A couple of days ago, I published a comment piece following the publication of Kirsten Birkett’s book Class and the Evangelical Church in England. My post was at pains to point out it was NOT a critique of Birkett or her book. Rather, the point was that the evangelical reaction to her book was quite telling. Specifically, the reaction was symptomatic of the how and why working class people are often frustrated in the church. You can read that original post here.

I followed that up with another post outlining some of the reaction I assumed would have been made on social media to my post. You can read it here. I am not on much social media these days, having ridded myself of some accounts and maintaining others only for blog dissemination for the most part. At the time of writing, I hadn’t seen any reaction. I do, however, occasionally have my eyes directed to these things by people who want to share stuff with me from those platforms. I am then sometimes (against my better judgement) drawn back to take a look. It seems my educated guesswork was pretty accurate!

Today – and I will make this my final post concerning the reaction to this particular book – I want to give you some very specific examples of how voices are often dismissed. One such example was shared with me from a Facebook group (a group I belong to but no longer frequent). The example is instructive (and I note I was asked for some specific examples in the very thread) because it shows precisely how certain voices are dismissed. Before I share a particular comment and make some specific points in response, let me share with you some direct quotes from my original post:

“I want to say from the front end here, the fault doesn’t lie with the thing or person at the centre of this example. The thing itself simply serves to help us see the issues at play.”

“let me say once again: the problem here is NOT with the book or its author. I am glad people from different backgrounds (non-English and even non-British backgrounds) are recognising and raising these issues. Nor does Birkett present what she is saying a though she is the definitive voice on the matter nor raising issues that have never been raised before. She states, ‘what I will be saying is nothing new. Plenty of research has been done, and good books written, on class in the evangelical church, from the academic level to the general.’ She references two of them directly here. So none of what follows is any issue with Birkett or her book. It is the reaction to her book, and indeed the relative response to other voices, that speaks into the issues at play.”

Those two quotes are from the first paragraphs and were stated at the front end. Further quotes in the body of the post are as follows:

“[It] is NOT to say Birkett shouldn’t be allowed to speak, has no insight on the matters at hand, doesn’t fully understand or that academic interest is not valuable. I want to be clear, I’m not saying any of these things and, once again, the issue is not Birkett nor her book which I am sure makes a valuable contribution to these discussions.”

“I don’t in any way blame the middle class people who have gone to deprived communities, who are given the chance to raise the issues about such communities, from taking that opportunity. It’s not their fault and I would much rather they grasped hold of that opportunity than nobody did and nothing was said about these issues at all.”

“The latest book is not a problem in and of itself. It’s not a problem in what is says. But it has been welcomed because it is the right kind of voice, saying things in the right kind of way, from the right kind of background, speaking language the majority understand and therefore lauding it as a great step forward. But the church needs to understand what a kick in the teeth that reaction is to the working class voices (and this is not sleight on Birkett, who clearly references some of them) who have said all these same things and yet we either ignored them or dismissed them.”

“just in case this has been lost, let me say it again: this is not Kirsten Birkett’s fault. This is not a problem with anything she has said nor added to this conversation. The issue is the wider evangelical reaction to what has been said and why many respond so positively to this when, by Birkett’s own admission, it has all been said before and – in the experience of those saying it – welcomed much less happily. The issue is not personal. It is nothing to with the author or her book in and of themselves.”

It is hard to think how I could have been any clearer. I am not unhappy that a non-working class voice has spoken. I am not unhappy that these issues are getting discussed. I am not disagreeing or rejecting what has been written. I am not of the view that unless one is working class you are not permitted to speak on these things. Not only have I NOT said any of that, I have EXPLICITLY made clear I don’t think these things. I really don’t know how I could have made the point any clearer. My issue is neither with the author nor the book. I explain in the rest of post what the issue is and why it matters.

Imagine my surprise, then, to read the following comment:

To be honest, this article baffles me. Birkett has invested a huge amount of time, effort and hard work examining the relationship between class and the evangelical church. It is an excellent piece of work which is thought-provoking, accessible, well-researched, insightful and concise. She also points to the work of others on this subject, most of whom have working class backgrounds such as Mez McConnell.

However, Kneale discredits her work and care about this important issue by saying it’s not worth anything because Birkett didn’t happen to have been born into a working class family. Her voice should be devalued and she should not be able to be interested in this issue just for that single reason. How counterintuitive, bizarre and discriminatory. As Christians, we should pay attention to the research and content, not whose pen it happens to originate from. The truth is true no matter who happens to utter it. Christians have traditionally been great champions of free speech, not selective gatekeepers.

As someone with autism, I rejoice that neurotypical researchers are interested in my condition and expend effort, time and money on researching it.

On the one hand, Kneale laments that evangelical churches don’t listen to working class concerns. However, he then laments the fact that a skilled theologian takes interest in those concerns, accepts them, amplifies them, condemns elitist practice and offers thoughtful and wise responses. Rejecting Birkett’s work is shooting yourself in the foot and is totally counterproductive and defeatist. Remember the Dowager Countess’s view, “Don’t be defeatist, it’s very middle class”.

As someone who ministers in one of the most deprived parishes in England, I have found Birkett’s work invaluable, both in its own right and especially when coupled with McConnell’s work. But maybe I don’t have the right “lived” experience (as opposed to death experience of course) to comment at all.”

I would encourage you to re-read the quotes from my post above and tell me whether this is an any way a reasonable reflection of what I said explicitly and repeatedly. Where, for example, did I discredit Birkett or her book? Where did I question her academic credentials? Where did I say that she ought not to be heard because she wasn’t “born into a working-class family”? Where did I suggest her book cannot be right or should be ignored because of “the pen it emanates from”? Where did I “lament the fact that a skilled theologian takes interest in those concerns, accepts them, amplifies them, condemns elitist practice and offers thoughtful and wise responses” or “reject Birkett’s work”? I simply didn’t do any of that. In fact, can you spot where I explicitly said the opposite?

I will call that for what it is; wilful mischaracterisation. It is apparent what has happened here. Somebody has seen that I have mentioned the phrase “working class” and I suggested such voices are often dismissed. This person has worked themselves up into a lather and then responded, ignoring the quite specific and explicit ways I have NOT dismissed Kirsten Birkett’s book, and gone on to prove my very point: they are dismissing me not because of anything I have said, because I haven’t said or suggested any of the things credited to me in the comment (indeed, I said the opposite in various places). The issue can’t be what is said because I’m not disagreeing with anything Birkett has said. The issue must lie elsewhere.

Various bit of that thread (at least, when I looked at it) weren’t much better. It doesn’t seem to matter that the post was shared by somebody who has experienced and recognised the things I was raising. It doesn’t matter that, in response to somebody dismissing it, they made a point of saying these things were absolutely true in their experience. There were a number of voices who affirmed the post was legit from their own experiences as working class people. One said they were often dismissed as having a ‘bee in the bonnet’ if they mention these things. I was staggered the solution to that was not to address the sinful dismissal of another Christian person’s experience, but was dressed up as their need to be more gracious about such dismissive behaviour. That catchall which says I don’t like what you’re saying but I can’t actually offer any credible response so I’ll say this to shut it down. Essentially, the truth is making me uncomfortable so I will blame you for causing my discomfort. Such comments affirmed all these things. Yet all these experiences were still dismissed by several people, and garnered many more likes implying agreement with their dismissive comments.

But many liked the comment I quoted above too, suggesting they also affirm what is in the comment. Not only are they affirming slanderous mischaracterisation to avoid engaging with the substance of the post, they are dismissing the experiences of all those who affirmed what the post said was true in their own experience. They also – despite the comment’s claim to want to champion free speech – actively shut down meaningfuly discussion. Rather than engaging with what has been said, they have made up what has NOT been said and then suggested the actual issues being raised can be sidestepped and not spoken about at all. They have distracted away from the points at issue and caused us to speak about things that were not mentioned. They have thrown mud to make the discussion about what wasn’t said rather than actually addressing any of the actual points that were made.

Worse, in the face of my post being dismissed, and in the face of various people affirming they have experienced exactly this form of dismissal, and even one person sharing the experience of their church and how these things are a problem, a number of those same people who were spoken to directly about such things actively liked and amplified the quoted post. They were amplifying a clear mischaracterisation of what I said. That mischaracterisation allows them to dismiss what was said because they are prejudiced towards it. They do not want it to be true. They do not want to engage with the actual case being made. Some grasp for things like ‘graciousness’ which is always (as I argued yesterday) grace on their terms. Graciousness as their culture defines it. Graciousness, it seems, at the expense of truth. In this case, they have liked and amplified untruth concerning what I actually said so they can then continue to ignore the issues at hand. That is despite someone else making a heartfelt plea that they don’t do this but engage with the heart cry of the critique.

Clearly those dismissing these voices are not interested in meaningful engagement. Nor are they interested in proper self-reflection. They read posts like these with prejudice and then allow such prejudice to blind them to anything useful, even mischaracterising them by insisting they have said precisely what they do not say. Others, sympathetic to the mischaracterisation, pile in commenting and liking these things on social media platforms. We should make note of this, particularly where such people are involved in ministries that aim to facilitate conversations and gospel engagement.

This, dear friends, is how we dismiss the wrong voices. We reject the way they say things so we don’t have to engage with what they actually said. We reject their tone, their graciousness, their whatever all so we don’t actually have to hear the thing they are saying. If and when these things don’t stick – as in the quoted post above – we make things up about what they were saying despite them overtly saying the opposite. That way, we can dismiss the person and then not listen. But when we do this, all that becomes clear is we are dishonest and have no desire to listen to what is said on any terms.

The biggest irony of all, particularly in light of the quoted comment, is I really wasn’t critiquing Kirsten Birkett or her book. I made that very plain. I WAS actively critiquing the evangelical reaction to it. Interestingly, the very critique I was making has been exposed in the little social media reaction I have seen.

I truly wasn’t having a go at Kirsten Birkett or her work. But rather like the Pharisees, I suspect the people I was speaking about ‘knew he was talking about them’. The heart of their reaction – wilfully mischaracterising what was said, dismissing it because it doesn’t suit our narratives, dismissing others who affirm it as true – seems to be to be the same. One of the serious sins of the Pharisees was knowing what Jesus said was true and yet doing all within their power to dismiss what he said and, when they had no answer, looking to discredit him so they could reject his message. When that didn’t work, they began plotting to kill him to maintain their narratives and social standing.

Now, just to be clear (being how well my caveats worked last time) I’m not suggesting anyone is plotting anything nearly so serious here. But the rest of the trajectory looks troubling. There is often an unwillingness to listen to (what some consider to be) critiques from particular sources. It can come off to those making such noises as though some are more interested in maintaining the status quo, their narrative or position and are quite willing to mischaracterise and discredit people in order to do so. After all, Jesus says, you will know them by their fruits and when the fruit is to wilfully mischaracterise and even continue rejecting the critique when multiple other voices affirm it is true in their experience too, it does start to look rather like the school of Pharisaic dismissal.

But I was asked for examples and I think the thread itself provides an interesting one. It is, sadly, behind the walls of a closed group (another issue of its own where these things can be said behind cover). But for those who asked for examples in the thread, it is instructive of itself. Various working class people affirm what is in the post yet still a number simply dismiss it – some even doing so by making up things that are explicitly untrue – only so, I am led to conclude, we don’t have to listen. That is, except to the academic wot wrote a book about it who comes from the right evangelical circle. We like that voice; the ones from people like me, not so much. Once again, none of that is Kirsten Birkett’s fault nor any issue with her personally, her qualifications nor her book. But if you want examples of what I was talking about, that very thread: I give you exhibit A.