Brephos, Keswick, accusation and accountability

I note that my blog articles about the Keswick Convention and Brephos get a mention on one of their follow up podcasts.  The podcast is a discussion with Aaron Edwards and Regan Blanton King about whether or not it is necessary to continue to confront Keswick. 

The specific part of my own article picked up on is where I note that it is CBR-UK and not Keswick that are making all  the running on this.  It’s an odd thing to pick out because it is simply a statement of fact.  It is they who are continuing to run videos and podcasts. It’s their supporters/associates signing letters.  In fact, mine is the only website I’ve found even responding to them.

Now, the thing is, if you are going to try and keep a story running and the story is primarily about your confrontation and accusations,  then,  to be sure it may well be the right thing to do.  However,  it is also important that your claims are assessed and that you are willing to be challenged and confronted yourself. 

Now, my preference was not to get further involved in the specific issue. However, first I note that I’m now named and indeed I’ve had correspondence from people involved.  Second I was concerned to see significant Christian leaders getting involved by signing the letter accusing Keswick in strong terms.  I hope that they will take time to check out these questions themselves and reflect on whether they have rushed to decisions.

So I thought it would be helpful to put some questions back to Brephos/CBR-UK and their allies.  Perhaps someone will answer on their behalf.

  1. The challenge for parachurch organisations, including Keswick too is accountability.  Who are CBR-UK/Brephos accountable to? I note that in the past Dave Brennan has been quick to condemn local churches and their leaders.  How do we ensure that parachurch orgs are accountable to local churches rather than the other way round?
  2. In the latest video Regan Blanton King accuses the Keswick Convention of slander.  What is the exact statement that is slanderous?  As it was a written statement it would be libel.  I note that slander is not expressing an opinion or emotion about how you feel about others. What is the specific untruth told? I have not yet been able to find evidence of this.
  3. Do CBR-UK accept that Keswick are free not to associate with other organizations and that differences of opinion on tactics and approach does not in any way imply a compromised position on an issue, including abortion?
  4. The debate has at times been framed as David v Goliath. Regan Blanton King certainly suggests that Keswick are the big guys here.  What is the relationship of CBR-UK to the US parent organisation?  Who heads up that organisation?  How is it funded? Who by? What is its budget?
  5. Do CBR-UK accept that when making an assessment of an organization and its suitability, people will look at its overall track record?
  6. With this in mind, can CBR-UK confirm whether or not their displays usually include both images of a living foetus and of abortions?  If so, why did they opt at Keswick for just the single display?
  7. Do CBR-UK recognize that offense may not be the only reason for concern but that there may be concerns in terms of distress caused?  Whilst we cannot and should not always be shielding from either, context and available pastoral support do matter.
  8. Further in terms of track record, CBR-UK have previously talked in terms of abortion as child sacrifice and referred to Satanic rituals.  Is this intended as analogical/ metaphorical  or do they believe that there are Satanic cults functioning at high levels? 
  9. What is their position on their former director Wilfred Wong’s conviction for child kidnapping which related specifically to a mistaken assumption of Satanic ritual abuse?
  10. In what ways do their current actions further the work of the Gospel or the pro-life cause?
  11. I note that Regan refers to 1 Corinthians 11:18-20 to suggest that “there must be divisions among you to show who is approved.”. Now contra Fee, I don’t think that the verse is meant to be a positive assessment of division.  I will probably write a separate post on this later. However, this does suggest that there is a view here that Keswick are “unapproved.”. Who decides who is approved? Again, it would be helpful for CBR-UK to confirm that they are not questioning the faith and standing of those involved in the Convention’s leadership. 
  12. In the video, Regan claims that the signatories to his letter mean that around 2000 believers are represented.  On what does he base that figure?  Were the church members and organisation associates balloted before leaders signed? Are those leaders claiming to sign in a personal or representative capacity?

Earlier I mentioned that we need to think about local church accountability. I think that if there really are serious issues on either side that these need raising with the local churches of those involved. 

However, first of all, I would encourage those rushing to judgement to make a careful investigation of the facts and background.