by the Very Revd Nicholas Henshall, Dean of Chelmsford

Contested conversations and the life of faith

Contested conversation is written into Old Testament narrative. Indeed, the Bible presents contested conversation as its primary hermeneutical model. It still stands at the heart of the Jewish tradition and issues an invitation to Christians in a cultural context which often seeks bunkers and silos rather than listening to all the voices.

John J Collins, in his recent – and intentionally provocative – book What are Biblical Values? Goes as far as to suggest that when someone claims that “this is what the Bible says,” they normally mean “this is what I want the Bible to say”. And as Elizabeth Gaskell points out in North and South – her great novel of faith, love, and class – when the church starts talking about “keeping the teaching simple” that normally ushers in the infantilization of the people of God.

The Bible itself never claims to be without error or internal inconsistency. That is a product of the Enlightenment. Richard Dawkins and contemporary biblical literalists are (tragically) singing from the same epistemological song sheet.

The notion that texts only mean what they say is devastating enough for Jane Austen, and a complete catastrophe when it comes to sacred texts. For much of Christian history the Church has understood biblical texts to have many layers of meaning. Origen suggested at least four. Contested conversation invites contemporary Christianity to re-enter this arena.

So, John places the crucifixion on a different date and at a different time from the other Gospels. Paul himself recognises that he disagrees with Peter. Luke – who contributes more text to the New Testament than any other author – shows no trace of anything resembling substitutionary atonement. One of the reasons that so many churches in the early centuries chose to read Tatian’s synthetic version of the Gospels rather than the real thing was that it neatly tied up all these inconsistencies. much as we choose to do at Christmas with the infancy narratives and the family trees (plural) of Jesus.

In the Hebrew Bible, the Pentateuch intentionally places two stories of creation side by side, with creation happening in a different order in each of them; the text then refuses to resolve the conflicts. In the same way two iterations of the Law itself, each of them reflecting different contexts and concerns. The biggest example is the variety of responses to the Exile in the early 6th century BC. Isaiah on the one hand; Ezra / Nehemiah on another; and Ezekiel offering something wildly different, driving a coach and horses through whole swathes of Old Testament thinking.

One of the primary roles of the church here is as the “venue” for these contested conversations. Luther translated the Bible into German not so that each person could sit at home deciding what the Bible said but so that the community of faith could gather round the Scriptures and swink and sweat in the corporate search for the truth.

Are there limits to the conversation? Certainly. Newman’s line that theology is always a “process of saying and unsaying” suggests that the goal posts are generously wide. Contested conversations are not intended to be bitter conversations, inviting exclusion or the denial of people’s right to be present around the table. Jesus’ own pattern of speech and action explicitly rejects the notion of power as coercion but embraces the idea of power as capacity to act. Any partner in the contested conversations who diminishes the ability of others to join in on the basis of a priori assumptions based on gender, sexual orientation or race is forfeiting their own right to participate. Just as when I was invited to address the congregation at Friday Prayers at our local Mosque last year, we go into the conversation clear and unapologetic about our identity, but undefended.

In lock-down I have been binge-watching Scandinavian Noir. In one of the final episodes of the gruesome Finnish drama, Bordertown, the lead character confronts a Puritan Christian sect whose theology and practice has led them to commit appalling acts. At the climax he walks into the church just as the elders are about to discipline yet another female member who they judge to have misbehaved. He asks for permission to speak. Stunned, they fall silent, and he simply says: if you go on listening to just one voice in your little echo chamber, you will carry on doing evil when you want to do good. You must listen to all the voices.

Its very unlikely that we are going to learn, develop and grow if we only pay attention to the voices we agree with. As the Bible itself suggests, we are invited to pay attention to all the voices, including the ones that make us uncomfortable.

The biblical practice of contested conversation can be challenging but ultimately teaches us to live not in the absolute authority of our own views but out of a place of assurance that whatever happens, the future is secured through what God has already done for us in the salvation of the whole created order.

This entry was posted in Human Sexuality, Living in Love & Faith, Nicholas Henshall, Safeguarding. Bookmark the permalink.


  1. Margaret says:

    Thank you very much Nicholas, a refreshing change from the mutual intolerance that characterises social exchange today. You don’t entirely escape the trap of judgement and exclusion though, when you write: “Any partner in the contested conversations who diminishes the ability of others to join in on the basis of a priori assumptions based on gender, sexual orientation or race is forfeiting their own right to participate.” What does ‘forfeiting their right to participate’ mean if not exclusion? It’s rather like those in the past who, convinced of their own righteousness, assigned to hell those with a different set of beliefs.


  2. Margaret says:

    A further thought: how come it is OK to talk to Muslims but not to evangelical Christians who share wih Muslims the belief that homosexuality is wrong in the eyes of God? Might it be that to be seen talking to Muslims is good for the image of the progressive liberal you want to project?
    Let me be clear: I do not hold this belief myself — my mental and spiritual jury is out on the question — but I dislike hypocrisy in whatever form it takes.


  3. Rob says:

    This is a very confusing article. On the one hand, we are told that no one should be saying “the Bible says”, and on the other, we are told that the Bible says that “contested conversation” is its primary hermeneutical model. Where does it say that?

    What does “contested conversation” mean?
    The examples given are sweepingly vague, which doesn’t make things much clearer. Perhaps the most confusing example of it is “Paul himself recognises that he disagrees with Peter” (presumably a reference to Galatians chapter 2). But if you read Galatians chapter 2, Paul is hardly celebrating this “contested conversation”, or even being remotely tolerant of Peter’s conduct: “I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned…when I saw that their conduct was not in step with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all, “If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you force the Gentiles to live like Jews?””.

    Galatians 2 seems to be much more an example of someone confronting error, and steering people back to a defined body of truth (“in step with the truth of the gospel”), without which they “stand condemned”.

    Sadly, it reads like “no one’s allowed to know what the Bible says, and I can say that because I know what the Bible says”. But the internal inconsistencies don’t do much to support the assertion.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s