It wasn’t quite what I expected to wake up to this morning but I had a notification of an article linking to one of mine on my blog. The link was from quite a big name Christian writer and blogger. Should I be flattered to receive attention. Well it seems not. As you can read here, what I was treated to was quite the highly personalised character assassination.
You see, I’d written two articles last week responding to the vote on abortion and how we respond as Christians. I had set out in one why the planned decriminalisation of abortion up until birth was a dangerous move. However, I’d also written about how we can respond in less than helpful ways. I’d identified two articles that I thought were unhelpful. This person, The Wee Flea had penned one of them.
Now, I’m sure there is room for disagreement about how we engage on subjects, especially about the language we use. I hope there’s also space for us to disagree where we think that someone hasn’t quite got the detailed facts right about what is happening and why. I welcome push back to my views and in fact from time to time have offered a right to reply here. I’m not sure that David has read my article rightly and there seem to be some misunderstandings on his part but I appreciate that there may be a case for his approach. I’m happy to hear it. Howeve, that wasn’t what I was treated to!
Instead I was told that I had committed “friendly fire” and that this was somehow deeply wounding to David. What I wrote was “hurtful and discouraging”. Additionally, I was “cowardly” and “manipulative.” Finally, I was seeking to “get a seat at the table” in the name of “niceness” by taking a “middle of the road” approach. I’m not quite sure where this hypothetical “seat at the table” is but it seems to have something to do with the “Evangelical subculture.”
Well all of that it a little surprising because I don’t know what counts as “friendly fire” but all of that seems pretty personal and not that friendly to me! As for seats at tables and getting on in Evangelical subculture, I note that I’m the bloke with a tiny blog, plodding away unnoticed in the West Midlands of the UK. I’m not the guy with the big name blog, invitations to speak at major conferences and columns for Premier Christianity, Evangelicals Now and Christianity Today.
As for cowardly. I’d encourage David, or failing that, his readers to engage with what I’ve written over time about big ethical issues including abortion and euthanasia. I think it’s fair to say that I was talking about euthanasia and the coming danger when few people were particularly concerned about it. I can say hand on heart that no I don’t duck issues. Nor do I deny the need for robust challenge. I’m certainly not someone sitting on the sidelines with my opinions as he suggests.
Now, I think that David has responded so personally because he seems to have read my article as making presumptions about him personally. It’s worth noting that most of my article actually responded to James Mildred’s article for Evangelicals Now. As it happens, I have a lot of time and respect for James and so my comments about one article should not be seen as anything more than that.
And I wonder if he has heard things that I don’t say in my article because he is used to and presumes that will be the accusation. He seems to operate in a highly personalized world. For example, I’ve read and reread my article and I can’t see at any point where I might be accusing him of lacking compassion
Well, my articles speak for themselves and I’m happy to engage with disagreement and challenge to my position. I’ll even take a guest response article on this. However, what I am concerned about is that when we disagree as Christians we disagree well. That can and should at times be robust. However, I think that there is a way of doing that without being personal or making presumptions about the motives or character of others.
—
As a PostScript
David has written on his own comments stating that his comments were not directed at me personally but that he recognises they could be read that way. I am happy to accept that clarification and apology. Indeed my reason for writing here was not our of offence but to try and encourage all of us to do bettter.
I have acknowledged this to him. I’ve also asked him to show me where I accuse him of the things he claims I have. I cannot find those things directly or indirectly in my article but would happily clarify if shown where.
Faithroots 