contend

How to Contend for the Faith Part 3- Putting it all together

Posted on March 30, 2017March 30, 2017 by elizabethprata

The End Time: How to Contend for the Faith Part 1
The End Time: How to Contend for the Faith Part 2

————————————————

In Part 1 I outlined the fact that we’re all called to contend for the faith. This includes witnessing, protecting the message from corruption, and correcting ourselves and others when the message is corrupted, which inevitably tends to happen. I also addressed what I call ‘drive-by commenters’.

Though we all read the same Bible, Christians disagree. What is the root of disagreement? In part 2 I outlined three reasons why disagreements arise.

In this part, I offer some biblical ideas about how to positively engage in civil discourse that becomes contentious.

Mixed messages?

And there’s the rub. The Bible offers lots of verses on how to speak civilly, but also offers contrasting examples of people delivering their message both civilly and in seemingly uncivil ways.

For example … Jesus and John the Baptist called the Pharisees vipers. Paul suggested the Judaizers emasculate themselves. He called the false apostles ‘deceitful workmen’, he affirmed the well-known idiom that the Cretans were ‘always liars, evil brutes, lazy gluttons.’ Peter said of the false ones that ‘they were brute beasts, creatures of instinct, born only to be caught and destroyed, and like beasts they too will perish.’ Jude said that false ones were ‘dreamers [who] pollute their own bodies,’ and are ‘grumblers and fault finders; they follow their own evil desires.’

Name calling? Rough language? There sure are some mixed messages. For example, on the one hand, James 3:10 says let not praise of Jesus and cursing of men come from your lips. Yet Paul praised Jesus in Galatians 1:5, and in verse 8 he pronounced a curse on the false Christian men leading his flock astray! He let praise and cursing come from his lips, and in rapid fire succession, too! Though skilled in every kind of discourse, Paul also employed holy sarcasm. Can we be sarcastic too? Maybe. Maybe not?

I am not suggesting that the Bible is in error in any way. The examples of the Bible writers were not prescriptive, merely descriptive. The Holy Spirit inspired all the men to write what they did. Jesus speaking to the Pharisees, well, He’s Jesus! But I am saying that we should be discerning as to when to use which rhetorical device. Proper discourse takes tact and maturity, caution and patience. Sometimes in the heat of the moment, I lack all four! Gah. Erring on the side of gentleness is best in all cases. I say this from sad experience.

In searching for articles related to civil discourse and theological discourse, I found this one from the magazine published for Methodist Seminarians by Stephen Rankin titled Christian Ethics: Christian Witness in Trying Times. I don’t know about the author in general nor the publication itself, but I liked the article. In it, the author sorts through the various verses that speak to “a Christian engaging a whole range of contentious matters and doing so with both charity and bold truth-telling.” It’s a difficult line to maintain, for me it is, anyway.

One caveat: I do not intend to say that civil discourse means agreeing with others in different faiths. Being civil does not imply agreement. If you Google “fostering civil discourse” combined with the word “Christian” you’ll receive lots of pages teaching that civil discourse means agreeing foundationally at some level “with the LGBT community”, or that persons in “an Abrahamic faith such as Christians and Jews and Muslims all have the same spark of God-knowledge in them”, and so on. Being civil in discourse does not necessarily mean agreement. It is a kind of discourse that acknowledges that we have disagreements – even within and among Christians – but maintains a kindly relationship even as we seek to persuade all men anyway. (2 Corinthians 5:11). This is increasingly difficult to do in these do not judge, angry, flash-point times.

Here is a pertinent excerpt from Mr Rankin’s article. In it, he had given several personal or cultural examples of discourse, then said let’s go to our sources, the Bible.

What does the Bible say?

Going to Our Sources

As we practice thinking about civil discourse, what biblical and theological resources come to mind? The temptation to ask, “What would Jesus do?” I cannot resist, so let us see what we can find by looking at the Gospels. In the Sermon on the Mount, we hear of the blessedness of meekness, of mercy, of being peacemakers. Later, in Matt 5, we read Jesus’ injunctions about how we express anger and to reconcile quickly with our opponents (5:21-26). Yet this same Jesus in the same Gospel refers to those religious leaders who opposed him as hypocrites, white-washed tombs, and snakes (ch. 23). It is not so easy to get a clear and unambiguous picture from scripture as to how to engage in conflict with opponents.

By today’s standards, would the Apostle Paul be guilty of “uncivil” discourse? Consider his recounting his confrontation with Peter in Gal 2:11, “But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face” (NRSV), and he goes on to explain what he saw wrong with Peter’s action around Gentile Christians. The whole letter to the Galatians shows Paul’s alarm and he uses, at times, very colorful words to issue his warning. Paul could be one tough customer!

We do not find, therefore, a simple rubric for engaging in civil discourse, yet we need scriptural guidance.

No simple rubric indeed. I’ve often been confused as to the correct approach to take at any given time. However, the author does offer two important verses to help us navigate the thorny issue of proper boldness buttressed with love; or if you prefer, love buttressed by boldness…

Romans 12:14-21 is full of gentle wisdom, especially v. 18: “If it is possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all” (NRSV). “If it is possible….” Sometimes it isn’t possible. You cannot control the other side of the debate. All you can do is be responsible for you. But this is where the other injunctions found in this passage come into play: Don’t repay evil for evil (as in railing for railing). Leave vengeance to God. Overcome evil with good. And, to go back to Jesus’ words in the Sermon on the Mount: “Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you” (Matt 5:44, NRSV). If I can manage to follow these points, I’ll do well in conflict.

And:

The second passage that consistently comes to mind as I contemplate the goal of civil discourse is Eph 4, especially v. 15: “But speaking the truth in love, we must grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ” (NRSV). As with Rom 12, this passage addresses a community of Jesus’s followers, and a particularly relevant one for our consideration. Ephesians 2 shows that this congregation is made up of Jew and Gentile, culturally distinct and often suspicious of each other’s backgrounds – a breeding ground for hostility. The immediate context of ch. 4 speaks to the link between sound doctrine and growing to maturity – to the full measure of the stature of Christ.

It’s good to remember the point of theological discourse – growth. Whether it’s the doctrinal edification of a brother, or my own growing fruit as I exhibit patience and gentleness, good discourse should be profitable for all involved.

In truth, we disagree on a significant range of theological and ethical questions, no matter what our denomination’s official stances may be. We, likewise, must with courage and gentleness engage the core issues of the faith, around which we commit to the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. This desired aim takes work, persistence, courage, and epistemic humility. The Ephesian Christians – made up of Jew and Gentile alike – had to do the same kind of work.

Those precepts make sense to me. Whether it’s Methodist against Methodist as in Mr Rankin’s example, Jew v. Gentile, Christian v. lost person, Arminian v, Calvinist, no matter what the level of polarization seems to be, it’s difficult to maintain the “civil” in civil discourse. Yet we must. I believe it’s incumbent upon Christians to provide the example for right speech in the world. If we can’t or won’t do it, who will? We have the Spirit.

How to apply all this?

As an application, I’ll share what I do. I don’t have it all figured out. I still struggle with all these issues and I know I fail sometimes. I have found it helpful to:

1. Wait. Knee-jerk reactions to an abrupt comment doesn’t advance the conversation. And that is always the goal. Advance the conversation- not my agenda.

2. Pray. Pray for the Spirit to create a right attitude in you. Before you answer and during the waiting, whether it’s a few minutes or a day, pray for your heart and the other person’s heart to be opened to biblical truths, spoken boldly in love. Or, if you prefer, spoken in love with boldness.

3. Use more scripture, not less. Use the Lord’s words. Those are the ones that penetrate. Not our persuasiveness nor our opinion.

Also, I don’t engage with straw men. That’s when someone asserts I’ve said something in my essay that I hadn’t, and then argues from that incorrect position. I don’t waste time correcting them. I simply say that I hadn’t said that, and if they’d like to continue conversing, which I would love them to do, please copy-&-paste the pertinent part from my essay from which they would like to launch a discussion. Straw men are a passive-aggressive way to derail your thread and get the commenter’s agenda out there. Guard your comment stream.

I also do not allow drive-by commenters. I addressed this in part 1.

I do not allow someone to post links to places where bad doctrine abounds. I rarely allow a link at all, unless it’s to a really credible ministry I don’t have to take a lot of time to investigate links. I need to stay focused on the ministry at hand, not follow someone else’s rabbit trail, as sincerely as they may have offered it.

I don’t allow people to post bad doctrine. I’m responsible for what happens under my name, and I’m careful and ruthless in this regard. Sometimes I am charged with ‘limiting free speech.’ This is a ridiculous assertion and do not let it guilt you. No one has a “right” to post undoctrinal things under the banner of my name. You would not allow it in your home and you shouldn’t allow it under your social media.

I view my Facebook, Twitter, email, and blogs as part of my home. They are an extension of me and a reflection of me. Which is to say, they are a reflection of Christ in me. Guard the deposit.

Conclusion

Mr Rankin concludes:

Although most of us likely feel caught in the middle (the left, right, and center/middle construal is not helpful, but that’s another matter), we are effectively being forced to have an opinion about serious matters. We all have Facebook friends who post unguarded and sometimes cruel comments. How do we manage?

Always Representing the Lord
Inevitably, as followers of Jesus we will either cast him in a good light or a bad one. Our goal must always be to represent Christ faithfully, especially in the heat of the moment: to love our enemies and pray for those who might spitefully use us, even while we speak the truth to them.

If you adopt one or more of the scriptures listed here or in part 2 as your foundation for theological discourse, then the application will happen in an organically spiritual way.

Maranatha!

—————————————

How to Contend for the Faith, part 2. Why Christians Disagree

Posted on March 29, 2017March 30, 2017 by elizabethprata

Part 1 here

Part 3 here

In today’s ‘tolerant’ and ‘don’t judge’ atmosphere, when discussing biblical things, if the other person blows up it’s often seen as a failure of communication on our part. But in many cases it’s not.

Though we can’t account for how other people respond, there are many Bible verses given over to what kind of speech we are to employ. Here are just a FEW!

Words from a wise man’s mouth are gracious, but a fool is consumed by his own lips (Ecclesiastes 10:12).
The quiet words of the wise are more to be heeded than the shouts of a ruler of fools (Ecclesiastes 9:17).
A soft answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger. The tongue of the wise commends knowledge, but the mouths of fools pour out folly. (Proverbs 15:1-2)
A gentle tongue is a tree of life, but perverseness in it breaks the spirit. (Proverbs 15:4)
Anyone who says to his brother, ‘Raca’ is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell (Matthew 5:22).
Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen (Ephesians 4:29).
Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt (Colossians 4:6).
But now you must rid yourselves of all such things as these: anger, rage, malice, slander, and filthy language from your lips (Colossians 3:8).
With the tongue we praise our Lord and Father, and with it we curse men, who have been made in God’s likeness. Out of the same mouth come praise and cursing. My brothers, this should not be (James 3:9-10).
Everyone should be quick to listen, slow to speak, and slow to become angry (James 1:19).
Therefore encourage one another and build each other up (1 Thessalonians 5:11).
Yet do not regard him as an enemy, but warn him as a brother (2 Thessalonians 3:15).
Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification (Romans 14:19).
Brothers, if anyone is caught in any transgression, you who are spiritual should restore him in a spirit of gentleness (Galatians 6:1).
He must gently reprove those who oppose him, in the hope that God may grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth. (2 Timothy 2:25).

Before we get to solutions in the next part, let’s look at-

1. What civil biblical discourse is
2. Why Christians disagree

Here, James A. Herrick, Professor and chair of the Department of Communication at the Christian institution Hope College, partner with the Reformed Church in America, states from his article What Do We Mean By “Civil Discourse”: A Biblical Model of Managing Disagreement that civil discourse is:

… talk—including conversation, dialogue, speech making and writing— on questions of moral significance. By ‘moral significance’ I mean questions that affect the choices we make, individually and in groups. Discourse, then, is talk or communication about (1) our choices and (2) about the principles we embrace that influence those choices. Ultimately, discourse is talk about the way we are going to live our lives as individuals and in communities. … So, understanding how discourse can be improved is important.

I’ll insert here that as we discuss ideas and interpretations from the Bible, there’s no higher ‘moral significance’ to be had on earth. The highest basis for any conversation is when we speak of Jesus from His Word. Therefore, the principles to be understood from these conversations are or should be highly prized.

I’d also add that these conversations are of moral significance but are also of theological significance. And lest a person think that ‘theological conversation’ or is only for seminarian eggheads, if you say “God is love” you have just uttered a statement of theological significance. Theological discourse just means talking about Jesus or conversing about things from the Bible.

Professor Herrick resumes his definition of discourse, now explaining when disagreement enters into it:

One more nuance should be added to our definition of ‘discourse,’ for the term also tends to simply staking out and defending a position on an issue, and in this way entering into the larger arena of public discussion of that issue. That is, inherent in the very concept of discourse are both the presence of disagreement and the goal of persuasion. I take these two components to be a facts about our efforts to talk through important issues—(1) we usually run into disagreement, and (2) we typically seek to persuade those with whom we disagree. It is precisely these elements which make it so vitally important that our discourse be civil discourse, that is, that our efforts to persuade those with whom we disagree be hemmed in by some sort of ethic of advocacy that keeps the discourse constructive and respectful.

Of disagreement, I’m frequently asked, ‘If two people are Christians and read the same Bible, why do they disagree on what it says?’ It’s a good and valid question. Here, Professor Herrick outlines three reasons why in his view, Christians disagree.

1. Sin
2. Ignorance
3. Clash of worldviews

1. Sin is always the root of disagreement. Herrick gives the example of the church members at Corinth. Their failure to address sin caused a disagreement between themselves and their overseer, Paul.

2. As for the second reason disagreements arise, ignorance, Paul mentioned those often. He said ‘don’t be ignorant’ over spiritual gifts. (1 Corinthians 12:1). Paul said don’t be ignorant about eschatology. (1 Thessalonians 4:13). Paul also said not to be ignorant of satan’s schemes. (2 Corinthians 2:11). And what are some of the most vociferous theological arguments about? Eschatology, spiritual gifts, and satan’s schemes. Ignorance of the Bible’s contents itself also factors into this reason why Christian disagree.

3. Worldviews. Any worldview that excludes God will be wrong about the source of truth, morals, righteousness, etc. Any Christian where Jesus is not at the center of their worldview, will also be incorrect in a number of ways.

Knowing what theological discourse is, and why disagreements occur within such discourse is helpful to know as a basis. Tomorrow, Lord willing, part 3 will look at on what to do about differences when they arise in theological discourse. Solutions, we need solutions! 🙂

How to Contend for the Faith, it can be confusing part 1

How to Contend for the Faith: Putting it all together part 3

discernment, Uncategorized

How to contend for the faith, it can be confusing, Part 1

Posted on March 28, 2017March 30, 2017 by elizabethprata

How to Contend for the Faith Part 2: Why do Christians Disagree?

How to Contend for the Faith Part 3- Putting it all together

Introduction

The practicalities of how to contend for the faith is a big subject. We’re told to contend, of course, many times and in many ways. For example, Jude wanted to write a nice, little encouraging letter, but found that because of false brothers teaching false doctrine, he had to do his duty first.

Beloved, although I made every effort to write you about the salvation we share, I felt it necessary to write and urge you to contend earnestly for the faith entrusted once for all to the saints. (Jude 1:2)

Paul was sure that in his absence the Philippians will be “contending side by side for the faith of the gospel,” (Philippians 1:27).

Paul urged Timothy to “fight the good fight“. (1 Timothy 6:12).

Stand firm, do not turn, speak truth, and so on.

It’s important to consider, especially in this day and age of social media platforms with widespread audiences watching us, reading our words, and listening to our debates. Even in Solomon’s Portico or at the Areopagus or on the hillside at the Sermon on the Mount, with tens of thousands in attendance, today’s audiences who either lurk or engage with us online are an order of magnitude larger than those audiences.

But how? How do we contend appropriately? Sometimes we’re called to be gentle, other times to be direct. Righteous anger is allowed, but not unrighteous anger, and don’t let the sun set on any anger. Paul used holy sarcasm, but are we allowed to? Maybe? Maybe not.

I’ll do my best to answer the above but first, there is one part of online life in civil discourse I’d like to address as I fold it into the larger issue of appropriate theological discourse. I call these the “Drive By Debaters”.

Drive-By Commenters

It’s when someone takes the time to read the post. They take the time to comment on the post. But when they reply they state their position and end it by saying “I don’t want to debate.”

This kind of comment is opposed to true theological discourse, and even undermines it. It shuts down the point of any biblical discussion, which is to work together to arrive at a common understanding, mutual edification, and brotherly love with Christ as a center point. That kind of comment says ‘I’m right, you’re wrong, and I don’t care if you accept it or not, I just wanted to use your platform to say so. Buh-bye.’

The purpose of discussing biblical principles, interpretations, or concepts in person or online is to arrive at a common understanding. It’s to teach and be taught. The drive-by debate-denier displays they have an unteachable spirit.

Likewise, you who are younger, be subject to the elders. Clothe yourselves, all of you, with humility toward one another, for “God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble.” (1 Peter 5:5).

What I do if someone says “I don’t want to debate” on one of my platforms (Facebook, Twitter, blog, or email) is to engage once more by gently asking a question about what they’d said. Sometimes they’ll come back and we can begin discussion. If they don’t, I delete their original comment. I figure, if they don’t want to discuss, then we won’t discuss. At all.

I won’t allow my platforms to be used by drive by commenters, because from the outset they display that they are not interested in the rules of honest civil engagement. We should all seek wisdom, then understanding. This should be true from the top-most sage teacher to the newest babe.

Wisdom is to be highly prized. Proverbs 4:7-9 says,

The beginning of wisdom is this: Get wisdom,
and whatever you get, get insight.
8 Prize her highly, and she will exalt you;
she will honor you if you embrace her.
9 She will place on your head a graceful garland;
she will bestow on you a beautiful crown.”

How Should We Contend?

As for my main point, how to contend. I contend a lot. I share with friendly people and unfriendly people. Some of the most unfriendly people I deal with are those who claim they are Christians but are not. When addressing their sin, they explode in myriad ways. When pointing out their favorite teacher is false, they go off like a rocket. If you really want to poke a bear, either discuss their sin with a false professing Christian, or identify their favorite teacher as false. Both discussions go to the same root: sin. Satan is protective of his peoples’ sin and it does not like to be exposed to the light of day. (John 3:19). That’s why the person explodes on you.

Some Bible verses call for gentleness on the part of the deliverer of the message, other Bible verses call for firmness, harshness even. In today’s ‘tolerant’ and ‘don’t judge’ atmosphere, when discussing biblical things, if the other person blows up it’s often seen as a failure of communication on our part. But in many cases it’s not, and don’t be afraid of it if it happens to you. I’ll share this verse again and again in the other upcoming parts:

The descendants also are impudent and stubborn: I send you to them, and you shall say to them, ‘Thus says the Lord GOD.’ 5And whether they hear or refuse to hear (for they are a rebellious house) they will know that a prophet has been among them. 6And you, son of man, be not afraid of them, nor be afraid of their words, though briers and thorns are with you and you sit on scorpions.b Be not afraid of their words, nor be dismayed at their looks, for they are a rebellious house. 7And you shall speak my words to them, whether they hear or refuse to hear, for they are a rebellious house.(Ezekiel 2:4-7).

Not that we are Prophets like Ezekiel was, but in New Testament times we are God’s witnesses, His ambassadors, people with a sent message. We are one of the ways Jesus uses to either draw people to Himself through the Gospel message, or we are one of the ways He will condemn them on the last day, if they refuse the message. In our case we say ‘Thus says the LORD’ via His written word.

In addition to sharing the Gospel, we are called to warn, encourage, rebuke, teach and exhort and so on. We are constantly called upon to employ a humble attitude and to contend in myriad ways. Though our proclamations sometimes will not be received well either, we still speak them. The LORD assured Ezekiel and He gives us the same assurance in Luke 12:4 and Revelation 2:10.

In the next part I’ll sift through the various verses that discuss our speaking up in warnings and rebukes and exhortations, and being a witness through appropriate theological discourse in difficult times. There’s a lot to it, but mainly it boils down to two ingredients; speaking the truth, in love. I’ll share my perspective on this tomorrow.