by Ken Pierce
“Your answer is now required Marcion, murderer of the truth…you utter scoundrel, who pronounce ‘innocent’ the assassins of God…” Tertullian @ Nicea
“O Praxeus, you heretic who has crucified the Father and driven away the Holy Spirit.” Tertullian, Against Praxeus
A friend tells me that Duke University singled out the PCA for egregious offense in the internet civility department. I wish I could argue with that, but…
I find this article on civility and passion, from the other side of the politico-religious aisle, very interesting.
Here are a few scattered thoughts…
Quite frankly, I think we are living in a wimpish age. Instead of asserting ourselves strongly, and, when necessary, defending ourselves strongly, we duck and run for cover. Our fathers faced the flames singing, we wince and wail when our precious feelings get hurt. There’s a lesson about American self-absorption in there somewhere.
We confuse persons and positions. Someone criticizes my positions or my words, and I take personal offense. This kills public discourse and makes correction impossible.
I am for free, full and vigorous discourse. I don’t much like the Ninth Commandment flung around as a way of quashing dissension and debate. If someone mis-characterizes my position, I shouldn’t cry”Foul!”, which, after all, convinces nobody. Rather, I should man up and defend my position. That’s what Paul did, after all, when he suffered at the hands of Corinthian super-apostles. He did it with sarcasm, too. Horrors! Paul, I wish you were nicer, like Jesus, except that time he called Herod a fox, and the time he took a whip and drove out the moneychangers. But, other than that!!
Niceness is not a Christian virtue; not when truth is at stake.
In the civic sphere, the great cultural gatekeepers do not much like the blogs. Who, after all, appointed these anonymous upstarts, often working for free, to decide what events are newsworthy? Isn’t this the territory that belongs to the professionals? The big three information filters? The AP and the NY Times?
The truth is, if you control information, you effect how people think. How can they ponder alternatives they never hear? How can they process events of which they are not made aware? The major media love to decide what is important and what is not. Why do we hear about the wholesome blondes Natalee Holloway and Elizabeth Smart, but not the nameless, faceless minority youth who disappear every day? There are countless cases of gross injustice in our society: why do we hear only of a few, and these over and over, even from (gasp) Fox News? Networks cover the horror of war, but not the triumphs of war or vice-versa.
The good news is that the genie of democratized information will never go back into the bottle. Bloggers are here to stay. I think this is good, but not an unqualified good.
There seems to be a growing concern about the use of blogging within our own denominational context. This is worrisome to me.
A few random thoughts.
- If we are going to have free speech, we must put up with irresponsible speech. Much of what is said on the Internet is unfair, inaccurate and uncharitable. This is the price that we pay for the free flow of information. The alternative is far worse: if we restrict information, error, misunderstanding and ignorance will grow. Because of inaccuracy, each reader and writer should be careful to check his facts. In the church, we must hold people accountable for their words.
- Some, whose statements are singled out for scrutiny and critique, will find such scrutiny uncharitable. They will be right in some cases. In other cases, they will hind behind this defense in order to continue to propagate their errors. In some cases, they will be mad just because some people had the temerity to disagree with them.
- Sunlight remains the best disinfectant. The press, in the body politic, must be free to hold the government to account to the people. It is the “Fourth Estate,” the ones who shine the hard light of truth on the actions of those in power, to ensure honesty and prevent against self-serving. In the context of the church, public information is crucial to hold pulpit and lectern accountable to pew, and more importantly, to Bible.
- Men love darkness rather than light, because their deeds are evil. We, quite naturally, want to hide ourselves. Even when our deeds aren’t evil, nobody wants to be critiqued or called out publicly. It is uncomfortable. We feel foolish. Our friends rush to our defense. Ranks close around us. We feel justified in our opinions. Rhetoric increases. Positions that were soft and fluid become hardened with opposition. We have staked our ground, uncertain as it might be, and now ego demands we must defend it.
- We must come to distinguish the difference between “You are an idiot” (the saying of which puts us in danger of hellfire), and “your positions are wrong.” This is true on both the giving and receiving end. A person critiquing my beliefs or positions is not necessarily calling me an idiot. A person articulating false positions is not necessarily an idiot, either.
- Love doesn’t demand being squishy in our thinking. Publicly advanced positions and arguments are rightly dealt with in public forum. If I launch a salvo into the public domain, I should expect, not a private phone call trying to work out some interpersonal issue that is really unrelated to the matter at hand. I should, rather, expect a public response. Matthew 18 is not in play, as long as I haven’t impugned another’s character. As someone once said to me, “If you are provocative, why are you surprised when people are provoked?”
- I don’t care how virtuous we are, we need some alternate sources holding us accountable. We know ourselves to be good men. Our motives are noble. Our intentions are pure. Our positions are right. Yet, in our heart of hearts, we know we can be self-deceived. Denominations need more than an official news agency. The actions of church courts and the positions of teaching elders need to be known. Our people need to be Berean, holding us accountable to the Word of God. How can they do this, if we propagate what we propagate under the cover of darkness? Error and false teaching flourish if nobody engages in a little truth-telling now and then.
The PCA is not immune from error, false teaching, mistakes or underhanded dealing. History teaches us we ought to expect it. It happened in the apostolic church, and we are certainly no better than they were.
Bloggers are here to stay whether we like them or not. The fault does not lie with them, alone, if what is published is false or uncharitable. Readers are called upon to be discerning, too. The truth triumphs in the open marketplace of ideas. Of what do we have to be afraid?
HT: The Quiet Protest
While I do think that when we are uncivil it may unduly influence those waffling in the middle against us, but I thing the much more prominent sin of this age is being afraid to state the truth unequivocally. For example, people fed up with evangelicalism may flee to a place that offers them the appearance of absolutes, even if it is a synagogue of satan, like this guy: http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/06/how-john-calvin-made-me-a-catholic/
Wes, you have stated what I’ve tried to practice since I started blogging five years ago. I’m certainly not perfect. I make many mistakes. I’ve had to humble myself and admit I was wrong several times. In the heat of an argument we sometimes say things in haste we wish we had not said.
But in my opinion it is indeed better to openly argue and hash out the differences rather than trying to be so nice to each other that the truth winds up getting glossed over. I had my first online debate back in my seminary days. At the time I was a Pentecostal. I was working on my master of divinity at Asbury Seminary, Wilmore, KY and was a committed Arminian.
I bought my first computer the year before seminary. An old 286 that didn’t even have Windows! I think it had DOS 5.0 for an operating system. Back then–around 1992?– there was no internet. There was offline BBS or bulletin boards. I found a Bible and theology forum with an Arminian/Calvinist debate going on. To make the story short… I got into a debate with James White of Alpha and Omega Ministries on the topic of the sovereignty of God in the Gospel of John. Up to then I had thought only Romans 9 could be used to defend Calvinism. James’ arguments on John 3 and 6 helped convince me that the Calvinist view was indeed the most biblical.
Although I’ve learned much from my education in the classroom, I have to say that I’ve learned way more from reading Reformed theology and arguing, discussing, and interacting on the internet than I ever would have had I simply ignored the technology.
I agree that the genie is out of the bottle. There is no going back. The internet is even more revolutionary than the printing press. In fact, I would credit the internet with being one of the reasons Calvinism is making a come back and why more people are learning about the Protestant Reformation.
The PCA might not find discipline pleasant. But it is part of God’s providence. Yes, some of the accusations are taken too far and things get said in the heat of the moment that shouldn’t have been said. But in the end iron sharpens iron. The truth is presented openly for all to see. What they do with it is another issue.
I have been called “stubborn” and “unteachable” because I have stood against Anglo-Catholicism as the pernicious system of idolatry it is. I have often stood alone because no one in the Anglican Communion wants to call Anglo-Papists what they really are: false prophets and papists out to deceive the elect if it were possible.
It just might be that someone like me can make a difference. If not, at least I have obeyed the imperative to defend the truth to the best of my ability.
Folks like Frank Turk irritate me. But I’m not afraid of a good fight. Irenaeus didn’t shy away from a good theological debate either from what I can understand.
Hang in there brother.
Sincerely yours in Christ,
Charlie
Good stuff from brother Ken.
I do disagree that saying “You’re an idiot” puts one in danger of hellfire.
I think the writer is misinterpreting the relevant passage.
After all, I can think of times when, if someone had called me an idiot, they would have been speaking purest truth.
Hear, Hear!
Yes!
One caution though: We do need to beware of becoming gossips.
Well, the insomniac in me wants to respond to Brian. It was hyperbole, which is how I think Jesus meant it.
My point is that it is bad to confuse persons and arguments. Smart people can be wrong and dullards can be right.
Ken,
The early riser in me just wanted to point out that I’m an idiot.
Blessings,
B
Brian, you need to be fair. That’s true only some of the time, as it is with a lot of us, though I suspect that it’s true for some people most of the time.:) Ken’s point is that it is not true even for those people all of the time.
[...] can read the rest of this article here. Published [...]