The presenter, Richard Bacon, recently caused a stir on Newsnight when he had the following to say about the current discussions on flags:
This is an argument that was previously picked up by Billy Bragg on the same programme (on a different night). You can hear him making a similar point around 2:45 in the below video:
I think the point in both cases is a simple but eminently valid one.
There is nothing inherently racist or morally problematic about flags. They are, in and of themselves, just pieces of material with a pattern on them. Nor does flying one make one a racist either. They can be flown or shown benignly and they can be flown or shown malignly. The display, in and of itself, is fundamentally neutral. The question – which both Bacon and Bragg push into – is how does one tell one from the other?
To take people out of the equation for a moment, let’s just think of flying of a flag on a ship. In many cases, a flag might signal nothing more than where that ship has come from. However, some flags – just by virtue of what they are – signal intent. What is anybody supposed to assume about a ship flying a skull and crossbones, for example? The ship doesn’t have to be doing anything at the time for its malign intention to be clear. Then there are flags that might generally signal where a ship has come from but that, in a particular context, might imply ill intent. For example, think of a ship flying a Russian flag sailing around Polish territory in Baltic Sea in the current climate. A Russian flag would be signalling more than merely where that ship has come from and isn’t just a matter of sincere patriotism.
Now let’s apply that same logic to the current spate of flag-waving. It could well be that many are simply waving flags entirely benignly. I think many probably are. It is equally possible that the waving of national flags is not necessarily morally and intentionally neutral. One doesn’t need a very long memory to remember how Union Jacks and George Crosses were used in the 1970s and 1980s specifically to indicate this group was out to attack Asian and Black people. One of the reasons the question of flags in the UK has become so fraught is because of their (recent) historical associations. That doesn’t mean everyone waving them now has those same intentions as far-right groups from the 1970s, but it does mean they can’t be totally surprised if others wonder what their intentions are and what they are seeking to indicate because it is not always clear. Our national flag(s) can be used to unify and celebrate, but they equally have been used – and are often used – to intimidate and stoke division.
Which brings us to the point that Richard Bacon and Billy Bragg both highlight. Both recognise there is no inherent problem with flag waving. Both recognise that one can fly a flag with good intent. Both recognise that some of the people flying flags are not racist, not seeking to intimidate and not seeking to stoke division. But they both also recognise that what one communicates may be determined by a particular context.
Richard Bacon cites Gerri Halliwell wearing her Union Jack dress while Billy Bragg cites football fans supporting England. The flag-bearers in these situations do not feel the need to affirm their non-racist intent because there is a clear context for what they are doing. There is a clear and obvious benign reason that doesn’t carry any potential racist overtones. By contrast, in the context of asylum hotels being picketed and anti-immigrant rhetoric being liberally flung around – and when the organisers of various marches have longstanding, well-documented far-right backgrounds at which flags are being waved fervently – the context in which flags then get waved is minimally ambiguous and, as Richard Bacon I think rightly says, almost certainly implies a particular point being made. It’s not that waving flags is inherently problematic, it’s that waving them in this particular context is making a particular statement. Whilst it’s true that some may naively simply be benignly waving flags, it’s hard to avoid the more obvious intentional statement most flying flags at this particular contextual cultural moment are trying to make.
My purpose in raising this is less to do with the issue of flags themselves. I suspect most people have made up their minds on this already. Rather, I think there is something in understanding what is going here for the church.
In exactly the same way as surrounds the issues of flags, the church operates in times, cultures and contexts. There are things we might do that, in and of themselves, are morally neutral or that – in the context of our church service – is entirely understood one particular way. But we cannot escape the fact that we operate in cultures and times where our assumed intent may not be entirely clear. What we think we are communicating might not be what is perceived by others. In fact, there may be things we do that were once benign but in our current cultural context, or in a particular political moment, may be understood to be far more charged than we realise.
To take a real but slightly silly example, I remember growing up singing the hymn Glorious Things of Thee Are Spoken. But even as a child, it seemed weird to a lot of people that we stood up in church and sing to the tune of the German national anthem. I can absolutely see that, in our current cultural moment, it may be weird but not communicating much more than that, to sing this to that tune around 1940, might communicate something altogether less welcome and much more problematic. It’s not that the thing is wrong of itself, just that in a particular cultural context and moment, our intent is easily misconstrued and, for some, might even indicate something particular malign.
But there are other less silly and perhaps less benign examples too. It wasn’t that long ago that churches used to put rainbow flags or banners all over their churches. Rainbow guitar straps with the accompanying socks and sandals were a particular 70s favourite. These things didn’t convey anything significant then. You don’t have to be a keen cultural commentator to see how churches flying rainbow flags and making lots of rainbow motifs in general, in our current cultural context, might be making something of a point. It’s plausible that a naïve church stuck in the 1970s might still be waving rainbow bits and pieces around obliviously, but for the most part it isn’t that difficult to see how that almost certainly doesn’t apply to the majority.
And perhaps this latter example is the telling one. Every conservative evangelical in the Western world clearly understands our cultural moment and the things any church is communicating by waving rainbow flags. There are some contexts where rainbows wouldn’t necessarily carry the same connotations, but I would bet my bottom dollar most evangelicals would want to steer clear just in case. When we clearly understand the cultural and contextual flying of rainbow flags in the church, might we possible understand something of the cultural and contextual flying of Union Jacks and George Crosses in this particular cultural and contextual moment? After all, it’s not football and last night of the proms that anybody is concerned about.
We are seeing some interesting developments here. Sikh flags added to the lampposts near the Gudwara at the bottom of our road, Jamaican flags appearing on lamposts outside shops. And those flags will be also seen differently by different people. Is it a joining in with something joyous, adding to it and if so are those “raising the flag happy with the addition of other flags or do they see it as exclusive? Or is it a defensive response to what they see as an attempt to impose and intimidate – an act of defiance? But what it does suggest is that the presence of flags and mixed messages may well be awakening other senses of identity. This too has implications for church – our actions may provoke unexpected responses
“Whilst it’s true that some may naively simply be benignly waving flags.”
As ever, Stephen, very thought-provoking, helpful and indeed challenging to conservative evangelicals in application. Thank you.
One quibble, though.
The use of word “naively”.
Am I wrong to see that as a patronising, dismissive “we understand your motives better than you do, because we’re wiser and more intelligent” judgement?
It wasn’t intended as patronising. It was intended to carry the meaning that some may intend one thing genuinely but are naive about the context in which they are doing it. So not that I judge their intentions better than them, but that I judge the cultural context such that their stated intention seems, not untrue, but naive.
I’m with you on this. There can be two types of naievity here 1. I am oblivious to other ways it could be taken. 2. And across the board I think this is the bigger risk for Christians … I know exactly how it could be taken but that’s the problem of other people. It is naive to think that there are no negative consequences and/or I bare no responsibility. To take your example of Glorious things it could be naive in 1940 to miss the German national anthem link. It would also be naive to say “I know there is a link but people should be able to work it out and it’s there own fault if they don’t”. We could pick on a whole host of songs … The decision to set a worship song to the Hovis advert tune, or more seriously still lyrics that have sexual connotations in today’s culture – at worst where they could be heard with an abusive tone. The worship leader is naive if they don’t think they carry responsibility for the impact of the song choice.
Thank you. That’s clear and helpful
What made Bacon’s words so contentious was that they amounted to saying that if you want to fly a Union Jack outside your house at this cultural moment then you are ‘probably’ a little bit racist.
I do not believe that is true. And I don’t believe that the majority of people in this country believe that is true either – and if so, isn’t it THAT which should be called out and not the waving of the flag?
Just to give a Biblical example. Jesus allowed his disciples to pluck grain on the Sabbath fully aware that the Pharisees (and those who followed them) would understand this to be a disrespecting of the Sabbath. But Jesus did it anyway – and called out the Pharisees for their misapplication of the law.
I’m not arguing that flying a Union Jack is in that same category. But at the very least it illustrates that sometimes it is not wrong to do things that other people may misunderstand and judge us for. It may even be commendable to do so.
To be clear – there may well be good reasons for not flying a Union Jack outside our houses – but I’m not convinced that what Richard Bacon thinks about it is one of them!
But that is where Richard Bacon (in my view) is probably correct. Not that flying flags is inherently racist, but that in choosing to put one up in this cultural moment – if you are someone who does not routinely fly flags – you appear to be making a particular ethno-national point. At a minimum it is ambiguous. But it isn’t a huge assumption, against the backdrop of the live rhetoric, the marches going on and current cultural noise, that a political ethno-national point is being made by those who suddenly decide putting up flags to be a good idea, when their patriotism never led them to it before.
Whether the majority of people agree with that view or not, I don’t know. I’ve not seen any polls on it that have framed the question in that very specific way. But I think it is right.
You are right that Jesus allowed his disciples to do things that other may misjudge them for. However, that was out of need i.e. his love for his disciples and their need to eat overruled not only a desire to avoid offence but the very letter of the Law of Moses itself. However, all things being equal, 1 Cor 8 is pretty clear that the principle of love means we *ought not* to do things that will be misjudged, even where we are free to do them, for the sake of others. The plucking of grain was an example of a higher need – the principle of love at play in the opposite direction – overruling even the law.
I think your point here would be valid if there was some absolute necessity by which people had to fly a flag at this cultural moment. But as far as I can see, there is not. So even if people are doing it with no ill intent (I’m sure some are), the principle of love (if they are believers who are moved by scripture) would push them not to do it. However, I think Richard Bacon’s point is valid and it is much worse than that because many who suddenly have a penchant for flying flags are not doing so out of need, nor benignly but naively, but to make a specific ethno-national point that is absolutely unloving and, in my view, utterly unacceptable biblically.
I think your basic point is sound – it is just the application of it that I’m dubious about. If you were speaking of a swastika (for example) I would not argue – that image is so unambiguously associated with evil.
The question is: is it reasonable to associate the St George’s flag or the Union Jack with evil in a similar way? It seems we disagree on the answer to that question.
But what is of particular interest to me is WHY we disagree.
I can’t help but wonder if Richard Bacon would use the same argument to someone who was flying (for example) a Palestinian flag? If a Union Jack might be considered racist then it seems possible that Palestinian flag might also be considered anti-semitic.
I’ll leave it there. As always your posts stir my thinking like few others! thank you for that.
I think the point I made in my post was that there are some flags, Jolly Roger for example, that always indicate ill intent. Clearly a swastika would fit under that same bracket.
The wider point is that there are flags that are potentially benign that might be viewed as malign in a particular context. I gave Russian flags being waved around the Polish coastline at this particular moment in time. It seems to me the flying of British/English or Palenstian flags could easily fall into a similar category – not that they are inherently indicating ill intent – but in a particular context could readily and reasonably be construed as such,