Why Online Discussions Are Seldom Profitable

I have greatly benefited from reading The Narcissism Epidemic. I found their insight into online discussion particularly helpful:

…the system of comments, responses to comments, and so on encourages argument—and often one-sided argument. It’s not a true dialogue, as a verbal conversation would be, but one diatribe followed by the response to the diatribe. Doing it all onscreen also takes out the human element of empathy, nuance, and face-to-face interaction.

Most comment streams are one-sided argument. Yes, there was that one time way back when, in that conversation you had a long time ago, when you actually got somewhere in an online conversation. But for the most part it isn’t true dialogue and isn’t helpful.

Twenge and Campbell make another salient observation:

Our modern culture instead says, “Everybody's opinion is just as valid as everyone else’s,” and now backs up this notion on the Internet with the proliferation of blogs and comment sections. The problem is that most of the people who leave comments have no earthly idea what they are talking about. They think they do—common among people with a tendency toward narcissim—but they’re clueless. The comments that do say something intelligent are often lost in the mountain of ignorance.

Ouch.

Of course we have to be careful not to deny such important doctrines as the priesthood of every believer with statements like this. But does the priesthood of every believer mean that every believer is somehow an expert in every field? Yeah, we all have the Holy Spirit—but doesn’t the Spirit give different gifts to different people?

Do you agree with Twenge and Campbell about the nature of online discussions? (If you offer an answer I promise we won’t call you a narcissist).

How Our “But” Keeps Us From Obedience

“If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all”
Romans 12:18

Yesterday, I posted an article that was mostly a quote from John Newton on the necessity of living at peace with our brothers and sisters in Christ though we have theological differences.  It’s a really tremendous article that you should read.  I can say that because my words are only those of introduction, Newton is the one that drops the gospel bombs. 

As I was reflecting on Newton’s words, and even more the words of the apostle, my “but” voice reared its ugly head.

But certainly there is a place for intense debate and dialogue. 

But isn’t orthodoxy just as important as orthopraxy? 

But doesn’t Jesus say that He did not come to bring peace but a sword?  How can I live peaceably with all if I am proclaiming an offensive gospel?  Ahhh, yes that is why Paul said, “so far as it depends on you”.  The gospel is offensive.  Sinners don’t like the gospel.  Therefore, you can chalk their charges of abrasiveness to their hatred for the gospel. 

But Arminians are in error and an Arminian view of the gospel will inevitably harm the church.  (There, I said it).  If I believe something is in error am I not just being a good pastor to fight those that are ignorantly feeding the sheep something that will harm them?  Isn’t there a time to stand up and fight?  Even if it’s those within our own ranks. 

But those on the other side of the aisle are lobbing stink grenades at us.  They are hoisting up straw-men, torching them, and then mocking our theology.  Doesn’t truth matter anymore? 

And those of you that are more of the Arminian stripe can woundedly look at the example two paragraphs up and say But I’m offended.  How can we do NOT do battle when you say things like my theology is in error?  How can we really love one another when you think I’m wrong?

Each of those “but’s” has some legitimacy.  Truth does matter.  But just because truth matters it does not mean that our charge to live at peace with one another and not to devour each other is somehow negated.  Just because we have a “but” that we may rightly need to obey it does not let us off the hook of obeying the other truthful proposition. 

Some of us are wired to latch onto the “peace” type of verses and every time we hear a “fight” verse we throw out our “But…peace”.  Others are more geared to latch onto the “fight” verses and every time we hear a “peace” verse we throw out our “But…fight”.  Though our “but” might be true we cannot neglect the truthfulness of the other side. 

May we not let our “but” keep us from diligently pursuing obedience.

---

Given the pattern of my blog, I doubt anyone will comment on the Newton article. I  pray it will be read and digested, but I seriously doubt anyone will leave a “but” type of comment.  However, because Scripture tells me to live at peace with everyone I want all readers to know that though this article will post a day or more after the previous article, it is NOT in response to any comments.  Because at present there are not any. 

A Plea to Overlook Offenses Instead of Just Looking For Them

…there’s always someone around recording the things someone says and does, presumably for the purpose of scrutiny.  -Dana Carvey

The above quote comes from an article wherein Dana Carvey laments the “scary and dangerous” trend of comics refusing to mock President Obama.  I’m not really concerned about what Carvey is saying in regards to our president, but what I do find interesting is his observation that we are so ridiculously sensitive in our culture.  And we are also diligent in reading and processing information (usually quickly and out of context) and just as diligent in looking for offense. 

I wish the church were immune to this.  And we should be.  Proverbs 19:11 teaches that “good sense makes one slow to anger, and it is glory to overlook an offense”.  People that have been captivated by the grace of God of God that “knows our frame and remembers that we are but dust” ought to be people that are pretty slow to offense. 

A Non-Heated Example

I’ll refrain from using any sort of reference to Calvinism here because it is so heated that my point would be lost in the debate.  So allow me to make a point that is much less heated (at least at present).  I do not believe in a pre-tribulation rapture.  I do not believe the Bible teaches that.  In fact I believe it is pretty obvious from Scripture that it does not teach that.  I believe that you have to do some serious exegetical gymnastics to make the Bible teach a pre-tribulation rapture.  Faithful exegesis will lead someone to reject the belief in a pre-tribulation rapture. 

Is the above paragraph arrogant?  Narrow?  Bigoted?  Did I just call everyone that believes in a pre-tribulation rapture a total moron that has no idea how to read their Bibles?  If they were only as smart as myself they could clearly see that the Bible doesn’t teach this view that they have embraced.  Is that what I am saying in the paragraph? 

According to the spirit of our age the answer to each of those questions would be a hearty “Yes”!  In our culture to have confidence in the Spirit, the Word, and even the God-given ability to faithfully exegete is seen as narrow.  To say with confidence “I believe my doctrinal position is correct” somehow communicates in our culture, “and therefore you are a moron that probably drools on yourself, believes that pro-wrestling is real, and you put together strings of thought about as efficiently as an NFL quarterback after his fifth concussion”.  (Even now some of you might be a little off-put that I have perhaps offended the “drooling” among us). 

A Plea

Can we please stop being so easily offended within the church?  Can we start overlooking offenses instead of just looking for them? 

Yes, humility!  A thousand times yes!  But it is not against humility to be able to say, “I believe my position is correct and yours is wrong”.  And it is not even against humility to do so passionately and with deep conviction.

I expect those that believe in a pre-tribulation rapture to be able to say, “Faithful exegesis will lead one to believe in a pre-tribulation rapture”.  I also know that this necessarily means that they believe that I am wrong and that something is askew in my theology and the way I read the text.  I also know that this person might be arrogant, and they might be insulting, and they might even offend me. 

Yet, in the words of 2Pac, “I ain’t mad at cha”.  It is far better to just say the reasons why I disagree, cover over the offenses in the way we discuss this thing, and continue to love on another until Jesus returns (not by means of a pretribulation rapture, of course). 

The Source and Importance of Unity

In Philippians 1:27 Paul exhorts them to “only let your manner of life be worthy of the gospel of Christ”.  It would make little sense for him to be saying “live in such a way that you earn what Christ has purchased”.  Instead what he is saying is “live in such a way that you accurately display the worth of the gospel of Christ”. 

It’s interesting then how he expounds on that exhortation.  What he mostly speaks of in the next 3 verses is unity around the gospel and suffering for the sake of Christ.  If you really think about it though it’s not all that surprising that unity and suffering would display the worth of the gospel of Christ.

Consider Jesus’ early disciples. 

One follower of Jesus was Simon the Zealot.  A Zealot was a member of a Jewish sect that refused to pay tribute to those dirty Romans.  Zealots abhorred the fact that many of their people were selling out to Rome.  Eventually this led to an assassination attempt against not only Roman leaders but also any Jews that cooperated with these pagans. 

Another follower of Jesus was Matthew/Levi the tax collector.  A tax collector was the definition of a sell out to Rome.  They not only paid taxes to Rome they actually partnered with them in collecting the taxes.  And most, of course, took opportunities to pocket a little of theses taxes for themselves.  Tax collectors stole from their own people. 

Before Christ if you would have ran into Simon the Zealot and Levi the tax collector on the streets you probably would have had to break up a fist fight—or maybe worse.  These dudes would not have gotten along.  For one man what drove him was Jewish nationality.  For the other man what drove him was a dollar and if that meant getting it from Rome then so be it. 

But look at what the gospel does.

Simon the Zealot (who probably still carried a deep flame of patriotism) is now eating meals with the once sell-out Levi (who probably still felt a little sympathy for Rome).  What happened that made Simon and Levi ministry partners?  The gospel of Christ became more valuable to Simon than his nationalism and more important to Levi than his money. 

We communicate the value of the gospel by not only our response to suffering but by our unity with one another.  When issues like Calvinism/Traditionalism, shag/berber carpet, premillenial/amillenial/postmillenial, Democrat/Republican, Yankees fan/having a soul, dominate our time, conversations, and ministry we are communicating that these issues are more valuable than the gospel. 

Disunity that comes from non-essential (gospel-centered) things proves that something higher than Jesus has hold of our affections.  That also means that the way out of disunity is not to continuously cry, “Unity, unity, unity” but instead it is to raise our affections for Christ.  It’s as A.W. Tozer rightly said years ago:

“Has it ever occurred to you that one hundred pianos all tuned to the same fork are automatically tuned to each other? They are of one accord by being tuned, not to each other, but to another standard to which each one must individually bow. So one hundred worshipers [meeting] together, each one looking away to Christ, are in heart nearer to each other than they could possibly be, were they to become 'unity' conscious and turn their eyes away from God to strive for closer fellowship.

What does your unity/disunity say about your affections for Christ and His gospel?  Are you accurately displaying the worth of the gospel of Christ by the way that you interact with brothers and sisters in Christ?  Or are you displaying that something else is more valuable and has a hold on your heart?

Young, Restless, and Newtonian

One of the reasons why posting has been a little slow (at least as far as original material is concerned) is because I have been blocking off a little more time to work on a book I hope to write on John Newton.  I believe Newton to be a great model of a pastor-theologian that provides a wonderful pattern of effective soul-care and evangelical Calvinism. 

One particular area that I feel we “Young, Restless, and Reformed” can learn from Newton is in the way he held his Calvinism, and how he debate it—or rather how he did not debate it. 

In June of 1772 he published a letter On the Doctrines of Election and Final Perseverance (you can read that here).  Shortly thereafter a Methodist preacher by the name of Nicholas Manners published a detailed line by line response to Newton.  (I can’t find it online but you can buy it here). 

Let’s imagine that this took place in 2011.  Newton wrote an article on a popular blog (let’s say The Gospel Coalition).  To this another brother strongly disagreed and posted a lengthy series on his personal blog, going through Newton’s article line by line and disputing it. 

What would be the typical response in 2011? 

Pop your knuckles, get your Mountain Dew, sit at your swivel chair, and slam out a response.  Line by line.  Defending your argument and your dearly loved doctrine, under the guise of gospel fidelity. 

You know what Newton did? 

Nothing.

That’s right.  Nothing. “He let the dispute die in silence” (Hindmarsh, 162)

Why?  As Bruce Hindmarsh has rightly noted, “He [Newton] was increasingly convinced that a person became a Calvinist through personal experience, not by argument” (162). 

Newton to Ryland: Be Helpful, Not Displeasing

His advice to a young John Ryland is worth heading.  After a young and seemingly arrogant Ryland wrote in his book of poetry that he “aimed to displease the Arminians”, Newton responded thus:

You say, I aimed to displease the Arminians, I had rather you had aimed to be useful to them, than to displease them.  There are many Arminians who are so only for want of clearer light.  They fear the Lord, and walk humbly before him.  And as they go on, by an increasing acquaintance with their own hearts and the word of God, their objections and difficulties gradually subside.  And in the Lord’s time (for he is the only effectual teacher) they receive the doctrines of grace which they were once afraid of. 

Now these should not be displeased, by our endeavoring to declare the truth in terms the most offensive to them which we can find, but we should rather seek out the softest and most winning way of encountering their prejudices.  Otherwise we make a parade, and grow big with a sense of our own wisdom and importance, but we shall do little good. 

Our Lord you know taught his disciples that they were able to bear it, he did not aim to displease them though it is pretty plain they had a good deal of the Arminian spirit in them for some time after they began to follow him.  You will perhaps say, ‘An humble Arminian, Surely that is impossible!’ I believe it not more impossible to find a humble Arminian, than a proud and self-sufficient Calvinist.  The doctrines of grace are humbling, that is in their power and experience, but a man may hold them all in the notion, and be very proud.  He certainly is so, if he thinks his assenting to them is a proof of his humility, and despises others are proud and ignorant in comparison of himself.  (Wise Counsel, 15)

If we Calvinist long for our brothers and sisters to savor the doctrines of grace that we so treasure, perhaps the best way to see that happen would be for us to relish them ourselves, to trust the Lord’s sovereignty in this matter as well, and go about our days enjoying God’s grace and extending His glory. 

Hump Day Humor: Debating Calvinism

(HT: Sacred Sandwich)

Obviously, this could have been turned to the Calvinist making a silly panicked argument.  All of us at time proof text, get backed in a corner and then get desperate. 

Secondly, in case you aren’t aware Servetus is one great blemish on the legacy of John Calvin.  Here is one perspective on what went down.  Here is another viewpoint.

Newton: On Controversy

This might be an especially well timed article amidst the present controversy in the MBC. In a letter, to what appears to be a young man, John Newton advices him on engaging in debate with another over the issue of election. It is the typical Calvinist/Arminian debate. You get the idea that maybe this "young man" that Newton is addressing is a "caged-Calvinist". As I read this it rebukes me of some of pride and arrogance. It also convicts me of a spirit of superiority in doctrine which leads sometimes to bitterness towards my other brothers that "don't get it". This also serves to temper me in the recent Acts29/MBC controversy. I have included points 1 and 3. The entire letter can be found at Grace Gems:

Dear Sir,As you are likely to be engaged in controversy, and your love of
truth is joined with a natural warmth of temper, nay friendship makes me solicitous on your behalf. You are of the strongest side; for truth is great, and must prevail; so that a person of abilities inferior to yours might take the field with a confidence of victory. I am not therefore anxious for the event of the battle. But I would have you more than a conqueror, and to triumph, not only over your adversary, but over yourself. If you cannot be vanquished, you may be wounded. To preserve you from such wounds as might give you cause of weeping over your conquests, I would present you with some considerations, which, if duly attended to, will do you the service of a coat of armor; for you will easily perceive it is taken from that great armory provided for the Christian soldier, the word of God. I take it for granted, that you will not expect any apology for my freedom, and therefore I shall not offer one. For method sake, I may reduce my advice to three heads, respecting your opponent, the public, and yourself.

1. As to your opponent, I wish, that, before you set pen to paper against him, and during the whole time you are preparing your answer, you may commend him by earnest prayer to the Lord's teaching and blessing. This practice will have a direct tendency to conciliate your heart to love and pity him; and such a disposition will have a good influence upon every page you write. If you account him a believer, though greatly mistaken in the subject of debate between you, the words of David to Joab, concerning Absalom, are very applicable: "Deal gently with him for my sake." The Lord loves him and bears with him; therefore you must not despise him, or treat him harshly. The Lord bears with you likewise, and expects that you should show tenderness to others, from a sense of the much forgiveness you need yourself.

In a little while you will meet in heaven; he will then be dearer to you than the nearest friend you have upon earth is to you now. Anticipate that period in your thoughts; and though you may find it necessary to oppose his errors, view him personally as a kindred soul,with whom you are to be happy in Christ forever. But if you look upon him as an unconverted person, in a state of enmity against God and his grace, (a supposition which, without good evidence, you should be very unwilling to admit,) he is a more proper object of your pity and compassion than of your anger. Alas! "he knows not what he does." But you know who has made you to differ. If God, in his sovereign pleasure, had so appointed, you might have been as he is now; and he, instead of you, might have been set for the defense of the Gospel. You were both equally blind by nature. If you attend to this, you will not reproach or hate him, because the Lord has been pleased to open your eyes,and not his.

Of all people who engage in controversy, we, who are called Calvinists, are most expressly bound by our own principles to the exercise of gentleness and moderation. If, indeed, those who differ from us have a power of changing themselves, if they can open their own eyes, and soften their own hearts, then we might with less inconsistency be offended at their obstinacy; but if we believe the very contrary to this, our part is, not to strive, but in meekness to instruct those who oppose, "if perhaps God will give them repentance to the acknowledgment of the truth."
If you write with a desire of being an instrument of correcting mistakes, you will of course be cautious of laying stumbling-blocks in the way of the blind, or of using any expressions that may exasperate their passions, confirm them in their prejudices, and thereby make their conviction, humanly speaking, more impracticable.

3. This leads me, in the last place, to consider your own concern in your present undertaking. It seems a laudable service to defend the faith once delivered to the saints; we are commanded to contend earnestly for it, and to convince gainsayers. If ever such defenses were seasonable and expedient, they appear to be so in our day, when errors abound on all sides, and every truth of the Gospel is either directly denied, or grossly misrepresented. And yet we find but very few writers of controversy, who have not been manifestly hurt by it.

Either they grow in a sense of their own importance, or imbibe an angry contentious spirit, or they insensibly withdraw their attention from those things which are the food and immediate support of the life of faith, and spend their time and strength upon matters which at most are but of a secondary value. This shows, that, if the service is honorable, it is dangerous. What will it profit a man if he gains his cause, and silences his adversary, if at the same time he loses that humble, tender frame of spirit in which the Lord delights, and to which the promise of his presence is made! Your aim, I doubt not, is good; but you have need to watch and pray, for you will find Satan at your right hand to resist you: he will try to debase your views; and though you set out in defense of the cause of God, if you are not continually looking to the Lord to keep you, it may become your own cause, and awaken in you those tempers which are inconsistent with true peace of mind, and will surely obstruct communion with God.

Be upon your guard against admitting anything personal into the debate. If you think you have been ill treated, you will have an opportunity of showing that you are a disciple of Jesus, who, "when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not." This is our pattern, thus we are to speak and write for God, "not rendering railing for railing, but, contrariwise,blessing; knowing that hereunto we are called." The wisdom which is from above is not only pure, but peaceable and gentle; and the lack of these qualifications, like the dead fly in the pot of ointment, will spoil the savor and efficacy of our labors.

If we act in a wrong spirit, we shall bring little glory to God, do little good to our fellow-creatures, and procure neither honor nor comfort to ourselves. If you can be content with showing your wit, and gaining the laugh on your side, you have an easy task; but I hope you have a far nobler aim, and that, sensible of the solemn importance of Gospel truths, and the compassion due to the souls of men, you would rather be a means of removing prejudices in a single instance, than obtain the empty applause of thousands. Go forth,therefore, in the name and strength of the Lord Almighty, speaking the truth in love; and may he give you a witness in many hearts, that you are taught of God, and favored with the unction of his Holy Spirit.

Brothers, may we heed the wise counsel of this dear man that is now with Jesus. May we especially take heed to his last two paragraphs. It is my prayer as well as we engage our brothers that we might, as the word of God says, speak the truth in love.