In my articles looking at the controversy concerning the Keswick Convention and CBR-UK/Brephos, I wanted to primarily deal with why it is absolutely fine for Christian organisations to differ from and not want to be associated with the actions of other Christian organisations. This should not be taken as an act of disunity, nor, even more so, should it be used to imply that the organisation is soft or compromised on an issue.
However, I think it was clear that I also wasn’t particularly favourable to the tactics of CBR and Brephos. However, I have since followed up with an article raising specific questions for CBR-UK and their associates. I also thought it might be helpful to set out a bit more of my reasoning here in terms of my wider concerns about the type of approach..
First of all, I want to be clear that this is about strategy and tactics, not about being soft on an issue. It is also not about protecting reputation with unbelievers.
I’ve spoken up for the unborn on numerous occasions over the years. Back in the early 90s at University I had the opportunity to speak in debates from time to time and in my first debate, the question of abortion came up. I was able to speak as a Christian and explain why I was convinced of the sanctity of life. Whenever issues relating to abortion have come up in Parliament, I’ve written to my MP, peers and ministers asking them to vote in favour of the unborn child. As a pastor, I’ve ensured that teaching on why the life of the unborn matters has happened. I’ve also written here on Faithroots about abortion as well as about end of life issues.
Abortion matters because the baby in the womb is a human being made in God’s image. God’s Word forbids us from taking a life. Sadly, somewhere close to 250,000 babies are aborted each year, with 600,000 live births that means somewhere between ¼ and 1/3 of children do not make it to birth. These figures should shock us to the core and move us to mourning, to prayer and yes to action.
There are three issues though that we might want to consider. First, we know that abortion is important but exactly how important? Some pro-life campaigners have suggested that it is the most important issue that believers face today. In terms of the direct cost to life, it certainly significant. However, I cannot agree that it is the single most important issue. There are other ways in which we can deny and attempt to diminish the image of God in other human beings including through racism, there are other ways in which we can cause human suffering. More than that though, there is more than one way that we can die, not just physically. Jesus tells us to fear the one (God) who has power over what happens after death but not the one who can only kill the body. In other words, our eternal future matters more than our earthly hope. The greater evil is that of seeking to deny people the hope of the resurrection. Our greater priority remains the message of the Gospel. That must always come first for all believers and if I as a church elder let any other issue become the primary concern of our church then I’ve got it badly wrong.
Secondly, how do we speak of abortion? I agree that sometimes the language can become euphemistic when we talk about terminations. If we believe that the foetus in the womb is a living human being, then we must be clear that abortion means killing them. Like it or not, that’s why the 1967 Abortion Act didn’t decriminalise abortion, it provided exceptions for when it was justifiable.
I think we have to use the language carefully though. I am uncomfortable with language that paints the mother as a cold-blooded murderer. I believe that in many cases, the mother is also a victim of a society that cares neither about her baby nor her. The idea that abortion is about her choice and bodily autonomy is in the main a myth. To put it bluntly, abortion is more about men and society not wanting to take responsibility.
Some campaigners are keen to insist that we go further and that we must describe abortion as child sacrifice. I guess in a sense, we can talk about any situation where a culture prioritises its idols over the lives of others as a a form of sacrifice. This is as true when our idols are liberal capitalism as when they are carved images. However, again I wonder whether it is helpful to use the language beyond shock value and how helpful it is to mothers. The reality is that people are not thinking in terms of offering their children up to a god.*
I think the issues are clear enough and emotive enough. I don’t think that we need to over emote, and this begins to feel less like public education and more like manipulation. It seems that there are some who conclude that the ends justifies the means.
This leads to a further point. CBR-UK in their public facing campaigns make use of large scale images and models being projected. At the Keswick Convention, they displayed an image of a foetus in the womb. This is part of CBR-UK’s usual strategy with the aim of drawing people in to conversation. The argument goes that women who have seen images of an unborn baby and grasp the detail and beauty are more likely to think of their baby as a living human being and less likely to seek an abortion. I can see the argument there but again note that this is relying primarily on emotional pressure.
I also understand that alongside the image of a living baby of the womb, it is reported that CBR-UK also display images of abortions. I would personally be concerned about this because that definitely sounds like a move towards shock tactics.
Now, at the Keswick Convention, I understand that only the image of the living foetus was used. It would be helpful if CBR-UK/Brephos would be able to confirm first of all, if this is the case, secondly if they do normally use images of aborted foetus and thirdly if so, why they opted to do things differently at Keswick. It seems strange to only include part of the display.
Furthermore, I think it is questionable to say the least, to only put up half of your display and then when concerns are raised about your organisation to say “what is offensive about this?” CBR-UK/Brephos will know full well why their campaign tactics are controversial and whilst we might even argue that the overall message should not offend, they should be able to see why many would struggle with the approach. They should be able to appreciate that even if they believe their tactics to be right why others including the Convention organisers and the local community would be nervous about their display coming to town.
CBR-UK/ Brephos do need to clearly and fully answer the questions raised about the reported move from a dual screen display with both live and aborted foetus images to the single image. We need to be careful in our campaigning that we don’t become associated with bait and switch techniques.
Furthermore, whilst they might argue that the image of a live foetus is not itself offensive, that people will get the implicit message behind it. But the focus seems to have been on “why do you find this offensive.” This is to miss the point “causing offence is not the only factor in decision making.” For those who have gone through an abortion or been affected indirectly by abortion, the overall message may be deeply distressing. This is not to say that we should shield people from distressing messages. However, context and pastoral support matter.
More than that, the subject may be the source of emotional distress to others regardless of the wider implications concerning abortion. What about the mother who lost a baby in the womb? What about the single woman or married couple for whom it seems that they never will be able to have children.
Again, I’m not saying that we must always shield from distress. However, if we are not alert to the wider pastoral implications, then we may need to be reminded again of what it means to value others as made in God’s image. We should not trample thoughtless over the lives of others on the basis that “the means justifies the end.”
Brephos have focused their response in on seeking to respond to and correct other reports of issues around the display. I was not initially going to respond to them but on reflection they are relevant.
You see, during their event, some counter protectors attempted to cover up the image with a white banner which said “trigger warning” on it. It is worth remembering that when you publicly protest you invite counter protest and your opponents are entitled to free speech too.
Now in addition, apparently a counter protestor attempted to snatch and run off with part of the display, ripping it in the process. A Brephos volunteer managed to retrieve it but in the process, the counter protestor fell to the ground. This was reported as a street fight.
Brephos have responded to clarify that it wasn’t a street fight. They also say that the police have told them that this was criminal damage and they were entitled to defend their property.
We might note two things here. Brephos despite criticising Keswick for aligning with the police and protecting their own reputation are keen to defend their own reputation and to do so by seeking and claiming the favour of the police.
But I don’t think this means they are exonerated or even commended. To be sure, I can imagine a police officer saying “oh yes you were legally within your rights to defend your property”. This does not mean it was wise to chase and grab at material. The risk of that looking like a scuffle and one or more persons being injured should be evidently predictable.
We need to be wise to potential outcomes when planning our activities.
One of the wider concerns I have about Christians engaging on ethical issues is that at times it reminds me of the behaviour of some early Christians who seemed keen to get the name of martyr. I hear reports of street Preachers who have got themselves on the wrong side of the police and whilst I might want to defend their fight to free speech, I do wonder about whether or not some intentionally push buttons in the hope of triggering a response. They become martyrs and prove that authorities are against them. It’s also a tactic used in political campaigning.
Whilst it may be a clever tactic in terms of energising your own base, I’m not convinced that it is healthy. I don’t think it helps convince others. I certainly don’t think it helps others who want to publicly testify to the Gospel or speak up on ethical issues.
Now, I appreciate that some readers will disagree with me and be perfectly comfortable with the strategy. I appreciate that and can understand why others take a different approach. I simply want to point out that there are dangers, costs and questions to consider in any approach.
I also want to be clear that even if I’m not convinced of the other approach that I would defend the right of people to take that approach. We should be concerned about recent moves to make it harder, if not nigh on impossible to protest and campaign.
I’m sure that we could benefit from an open, good faith conversation between those who favour more direct action and those like me who are currently unconvinced. I’m sure we’ve things to learn from each other. I hope that it has been helpful to those who align more with Brephos’ approach to hear this perspective and I pray that more fruitful conversations will follow.
^ Admittedly, I’d assumed that the references to child sacrifice were intended at a metaphorical level to show the horror of what is happening with abortion. However, there are some suggestions that some campaigners at least intend it literally. See for example this and this.
Faithroots 