One of the concerns I have with current Evangelical discourse as exemplified by the Keswick/Brephos thing is that like my headline it leans into an approach where big accusations are made that get personal and go to character and motives. Any pushback results in a “we would love to talk more response.
In that context, have a listen to David Robertson, aka “The Wee Flea” from about ten minutes in here. Notice the accusations are exactly of the kind in my headline, the Keswick Convention are cowardly and weak. He slams their actions and then at the end says that of course if he is wrong, the Convention can get in touch to talk about it and prove their innocence.
You can listen to his podcast here
Because of his prominence and perhaps reflecting my weariness at seeing brothers and sisters subjected to such attacks, I responded in his comments section, something I don’t tend to do too much these days.
First of all, I made this comment on his page.
Maybe I start strongly there but that is against your backdrop of him opening up from the start in brothers and sisters, indeed friends with a full salvo. David’s response is as follows.
It starts off reasonably enough, he states his reasons for refusing my suggestion and even finishes with a willingness to engage in email conversation (though I had to then ask him for his email address!). However, note the point in the middle where, my gentle request that the podcast be removed and edited to take out the comments that attack character and motives is described as hectoring.
I noted this in the following comment.
His response was as follows
Now, along with hectoring, I, by asking him to remove accusations against the character and motives of others, am acting like a lawyer and issuing cease and desist demands Well, as it happens I’m legally trained. I read law at Sheffield back in the 1990s. I’m not a lawyer though but I do know what a cease and demand looks like and it looks nothing like my comments.
I’m also intrigued to know where the threat is in my request. I’ve not and have no intention of seeking to enforce my request. I leave that with his conscience. However, it seems that instead of listening to another, David has gone on the attack against me. This once again begs the question, how do we get to a good conversation?
A matter of emergency? Well no but then I didn’t say there was. I did though say that it was urgent. I am concerned that correcting the record when the character and motives of others has been maligned doesn’t count as a matter of urgency. It seems that those who were upset merely by Keswick saying that Brephos were not linked to them seemed to see their calls for repentance a matter of urgency.
David talks about the Keswick Convention having their cake and eating it by commenting publicly. Yet, the facts of the matter is that something happened on their doorstep that was intentionally focused on their attendees. They responded with a brief statement to their local newspaper. That should be no surprise. They’ve not gone on the attack against Brephos. They’ve not commented more at all, even to defend themselves.In fact, I think that defending Keswick has pretty much been left to me and the Building Jerusalem podcast. Neither of us would claim to be the big guns here!
Further, I think David is suffering from a little forgetfulness when he says that he only commented on the Keswick press statement and did not engage in extreme accusation. Unfortunately David goes well beyond disagreeing. Let me refresh his memory.
He says
“I think that this [Keswick’s position] is indicative of where so much of the church is…backsliding.”
“I think this is cowardice, weakness on the part of the Keswick Convention.”
“well how about loving and living for the unborn”
“and what do you mean by ‘co-operating with the police?'”
As though it is sinister that a public event which due to its size involves working with the police for public safety reasons.
“Imagine if …the anti slavery movement came …would the Keswick Convention have said ‘it’s nothing to do with me guv? I suspect they would.”
To sum up, Keswick are accused of being backsliding, weak cowards who would side against the abolition of slavery. That moves well beyond comment and disagreement.
Well, I wrote in more detail by email to David. For interest, this is what I wrote.
“Dear David,
Thank you for being open to further correspondence and discussion regarding your podcast comments about the Keswick Convention and Brephos.
I appreciate too that you may disagree with the convention leaders/spokespersons and how they approached the events relating to the CBR UK/Brephos display in the town during the Convention. That is your right.
I think if we were dealing with a one off matter, unrelated to the Convention themselves, then I might be inclined to agree that they would be wise to hold their counsel. I think as you look further into the background, it becomes clearer as to why they opted not to
I don’t expect you to change your mind on this but I hope you will appreciate the problem with not merely choosing to disagree but to accuse others of cowardice and then to insinuate that they would have sided with the slave trade. This goes beyond disagreement and challenge to an attack on character. We should be so careful about those things.
I also wonder about the appropriateness of making those allegations and attacks on character, then demanding that those who have been subject to accusation in effect prove their own innocence. It is much easier to have your reputation trashed than to recover it when defending yourself. This is specifically the case, when you have not merely been accused of doing wrong but when accusation goes to the heart of someone’s character.
It is important for us to remember when we talk about the Keswick Convention and their response that we are not talking about a mere institution but individual brothers and sisters in Christ. We should be alert to the impact that having these accusations thrown about has on them and their families.
It is for those reasons that once again I ask that you remove the segment of the podcast dealing with Keswick. Of course, by all means re-record and explain why you would have handled things differently I’m sure that as you do, you would want to consider the following.
- That the Convention have a consistent track record when it comes to ethical issues including abortion as well as euthanasia I know personally as I’ve listened to lectures and seminars going back further.
- That Brephos were specifically in town in order to engage with Convention goers, this was not a coincidental display. I would suggest that if someone specifically turns up on your doorstep to engage with your guests and as a result causes a disturbance to your neighbours that the matter then becomes your business.
- That Keswick are free to relate to who they choose. That distancing yourself from the actions of other believers is not the same as distancing yourself from brothers and sisters.
- That the Convention is a significant sized event, especially in relation to the size of the town and so there has for a number of years been a public policing matter. There is nothing sinister or worldly about the Convention being happy to work closely with the police.
- That CBR UK normally use a double display including an image of an unborn, living baby and one of an aborted one. CBR UK have been asked why they chose to amend the display in Keswick and are yet to answer the question along with other questions that have been raised with them about their tactics and approach,
I hope that is possible to have a better conversation on how we handle ethical issues as believers . Sadly this is currently not happening through the way in which CBR UK/Brephos are seeking to conduct the debate relying on insinuation. Nor is it helped when this is amplified by those with social media platforms. I look forward to your response.
Kind Regards
Dave”
Am I being unfair here? Am I hectoring?
Well, David has mentioned my email in his blog comments. That’s a little bit cheeky because it means that his readers have access to his interpretation and comments in my correspondence but not the correspondence itself. So one of my aims here is to make sure it is available in the public domain so people can make their own budgets. Note too that this is what we have seen a lot of with Brephos. We are told by them what Keswick have said and done. We have their interpretation and assessment but we don’t actually have the conversation and what Keswick said.
Anyway, here’s the next bit of that exchange with David.
David seems to be operating under a misapprehension here. He talks about you, your and yourself as though I’m from the Convention. I am obviously not. So it simply is not the case that the Convention are criticising others in public whilst insisting that they as brothers cannot.
There again, not am I. I’m simply saying that we shouldn’t attack motives or character.
Again note the needless ramping up of rhetoric. It is reasonable to say to someone “what you said is wrong, please retract it.”. Yet this is painted pejoratively as making demands.
David says that I haven’t presented evidence that his podcast is wrong. However, that isn’t correct either. He may not like it or agree with it but the evidence is there. First because the “wrongness” is about going beyond critiquing behaviour to attacking character and motives. David may think something is clearly but he really hasn’t got any basis to make that allegation, not to accuse others if backsliding. This is of course the central point and one David never engaged with. His fall back is always that he can make those character attacks because he believes them. How very post+modern. Yet he never provides reason as to why he might have competence and standing to make those judgements.
Secondly, because David paints the picture of the Convention going public in an unnecessary, unprovoked public attack via secular media against a Christian organisation going about their own business. Yet, this is not what happened. There was, even on Brephos’ own account, a dispute between them and the Convention. It is Brephos who take this out to the secular world to make publicly.
Well, I made sure there was no confusion about my non-role at the Convention (even though there was no need or basis for this confusion). Here is my
Again, the justification for making accusations that he isn’t us in a position to make is “I think they are true.
There is also a category error I. His response. It is pretty obvious that I have not attributed motives to Brephos. I’ve simply stated that their actions moved the issue into the public square. I don’t even, at that point, comment on whether or not they should or could. I simply note that they did and therefore Keswick had a right to respond.
Notice too that David is quick to decide who has anything to contribute to a conversation. In terms of what was added, that he has really not answered.
- The question about whether or not Christians can and should go beyond dealng with words and actions to character and motives.
- That he only offers and reacts to a partial narrative. He claims that what I add doesn’t change things but fails either to refute the detailed account or show how it doesn’t contradict his position.
I get the impression this is ending the conversation. I guess I may get an email reply but I’m not sure what that will add at this point.
So, I want to repeat again. There are ways that we should conduct conversations. It is absolutely right that if we disagree with others that we challenge them, robustly even. At no point, do I say that David shouldn’t say if he disagrees with the Convention. What I do ask is that we stop taking bites out of each other, that we stop attacking character and motives. Surely that’s not too much to ask?
As a postscript, he didn’t respond to the email.
Faithroots 