I have thought, several times, about writing something about the Rochdale by-election. Every time I think to do so, it takes an even darker and sadder twist. It also feels almost impossible to speak about what is actually happening there – just stating the basic facts of the matter – without running the risk of being aggressively attacked for saying so.

There is, of course, the much publicised run at the seat by George Galloway. A man who seems to have laid out his stall as being utterly anti-Israel and seemingly happy to stoke as much ill feeling as possible in a race-baiting attempt to capture the most aggressively antisemitic portion of the local South Asian Muslim vote. His candidacy has since been endorsed publicly by Nick Griffin, erstwhile leader of the British National Party, who despite the obvious overtures to the Muslim community is quite clear that his primary far-right sentiments are very much completely focused on despising Jews. So, there is option one running on an anti-elite, anti-mainstream, anti-Israel ticket seeking to exploit as much antisemitic feeling as could be possible.

At the other end of the spectrum, the former Labour MP for the area several years ago – Simon Danczuk – has decided to take a tilt at it. For those who don’t know Danczuk’s history, he made a prominent name for himself for two things. First, he was a critic of the disproportionate numbers of asylum seekers placed in Rochdale, which played well to a certain demographic of the local population. But second, he was involved in exposing historic cases of child sexual abuse, including most notably the former Rochdale MP, Cyril Smith. He wrote a book on the issue and had it serialised in the Daily Mail in 2014. But by December 2015, Danczuk was suspended by the Labour Party for sexting a 17-year-old girl. Unsurprisingly, he is viewed as something of a hypocrite. He is now standing for Reform on an largely anti-immigration stance, seeming to take the opposite approach to George Galloway, but similarly hovering around the edge of stoking racial tensions and appealing to a particular portion of the white British population.

Then we have the one-time endorsed but now disowned candidates for Labour and the Greens. First, was Azhar Ali for Labour. In seeking to combat George Galloway, Ali decided to make some antisemitic comments and suggested Israel had effectively purposefully permitted the Hamas attacks as an excuse to systematically attack civilians in Gaza. His initial claim to have fallen for an online antisemitic conspiracy theory by mistake and subsequent apology for it, which allowed Labour to condemn his comments but maintain their support for him, soon changed when other comments came to light concerning ‘people in the media from certain Jewish quarters’ and blanket comments about Israel’s approach to Gaza. He has since been suspended from the Labour Party and Labour are no longer fielding a candidate at all.

Mirroring the rest of this farcical by-election, Guy Otten – the Green Party candidate – withdrew from the race after he made comments concerning the Qur’an, which he claimed was ‘not fit for the 21st century’. This drew accusations of anti-Muslim sentiment. He withdrew himself from the race, though his name remains on the ballot, and remains a Green Party member. But the Greens also now have no official candidate.

Then we have the only two left who have not disgraced themselves, but who face an inevitable and difficult guilt-by-association problem. The Conservative Party candidate – Paul Ellison – faces the problem of Rochdale having last voted Conservative in 1951 and even that being an aberration. Some have suggested he is a local man with a genuine care for Rochdale, but he must also contend with the fact that it is very much care as viewed through the prism of Bamford rather than Deeplish, Heywood or Newbold. He must face the accusation that his are white middle class views of what is best rather than majority local views of what is best for the borough. Some of this is a guilt-by-association problem the Conservatives have faced in such areas for a long time. You can decide for yourself how valid the wider views of the Conservative Party are.

The Liberal Democrat candidate – Iain Donaldson – has been a local councillor for many years and has been endorsed by the last Liberal Democrat MP, who was the representative from 2005-2010. Of course, locally the Liberal Democrat name has not been well regarded because of Cyril Smith. They are seen (however unfair this may be more broadly) as a party of paedophile enablers who refused to take matters seriously. This is particularly significant given, not only the history of Cyril Smith’s offences, but the more recent issue of the paedophile grooming gangs operating in the area. The likes of George Galloway will not mention those things for fear of losing his supporter base – and he is running a very aggressive campaign to keep a particularly odious section of the electorate, who would be both antisemitic and not unhappy to cover over the crimes of majority Asian paedophile groups – but the fear is, given their history, the Liberal Democrats will not be any better and, similarly, Simon Danczuk is unlikely to be anybody’s evident answer if these are matters that concern them.

Beyond this, there are a handful of Independents having a go, but even those who seem to be gaining some ground, there are too many to make a meaningful impact. At best, they may split the vote and cause another undesirable candidate to get in. As one Rochdale resident put it to me, it seems to be a case of voting for whichever candidate will target the group you dislike most. The question being put to the electorate in Rochdale feels like who do you care about least: Muslims, Jews, the working class or kids? With some candidates, you might be able to target more than one at once. That is how the campaigns and the particular choices in front of the town seem to line up.

It would be funny if the whole thing weren’t so sad. It almost feels like a Monty Python sketch about a local by-election. But it isn’t. It is an ignominious line up that makes it almost impossible to decide who to vote for. As one local lady put it well: Rochdale deserves better than this.

What this by-election does achieve is to highlight the deep-seated and real needs of the borough and particularly the town. Sin, the effects of sin and the engrained systemic realities of sin are really not hard to discern. All the markers of social deprivation, and all the attendant problems, are on full display and then turned up to 11 in a campaign full of candidates playing on the very worst of fears, concerns, tension and othering. It is a potent reminder for us believers of the real need in towns like Rochdale and, let’s be honest, specifically in Rochdale itself.

The church at large has broadly abandoned places like this. And I fully understand when we hear about these things from far away, there is almost nothing about them that draws us to these places. Why, when I hear all this, would I want to go there? But the church, in making these calculations for many decades, even a couple of centuries now, is being no better than the mugs gallery of political candidates on offer. If the question for the people of Rochdale is ‘who do you care about least?’ – and we have a sad answer to that question this morning – the question for the church is the same: who do we care about least? Except our answer has been sadly clear for some time. The answer is, the socially deprived. They are the places we are least represented. They are the places our churches are smallest when they are there at all. They are the places we have largely left alone, and refuse to go to, and then, along with all the bleating about ‘cultural transformation’ from certain Christian quarters, we wonder why these places seem so terrible when the answer is as plain as the nose on your face: the church has abandoned them so what cultural transformation will there be!

My heart breaks for Rochdale. I feel sorry for them faced with the political choices they have. But our hope is not in political candidates – and thank God for that because if it were Rochdale has no hope at all. But I am devastated that the thing we do trust in – the thing that would really and truly transform Rochdale and which all Christians insist they believe is the best vehicle for transformation – we aren’t willing to actually apply. The gospel of Jesus Christ, and the church as the vehicle for the gospel, has largely determined places like Rochdale can go to Hell, figuratively and literally.

I am so grateful for the gospel preaching churches that exist in the borough. I am delighted that there is a church now in the town of Rochdale itself, not just in the outer towns and wealthier parts of the borough. But there needs to be a mass movement of Christian people from wealthier affluent places – where our churches are over-represented – in order to reach the whole of our nation for Christ. If places like Rochdale are going to have any real hope at all, Christians who literally trade in hope need to go to them. We need believers to go and be gospel lights who will transform needy towns like Rochdale through the gospel. Let me put you in touch with those who can help you do that if you think you might be one such person, willing to commit to the good of a needy town for the sake of Christ.