In last month’s blog I wrote about fake news and how we respond to it, and how we can fact-check what comes through our electronic devices, before passing it on to someone else. Although we must adopt good practice, and try to only pass on true and verified information, my previous blog may have perhaps lacked a degree of practicality from a personal perspective. That wasn’t really the objective of the post, but this month I thought I might try to write about how we practically respond to those who have very different views to our own. It may be that a friend of mine sends me a posting that supports vaccine denial, or possibly in support of an anti-asylum seeker/refugee group, or pro/anti Gaza thread, or a pro-Trump meme, or a pro-Brexit post – not many of them being spotted these days! 😉 So, how do we respond to the person we think hold views that are antithetical to our own position? It’s easy to just dismiss them as “idiotic muppets”, but that isn’t good enough, it doesn’t reflect Jesus, and helps no‑one. So, how do we retain friendships? Certainly, with great difficulty – it clearly isn’t easy.
However, before I dig into the weeds of that, I think it is important to check in with a news story that came out in March, but there is a linkage with what I’ve been starting to explore.
Baptist with a small “b”
I was brought up in a Baptist church from birth and I considered myself as a “Baptist” for much of the time until 2016 by which point I was in my late fifties. To be a little more nuanced, the “B” of Baptist became increasingly small and less important from my late teens. I regarded myself as “baptistic”, that is, that I took on the foundational theology, but not the identity. I have always disliked the label (refer back to my blog “Labels” a year ago), and the pomposity and elitism that came with it. When I was growing up, there was a kind of “Baptists are Best” mentality disseminated from the pulpit, and within the denomination, and I hated it. I was put in mind of the tax collector and Pharisee parable told by Jesus. Look it up! These days the jingoism seems more muted. Nevertheless, I have always held onto the baptistic principles contained in the “Declaration of Principle” which we will get to shortly.
By way of background, the style of government within the Baptist denomination is that each Baptist church is autonomous and if you have two Baptist churches within a mile of each other they can take differing theological stances on any number of issues. There is no handing down of doctrine from the top dog, to the minnow in the pew, in fact the power of the church is sourced from the pew, telling the leaders what needs to happen. That could sound a little confrontational, but it normally isn’t like that. The minister normally has her, or his, finger on the pulse of their church and know which way the wind is blowing. They can either encourage the leading of the Holy Spirit in a particular direction, or can provide teaching, if part of the church is in danger of embracing doctrine contrary to scripture. Normally the aim is to run a church by consensus using a democratic model.
Sola Scriptura
The Baptist church has always placed a very great emphasis on the importance of scripture, and many would hold to a view of the Bible known as Sola Scriptura (Latin for “by Scripture alone”) — basically, that the Bible is the ultimate and only infallible authority for the Christian faith. Ordinary Baptist “believers” (indeed, this is true of some other denominations as well) may not be aware of the term, but “sola scriptura” describes their position. I don’t think I would hold to that view rigidly myself, although in general practical terms I probably run reasonably close to that stance. I am wary of idolising the Bible, thus making the Bible more important than Jesus, when my focus should be on Jesus and His teaching. To be clear, I do not regard the Bible as factually inerrant – but then again I do not believe Jesus would have done so either! There you go, a little bit of controversy!
Don’t misunderstand me, when I was working my way through the issues of sexuality, I needed my new attitudes to be utterly consistent with what I read in the Bible, because for me, the Bible is my vital source of guidance – it is my plumb-line to measure truth – but not fact. Within the Roman Catholic Church and to a lesser extent in the Anglican church, traditions also play an important role. Within the Catholic tradition, praying to Mary and the Saints, the immaculate conception, transubstantiation, Purgatory, and other doctrines are traditions not directly found in the Bible. Some folk find them helpful, but they have no Biblical foundation. To provide balance, within the Anglican tradition Sacramental Theology (Anglicanism, like Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, affirms the sacraments as means of grace), Liturgy (like the Book of Common Prayer), the use of vestments, and the Threefold Ministry (the recognition of three orders of ordained ministry: bishops, priests (presbyters), and deacons). These are just a few of the traditions that are not talked about in Scripture in the way they are used today.
If you want to know more about Sola Scriptura you can read about it here.
Form filling or following a tradition?
Getting back to the Baptist Church, individual churches can opt to be members of the Baptist Union – or choose not to. Being a Baptist church is not dependent on signing a membership form with an organisation. Instead, it is identifying with a particular theological stance that came into being as a result of the Reformation. In addition, there are many flavours of Baptist churches. A bit like LGBTQ+ being a rainbow, so it is within the denomination! Oh sweet irony! 😂 You can have Primitive Baptists (and doesn’t that need a name change in a hurry!) Separated Baptists, Reformed Baptists, Strict Baptists, Independent Baptists, Particular Baptists, and so many more. The church I grew up in was technically described in its Trust deeds as being a Strict and Particular Baptist church, but it certainly wouldn’t identify as that these days!
In March the umbrella organisation, the Baptist Union of Great Britain met to consider whether gay ministers could be allowed to enter into marriage with their gay partner, whilst still remaining an “accredited Baptist minister”. Sadly, the Union decided against this proposal.
What does this mean? In essence, nothing changes, at least not for the next five years. The same proposal cannot be brought back within that period. Gay ministers with partners probably aren’t “accredited”, but they can still be ministers. Nonetheless, a Baptist church who is a member of the Union, is required to seek a waiver to appoint a non‑accredited minister. Being accredited just means you can take a job in any Baptist church, whereas you are more limited if you don’t have an accreditation. However, comments were made that individual churches cannot be prevented from hosting weddings for gay people if they choose, but this has really been the case for a few years. Previously the union had asked member churches not to conduct “same-sex weddings”, for the sake of the Union, although they had no power to prevent them. At least the language now is a little more open, recognising a fact of life that some Baptist churches will want to conduct weddings for gay people, but that is just “small beer”. As I understand it, I think it is only a handful of Baptist churches across the country that are currently offering weddings for gay couples.
“Declaration of Principle”
The glue that binds Baptist churches together within the Baptist Union is the “Declaration of Principle”, which I quite like, and, as it is only three paragraphs, I’ll quote the full text here:
The Basis of the Baptist Union is:
1. That our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, God manifest in the flesh, is the sole and absolute authority in all matters pertaining to faith and practice, as revealed in the Holy Scriptures, and that each Church has liberty, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, to interpret and administer His laws.
2. That Christian Baptism is the immersion in water into the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, of those who have professed repentance towards God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ who ‘died for our sins according to the Scriptures; was buried, and rose again the third day’.
3. That it is the duty of every disciple to bear personal witness to the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and to take part in the evangelisation of the world.
I particularly like point one, that Jesus “as revealed in the Holy Scriptures” is the sole authority, not the Bible itself. This is fascinating given how much weight is given to quoting Mosaic passages in the anti‑LGBTQ+ debate. Jesus rarely gets a look-in, other than in the tired response that “a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’” (Matthew 19) when Jesus was talking in the context of divorce, not sexuality. We’ve dealt with that many times in the past, most recently in January’s Blog “The wrong end of the stick?”
The underlying principle is that although Baptist churches might disagree on a number of doctrines, they can fellowship together under this loose umbrella. Sadly, following the consultation, it sounds like a quarter of Baptist ministers and a third of churches say they could not stay in covenant relationship with people who hold the opposite view. Whether, those reactions translate to actual action, remains to be seen.
The report of the meeting can be found on the Baptist Union website. There was one interesting stat and that was that 8 per cent of churches responding to the survey said that accredited ministers could be in a same-sex marriage, whereas when ministers were asked the same question, the percentage agreeing was 25%. Additionally, if you then split it between male and female ministers, females voted at over 50%. I believe anecdotally that this broadly echoes the Anglican experience that clergy tend to have looked at the issues more deeply and some have changed their stance, whereas the laity are more reluctant to change, whether that is because they are more afraid that if they change their view, this may undermine other aspects of their thinking, causing a collapse of their faith – or for some other reason, I don’t know. Clearly there is a lot more work to be done, to turn attitudes around.
The divisive issue of our day
Taking a step back this seems to be the key divisive issue of our day, whereas when I was young, the issue was “could a woman really be appointed as a minister of a church?” Fortunately, that issue is in the rear-view mirror, but the sexuality issue is very much front and centre, being the most divisive issue of our generation. In the meantime, there are “tens and tens” of gay male and female Baptist ministers who are feeling hurt and wounded, yet again, as a result of this rebuttal and diminishment of their calling. And once again religious leaders are shown as failing to understand the real issues. Where have we heard that before?
Some of the background to this piece, has come from my own 50+ years’ experience within Baptist churches, where I have served as both a Deacon and Home Group leader in two different churches. Additional research was from the various websites I’ve already mentioned, and the rest of the information (including the stats) came from the podcast “Premier Christian Newscast – The Consultation and the compromise: Gay Marriage and the Baptist Union” dated 15th April.
This is, in essence, the situation I was coming to with my thought at the beginning, about how we disagree agreeably. We have examples of how it can be done from the so-called secular world, where you have several podcasts being created by two people coming from opposing political or religious backgrounds. There are two I can recommend: Rory Stewart and Alistair Campbell’s “The Rest Is Politics”, and the other is “A Muslim & A Jew Go There” with David Baddiel and Sayeeda Warsi. Within Anglicanism, Archbishop Justin Welby has been trying for years to work for “good disagreement”. (Alistair Cambell and Rory Stewart talk about “disagreeing agreeably”.) This seems to me to be the key, and it seems to be very much a gospel principle that we should work towards.
But how do we do that?
But how do we do that? Speaking for myself I get wound up when I hear people say, or post, things pertaining to be authoritative, but that are provably nonsense. However, I think there is a world of difference in how you react to hearing Boris Johnson openly lie to parliament and the country, and then Liz Truss saying the financial collapse was everyone else’s fault (especially the Bank of England) except her own, in spite of knowing the mechanisms of power, having been very much part of the established system herself for many years. It can be very different when you actually have the opportunity to talk to someone in person, face-to-face, whether that is over a meal or drink or in the park, etc. In the first instance, Boris Johnson and Liz Truss are remote and distant, and I’m unlikely to ever meet them, fortunately, so my views are born of frustration, impotence and anger. In the second instance, meeting someone over a meal and drink there is a relationship, which you presumably want to maintain.
At the last few Pride events I have spoken to people who I fundamentally disagree with, but it is important to listen, remain civil, and keep calm as you talk. Maybe your rational conversation will one day be a catalyst for change. Shouting at someone NEVER won an argument — it might have temporarily got you out of a situation that was out of your control, but you didn’t convince anyone, probably not even yourself, if you are honest. When things get tense, my first instinct is to make myself small, run and hide, not face up and stand my ground – and there is a right time for both those reactions. No one has ever persuaded me to change my view by shouting at me. Indeed, it is likely to have the completely opposite effect. Engage with me. Come to me with a cogent, or intelligently reasoned argument and I’ll happily listen.
So, what can we do when we have conversations with people whose views we might fundamentally disagree with? It might be to do with Brexit, the climate debate, devolved powers to London, Scottish/Welsh/Irish Independence, Trans issues, whether gay Baptist Ministers can marry, or marriage for gay people within the Anglican Communion – or something else entirely.
The example of Jesus in the Gospels
My initial instinct is to look at the example of Jesus in the Gospels. The general public didn’t tend to come to Jesus to confront him, because they wanted to listen, learn and be healed. The religious leaders were the one’s trying to trip him up, and Jesus tended to be forceful with them, but still engaged them in respectful dialogue. You have one example in Matthew 22:15-22, where the disciples of the Pharisees, along with the Herodians (a political party of the time who wished to restore a member of the Herodian dynasty to the throne in Judea) who asked whether it was right to pay taxes to Caesar? Jesus saw their trick, engaged them in the discussion, asking them to show him a coin and getting them to tell him whose picture was on it, before telling them: “Give therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and to God the things that are God’s.” 22 When they heard this, they were amazed, and they left him and went away.”
Looking at some of these Gospel stories we can say that Jesus kept calm, he didn’t panic, showed no fear, listened, kept a clear mind, was focussed on the issue and solutions, and found common ground in the recognition that tax needed to be paid by all and got his questioners to produce a coin normally used for paying the tax.
Yes, that was Jesus, and I still have a long way to go to match Him. So, humanly, what do I need to focus on. Speaking for myself, the most important thing for me is to stay calm, but I want to compile a list of a few suggestions to which I’ve added a few others surprisingly suggested by ChatGPT, which seem eminently sensible.
- Stay calm. Keep your emotions in check while chatting. Try to avoid becoming defensive or aggressive. Take deep breaths and slow yourself down if you feel you are struggling.
- Respect the other person, however negatively you feel. We can see Jesus model that in the above story. Approach the conversation with respect for the other person’s perspective, experiences, and opinions. They do have a right to hold different views to you – surprising as that might be!
- Listen carefully so you understand the other person’s point of view before responding. You can clarify what they say by asking: “Are you saying….?” This can help in the process of finding common ground, and they’ll realise you are serious. Jesus had a habit of asking questions of religious authorities whenever there was any sort of conflict. Try to understand the reasoning behind their perspective.
- Do not talk over or shout at the other person. Wait till they finish speaking before you jump in. If they jump in on you, politely ask them to wait until you’ve finished, because you have already been courteous to them.
- Specifically look for common ground. Look for areas of agreement or shared values to build upon. Finding common ground can help bridge differences and facilitate compromise.
- Focus on the issues, not on the individuals. Keep the discussion focused on the topic at hand rather than attacking the person. Avoid personal attacks or insults.
- Acknowledge any valid points. Even if you disagree overall, acknowledge any valid points the other person makes. Try not to sound too grudging! You can come across as being fair and this can lead to a more constructive conversation.
- Focus on how you see it – you can say “I see it differently”; “this is how I see it”; “I believe”, rather than by accusing them by saying, “You’re wrong.”
- Be open to the possibility of change – you might be wrong: Remain open-minded and willing to reconsider your own views based on new information or perspectives that come up during the conversation.
- Be prepared for compromise. Instead of dwelling on differences, focus on finding solutions or compromises that address underlying concerns from both sides.
- It may be impossible to reach a compromise, so you may need to agree to disagree: Sometimes, despite efforts to find common ground, disagreement may persist. It’s okay to acknowledge this and respectfully agree to disagree.
- Recognise when you may need to walk away: If the conversation clearly runs around in circles and is unproductive or overly contentious, it may be best to let it be for a while, and possibly revisit it later when emotions have cooled.
A conclusion
There is one thing which I believe to be important – and it has been key for me in the way my own views have changed in recent years, and that is the importance of learning about all of the angles relating to an issue. You can’t, indeed mustn’t, get into an argument if you haven’t done your homework around an issue. If you do, your ignorance tends to be quickly revealed, and credibility lost. Read, listen, discuss, then listen a bit more, ponder and decide, but then be prepared to change your mind again as more information becomes available. Always be prepared to change. Stagnation occurs when nothing new is allowed to enter the pond.
Changing Minds 