations grounded in no discernible principles beyond power and might. Long-term access to the board requires a payment of $1Bn dollars. This figure is the total annual government expenditure of Lebanon, and greater than the total annual spending of at least 18 UN member states, but represents just 0.0078% of US govt spending. Nations without economic power need not apply. The current list of signatories appears low on nations strong in democracy and human rights, and high on authoritarians. Certainly, the criteria for invitation does not appear to include respect for International Law. Nor is any prior history of respecting peace or human rights required, including as it does multiple countries and leaders under international sanction, including one with an international arrest warrant issued by the International Criminal Court. Finally, the Board’s structure guarantees Donald Trump a veto for life, and the power to appoint his successor. If it is a “Board for Peace”, that peace will be on terms negotiated, and approved by the most powerful nation, and imposed without representation on the weakest. It’s not all about Trump It is hard to talk about the multiple crises facing the international community without focusing on the chaos that surrounds Donald Trump’s erratic approach to foreign policy. But the changes to how nation states relate to each other are about much more than one man, have roots in political ideas that were developed long before Trump’s ascendency, and will have consequences long after his time in office has ended. Populist parties value sovereignty over co-operation In three of the four most populous countries in Europe (UK, Germany and France), populist right parties are currently leading in the opinion polls and in the fourth (Italy), the populist right is already in government. These parties, in common with the Donald Trump’s MAGA movement, share a rigorous interpretation of national sovereignty, believing a nation’s actions should not be subject to external restrictions or scrutiny. Consequently, they share a deep scepticism and sometimes antagonism towards international institutions such as the EU, the UN and even the WTO. This unfettered view of sovereignty can lead to the guiding principle of international relations becoming “what do we want and can we get it?”. Consequently, International Law moves from a being guiding principle to just another potential cost to be weighed up. And for the most powerful, or those with powerful allies, that cost is no longer very large. The view that laws are not necessary Another populist leader, Victor Orban of Hungary, has repeatedly breached the norms of international co-operation, but it has largely gone unnoticed by those not directly affected. Trump’s actions are larger and more significant because as the leader of the world’s largest economic and military power, given huge latitude by invoking emergency powers, the immediate direct consequences of behaving outside the rules are virtually nil. Recently asked, “Do you see any checks on your power on the world stage?” Donald Trump responded “Yeah, there’s one thing. My own morality, my own mind. That’s the only thing that can stop me. And that’s very good. I don’t need international law. I’m not looking to hurt people. I’m not looking to kill people.”2 This response comes from an interview given to the New York Times five days after the Trump administration ordered a military raid on Venezuela, removing its President and killing at least 50 military personnel and a similar number of civilians. After this he immediately – and apparently without irony – complains about not receiving the Nobel Peace Prize. The sentiments are said in the Trump style, but the idea that my nation’s actions should not be subject to external restriction is held more commonly and more openly by leaders around the world, especially populists and authoritarians. Revealingly later in the interview Trump said, “NATO is not feared by Russia or China at all”, in a passage equating fear and respect and not being feared with weakness and humiliation. Again, these are common themes for populists and authoritarians – but it is a logic that demands ever increasing unilateral power. Forgetting important lessons Typically, it is the least powerful nations (and people) that bear the brunt of injustice and war, meaning international co-operation and the avoidance of war can have clear advantages. For the powerful, who believe they will win wars and believe they can prosper or even dominate by themselves, co-operation looks less […]
- Iona Community and Joint Public Issues Team announce new partnership January 19, 2026 10:05 am
Christian witness for peace and justice will be strengthened thanks to a newly announced partnership between the Iona Community and the Joint Public Issues Team (JPIT) of the Baptist, Methodist and United Reformed Churches. As “resourcing partners”, the two groups have committed to “walking together and supporting each other” in their common commitment to “work and witness for peace and justice”. The announcement comes after a pilot period of more collaborative working, which has included JPIT’s team leader delivering the Iona Community lecture in 2024, and the involvement of resource workers from the Iona Community’s Wild Goose Resource Group in JPIT’s recent national conference. Members of JPIT will be leading a programme week on Politics, Power and Protest in Iona Abbey in October 2026. In a public declaration of intent, the two groups say: “The Iona Community (IC) and the Joint Public Issues Team (JPIT) act as resourcing partners in our work and witness for peace and justice. We are committed to walking together and to supporting each other, recognising that each partner brings particular strengths and resources to this task. While we will not always speak together, through this partnership we seek to create opportunities to collaborate, share expertise, build community and deepen relationships between those involved in this work, so that both partners can have greater reach, resolve, effectiveness and impact.” Simeon Mitchell, JPIT Team Leader, commented, “As JPIT and the Iona Community have worked more closely together over the last year or two, we have found we have many shared hopes and also complementary strengths in this work. At a time when working for justice and peace can be so challenging, I’m delighted that we are entering into this new resourcing partnership, and pray that it will offer support and encouragement to members of the Iona Community and JPIT’s partner denominations.” Ruth Harvey, the Leader of the Iona Community, commented, “This partnership with JPIT is a natural expression of our belief that the radical, inclusive community we seek must be embodied in the community we practice. Together, we can better resource and equip people of faith to work for justice, peace, and the integrity of creation. We’re excited about the possibilities this collaboration opens up for deepening our shared witness and extending our reach.” Among the ways the partnership will be lived out will be involvement in events, resourcing of the Iona Community’s Common Concern Networks, shared public letters and statements on current issues, and possible joint projects and publications. JPIT is a partnership between the Baptist Union of Great Britain, the Methodist Church and the United Reformed Church, with the Church of Scotland as an associate partner. Started in 2006, its purpose is to help the Churches to work together for peace and justice through listening, learning, praying, speaking and acting on public policy issues. Read more about JPIT. The Iona Community is an international, ecumenical Christian movement working for justice and peace, the rebuilding of community and the renewal of worship. Founded in Scotland in 1938, the Community now has about 280 Members and more than 2,000 Associate Members, Young Adults and Friends across the world. It has 9 Common Concern Networks on different issues, with members across the world, which meet online monthly. Read more about the Iona Community. Source
- Introducing Adam January 16, 2026 2:54 pm
I’m Adam and I’m pleased to introduce myself as the newest addition to the Joint Public Issues Team. I will be joining as the Advocacy Coordinator within the Methodist Church to help the JPIT churches amplify their impact and bring about a more just and peaceful world. In 2023, I sat in a large hall in Paris watching as delegates from almost every country in the world argued over how best to solve the global plastic pollution crisis. Until this point the voices of those who were most severely impacted by the effects of plastic pollution in their daily lives, those living in poverty and those working as informal waste pickers, had been mostly absent. These were the people I was there to support, but their calls for inclusion seemed to be falling on the deaf ears of those in positions of power. Towards the end of the week of negotiations, feeling disappointed by the pace of progress and unsure exactly how my Christian faith played a role in such a sanitized, legalistic setting, I found myself sitting next to an unassuming woman. As we both sighed and scoffed as several countries – who just happened to benefit economically from the plastic industry – sought to block progress, we realised we might be on the same page and began chatting. I introduced myself by saying that I worked for a Christian international development agency and she, to my surprise, said she was a Sister of St. Joseph, a centuries old congregation of Catholic women committed to social and environmental justice. We were two Christians from different countries, generations and church traditions but from two organisations that sought to represent the voices of Christians from across the world in their call for justice. Negotiators at the United Nations global plastics treaty negotiations, Paris 2023. In my different advocacy roles I have seen, across geographies and cultures, in places that can at times feel devoid of any kind of spirituality, Christians, as well as followers of other faiths, working hard to make the world a fairer, safer place out of a deep conviction that their faith compels them to take action. It is in this spirit of ecumenical justice work that I join JPIT. As we see the Christian faith being wielded to excuse unjust systems and actions around the world, it’s more important than ever that we make sure the radical love and unfailing faithfulness of our God are boldly stated and we do what we can in order to bring about a world that more closely matches these ideals. Those negotiations on plastic pollution are still ongoing, but thanks to the contribution of many campaigners and some supportive country delegates, many more countries vocally support measures that would make the world a more clean and less dangerous place for waste pickers and those living in poverty. I didn’t grow up in the church but my maternal grandparents were Quakers, in fact my nearly 100-year-old grandmother still is. My grandfather, who passed away years before I was born, was remembered in his Testimony (a kind of spiritual obituary for Quakers) with Micah 6:8: “He has told you, O mortal, what is good; and what does the Lord require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?” If that’s how my spiritual life story is summarised when my time comes, I’d be content. Source
- The world trembles January 9, 2026 1:16 pm
In a guest blog, Revd Charity Tozivepi-Nzegwu reflects on recent international events. I have learnt that there are moments when the world trembles, not because violence has already erupted, but because the conditions for it are being normalised. When power begins to speak as though borders are optional, consent is irrelevant, and the lives of ordinary people are collateral. Scripture teaches us to pay attention to such moments. “Woe to those who devise wickedness and work evil on their beds. When the morning dawns, they perform it, because it is in their power.”Micah 2:1 This is not merely about politics. It is about moral imagination. About whether the strong believe they are accountable. About whether might is mistaken for right. About whether law exists to restrain power or to be bent by it. The wisdom tradition is clear. When authority forgets its limits, chaos follows. When force replaces dialogue, when domination disguises itself as order, when resources are valued more than lives, the earth itself becomes unsafe. “Kings set themselves, and rulers take counsel together… but the one enthroned laughs.”Psalm 2:2–4 Not because suffering is amusing, but because no empire is eternal. There is a dangerous logic at work in the world, one that suggests that if power can act without consequence, then others will follow. Scripture rejects this utterly. Violence begets violence. Injustice multiplies itself. What is permitted for one soon becomes permission for many. “Those who take the sword will perish by the sword.”Matthew 26:52 The prophetic tradition does not call us to cheer, nor to inflame, nor to choose sides hastily. It calls us to discernment. To truth telling. To remembering that law, justice, and restraint are not weaknesses but gifts that protect the vulnerable. God is never impressed by military strength. God listens for the cries of those who will pay the price long after speeches are finished, families who will grieve, children who will inherit rubble instead of hope. “Seek justice, rescue the oppressed, defend the orphan, plead for the widow.”Isaiah 1:17 This is a moment for vigilance, not vengeance. For wisdom, not bravado. For courage that refuses the seduction of domination. And for prayer, not the kind that numbs conscience, but the kind that sharpens it. May we remain awake. May we refuse the lie that force is inevitable. May we remember that peace is not passive, it is disciplined, costly, and holy. © 2026 Reverend Charity Tozivepi-Nzegwu. All rights reserved. Revd Charity Tozivepi-Nzegwu is a Methodist minister serving in the Cambridge Circuit, and Chair of the Connexional Justice, Dignity and Solidarity Committee. This article was originally posted on Facebook and is shared with her permission. Source
- After COP30: Balancing Lament & Hope December 18, 2025 8:00 am
Watching from afar through headlines and Instagram posts, I was unsure how to feel about COP30 last month. As a former youth climate striker, my teenage sense of optimism has been somewhat dampened. The more I learn about politics, negotiation, and multilateral cooperation, the more exasperated I become. It’s easy to be cynical towards COP as a tool for actual global change. A month on, is it worth talking about an international event for climate littered with fossil fuel lobbyists? Will our national leaders ever advocate for bold action? Haven’t we passed the point of applauding these events? Despite some progress, this COP was deeply inadequate, but I think it mattered less in what it achieved than in what it symbolized. Ten years from the Paris Agreement, many are disillusioned and seeking other courses of action. I pray that the shortcomings of this COP will fuel imaginative alternatives to still work towards a planet where our environment is renewed. Christians are clearly called into this fight for climate justice, within and beyond formal policymaking structures. There were plenty of articles published covering the positive outcomes, such as the Just Transition Action Mechanism, Global Implementation Accelerator, and funds for tropical forests and adaptation finance. But there was an overall sense of disappointment.1 For a conference held within the Amazon rainforest – an emblem of the destruction we are wreaking on nature, and of the beautiful creation we are called to steward – many believe the language was not strong enough. Taking stock of COP now, as we look to a new year in climate campaigning, can both inspire Christian activists and challenge churches to pursue bolder action, when global summits fall short. Fossil Fuels One of the most lamentable realities of this COP was the record number of fossil fuel lobbyists in attendance. Ambitious goals are much harder to achieve with the pressures of these representatives. Out of 194 representatives, ‘roughly 80 didn’t submit new commitments for 2035…and the rest submitted weak pledges’, leading scientists to project that we are still ‘on track for upwards of 2.6 ° C of warming by 2100’. As a young adult activist, this fills me with grief and urgency. The future I fear is already the present for millions of young adults in the Global South, where climate disaster is not a distant threat but a daily reality. The recent floods in Indonesia are just one heartbreaking example among many. This year, JPIT church leaders have campaigned against the fossil fuel industry through the Climate Coalition mass lobby in July and the #StopRosebank campaign. Moments like COP should empower us further as Christians to reiterate concerns to our MPs and to push the limits of our local and national strategies. Global South Representation Tensions were high between those in the room and those excluded. On the second day, my social media was dominated by clips of some Munduruku indigenous people storming the conference to break into the decision-making spaces. Despite the record turnout, the barriers to genuine participation for indigenous peoples became painfully clear. Seeing this protest immediately made me lose hope in the event, unable to take it seriously if it wasn’t going to take those with lived experience seriously. This racial dimension of the environmental crisis is undeniable, and the disparity in Global North–South representation at COP30 makes this clear. Last week, I was privileged to join Methodist representatives at a UK church leaders and agencies event on Palestine at Lambeth Palace with the Archbishop of York, where one speaker argued for the interconnection between genocide and ecocide happening in Palestine and the West Bank. It highlighted how the church’s response to worldwide violence, colonialism, and climate crisis are interconnected. In the closing plenary, Colombia spoke powerfully against procedural issues including the mitigation work programme and announced an independent roadmap with the Netherlands. Genevieve Guenther argues that this action ‘outside the COP process may establish a trading bloc that could begin to sanction nations – and banks – that refuse to wind down fossil fuels’ but requires us to ‘do our part and subject world leaders to extreme and relentless public pressure’. Patricia Mungcal (National Council of Churches, Philippines) described how, “I find hope outside the negotiation halls, in the courage and bravery of Indigenous peoples to defend their land and care for the creation; in the international solidarity…even outside the official texts.” We must continue the fight for intersectional justice and listen to those with lived experience. It is crucial that the Church pays attention to alternative leaders like Colombia for inspiration and guidance on climate policy, rather than rich countries. …so what now? COP30 was alleged to be the “implementation COP”. The name of the final text (mutirão) means “collective efforts”, underscoring the need for mobilisation not only from our politicians and diplomats, but also our wider communities and churches. Regardless of how impressed you are with the outcomes, we as churches and Christians must put our money where our mouth is and boldly campaign for climate action. We must fulfil our Christian call to work for justice for the marginalised, and to care for our God-given creation, by continuing to speak out beyond COP. Proverbs 31: 8-9 encourages the church to be bold and courageous: Speak out for those who cannot speak, for the rights of all the destitute. Speak out, judge righteously, defend the rights of the poor and needy. By reflecting on COP from a Christian perspective, we must recognise the need to: Use bolder language Listen to our partners in the Global South Embody one of the alternative pathways to climate justice The UK is making wins thanks to campaigners, having recently announced an end to new oil and gas exploration. This should be celebrated as we approach the end of 2025, but ambitious New Year’s Resolutions for 2026 are necessary. Churches offer a unique platform to engage with climate politics away from formal international diplomacy in local and national communities, where we can lament the destruction that is occurring whilst finding hope in the kingdom of heaven. Continue to support the Stop Rosebank campaign. Interested in growing a relationship with your MP as part of your church’s work for climate justice? Find out about our Constituency Action Network. Source
- Child poverty: a step forward December 10, 2025 1:11 pm
JPIT’s Paul Morrison explains the context for the response from faith leaders to the government’s child poverty strategy Today faith leaders have responded to last week’s child poverty strategy. The headline from the strategy, and the headline from the leaders’ response, is the abolition of the two-child limit on benefits from April next year. The rule meant that the benefit system ignored the needs of third and later children in a family. As soon as the policy was announced a decade ago a coalition of faiths came together to challenge it. The objections were two-fold; that all children are valuable and none should have their needs ignored by the benefit system as well as the substantial and increasing hunger, hardship and poverty the policy inevitably generated. Leading poverty expert Prof Jonathan Bradshaw called it “morally odious” and the “the worst social policy ever”. The strategy ends it, and for that reason alone it should be welcomed with great joy. The process of creating the strategy was also to be welcomed. There was a genuine engagement with people who experience poverty, which went far beyond the usual calls for evidence and consulting with stakeholders groups. The mechanisms for real consultation and co-working with people with experience of poverty were genuinely innovative and not easy to do within the normal Whitehall culture. Alongside this there was an enormous effort to collect evidence and use it to describe poverty and its immediate drivers in the UK. This was not shallow, nor was it seeking evidence to justify a particular pre-decided policy. The strategy’s weakness comes with the next steps. We now have a well described and understood problem. The first step of removing the biggest block to progress – the two-child limit – has been taken, but the next steps outlined in the strategy are small and tentative. The faith leaders wrote to government on two occasions this year, in March and August, asking for a “bold and ambitious” child poverty strategy. The removal of the two-child limit is important, but it alone will not turn the tide on child poverty in the UK. The strategy has opened the door to bold and ambitious action, but it does not describe it. For the many groups that worked together to remove the two-child limit, we must take this moment to celebrate, but not think our work is yet done. Our task now is to build a movement for bold ambitious action from government and across society to create flourishing communities free from poverty. In short, to push the government through that now open door. Source
- Child poverty strategy “a welcome step in the right direction”, say faith leaders December 10, 2025 12:23 pm
Senior faith leaders have issued a joint response to the government’s recently published Child Poverty Strategy. In it, they “celebrate” the most significant policy change in the strategy, the removal of the two-child limit on benefits, which is set to directly lift 450,000 children out of poverty by the end of the decade. Faith groups had campaigned against the limit since its inception. Signatories to the statement include Bishops representing the Church of England and Roman Catholic Church, Senior Rabbi Jonathan Wittenberg, leaders from the Church of Scotland, Baptist Union, Methodist Church and United Reformed Church, a representative of Sikhs in Scotland, and the Territorial Leaders of the Salvation Army. The faith leaders have written jointly to the government on two occasions over the last year, encouraging an ambitious and decisive strategy to tackle rising levels of child poverty. Explaining their concern, they say “as faith leaders we are deeply aware of the effects of poverty on our communities, many of which increasingly feel forgotten and overlooked. It is simply wrong that millions of children across the UK have their health, wellbeing and opportunities blighted by poverty.” The strategy is commended as revealing “with depth and clarity the issues that need to be addressed to turn the tide on child poverty,” but the leaders go on to observe that “it is clear that this strategy alone will not deliver the lasting change we hope to see.” Beyond the scrapping of the two-child limit, the government’s figures show that the other measures committed to within the strategy, many of which are welcome changes, will nonetheless have limited impact. Calling for “sustained political focus, sufficient resources, and the ongoing involvement of those who bring direct lived experience of poverty” – building on the partnership approach taken to developing the strategy – the leaders commit to continuing to play their part “in pursuit of a better future for all our children”. Full statement: The Government’s Child Poverty Strategy is a welcome step in the right direction. As faith leaders we are deeply aware of the effects of poverty on our communities, many of which increasingly feel forgotten and overlooked. We wrote to the Prime Minister and Chancellor earlier this year calling for ambitious and decisive action to drive down child poverty. It is simply wrong that millions of children across the UK have their health, wellbeing and opportunities blighted by poverty. The strategy reveals with depth and clarity the issues that need to be addressed to turn the tide on child poverty. We celebrate the removal of the two-child limit, and commend the government for taking this bold action. People of faith have long opposed the limit because of our enduring commitment to the equal and immeasurable value of every child. Support through the social security system should be determined on the basis of need, not family size. It is regrettable, therefore, that the household benefit cap will continue to trap many families and households in poverty. It is clear that this strategy alone will not deliver the lasting change we hope to see. That will require sustained political focus, sufficient resources, and the ongoing involvement of those who bring direct lived experience of poverty. In our communities and places of worship we will continue to play our part, alongside national and local government, businesses, charities and people of goodwill, in pursuit of a better future for all our children. Revd Richard Andrew, President of the Methodist Conference, The Methodist ChurchRt Revd John Arnold, Bishop of Salford, Roman Catholic Diocese of SalfordRabbi Robyn Ashworth-Steen, former Co-Chair, Assembly of Reform Rabbis and CantorsDr Nicola Brady, General Secretary, Churches Together in Britain and IrelandMatthew Forsyth, Vice President of the Methodist Conference, The Methodist ChurchRt Revd Rosie Frew, Moderator of the General Assembly, Church of ScotlandRevd Lynn Green, General Secretary, Baptist Union of Great BritainMia Hasenson-Gross, Executive Director, René Cassin – the Jewish voice for human rightsCommissioners Jenine and Paul Main, Territorial Leaders, The Salvation Army UK and IrelandRavinder Kaur Nijjar, Advisor, Sikhs in ScotlandGenesis Padgett, Youth President, The Methodist ChurchPaul Parker, Recording Clerk, Quakers in BritainPaul Rochester, General Secretary, Free Churches GroupRt Revd Martyn Snow, Lord Bishop of Leicester, Church of EnglandCatriona Wheeler, General Assembly Moderator, United Reformed ChurchRt Revd Robert Wickham, Chief Executive, Church Urban FundRt Revd and Rt Hon The Lord Williams of Oystermouth (Dr Rowan Williams), former Archbishop of CanterburyRabbi Jonathan Wittenberg, Senior Rabbi, Masorti Judaism Source
- Is Tommy Robinson the person to put Christ back into Christmas? December 3, 2025 5:59 pm
What will Unite the Kingdom’s rally really put into Christmas? Every year, there are calls to ‘put Christ back into Christmas’. The gospel good news message of love, peace, goodwill and hope embodied in Christ’s coming is desperately needed in our society. However, this year that call is coming from a rather unexpected place. Following their ‘Free Speech’ rally in London in September, far right activist Tommy Robinson (real name Stephen Yaxley-Lennon) and his Unite the Kingdom movement are organising an event in Whitehall next weekend which says it is about ‘putting the Christ back into Christmas’. Given the history of Tommy Robinson and his supporters, there are grounds for caution and careful discernment around this event. Robinson came to fame after founding the English Defence League and has served five terms in prison for a variety of offences, including violent assault and fraud. Last year he was given an 18 month jail sentence after pleading guilty to repeatedly breaching a court order by sharing untrue, Islamophobic and defamatory videos about a young Syrian refugee. The child had been a victim of violence, and Robinson’s videos led to a year-long campaign of hate and death threats that required the boy and his family to relocate. Christ is love Christ is self-sacrificial love. Christmas is a celebration of the moment that love entered into the world as a vulnerable human child. Many Christians will welcome any initiative that seeks to centre Christ at Christmas. But focusing on Christ compels us to ask, in relation to anything being done or said in Christ’s name, ‘Is this about love?’ If so, is it an easy love that includes only the likeminded, and those who belong to certain groups – or is it the challenging and all-encompassing love that came in Christ at Christmas, which extends to all? ‘The angel said to [the shepherds], “Do not be afraid; for see – I am bringing you good news of great joy for all the people.”’ (Luke 2:10) Is this love? In May of this year, while in prison, Tommy Robinson made a commitment to follow Christ. We dearly hope that is a sign of God at work in his life, but as Matthew 7:15-20 reminds us, that will only be known by its fruits. ‘The fruit of the Spirit are love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control’ (Galatians 5:22-23). Upon his release from prison, Yaxley-Lennon was a key organiser of Unite the Kingdom’s ‘Free Speech’ rally in September. Speeches expressed hostility to refugees and immigrants, featured Islamophobic rhetoric, and saw the promulgation of the ‘Great Replacement’ conspiracy theory, which stokes fear that ‘other’ religions and races are seeking to overwhelm ethnic white cultures, and that ‘we’ must therefore – in the words of Elon Musk speaking at the rally – “either fight back or die”. Unsurprisingly, given such rhetoric, there was violent disorder towards police and bystanders, with punches, bottles and flares thrown. Perhaps more surprisingly, the event also featured Christian prayer and the use of Christian symbols. In September Christian leaders shared concerns about the co-option of Christianity during the Unite the Kingdom event, writing: “The cross is the ultimate sign of sacrifice for the other. Jesus calls us to love both our neighbours and our enemies and to welcome the stranger. Any co-opting or corrupting of the Christian faith to exclude others is unacceptable.” While the organisers claim that this month’s event is not about politics, immigration or ‘Islam or any other group’, the initial announcement about it included more ‘Great Replacement’ rhetoric and followed Yaxley-Lennon’s familiar pattern of making false and defamatory statements about non-white people in general and Muslims in particular. While there are many legitimate criticisms that could be levelled at London Mayor Sadiq Khan, the announcement labelled him “an unwelcome foreign invader” imposing “Sharia Law”. This is not about honest engagement with the Mayor’s record, policies or intentions, but a clear attempt to generate hostility towards him because of his background. Is this love? Love casts out fear There is a lot of fear around at the moment. Fear of declining living standards and rising costs, fear of violence and crime and, yes, fear of the other. Those fears are real and deep and legitimate, and political answers are needed to address many of them – answers that enable the needs of the poorest and most marginalised to be put at the centre. One of those answers came last week, with the long-awaited end of the two-child benefit limit. There is a posture of competitiveness at the root of the Unite the Kingdom movement. There is talk about making Britain great again, and about the superiority of the UK compared to other countries, of those born in the UK being more somehow deserving than those born elsewhere, and of Christianity compared to other religions. People fear loss, and one way to avoid loss is to beat down the other. But is this love? ‘There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear.’ (1 John 4:18a) Why does perfect love cast out fear? Not because those fears are irrelevant or unjustified, but because fear is about blame and punishment, and God is about grace. Perfect love casts out fear by removing the divisions between us, by making it impossible to point the finger, by untangling the painful realities of life from the ways in which we treat each other. Love does not stoke fear of other human beings. We are called to love our neighbour as we love ourselves, not to hate ourselves, nor to hate our neighbour. Loving your community and country is an expression of this. But when love of nation manifests itself in the rejection of people from other nations, or other faiths, or other races, is this love? Loving the stranger Unite the Kingdom’s rally in September was infused with “them and us” language. ‘We’ – white people born in the United Kingdom – were portrayed as people who […]
-
Recent Posts