Back in August, I responded to a little spat that developed between the Keswick Convention and CBR-UK’s church focused project Brephos. To all intents and purpose, it should perhaps have been a minor deal. Brephos may feel hard done by that Keswick don’t have space for them in their exhibition but that’s the Convention’s right. It doesn’t mean Keswick are soft or liberal on abortion, it doesn’t mean that they prioritise their reputation over the Gospel and it doesn’t mean that they are failing to stand with brothers and sisters. You would hope that wiser heads would have encouraged CBR UK/Brephos to leave it and get on with their work.
However, over the summer -and I think it is still rumbling on- CBR UK and others seemed determined to push this up the Christian news agenda and in effect put the Convention’s organisers on trial by media and social media. I wrote a few responses and my last one set out questions that I believe CBR-UK themselves need to answer. These are exactly the kinds of questions you would expect them to answer if this was a case being heard and they were being cross examined to verify their own claims and accusations.
I sent my questions to CBR UK but to date still haven’t had an answer back. I would take that as indication that Keswick do not have a case answer. The matter should be closed and I hope that those who amplified it will have opportunity to reflect on how they got caught up in it.
I would have left things there, I probably would not have commented further except that yesterday things bubbled up again. A couple of friends of mine Steve Kneale and Stephen Watkinson included a discussion about the incident on their podcast back in the summer. Then suddenly, weeks later you will see that Steve received a flurry of comments on his blog. These all seem to hi be along the same lines and seem to be coming from CBR UK supporters.
Once again, you get the hyperbole. The podcast is shocking,, Christians are compromised on the issue and if it’s a Gospel issue as suggested, then the implication is that they are compromised on the Gospel itself. With a rhetorical flourish they demand to know what would have happened if William Wilberforce and other Christian reformers from the past had taken the same line.
On a side note, I find the mentioning of Wilberforce fascinating. I hope that those willing to use his name will take as seriously not just his example generically but specifically. We cannot use Wilberforce’s example to call for the church to speak out more loudly on our chosen issue and not have anything to say on issues directly connected with his campaign, whether that’s the ongoing experience of structural discrimination and overt racism that follows through from slavery and then segregation or the current challenge of modern day slavery and trafficking.
Secondly, we would do well to observe that Wilberforce, Clarkson and others did prioritise the campaign. Wilberforce gave a life time in parliament to the cause. However, not every Christian got involved in the same way. Wesley cared passionately about the issue and produced his own pamphlet as well as writing to encourage campaigners. However, he had other priorities, or specifically one other priority, the preaching the Gospel and that was what consumed his time. In fact, the link to the Evangelical Awakening is exactly why the abolition movement was possible so that if Wesley and others had not focused on this, we would not have seen heart changed converts joining the campaign.
Now, that was a side point. What stood out for me though was that, similar to another topic (class), that Steve and I have covered the pattern seems to be in a lot of dialogue that passionate arguments are made, these lean into personal presumptions about the priorities and motives of others. When others respond, you get the impression that their arguments are not heard or represented accurately. In fact, you get the impression that those arguing choose to hear what they want to hear, what they expect to hear. When challenged back, they do not respond.
This is something that forms a trend across multiple issues and I thought it might be helpful just to consider why. Here are a few thoughts of mine. I remember back in the 1990s being involved in student politics for one of the mainstream parties. That meant I sometimes got into debate with those in fringe political movements, especially on the far left. My interlocoturs were convinced not only that their own argument was right but that it was the only possible logical and moral position. This led to a moral certitude. They were convinced of the morality of their position and therefore of themselves. The consequence of this was that if you disagreed with them, then you must be both stupid and immoral. They couldn’t hear other arguments and they certainly could not entertain that someone would genuinely disagree with them unless they had wicked motives. So, instead of engaging with what you said, they engaged with the argument they believed you were making and attacked the kind of person and motives they believed lay behind such an argument.
Whilst I’ve seen this on the left, I’ve also seen it on the right too. I’m also of the opinion that this problem had an impact on conversations about COVID with both the zero COVID and anti vax camps absolutely certain that they were both logically and morally right so that the other side must be both illogical and immoral.
Some have observed a similar phenomenon at work where a personor group of people become convinced that they are basically morally good people and therefore whatever they must think and do will also be morally good. It hs been suggested that this was to some extent how we got drawn into the Iraq War. Saddam Hussein had proven himself immoral over the years, , we had a government committed to an ethical foreign policy, they were decent, liberal, compassionate people so how could they be accused of an unethical conflict or authoritarianism?
After I’d initially written about Brephos, I had some push back. One or two people took time to write to me and even talk on the phone. I appreciate them taking the time to do so. However, one point of discussion stood out. When people recounted to me Brephos’ account and position, I responded and pointed out that this was their perspective, their argument but that there were other sides to the story, other witnesses, other perspectives. In one conversation I was asked “so are you saying that Brephos are lying?”
Well, as it happens, I think it is possible to see how someone could get a mistaken perception of things and get caught up in their agenda so that on reflection I think we should be cautious about rushing to say that they were, I find it striking that the assumption could be that the Keswick Convention were definitely in the wrong and that there was significant sin to repent from, potentially including a level of dishonesty. Yet it seemed shocking, not really something considered that Brephos might be anyway in the wrong.
I think this comes back to the original framing of the debate. On the one hand, we had plucky, straight talking, ordinary Christians from a small group just trying to stand up for what is right at whatever cost. On the other side, we had Big Eva, a faceless, corporate entity seeking to protect itself. Of course what was forgotten was that it was individual Christians wh were being named and accused.
Now, as I’ve said above, I think the Brephos-Keswick incident needs to be treated as case closed. WE cannot allow ongoing trial by media. If we care about the Gospel and if we care about the fat eof the unborn then we need to consider whether this spat serves the interests of either.
However, I think that we might do well to learn some lessons for wider engagement, especially when dealing wither with non primary issues such as church polity, approaches to gifts of the Spirit, modes and timing of baptism or how many services to have on a Sunday, or, it is about tactics rather than convictions.
The key lesson here is about how we can perceive ourselves and the moral rightness of our argument so that this affects our perception of ourself more widely and of others.
Faithroots 