I have been about blogging for long enough to know – particularly when it comes to certain topics – that it is never long before somebody accuses you of having a chip on your shoulder. I can guarantee, if I am saying something about class, race or the travails of smaller churches, this comment will never be far away. Someone, somewhere will insist you just have a chip on your shoulder and you need to get over it.

Obviously, unless I’m talking about white people, it’s an odd comment when it comes to race. If I am saying anything about racial biases affecting ethnic minorities, it is hard to argue I am highlighting these things due to some perceived chip on my shoulder about race. But many of my observations of this sort are based around the area where I live, the church I am in and the experiences of ethnic minority people as they engage with the church. Chips on the shoulder – as far as any comment I might make is concerned – usually get hidden in claims about having a chip on my shoulder about where I live or the realities of life in a church like mine. Accusations of class, and small and deprived church, chips on shoulders would appear, at first blush, to land more credibly.

But having been at this long enough, let me make some observations both about the ‘chip on the shoulder’ accusation and those who tend to level it. They almost always carry some consistent features.

Never those who face the issue

I have never been told, when discussing class, that I have a chip on my shoulder about it by anybody who is working class. I am very rarely told I have a chip on the shoulder about this stuff by anybody who works regularly with working class people either. I only ever get told I have a chip on the shoulder about these things by middle class people who are involved in majority middle class churches or communities.

But it’s not just class. If I raise issues about minority ethnic experience, I only ever get told there is some chip on the shoulder about it by majority culture white people. I can’t recall a time when ethnic minority people, if I raise issues they might face as ethnic minorities in a majority white church, suggested I had a chip on the shoulder about the issue.  The same generally holds when speaking about church in deprived communities. I don’t think I have ever been accused by another church in a deprived community of having a chip on the shoulder. I assume because most of what I am saying is recognisably and demonstrably true in their own areas. I have only ever been accused of a chip on the shoulder by larger, majority white middle class churches.

Only ever when critical of dominant culture

It is also interesting that the chip on the shoulder only apparently exists when being critical of dominant culture. I understand that chips on the shoulder are about resentment and holding onto grievances, so I understand they will only ever be levelled when someone is being critical. It is plausible one might have a chip on the shoulder if continually and only ever criticising majority culture rules.

However, it is interesting that those same people never accuse me of a chip on the shoulder if and when I raise counterpoints about white working class people when discussing issues of race and how racial politics operate locally. This is apparently never a chip on the shoulder. Essentially, if I raise comments against a high profile view that the majority culture finds objectionable, even if it is on race or class, there is no chip on the shoulder but if I say things that might chime with a view they are less keen on (for whatever reason) it is a chip on the shoulder.

This is similarly true more broadly. If comments on class chime with majority culture views on class at any point – even if they are critical – there is no chip on the shoulder here. If they happen to be at all critical of majority culture because of their impact on working class people, the chip on the shoulder is almost always invoked.

Never with demonstrable or observable counterpoints

It is also notable that the chip on the shoulder accusation almost never comes with observable or demonstrable counterpoints. For example, imagine I accused most churches of having overt prejudice towards ethnic minorities so that they were made to sit in other rooms, segregated from the congregation for racist reasons (to be clear, I am not aware of churches in any circles I move in that do this – I am using a purposefully unknown exemplar). The obvious retort would not be that I just have a chip on the shoulder. It would be that this doesn’t happen, we have been in countless churches that didn’t do this and we even have photographic evidence. In other words, we provide counterpoints and evidence to show the claim is untrue.

When I get accused of having a chip on the shoulder, it never comes with this kind of counterpoint evidence. The issue is sometimes denied point blank (whatever it may be) but no evidence is produced or cited. When I point out that I am citing the examples of what I have personally observed and experienced, as well as the comments from other brothers and sisters – who I would like to believe we at least have the minimum charitable assumption are not lying to us – who say they have experienced these things directly. Chips on the shoulder are never far away when these things are the case.

What do chips on the shoulder tell us?

Taken in the round, the proverbial chip on the shoulder appears to be the claim of choice when we perceive somebody is criticising us (or our wider culture), they cite evidence to that effect, we do not have any counterpoints, but we nevertheless don’t like it and wish to deny the claim so we don’t have to do anything about it. If we can just dismiss the criticism or mere observation as the ravings of a resentful moaner, we don’t actually have to engage with the substance of what they say or why they might be saying it, and we certainly don’t have to do anything about it. In short, it is the rather brittle response of someone who might sense, if they affirm there may be a point here, might need to think about it, may even need to change and doesn’t really want to countenance doing so.

How might we respond to such observations/criticism more helpfully?

In no particular order:

• Ask yourself: why is this person saying this? Why do we think they’ve put their head above the parapet to say this thing, which we know will get pushback, if we all know it isn’t true?
• Try to hear the criticism/observation on its own terms. If we think there is any truth to it, own it. If we think it has credit, suggest some emolient measure.
• Attempt to hear the cry behind the claim. Behind these observations usually lies an issue that might require a very small change to stop it being an issue.
• If we think the point is demonstrably wrong, cite some evidence. Give specific examples that show the criticism is demonstrably untrue. Expect the one raising the matter to respond as they were hoping you would respond to them.
• Weight opinion accordingly. Is this someone with relevant experience vs your ‘I reckon’? Is this person citing others with relevant experience or expertise? Are you allowing your hackles to dictate whether this is true or credible?
• Even if you don’t like how something was said, is the substance of what was said nevertheless true? If so, can we put aside the mode of delivery for the sake of doing what is evidently right?

These things would help our discussions as we go forward.

Sadly, what often happens when I get accused of having a chip on the shoulder is a lot of defensiveness, self-justification and denials. They may not have been personal criticisms at all; just people who perceive they have been criticised. It comes to the fore when their majority culture way of doing things is questioned and they want to close ranks and deny the problem. Much of the time, nobody is asking them to do very much at all. It is often just a call for understanding. Accusing us of chips on the shoulder only serves to create resentment, the kind of which produces chips on shoulders.