The Building Jerusalem podcast recently discussed our public display in Keswick during the Convention which drew public criticism from the Keswick leadership. This was the basis for a wider discussion critiquing our tactics, in Keswick and more generally. The pod can be accessed here.
We welcome this kind of public engagement; these are important matters that need to be discussed. We would prefer to have this discussion live with the two Stephens, either on their platform or on ours, but sadly our offer to continue the important conversation they started has still not been taken up. We reiterate that open invitation.
Here we have already analysed and responded to some of the Building Jerusalem podcast, but we felt it would be helpful to have a written response also, for those who prefer to read. So, the following notes outline the perspective of Brephos on some of the issues raised by Building Jerusalem, as well as our response to their coverage of the Keswick story itself.
What actually happened at Keswick…
It is important to stress that the Keswick leadership did not simply disassociate themselves from us (as the podcast reported): they directly asked us not to come, essentially repudiating our ministry. They repeatedly declared themselves “saddened” by our actions, but “delighted” to work with the police.
Moreover, they chose to believe and repeat hostile reports and online rumours, regardless of source and motive, rather than actually listen to the testimony of Christians, including a pastor, who participated in the display. There was a distinct lack of charity in their engagement with us throughout.
Building Jerusalem accuse us of “piggy-backing” on the Convention to pursue our agenda. In response, it is worth saying that the Keswick Convention do not own the town of Keswick or have a monopoly on Christian work within the town, even within Convention weeks. There is no reason why other Christians groups would not seek to engage those attending the Convention, not least when Christians are a key part of our demographic, and our survey work in Keswick was intended for Christian respondents.
Building Jerusalem stress their pro-life and anti-abortion stance, which we welcome. They also point out that the Keswick Convention have publicly stated their pro-life position. This is true, nevertheless, it is fair to ask what have Keswick actually done publicly for the pro-life cause.
Last year’s “Human”-themed Convention was a tailor-made opportunity to engage with abortion. However, the sum total of their pro-life content seemed to be just one lecture in one of the three weeks.
Is this sufficient at a time when a quarter of a million little humans are killed in our own nation every year?
The lecture (by Celia Wyatt) was very hard to find online (for a time it was deliberately concealed) and supported "non-directive" pregnancy counselling, meaning an openness to support women in accessing abortion, if that is their choice. It is hard to see what is clearly or unmistakably "pro-life" about such counselling, or indeed such a presentation, whatever the motivations may be.
Like many churches and Christian organisations, the Convention appear to exaggerate their pro-life credentials. The fact that they were so uncomfortable with our image of a living fetus certainly suggests this.
At Keswick we displayed a living image of an unborn child. No abortion imagery was used. One wonders why such imagery should be so controversial. Thus, in responding to the questions Building Jerusalem raise:
Was what they [Brephos] did legitimate?
Was what they [Brephos] did necessary?
Is that good, helpful…?
The answer to all must be a resounding “Yes,” unless drawing attention to the deaths of 250,000+ lives per year is not legitimate or necessary. How could this not be good or helpful? Perhaps it is not perceived as good or helpful by the culture of death, or by those who don’t wish to be challenged in this regard. Surely, however, it is good and helpful for the unborn child.
Unfortunately, the unborn child is effectively airbrushed out of the debate. The Building Jerusalem podcast, like the Keswick Convention, barely mention the victims of abortion.
Tactics (means and ends)
Building Jerusalem at one point claim that their issue is not with our message, but our tactics, which they state are “extra-biblical." Is this a fair criticism?
In response we need to say that Christian life does not happen “in a corner” (Acts 26:26), just as Christ was not crucified “in a corner,” nor did the mission of the early Church take place “in a corner.” We see Paul and the apostles involved in very public disputes in Act 16 or Acts 19 – challenging the Ephesian idol trade, for example.
Similarly, we are accused of “aping the world’s tactics.” However, it would be more accurate to say that it is the Keswick Convention and establishment Christianity generally that does just this in the name of political correctness, not wanting to offend. What could be worldly/unchristian about showing a beautiful image of a baby made in God's image and seeking to engage people in respectful educational dialogue?
They also offer a couple of extraordinary analogies, including where Brephos is effectively cast in the role of the IRA. The idea being that just as many people support the cause (Irish unification) but disagree with the tactics (murdering people), so people may be strongly pro-life, while rejecting our tactics. One has to ask about the appropriateness of such an analogy. Are we really akin to the IRA, can peacefully displaying banners really be compared to terrorising innocent
people? A second slightly more sensible comparison draws attention to the campaign group Just Stop Oil. However, this is also unfair. Just Stop Oil deliberately spread chaos, purposefully making life as difficult as possible for people. CBR display banners: no one is forced to look at or engage with us. We don’t make people late for work, stop them getting to hospital appointments, or
generally cause chaos for people. We want people to repent, not simply get riled up.
As Gavin Ashenden memorably puts it: there is some doubt about the weather, there is no doubt about the coming judgement. Nor can there be any doubt that the slaughter of a
quarter of a million of our own children annually is inviting the wrath of God.
If it is a question of tactics, we ask Building Jerusalem what we have already asked Keswick: do you have any better ideas as to how we can engage the issue?
Evaluating “critical issues”
Building Jerusalem are concerned that our work threatens to “bend out of shape” the Gospel purpose of the Church. They also term it a “subset” issue that should not become the predominant mission of the Church.
Several things can be said in response to this.
We have never said anti-abortion, pro-life ministry is the Church’s number one mission. We are clear that making disciples of all nations is and will remain the Church’s number one mission, until Christ returns.
Our contention is rather that even the Great Commission contains the imperative to teach disciples everything Jesus has taught them (Matt 28:20), in context referring principally to Christ’s words and example throughout Matthew. We are convinced that such teaching necessarily contains Jesus’ instructions to be salt and light, pursue righteousness, welcome and bless little
children, and care for the least of his brothers and sisters wherever they are found (e.g., Matt 5:6, 10–16; 6:33; 18:1–6; 19:13–15; 23:23–24; 25:31–46).
More broadly, the Scriptures as a whole bear witness to the full humanity and personhood of the unborn child, and our responsibility to safeguard innocent human life, including that of the unborn child, and speak out against the wholesale destruction of our unborn neighbour in this country and globally.
Surely, the Gospel can dovetail with ethical issues? It is worth remembering that many of Paul’s letters have a basic indicative-imperative structure to them, first outlining the saving work of God in Christ, before expanding on what living for Jesus then means in the midst of pagan society, including exposing the works of darkness (Eph 5:1–14). The Good News involves being saved for a new purpose, as well as saved from sin, death and judgement. It is noticeable that an alternative lifestyle, and zeal in doing good (such as drawing attention to the slaughter of our unborn neighbours) is frequently the opportunity for Gospel witness (e.g., 1 Pet 3:13–17). Moreover, we often see apologetics and evangelism go hand in hand in the New Testament (a good example being Paul’s sermon at Mars Hill in Acts 17). Certainly our ministry sees many fruitful opportunities for Gospel conversations and witness alongside our display work.
When we ask ourselves where abortion ranks among the issues facing Christians in the UK, it is hard to avoid the conclusion of John Stott, from some forty years ago, that it should be near the top, if not at the top of the list. How else can one regard the deliberate killing of over a quarter of a million children each year? Other evils in society, such as homosexuality and transgenderism, do not seek to purposefully eliminate another person’s life, as abortion does. Yet, although we believe nothing else really comes close to abortion in terms of moral magnitude, sadly evangelical churches in the UK rarely regard abortion with the seriousness or priority it should surely be afforded.
Brephos exists to try to correct this blind spot. Unfortunately, from our daily experience, we know just how hard it is to speak in churches on this issue. We certainly cannot take for granted that most UK evangelicals will naturally be pro-life, still less that they have heard clear, biblical teaching on this issue. If this really were the case, why, in a recent EA study, did fully 14% of evangelical respondents say they would actually vote against a party that sought to limit the timeframe for abortion?
A departure from the New Testament?
Building Jerusalem argue that we don’t see the NT Church involved in social reform, for example, campaigning against crucifixion (nor of course do we see them building churches, running foodbanks, or organising Christian conventions). Paul does however encourage slaves who are able to gain their freedom to do so (1 Cor 7:21; Phlm), and he condemns the slave trade in no
uncertain terms (1 Tim 1:10; cf. Rev 18, noting particularly the description of the slave trade in Rev 18:13). The trajectory of NT teaching certainly led to such abolitionist movements, as society and the Roman Empire was transformed by the spread of the Church, with abortion eventually being
outlawed. The Church was known for challenging, in word and practice, the culture of death in wider society – whether the gladiatorial games or abortion. Christians frequently rescued abandoned children and took them into their homes. The Didache (late 1st / early 2nd cent.) condemns both abortion and infanticide by exposure, along with early Christian writings such as the Epistle of Barnabas and the Apocalypse of Peter (Did. 2.2; 5.1–2; Barn. 19.5; 20.1–2.).
It is worth noting here that whereas at one point Building Jerusalem say they are only questioning how we should fight abortion, here they are really questioing whether we should fight abortion - whether this belongs within the mission of the Church. The claim is that it is foreign to New Testament Christianity to meaningfully engage in social reform at all, regardless of tactics.
Building Jerusalem also emphasise the thread around obeying the powers that be within NT teaching (chiefly, in Rom 13:1–7, cf. 1 Pet 2:17). This however must be held together with teaching elsewhere about obeying God before human authority, when the two are in tension (Acts 5:29). Romans 13 speaks of government’s purpose being to promote good and punish wrongdoing. When government is doing the opposite (promoting abortion and punishing prayer), one must seriously ask whether such is a legitimate manifestation of government, or whether laws against prayer, for example, should be obeyed. Christian tradition, from Augustine to Aquinas to Martin Luther King Jr, has much to say about the illegitimacy of unjust laws (cf. Isa 10:1–2;
Ps 94:20–21). Dr King focuses on this in his letter from Birmingham Jail.
Christian history and social reform
Christian history contains a number of social reform movements that flowed out of a biblical worldview, rather than being simply ethical hobbyhorses. Defending the weak and vulnerable, and standing up against injustice is a supremely “biblical thing.” Abortion is arguably unique in that so many of the idols of our age coalesce in our contemporary version of child sacrifice. We would regard our work as the pursuit of this biblical mandate, and not falling prey to an over-realised eschatology, as was claimed by Building Jerusalem. Indeed, the criticisms levelled at our ministry by Building Jerusalem, could equally have been levelled, and were(!), at Christians involved in the campaigns against the slave trade in the UK, segregation in the Southern United States, or apartheid in South Africa.
Were such campaigns illegitimate, because injustice will remain (like poverty, cf. Matt 26:11) a feature of a fallen world?
If one looks at Christian history, one sees no such coyness in regard to this kind of dual approach. The Reformed Baptist missionary William Carey saw no contradiction in campaigning forcefully against the wicked Hindu practice of sati (widow-burning), while being primarily committed to evangelism. If something is an abomination to God, why would we not work to make it not only unthinkable, but illegal?
This holds for Britian, just as much as India. It is important to recognise that the legalisation of abortion occurred in the 1960s, as Christian influence on British society waned. Has the unravelling of Christendom really made the UK a better place, or one more hospitable to evangelism? Was the UK a worse place when more Christians (incl. evangelicals) had “the levers of power,” or at least a greater degree of influence? If the answer to such questions is “no,” then why should Building Jerusalem be so opposed to such trends today?
Additionally, Building Jerusalem question whether it is right to encourage non-Christians to live as Christians (i.e., not have abortions). In other words, what right do we have to impose our morality on unbelievers, and might such actually be counter-productive to evangelism? It seems helpful at this point to reiterate that abortion is not like a homosexual lifestyle, for example; it necessarily always impacts another life, it always imposes its morality on another human being, killing him or her in the process. Furthermore, evangelism necessarily involves the clear articulation of sin, and need for personal repentance, without which a Saviour is superfluous. Our ministry reveals something of the depths of societal, and personal sin. How many people have murdered someone post-birth? Yet how many parents abort their own children? The answer is actually one in three.
We maintain that one can seek the peace (shalom) of the city, per Jeremiah 29, through pursuing both social reform and robust outreach and evangelism. Indeed, Jeremiah’s counsel to the exiles to build lives for themselves in Babylon, naturally contained an openness to outsiders being attracted to Israel’s God and coming to saving faith in him (cf. Isa 2:1–4; Mic 4:1–2; Zech 8:22–23). This phenomenon continues into the Second Temple/NT period as proselytes/god-fearers attach themselves to Jewish synagogues, and then subsequently Christian churches, often having been attracted first by the uncompromising alternative lifestyle and ethical commitments of believers in a pagan context.
Comments