Polemics and the Great Commission

I started blogging about two and a half years ago and it seems to me that I was in on the second or third wave of God blogging. It seems to me that the emergent folks like Jordan Cooper, Tim Bednar and others were the first to discover the usefulness of blogging.  Then folks like Mean Dean, Joe Carter, LaShawn Barber, Josh Claybourn, the inscrutable Discoshaman (come back to the blogosphere Disco, we miss you!) and Adrian Warnock were in the second wave and they paved the way for the rest of us.  Several waves have followed since then and with each successive wave of new God bloggers there has been wonderful new ideas, and wonderful new discussions.

Along with that, however, has come increasing acrimony.  This is a common complaint in many quarters and I myself have fallen into an acrimonious stance toward the acrimonious at times. Having said that, I don't claim to have a solution to the problem but I do want to offer a couple of thoughts that may give perspective to the matter.

I don't think we can ever escape the need for polemics.  As Jay Adams likes to point out, to assert that something is true is to assert that its antithesis is untrue.  Of course we can have all kinds of discussion as to what constitutes an antithesis.  Sometimes we can assert a truth and assert a tangential matter that, while not restating that first truth, complements it rather than contradicts it.  But acknowledging that, we must acknowledge that if salvation is found in no other name than that of Jesus, it is untrue that someone can be saved without naming the name of Jesus.  And there are many other things we could talk about.  But the point is that polemics argues against "untruth" and it has an important place in the Christian life.  We ought not to frown on those who engage in polemics.

Having said that, we also ought not to encourage anyone to only engage in polemics.  And here comes the thought I wanted to add that may give some perspective to the matter.  We ought to look at the apostle Paul as the model polemicist.

No one refuted error like Paul and all who would refute error today have him as their model.  But before Paul was a polemicist he was an evangelist and a church planter.  In short, he was a driven by the great commission. There is a sense in which polemics took on the nature of a rear guard action for the apostle Paul as it helped protect and reinforce the fruits of his evangelism and church planting ministry.

It seems to me that polemics are useful if they are kept as a secondary motivation.  If a person is driven by a desire to evanglize, to shepherd, and to build the church, then polemics can fall in behind and become very helpful.

But polemics are destructive when they become the primary motivation, or when they become the thrust of a particular ministry.  Mark Driscoll has a sermon where he talks about people who spend their lives contending for the faith without ever contextualizing the faith.  These are people who are like pit bulls, always attentive to heresy and always ready to do battle against error.  These people also often wish more nonbelievers would come to their church to hear the truth.  Driscoll says nonbelievers don't come to the church for the same reason that people don't gravitate to homes that are guarded by a couple of pit bulls. 

I believe that is a good illustration.  This is not to say that homes (and churches) don't need to be guarded.  But there are ways of guarding a house that are more discreet and that can give the house an inviting air of hominess, while still protecting the house and keeping it from looking like a fortress.

It seems to me that we could tone down the acrimony in the blogosphere and the church in general if polemicists would follow the example of the apostle Paul and devote the best of their spiritual and intellectual energies first on evangelism and church planting/building, and then let the polemics follow later. 

Comments

[Al Johnson]

Yes, you are on to something important here, David. Polemics is a definite problem in the biblioblogosphere. But I think that the issue goes deeper. It's a heart issue that drives the polemics. There is a widespread lack of recognition that fellow Christians are not our enemy. There is a widespread lack of recognition that often when fellow Christians disagree with us it is not a matter of one person having the truth and the other not having the truth, or even of anyone contending for the truth, but of humility, recognizing that none of us have a full grasp of the mind of Christ about the truth. We need to listen humbly and graciously to each other, to learn from one another, especially when we see things from different points of view.

This is *not* cultural relativism. Unlike many today, I believe in absolute truth. But as much as I would like to believe that I have a firm grasp of the truth I'm not so naive but to recognize that I often do not understand the truth in all its aspects as much as God does.

I am tired of oneupmanship in the blogosphere. Sometimes posts seem to be made largely for the purpose of stoking one's ego, for getting more visitors to one's own blog. Would it not be better for us to have the goal of listening more to each other and becoming more Christlike, both in actions as well as in knowledge.

I think polemics have a place but that place, it seems to me, should largely be where there is clearcut error. So many of the disagreements in the blogosphere today are not about error but about different points of view. Blogs give us a quick way to say what we believe and to put down what someone else believes.

Thanks for raising this important topic. I hope that it elicits as many comments as more provocative topics such as whether or not women can prophesy in church or what version of the Bible we should be using.

[Steven Harris]

Outstanding post David, spoken with a true pastoral heart.

[Scotty B]

You're a blessing to the body David. Thanks for saying this.

A Mark Driscoll sermon that might bless you:
Driscoll brings Ecclesiastes 7:15-8:1 to bear on religious jerks and instead calls for transparency and humility which brings wisdom and biblical influence.

Copy and Paste the below url in your browser-
http://www.marshillchurch.org/audio/Eccl_7_15-8_1_driscoll.mp3

Also I put a post today on my blog that demonstrates that the polemics won't stop when it comes to Driscoll.

I think that you were generally spot on about the Confessions Book review controversy and about the need for a sharp rebuke to our reformed brothers and sisters who used the book as a jumping off point to uncharitably judge Driscoll.

P.S.Roger Nicole had a good essay on polemics
http://www.founders.org/FJ33/article3.html

[jene']

"We would be in the best shape if
we kept in essentials, Unity;
in non-essentials, Liberty;
and in both Charity."
- PETER MEIDERLIN

This has been a good guide for me.

We are to be like Christ here on earth. Let's make sure everyone knows how loving He is.

[stan]

Acrimony sells and draws attention. Witness Lashawn Barber. Even the Lord said to sinful Israel, "Come now and let us reason together".

[Jabbok]

I'm presently reading "Why I Am Not An Arminian" and the authors make the point early on that it is a polemical work but they would not let it degenerate into name calling. They also make a very good distinction on what should be classified as "Heresy" and what is merely a differing opinion among fellow believers.

I'm not sure how much I agree with you about Paul. He wasn't let down from a window, in a basket, to flee the city because he was a nice guy that just wanted to evangelize. His polemics could be scathing. example from his encounter with Peter:"I withstood him to the face because he was to be blamed."

I also think that Paul cooled down over the years as can be seen in his treatment of John Mark. You remember that this caused a division between him and Barnabas early on but later Paul wanted John Mark with him because he (John Mark) was needful for his ministry.

[wfseube]

I believe the number of bloggers who engage in full-time polemics is rather small. Most I've seen spend at least equal time engaging in positive and/or evangelistic writings.

Remember, one man's polemic is another man's heartache...

[David C]

Good post.

[Hippocritic]

Al's right. It's a heart issue. John tells us Jesus was full of grace and truth. That's certainly a challenge to me. It's easy to be truthful without being very gracious as a search of the godblogs will quickly prove. Likewise it's not so hard to be gracious if truth is recklessly abandoned for the sake of "love", "unity" or some other noble ideal. For Jesus to be full of both is, for me, another example of what a wonderful saviour we have!
David, you and Adrian W are both great ambassodors for watching what we post and how we post it. I pray you'll keep on reminding us.

How about this (adapted from Jim Wallis's introduction to "God's Politics"):
"Instead of saying 'God's on my side', we should ask 'am I on God's side'"
The former inevitably comes from a place of pride and arrogance, whereas the latter comes with it a sense of humility and even repentence, qualities we could only be doing with more of in the blogosphere.

[cavman]

Hmmm,
I agree with most of what has been said here. Yet.....
Do we make the same criticisms of generations past? Are we jumping all over Luther (say in Bondage of the Will) or Calvin? What do we do with them (and others from their time)? Were they enculturated to bombastic polemics, or are we enculturated to political correctness? I don't have an answer, or am I making an accusation.

[dcypl]

Excellent post and great discussion in the comments.

@Al Johnson, spot on, I too am tired of oneupmanship in the blogosphere, and the racing to be the next one to add their two cents worth about ...... (fill in the blank).

I've unsubscribed to several blogs recently, for this and other reasons. Often the most gracious way to deal with it is with your mouse not the keyboard.

[Catez]

Just to pick up on a point - not all Paul's disputing was productive. Yes they got him out of the city - and if you read the passage it says they then enjoyed peace and the church GREW in numbers after that - when Paul's disputing was not longer occurring there. Paul went at it in his old style I think - and he needed time away to learn a new way. Which he did. When he came back he was as David describes here.

Great post.

[Catez]

I meant I was picking up on a point that arose here in the comments.

[Former Corn Chuckin' Champ]

Would a "No Trespassing" sign on the church building's "attractive nuisance" porch be too polemical?

[Funky Dung]

"We would be in the best shape if we kept in essentials, Unity; in non-essentials, Liberty; and in both Charity."

That quote has a long and interesting history.

[Gavin White]

You are right that Paul the Apostle was driven by the great commission. Whether we are blogging, witnessing, working or preaching - the great commission and the glory of God in our time should be the driving factor. Less acrimony on the blogs and in the church in general would help also! - Good Post

[David Cho]

Well, funky. Many of these bloggers absolutely believe that the essentials of the gospel are under threat, so I can sympathzie with their passions.

This is coming a person who has had his share of battles with them.

[Sarah Joy Albrecht]

Good post and good timing.

I'd like to add to the discussion that we as Christians tend to use the phrase “in love” as in “I told them in love that I disagree” and I think that this idea needs to be explored. What does it mean to “disagree in love” ? Unfortunately, it often means “I smiled and put on my nice voice while beating them with my Biblical knowledge.”

I was at a Presbytery WIC conference where Tara Barthel reminded us the importance of “remembering” before confronting. Yes, she's with Peacemaker Ministries, and they deal with conflict resolution, but I think the same principle applies. When Christians stop to remember the gravity of their sin, and what Christ did for us it puts the debate in perspective. Theological one-upmanship must be replaced with an attitude of “one beggar showing another beggar where to find bread.”

Although our argument may be doctrinally correct, sometimes the opponent may need spiritual growth. Nothing we say will be convincing to that person or group of people because the Holy Spirit is still growing them. They may still need baby food while we're trying to insist they eat fillet mignon with Madeira sauce. Ever try to give “good food” to a baby? They wrinkle their nose! The flavor is too complex. (1 Cor 3:2 ; Heb 5:12; 1 Pet 2:2) When this is the case, sometimes the best answer is to backtrack and go over foundational issues first and see if there is a disconnect there... to build upon the foundation to an issue's logical/scriptural conclusion. Teaching is needed rather than debating.

We also need to remember that God graciously allots each person's measure of faith. “ For through the grace given to me I say to everyone among you not to think more highly of himself than he ought to think; but to think so as to have sound judgment, as God has allotted to each a measure of faith. For just as we have many members in one body and all the members do not have the same function, so we, who are many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another.” (Romans 12:3-5) The passage continues by talking about God's allocating of spiritual gifts as well. Often times when we are not convincing our “opponent”, we sinfully make statements or pass judgements that devalue a person's measure of faith (Dave Swavely discusses this at length in his recent book, “Who are you to Judge?” - ISBN: 159638011X ) somehow thinking that people have the power to grow (“they should know better!”) apart from the work of the Holy Spirit. What we are really saying is, “yeah, God, I know YOU gave them their measure of faith and are growing them in YOUR time, but it's not good enough for ME.”

We must also be teachable. Is there something God is trying to show us – a different perspective, even?
Sometimes we are presented with debates so that we can humbly realize that we're not as smart/mature as we think we are. Sometimes our personal demographic clouds they way we relate to people. Our principles are actually on the same page as our opponents, but the way they manifest themselves (our methods) are completely different and unique to us. Nancy Wilson wrote a great article on this called “Be at Peace” (http://www.credenda.org/issues/7-2femina.php) . In these cases, we need to come to terms with the difference between principles and methods, give up, and be united in Christ despite our methods.

Excellent discussion. A pleasure to read your blog, as always.

With much love,
Sarah Joy Albrecht
Olive Street Presbyterian Church (PCA)
Coatesville, PA

Please my blog @ http://sarahjoyalbrecht.com/

[DLE]

David,

Been away, so just now coming to this...

I believe a change is slowly occurring. In the last month, more bloggers are exploring what it means to truly love first and ask questions later. This is a good thing!

At the beginning of this year, I wrote "The Godblogosphere's Black Hole" at Cerulean Sanctum and asked if tearing each other apart was the best use of the blogging medium. In that post, I asked if a way existed for us bloggers to use the blogosphere to better others' lives rather than debating 500-year-old doctrinal debates that none of us will ever resolve this side of heaven. Some other bloggers are starting to understand that we have so many more options that yield positive results.

I hope to devote more energy the last half of this year to realizing the potential we have for helping others in Jesus' name. Maybe we can join forces and encourage more bloggers in that direction.

Blessings.

[Doc]

One of the problems, of course, is that there is so little agreement even about what constitutes 'clearcut error'. I don't remember the source, but I'm thinking it might have been Lewis, or perhaps even Luther who said something to the effect that in any particular age men always mistake what their problem really is; e.g. in a hyper-intellectual age men warn against the problem of emotionalism; in a hyper-passionate age men warn against overintellectualizing, etc. Also that if we are strong in every area except that one against which the enemy is attacking then we are not doing our duty properly. I'm heavily paraphrasing and possibly mixing two quotes, but you get the point. I'm not at all sure that we are over-polemicized. We are possibly too over-nicetized. When 1,000,000 unborn humans are done away with a year and many so-called churches either applaud those who defend the practice, or ignore it entirely, polemics are called for. When men who flaunt their illicit lifestyle are appointed to high positions, polemics are called for. When leaders continue to lead their flock down the path against which Paul used some of his harshest language (Gal 5:12) polemics are called for. When 'churches' applaud political leaders who are derelict of even the most basic of their duties, to defend the nation which elected them, polemics are called for.

We are not called to attract sinners to Christ by our niceness. We are called to behave lovingly and speak boldly. In this world, if you speak boldly, you are accused of being unloving. Too bad. They'll just have to get over it. Jesus is coming. Repent and be saved.

[Tara Barthel]

One of the best articles I have ever read on polemics was written by Dr. Roger Nicole (of Reformed Theological Seminary): Polemic Theology--How to Deal with Those Who Differ From Us.

I heartily recommend it! You can read it on the Peacemaker Ministries' website at: http://www.peacemaker.net/site/c.aqKFLTOBIpH/b.1084263/apps/nl/content3.asp?content_id={12F7DAA8-63AE-4BEA-B210-EB548976264C}&notoc=1

(Sorry that I don't know how to put links into your blog's comment section.)

Thanks for all you do, Pastor JollyBlogger! We appreciate you--

Your sister in Christ,
Tara Barthel

[David Wayne]

Tara - thanks for stopping by. I think I have Dr. Nicole's article linked on my post for joining the League of Reformed Bloggers. He certainly is a model for all of us.