It was good to be back on in the market with Janet Parshall…
You can listen to it on the podcast here –
Or by going to the In the Market website here
Although we began with Australia most of the conversation covered these three blogs.
The Soft and Hard Intimidation of the Church – A revealing 24 Hours….
Undivided – An Open Letter to Vicky Beeching
An Open Letter to the Evangelical Church about Vicky Beeching and ‘Gay Christianity’
The Vicky Beeching saga runs on. She tweeted the following –
I was a bit annoyed – not at Vicky but at those whose online behaviour had caused her to seek her therapist and doctor. So I went through her social media to see who had been attacking her and the answer is no-one. There was plenty abuse and even threats – but they were all directed towards yours truly or the EA. Not one to Vicky. So was she upset at her own supporters? Or was she triggered by her own post? Or is the mere fact that I refused to agree with her enough to constitute bad online behaviour?
What you need to remember is that it was Vicky who made the original post on FB and who then went even further by ‘boosting’ it (this is where you pay to have your post advertised). These are hardly the actions of a shy and shrinking vulnerable person who just wants to get on with their live without fuss! So why is she complaining about the way she has been treated? The only reason can be that she thinks even to disagree with her is abusive. You can see where this is leading. Where someone like Vicky can post attacking people who disagree with her – and when they continue to do so – she can report them for ‘spiritual abuse’ – just because she gets upset at them disagreeing.
I agree with Vicky that it has for me been a very unpleasant week. Her social media posts have had the desired effect (she has received lots of affirmation and sympathy and those of us who don’t agree have received a great deal of ‘advice’ and abuse). Yet she still manages to portray herself as the victim as she continues lobbying parliament, uses Pink News (complete with its gay porn to attack the EA, and tours the secular media studios as the poster girl for evangelical victimhood.
I initially was prepared to give Vicky the benefit of the doubt – and accept that all of this was part of a confused and hurt person who was struggling to come to terms with sexuality, faith etc. I thought she was being used, and perhaps she is? All I know is that she has very much put herself out there as the person who is going to ‘call out’ all evangelicals (like EA) who do not accept Queer theology and who want to uphold the biblical position. I suspect that when she finds that we don’t all buy into her strange theology and are not all going to be emotionally blackmailed into supporting her – the rage and frustration against us will only increase.
As I again repeat – I have nothing at all against Vicky and I would plead with anyone who agrees with my position not to abuse and attack her – because that is contrary to my position. There is no room for personal abuse. However I do not agree at all with Vicky’s theology and regard is as deeply harmful to the body of Christ. And I will not keep silent about that. Nor will I keep silent about actions which also cause harm (like falsely accusing people of FB abuse) or seeking to get the State to impose anti-Christian theology and practice upon the Church. (if Vicky denies that her actions have consequences I would love to show her the messages I have received from people who have been bullied and discriminated against just because they don’t agree with the message she is pushing – I can’t do that on here because they have requested anonymity because of the consequences – so much for open and free discussion!).
Finally (and I hope not to return to this subject) I just simply need to point out that Vicky is not the only person who is fragile and gets shaken. Others of us feel that too. Including yours truly. Whilst I have received several messages suggesting ‘you need help from a therapist’ (I assume they mean this as some kind of insult – although I actually find that quite demeaning to those who genuinely do suffer from mental illness- and have nothing against therapists) – when I am shaken I just generally prefer to return to the Rock. On Christ the solid rock I stand, all other ground is sinking sand!.
Well said David.
Keep going good and faithful servant.
Thank you, David, for always standing up for God’s Truth!
David,
Yes! I agree. “Well said”. Your demeanor has remained gracious in these discussions, which cannot be said about those opposing you.
In more than 60 years in ministry it has been my experience that people who have genuinely been recipients of God’s grace in Jesus Christ, in other words are Christians, reflect that grace in their attitude towards others, even those who oppose them.
More than that, they take very seriously the teachings of the One whose grace, mercy and love were revealed in His life and death on Calvary.
Plead, Lord with those that plead; and fight with those that fight with me. Of shield and buckler take thou hold, stand up mine help to be. Draw also out the spear, and do against them stop the way That me pursue: unto my soul, I’m thy salvation say. (Metrical Ps 35).
These are difficult days and God alone knows what the following days will bring but we know in whom our faith rests and scripture is sufficient for us as it’s always been. Where else can we go?
Thankyou David….It seems that the only known Christian leaders in the UK who seem to speaking up on this and similar issues are yourself and Gavin Ashenden. The US seems to be blessed with many more courageous leaders who are prepared to against the cultural zeitgeist.
Evangelical Alliance have also. VB is not so much on conservative evangelical radar and risk is that many may not pick up the significance
I agree with and appreciate your insights, but I do have to say that in reading your review of her book, I was taken aback by the strong — dare I say “hurtful”? — use of language, e.g.: “narrow, simplistic, dumbed down, superficial”, “you didn’t love Christ” and “You offer a beauty which is ugly, a diversity which is uniformity, a freedom from shame which is an enslavement to sin, an ‘authenticity’ that is fake, a wholeness which is broken, a peace that is war. ”
All of these comments may be spot-on observations, but sir, “Let your conversations always be full of grace, seasoned with salt.”
It is very tempting to demonize the other side — I am guilty of it daily. But shouldn’t we seek to reflect the light of Christ for others, the way Rosaria Butterfield’s friends so winsomely did?
Your grasp of many truths is secure. I pray that more will actually be brought to Christ by your telling of these truths, but few are brought to Christ because they lost an argument to a Christian.
Thanks. Your comments are appreciated. I wonder if you think that Jesus was not speaking with grace when he called the Pharisees whitewashed tombs, twice dead? Or Paul when he suggested that the Galatian false teachers should emasculate themselves? The trouble is what you mean by ‘grace’. If what I said is true then you are really saying not to say it because it’s not nice That may be the correct approach with unimportant and non public matters. In this case – where the church is being attacked publicly I think it is right to warn people of what is going on. Few are brought to Christ because they lost an argument to a Christian but some are. Anyway that is not what I was doing here – arguing with non Christians. But even fewer are brought to Christ by people trying to appear nice and avoiding the issues! But thanks for your response. It’s appreciated.
David, this whole situation has become a circus that I believe is no longer helpful, nor glorifying to God, and I wonder whether it is time to leave it lie? In your response to Sharon above you have suggested that your approach is that of Jesus and Paul, but I would respectfully suggest that your reading of the NT is different to mine in this respect. Once Jesus confronted an individual in this way – when he said to Peter “Get behind me Satan…” (Matt 16:23) – all of his other dealings with individuals (teachers, enquirers, sinners, the sick, Peter himself after the betrayal, Pilate, Paul on the Damascus road, etc…) were supremely gracious – his anger was reserved for groups – the cities that rejected him, the temple sellers and money changers, the crowds, and the religious leaders – with groups he didn’t mince his words.
If you publish a book you should expect to have the content critiqued – if a theology book then the quality and direction of your theological arguments, and if a memoir then you might also expect that elements of your personal story will be picked over. I haven’t read the book, but I understand that it documents experiences that have been traumatic and left a deep scar – a scar that is clearly still fresh and not ready to be examined with critical eyes. With foresight the responses to the book could have been anticipated, particularly given the author’s difficult previous experiences with social media (I seem to remember that she has taken ‘breaks’ from social media in the past due to difficulties she has experienced).
Allusions to an inbox filled with foul and offensive messages, and posting excepts from letters, blogs, and messages (some of which are unhelpful, and even bizarre) that support this narrative feeds the mob, and does nothing to develop a useful dialogue that helps clarity of thought and healing of damaged lives and relationships. Your continued attempts to explain your position will likewise not further improve dialogue.
I suppose that there is much more that I could say on the subject, but seeing the increasingly unhelpful direction that this situation has moved in over the last few days encourages me to hold my peace, and counsel you to do likewise.
Thanks Andrew….you raise some important issues. I will respond to them later….
David
I’ve been following your output for a few weeks now, as well as enjoying some online debates, talks and interviews you have been involved in.
I don’t know how you keep it up – If I received the amount of negativity and sheer abuse that you have, I think I’d crawl into a hole and not come out again.
Thank you for standing up for the truth, no matter what the consequences. You are an inspiration.
Cultural zeitgeist is a monster (good new word – thanks). Surely the Rev David Robertson has been brought back from the edge of the grave for a purpose? I pray he grows in the fear of God and cares less about the approval of men for the rest of his days.
I need to learn to “Speak truth in love”…(a lot) – (Still). But I need to remember that I am not responsible for the response.
Paul to the Galatians: “Have I now become your enemy by telling you the truth?
We are in remnant days in the UK. Do I want to be popular with the world or in the remnant?
Do we hope and pray for revival and to regain some of the ground we have lost? Or do we look at the signs of the times and prepare for the wrath of God to be revealed and expect tribulations – and look up, for our redemption draws near?
Do you realise that your blog post is the rallying point for those attacks she is is talking about? I’ve watched it blow up on Twitter AFTER you published your open letter. I am sorry to say that you are generating far more heat than light with this approach.
No. Not at all. Vicky posted an attack on me on FB which referred people
To my blog post. She then paid for it to be boosted. She then claimed the she was traumatised by the response. So I went on to her social media and found almost no attacks on her and plenty on me. Including yours. I think that the light is exposing what is going on here. Your constant attempts to play the judgemental and victim cards are just not working.
I am afraid I need to pick you up on claiming that vicky has attacked you. What she did was post on Facebook an extract of your own words and suggest they were unfair. People were so shocked by what you had said about her, including denying she was ever a Christian, and saying there is no evidence of her faith. Everything follows from your own post. Every reaction you have had online has been people reacting to the fact that you suggested she might be lying in her book (‘I hope you can remember it…’ type of comments etc) and that despite her sharing her intimate moments of worship with God in her book at various points and describing how her faith drew her to serve God you pronounced she was not a Christian. You suggested she was only after the fame. This, too, is an unfair accusation. I have challenged you very politely online to change your words accordingly where you target her character and spirituality, not her theology, You have consistently refused.
You were pleased to have your words shared until Vicky shared them more widely. This does not constitute attack.
On Twitter, many of vicky’s comments are supportive. However, she also has DMs and the kinds of comments that are on your websites that denounce her. One Tweeter, for example, was suggesting that her mental illness was a result of her own sin. Not only is that inaccurate it’s harmful to claim that. So I suggest you change your assertion that she hasn’t have any negative tweets because it’s simply not true.
And to suggest that Vicky has been attacking you by quoting your own words is laughable.
Also – side note – to accuse Vicky of wanting to introduce anti-Christian legislation is without basis and a gross misrepresentation. Kindly cease attributing motives to her which are untrue.
Yes – Vicky does want to introduce anti-Christian legislation. She wants the State to intervene in the Church and to tell us what doctrine we should be teaching….Her current campaign (through media and politicians) is very much part of that.
I’m sorry, but I am going to call you out on that one.
Vicky Beeching along with lots of others has been campaigning to have conversion therapy banned in the UK. This has absolutely nothing to do with legislating what churches can preach or believe.
If you read the article and looked at the clips of her speaking – she is demanding government intervention on things such as praying for gay people. If that is not government interference I don’t know what is…
Your initial claim was that she wants the state to force change to Christian teaching – that’s not true.
Now you claim she is trying to stop prayers for gay people – that’s also not true unless you rebrand conversion therapy as “prayers for gay people” and even then it is only a subset of them.
Why can’t you just tell the truth?!
I do tell the truth. Yes Vicky does want the State to enforce the Church to change (as does Steve Chalke). It is Vicky who mentions prayer for gay people as a part of the conversion therapy which she wants the State to ban (did you actually watch the interviews and read the article?”
Please don’t accuse people of telling lies (ironic that in your next comment you state that you are not doing that!)…unless you have the evidence to back it up…otherwise you become the victim of your own accusation.
Hi David,
Although the subject matter differs (adultery vs. SSM) could an example of dealing with relationships contrary to God’s word be taken from John the Baptist calling out Herod for his sin? I can just picture the Twitter feed from 2000 years ago ….
John Baptist @LocustEater
@Herod, @Herodias, It is not lawful for you to have her.
|
Sue Loveall @LovelyLoveNicely
@LocustEater, How bigoted and intolerant can you be? Love is the way. Shame on you. #LoveTrumpsHate
|
Tim Peacely @Peace_n_Love
@LocustEater, What a thoroughly unchristian thing to say. It really make me sad. Where’s the love? Love trumps hate. Jesus would call you out for your lack of love. #LoveWins #WWJD
|
Jesus Christ @LordOfLords
@LovelyLoveNicely, @Peace_n_Love, Truly, I say to you, among those born of women there has arisen no one greater than John the Baptist.
The Lord bless you for your faithfulness.
Yours in Christ,
Andrew
Thank you for speaking out and standing firm. It’s never easy to frame a response to anything when it will be received remotely. We very often want something to be hurtful or harmful because it strengthens our belief in our own standpoint and against that of the one speaking (or in this case writing) to us. Without a direct dialogue and the benefit of body language, we are far more able to hear things the way we think they are being said rather than the way in which they were intended to be heard.
This is a really important issue and one which needs to be spoken about. The internet is the forum to which so many now turn to find their truth and I’m so grateful for people like you who will speak up to ensure that the narrative has more than one side.
Know that you are being prayed for. We know that neither you or your words are perfect but you faithfully point us to the One who is.
If you disagree with personal attacks then why don’t you concentrate on explaining why you disagree with her theology instead of just attacking her character?
You’ve accused her multiple times of outright lying (including here) and continue to accuse her of having some sort of vendetta instead of merely trying to stop what happened to her happen to others.
If you want to take the moral high ground then it actually involves a change in behaviour and perhaps even an apology.
If you are going to comment then please comment on what has been said. Where did I accuse Vicky of ‘outright lying’? As for an agenda (again who said it was a vendetta?) Stick to what is said. Don’t make it up. And perhaps then your comments would have some substance.
You have claimed that she has not experienced harassment on social media even though she says she has. You are accusing her of lying.
No – I did not claim that. Its never wise to lie when you are claiming to be providing evidence against lies.
I have, but my post doesn’t seem to have made it onto your page.
You have claimed in this article that she hasn’t been attacked on social media, even though she claims she has. That’s accusing her of lying. I think if you are going to condemn personal attacks then you shouldn’t be doing it yourself.
I can’t find anywhere where you explain why her theology is wrong. I can find plenty of places where you have attacked her character.
No – I did not claim in this article that she hasn’t been attacked on social media – I’m sure she has. I did claim that over the 2-3 days she was writing about there were no attacks on her on her own FB page or Twitter feed (unless in private and then you just block them) but she did permit plenty attacks on the EA and yours truly and even liked and retweeted a threat to me! So you still havn’t managed to come up with one of these multiple lies you said existed in my article. If you are going to accuse of lies – make sure you have real examples or you could find yourself guilty of your own charge. As for the critique of the theology – I would suggest that your comment about you not being able to find anywhere where her theology is critiqued says a great deal about your myopic prejudice….try the sections on the Bible, strange fruit, knowing Christ and the false Gospel..
OK nice spin.
Id say it was pretty difficult to read your article and not comprehend from it that she claimed to have received abuse and you were accusing her of not receiving that abuse.
Actually I saw some of the abuse she has received and she also shared some of the abuse she has received so you are incorrect. She moderates her social media so not every post is kept.
I haven’t said there are lies in your article. I have said that you are attacking her character instead of critiquing her theology.
Not spin – but truth. You should read your own comments. You did accuse me of lying and I asked you for an example. You have not been able to give one. I answered the question about abuse and did not say that she had never received any.
You also don’t see to get the point. Vicky has made it so personal that if you critique her theology you are attacking her character. To disagree with her is to abuse her. She plays the victim card continually because her whole narrative is that this theology is what harmed me and therefore this theology needs to go.