Yesterday I was asked to do an interview on Talk Radio on the subject of teaching same sex relationships on behalf of Affinity. I agreed to do so – somewhat reluctantly – a reluctance that was multiplied when I discovered that the ‘interviewer’ was John Nicholson, the former SNP MP. We have form. I challenged him as regards his prejudice when he tried to call the Free Church the Tartan Taleban That even ended up as an article in The Daily Mail.
So I approached the interview with a certain amount of angst. I know John’s reputation 
(Jo Swinson, the deputy Lib-Dem leader only last week received a cheer when she described him as ‘odious’ at their conference. Personally I don’t think that is helpful language for a politician to use – although I can understand her frustration). My worst fears were confirmed. It was a dreadful interview. And I came away quite depressed about it – not so much because John was as I expected him to be, but because I honestly felt that I had got it completely wrong and that I was unwise, too aggressive and just did not help the cause. Sometimes I have to get down on my knees and repent to the Lord for getting it wrong. Last night was one such occasion. I hope I live and learn from my mistakes.
I was so furious with myself, and somewhat ashamed, that I thought I would not follow my usual practice of posting all interviews on here. But that would be wrong. Have a listen and judge for yourselves.
https://talkradio.co.uk/radio/listen-again/1551024000#
(You need to click on the 17:30-18:00 link at the top – the interview is at the first part of that).
John constantly interrupted and had no interest at all in hearing any other point of view. In effect he wanted to interview himself and just me as an excuse to vent his own prejudices and hatreds. The continual interruptions were annoying but I should probably not have returned like for like.
The fallacies, both logical and factual, were breathtaking. But they do help us understand the irrationality of the modern ‘liberal’ mindset.
He set up a strawman. Surely it seems “eminently sensible to teach kids about relationships by all kinds? Who wants to “prevent teaching about love because we need more love in the world”? In setting up the issue in this dumbed down and prejudiced way he was not better than the person who asks ‘why are you such an idiot’?! He has completely pre-judged the question. What is love? How should it be expressed? What relationships should our society encourage and accept?
When I pointed out that parents had a human right to have their children educated according to their philosophy and beliefs he seemed to be unaware of human rights legislation and then went on to equate that with teaching in a science class that dinosaurs and human beings were on earth together!
Some of the relevant legislation:
Article 26 (3) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights – “Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.”
Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights “Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.”
European law:
“In the exercise of any functions which it assumes in relation to education and to teaching, the State shall respect the right of parents to ensure such education and teaching is in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions.”
First Protocol, Article 2Scottish law:-
“.. education authorities shall have regard to the general principle that, so far as is compatible with the provision of suitable instruction and training and the avoidance of unreasonable public expenditure, pupils are to be educated in accordance with the wishes of their parents.”
Section 28 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980
If you want to know where the new authoritarian state is going then Mr Nicholson shows you the way: “society as a whole has certain restrictions on what parents can teach children during the day”.
“Can’t impose on other human beings your very narrow beliefs about what constitutes human sexuality.” The lack of self awareness is evident. Because John is doing precisely that. It’s his philosophy. Except he argued that it was not a philosophy (although it is what he believes). For him it is just the truth.
Having failed with that one he then moved on to experience, and asked if I was gay. Apparently the relevance of this was that he wanted children to be taught according to his experience. I don’t think his experience (or indeed mine) should be the basis for educating all children.
John then tried a different approach. We should just teach the law. When I asked him if he would have supported that approach when SSM was illegal he refused to answer.
When I suggested that he should also teach the experience of those who had been gay but had changed he started going on about conversion therapy. I pointed out that I was not speaking about conversion therapy – just about people who had changed. He just simply denied that that was possible – despite the fact that there are a great number of people who can be cited as evidence. But his beliefs cannot be questioned – by any amount of evidence.
And then in the most bizarre twist I have ever experienced in an interview John decided to ask the killer question. “David – have you ever wondered why your church has declined?” What does that have to do with the question we were discussing? And it was completely false. I had just come from a morning service where we had the largest communion we have ever had – packed downstairs and a large number up in the balcony. And the Free Church has actually grown. (John repeated his ignorance at the end of the interview – “The Free Church is the third smallest church in Scotland” !). Leaving aside the factual inaccuracies – it was a completely bizarre and irrelevant question.
He finished by suggesting that it was ‘a bit more tetchy than we are used to’. Well that was because I refuse to be bullied and intimidated by an interviewer who wants to control the interviewee. I dislike smug, superficial and self-righteous interviewers – but sometimes I dislike myself even more! It was an odious interview – but I did not handle it well and for that I apologise to those of the Lord’s people who I feel I let down. It’s part of the danger of putting yourself on the line. Sometimes your ‘self’ is shown up to be not that great!
It was a relief this morning to be able to do Premier’s ‘Ask Any Bible Question’ this morning (probably put that up tomorrow)…It was like being let out of the sin bin and given a second chance! God is gracious and merciful.
Maybe I should just stick to the podcast?!
It sounds as though for him, (John Nicholson) it was a case of “Don’t confuse me with facts. My mind is made up!”
What facts? David didn’t present any facts, just tried to claim that homophobia is perfectly valid? If homophobia is perfectly valid, why not racism as well? What if David wanted to teach that inter-racial relationships are wrong?
I did not try to claim that homophobia is perfectly valid – as I don’t think it is. If you are going to comment on my blog then don’t tell lies and try to be polite…
The interviewer was odious and ignorant.
David. I am so glad that you had that interview. The “interviewer” was simply on his soap box, hoping he could patronise or talk over his “interviewee”. His comments on the Free Church were ill-informed and ill-formed. He was unable in discussion to see the difference between fact and opinion, and– like John Humphreys– he showed an inordinate love of his own views.
I do not think that you lacked respect or dignity in your responses. On the other hand, whilst falsely suggesting that you were patronising him, the “interviewer” was outrageously patronising in his attitude to you and to the Church. I found it odd that it was he who called something evil. Reminded me of Isaiah 5.
God bless you, David. I’m glad you told us how you felt after this interview. Frustration, no doubt. I feel despair when I see how manipulative people have hijacked what used to be called education.
Thank you for taking on the interview in the first place, he obviously didn’t want to hear your views. But thank you more for your example of repentance (something often lacking on social media), I have so often got it wrong in my words and conduct in these kind of debates.
I think part of the tension here is semantic.
You are talking about people who have changed behaviour.
He is talking about people who have changed orientation.
No we were not. There are those who think that sexual orientation is fluid – and gender! I am simply stating that there are those who indicate that whilst they were once sexually attracted to people of the same sex, now they are not. There are others who say it is the reverse and others say that they have stayed the same…I accept all of these – don’t you? Or are you like John – only his experience matters?
” I am simply stating that there are those who indicate that whilst they were once sexually attracted to people of the same sex, now they are not. There are others who say it is the reverse and others say that they have stayed the same”
The fact one person was attracted to one gender and is now attracted to another doesn’t mean that the former attraction is negated. A person’s sexuality, like every aspect of a person, is transient and ever-growing. The problem is with descriptors suggesting a finite nature to sexuality. I describe myself as bisexual having been attracted to one gender and now the other. Other might say pansexual. But there is always the temptation to say ‘this is what I am now and it is finite’. When we are indeed the sum of our experiences and should reflect upon our whole lives when saying what we are, or are not.
Society’s job is to educate children to make their own choices about their beliefs and philosophies. Your logic extends to giving parents this right of ‘freedom of choice and conscience’, yet by bringing up children in a way that imposes one philosophy as true (e.g. marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman), you instil a bias toward your view from a young age that discourages philosophical exploration and self-determination of thought in a person developing their view of life. It diminishes their freedom of thought, conscience and religion.
Indeed, a plethora of psychological studies show how a huge portion of beliefs presented and adopted in childhood and young-adulthood) are rarely challenged throughout life (I can provide sources if desired). Parents will do this anyway in the home. Their views should not intrude on formal education if society is supposed to best allow us to pursue our own philosophies, as you profess to desire.
Children should be taught that society ought to be a place in which a multitude of beliefs and philosophies should exist. While their view may disapprove of the way another person lives, their having that view does not entitle them to deny the person a right to pursue that life (insofar as that life does not harm others. Though do you think that gay marriage harms others?)
Clearly, there are some epistemological truths that should be taught to children within the realms of the scientific method. They should also be taught philosophy and about the multitude of faiths and beliefs – even those that may challenge the positivist observational epistemology of science. But none of these contestable religious beliefs and philosophies, however, should be taught as fundamental truth, but as possibilities to be explored and considered by any free-thinking person.
Above all children should be taught in a way that maximises their freedom of thought. I’m sure you’d think God was powerful and accessible enough for all to access his grace in spite of an education that did not endorse his or any other religious, philosophical or moral teachings as fundamental truth. Or does your faith in his power not stretch that far?
The current philosophy of education does not allow for maximising freedom of thought. It tells us what we should think. You seem to be arguing for relative thinking by using a series of absolute statements. Yes I do think that gay ‘marriage’ harms others. The view that children are capable of choosing their own morals is a bit fanciful…
Responding to David’s: “The current philosophy of education does not allow for maximising freedom of thought. It tells us what we should think. You seem to be arguing for relative thinking by using a series of absolute statements. Yes I do think that gay ‘marriage’ harms others. The view that children are capable of choosing their own morals is a bit fanciful…”
Yes, education tells us what we should think. I didn’t deny that (RE scientific method). Indeed, that’s what the debate is about. However, you think this teaching should be vulnerable to external bigotry and bias as opposed to a non-biased education that does not favour one view other than to eliminate prejudicial beliefs such as this (as is the case in France). Young children don’t form well-formed moral beliefs, no. But, as you know (and for some odd reason choose to ignore) education extends to those up to 18 years of age, and young adults of that age and some years below are more than capable of making well-constructed moral beliefs.
If you’d like to substantiate your claim of absolutist-backed relativism that’d be great. Similarly, I’d be keen to know if your response to my question asking if it’s capable for someone to discover and believe in God’s teaching even if they aren’t educated in it. In which case I’m not really sure what your problem is other than it demanding the Church community and parents having to spend more time educating their children in what they believe to be true. But that shouldn’t be a problem for any God-loving person, would it?
As to gay marriage harming others, do you think denying gay marriage is harmless?
Nothing is harmless! To some people. Eduction should teach us how to think – not what to think. Its amusing and depressing that you think your views are not bigotry but others are. What standard of bigotry are you applying? Where is this ‘non=biased education that does not favour one view over another? Yes of course it is possible for people to discover and believe in God’s teaching even if they are not educated in it…but you are missing the main issue here – Christian education is not about indoctrination – but the values, ethos and foundation of the education…Humanist education is very different from Christian…
Responding to David’s “Nothing is harmless!…” comment
First you criticise (in an unsubstantiated way) for suggesting we are talking about what education should be (even though that’s the whole point of the discussion).
“The current philosophy of education tells us what we should think”
And
“You seem to be arguing for a relative position by making a series of absolute statements” (anyone basically read in philosophy of education would recognise this as a basic classical cosmopolitanism view, not a relativist or consequential one)
Now you come back round to saying “education should teach us how to think not what to think, as was my original point with which you disagreed. You are just firefighting. There is no cogency or moral consistency to your replies – you just try and find any way to justify your belief that you should be able to enforce your views on others.
Saying something is about specific values and claiming it does not impose a certain view of the world – or even indoctronise – is a blatant fallacy and you know that. It’s the very point you seek to have Christian values in education: to surround children and young people in it so that they adopt them as their values.
I don’t think my views are any less bigoted than others. The point is I don’t seek to have them presented in an educational manner that suggests they ought to be adopted by a child – other than the view that we should have a society and education in which a multitude of faiths, philosophies and beliefs exist and, insofar as they do not harm others, ought to be allowed to be pursued by each individual. You believe this too, but add on a right of parents to insist that a bias toward a preferred view be imposed on your child. This would undermine the point of a free-thinking, fair, open and cosmopolitan education by creating enforced prejudices among children. As to your question, the standards of bigotry lies where a view of one person seeks to impose prejudicial rules on society favouring one group of people over another; or descrimunating against a group; or by causing unreasonable harm to a group or wider society. Instilling in children the view that marriage is only for one man and one woman meets this criteria of bigotry.
A good example of this non-biased education is in France, where I have been partly educated. Last time I checked God still exists and has a following in France?
It’s interesting that you acknowledge nothing is harmless. How do you justify the harm your position would cause?
There are none so blind as those that will not see! You think that education in France is non-biased? Try asking Muslims about that! You describe your view as ‘free thinking,fair, open etc – meaning of course that anything contrary to your view is not. You don’t see that imposing your secular humanist values IS favouring one group of people over others…You state for example that instilling in children the view marriage is only for one man and one woman is bigoted. I assume then you accept that teaching that polygamy is wrong is bigoted, or incest? Basically your definition of bigotry is just simply that which disagrees with you – which is ironically itself a bigoted point of view!
Replying to “There are none so blind as those that will not see! You think that education in France is non-biased? Try asking Muslims about that! You describe your view as ‘free thinking,fair, open etc – meaning of course that anything contrary to your view is not. You don’t see that imposing your secular humanist values IS favouring one group of people over others…You state for example that instilling in children the view marriage is only for one man and one woman is bigoted. I assume then you accept that teaching that polygamy is wrong is bigoted, or incest? Basically your definition of bigotry is just simply that which disagrees with you – which is ironically itself a bigoted point of view!”
I can’t seem to reply to your specific comments so reposting here.
Again, interesting that you don’t actually respond to my criticisms and merely repeat more platitudes. Similarly, these are not humanist views. If you think anything secular is ‘humanist’ you are woefully uneducated in atheistic philosophy. You might like to familiarise yourself with the literature in this area, such as Will Kymlicka ‘Liberal individualism and liberal neutrality’; Doug Husak ‘Liberal Neutrality, Autonomy, and Drug Prohibitions’; John Rawls political liberalism lectures and Martha Nussbaum’s perfectionist vs political liberalism work.
You continue to misunderstand my position. I seek not to enforce my view as a practice. I suggest a neutral and non-discriminatory education is best to facilitate the fact that a multitude of beliefs exist. I understand you think that this is a (my) ‘position’, but frankly, I’d like to be able to tell my teacher to teach my child religious studies as historical and philosophical perspective and from a position that endorses atheism. Yet I accept this would be an unfair imposition on my part. I would hope I can present my views to my child and allow them to judge their merits for themselves as they grow into autonomous adults.
As an aside, I’d say polygamy I’d say isn’t morally wrong (though not one for me) and, indeed, in Brazil, they recognise 3-person relationships. Incest has a biologically problematic aspect as you know, that is why it is wrong.
Also, having studied alongside people of many religions in France, including Muslims, I can say with confidence that almost all I have met appreciate the non-religious weighting of their education. As you continue to ignore, education extends beyond the state-run institutions and, as such, there is space within everyone’s education to be educated in the beliefs of their family or community. Do you not concede this?
Sometimes I wish a few more interviewees would challenge their interviewers in the way you did, David. Nicholson was wrong-footed entirely by your responses and exposed for what he was trying to promote. You won the argument but I doubt you won the man. However, I think he’s unlikely to have the courage to invite you onto his programme again, so maybe that’s one local platform which has collapsed under you, for the time being at least.
Another point is that independent broadcasters, as opposed to the BBC, are entitled to push their own agendas much more freely than the BBC, so if we listen to them we’re bound to hear far more controversial philosophies from them. Their advertising revenue is their bread’n’butter so they have to go all-out to boost their audience numbers, so sensationalism and drama are the tools of their trade.
David, don’t beat yourself up. This was a classic. Presupposing on behalf of the interviewer, stereotyping your view, and assuming his own.
You were right, it wasn’t about the issues he wanted to introduce. We would all subscribe to the notion that children need to be taught certain things at certain ages. But what exactly? Who decides? The parents must have ab absolute right to withdraw their children from compulsory content they have no say over. Otherwise, it IS the state imposing its morality upon the next generation, the very accusation lobbyists have levied against christians for decades, and the very accusation lobbied against you in this interview.
“You cannot impose your narrow moral values upon others.”
But that is what lobbyists are insisting the state does. Imposes its narrow moral values on every child. A liberal narrow view.
It also smacks of hypocrisy. The interviewer states “I will teach the law”. But only when it is the law that suits them.
Many did not support Sec 28, and lobbied for its removal. They taught what was not the Law. They taught equal marriage, before it was the law. So the law is not the benchmark, until it suits.
You were up against these vile tactics David. Moving of goalposts to suit their defence, and shifting yours to suit their attack. It was always going to be tough.
But light shines in darkness. Keep going…..
Please don’t beat yourself up. As you said, JN was not interested in having a genuine discussion, and it is really difficult to keep completely calm, whilst being continually interrupted and having to deal with inaccuracies, disingenuous arguments etc etc, not forgetting the spiritual battle against principalities and powers! In the circumstances, you did a good job.
Many thanks for your blog and for all you are doing in your public witness to our Lord Jesus Christ.
I haven’t listened to the interview so I can’t comment on how it went but I’m just glad that someone who is able to articulate a different view than the one which certain groups try to impose on us is willing to discuss these matters in a public forum. Not everybody who is as articulate would have the courage and some who might have the courage may not be so articulate.
Hi David. What are you apologising for? This is a fantastic interview! I loved it! We need more of this type of robust sparring. I’m afraid Christians have become too milky-white, “nicey-nicey” and frankly, weak! That’s why I love your debates and appearances on Unbelievable. May I be so bold as to say I think the Lord Himself might have loved your performance for Him as well. Remember throwing out the money-changers!! Hardly being soft and nice! We’re in a battle for the culture and for the right of Christianity to keep speaking out. So keep on speaking out! At least when they interview you, they know they will not be able to steam-roller over you. BTW: I believe you’re coming here to Australia. Please bring your Scottish feistiness with you and give the interviewers here some of what you just gave that chap. No one else here is game enough to do it. Blessings to you, David and carry on!!
I have listened. I don’t think it went as badly as David seems to think it did.
David, you did very well – given the circumstances. You stood up for truth – against the cultural zeitgeist – a very difficult thing to do and few would even try! So well done! If that was 2 people on a panel in a discussion – the exchange would have been fine. But this person was supposed to be an interviewer. That was not an interview! It was really weird. He just bashed you over the head with the liberal left view and sought to manipulate the listeners with the same as far as I could decipher. But your voice was heard – and that was a good thing! He then finished with a snidey remark about your denomination supposedly being the 3rd smallest in Scotland! That was just nasty. Keep up the good work – you are an encouragement to others.
I listened to the interview. You spoke really well dear brother. Maybe in your heart you felt you were angry or harsh or unloving (I know the feeling) but it certainly didn’t come across like that. You answered very well – boldly, directly, always scripturally and logically and at times you even sounded patient and gentle!
Its a tough one – do you just let him dominate the interview, speaking over you, contradicting you with myth, spin and LGBTQI+ propoganda or do you hold him to account and boldly present the truth even if you have to contradict him and expose his comments as biased? You did the latter bro and I and other Christians in Scotland are thankful.
Its good to repent and examine our hearts and always pray for more grace and wisdom, but on the other hand don’t be too hard on yourself. The interview was way better than you think 🙂
P.S. the only caveat i would say is Creationists don’t base our views on stubborn religious refusal to face the facts but firstly on what Scripture says and secondly on what the scientific evidence actually is. Is the Theory of Evolution the ONLY view that should be taught in mainstream science in schools when many good and godly scientists world wide question the validity and accuracy of the Theory? 🙂 You fell into John’s trap in the interview of equating Creationism with stubborn religious ignorance. A small but interesting aside dear brother, no biggie 🙂
Alasdair,
you suggest that David fell into John Nicholson’s trap vis a vis Creationism but it seems very clear to me that the digger of that pit fell into it himself. By equating Creationism with an ill-advised stunt in the Creation Museum, Nicholson leaves himself with nowhere to go when David makes his reply. Furthermore, if lazy anti-Creationists lull themselves into trigger-watch mode, a great deal of good can be done in schools right under their shibboleth-sensitive noses: in normal circumstances there is no need to mention the logical conclusion of some — not all — bible-faithful interpretations of the fossil record, that humans and large dinosaurs once coexisted.
(And, given that school students have never given up their propensity to ask ackward questions, the best way to deal with a potentially-entrapping, man-walking-with-dinosaurs question in the classroom would, IMHO, be to mention the dinosaur soft-tissue survival phenomenon; pointing out that it’s far too early to jump to conclusions.)
So, did John Nicholson set a trap? Yes. Did David fall into it? In my considered opinion David avoided it with less finesse than he would have liked to display, for sure, but in a way that left the hapless interviewer/fowler having to scramble out of the snare he laid himself.
Yours,
John/.
Thank you for putting up the link to this interview, David.
I don’t know if you have had the stomach to listen to what poor old John Nicholson was saying earlier in the programme but at one point the other person in the dialogue said, ‘But enough about you, John!’ His experience does seem to be his guiding light and he had no plan B when you agreed that children should be taught about different types of relationships (in age-appropriate ways.)
You will do well to use this as an illustration about certain things to avoid in interviews, but it is also important to note how threadbare his off-the-cuff jibes were. Why are media pundits so obsessed by the idea of men and dinosaurs co-existing? And was his producer gesticulating wildly at him when he was ranting about ‘the third smallest church in Scotland’?
Keep on.
Yours,
John/.
Well done for fighting the good fight of the faith, even if you feel you could have done better. Thanks too for the outlining of legislation about parental rights and responsibilities to educate their children. As someone who was home educated by Christian parents, it saddens me that Germany for example has made home education illegal. Although the likes of Daniel thrived in an anti God educational environment, surely the ideal for Christian parents is to nurture their kids in the ways of the Lord, rather than to abdicate responsibility and let the state indoctrinate them against the gospel!
Mr. Nicholson’s interview technique is surreal. He asks as question and then tries to answer it himself, talking over his interlocutor. The lack of intellectual curiosity, even elementary good manners, is staggering. What “in under goodness” is the point of interviewing somebody if you don’t want to find out what they believe? David, I reckon he was seriously rattled and scared that your points were beginning to hit home which wasn’t the way the playbook was meant to work out. Some people might even have been persuaded by what you were saying, and that would never have done. He couldn’t outargue you or outthink you so he had to resort to spoiling tactics. Interesting that while “gender” can be as fluid as you like, sexual orientation is set in stone. This is the sort of mentality we are up against. Once the word of God is rejected then all human meaning begins to crumble away too. I could be wrong and I don’t know much, not being Scottish, but I believe this might be the guy who was a BBC presenter of some kind before getting involved in SNP politics.
From the off, Nicholson was wrong-footed and ill prepared, seemingly confident in an ability to talk, spout-off, without thinking, to put his comments into playground and knockabout categories. From love, he went hunting for dinosaurs, then from palaeontology to science and then to law, while philosophy was hidden from his view, stalking in the long grass of his incomprehension. All the while his vision was subjectively myopic. It is also a technique many today use, that is to strike out with diversionary tactics when they paint themselves into a corner.
At one stage I had to laugh audibly so farcical had it become.
Without being patronising, I appreciate your self reflection, David. To me it is measure of Christian maturity and strength in submission to God. It doesn’t always come with increased age as I well know, and which seems to be missing in some of our lives.
On the ‘third-smallest Scpttish church’ thing, John Nicholson may have got St Peter’s Free Church in Dundee, mixed up with St. Peter’s Scottish Episcopal Church in Linlithgow. Getting three hundred people into St. Peter’s, Dundee is akin to revival for those who knew of it forty years ago but getting three hundred into St Peter’s, Linlithgow would either be a miracle or against any sort of human rights legislation.
Yours,
John/.
God love him – look closer – perhaps protesteth too much!
So your objections are all based on your interpretation of morality.
And it is a very narrow and , almost personal view as it does not even comport with the more progressive christian view.
Are your objections not based on your interpretation of morality? By progressive you mean someone who agrees with you?
“Progressive Christianity”? What exactly is that?
As far as I can tell it’s a form of Christianity that progressively wanders away from Biblical truth.
Could you please explain exactly what biblical truth is?
Thanks