- an apologetic issue - I really think we forget how aggressive rhetoric and polemics from the pulpit is a big turn off for a large numbers of people. Politicians now know this, and even Tony Abbott (an Australian politician) is trying to be more winsome.
- the biblical evidence - while there are examples of strong rhetoric and polemic in the Bible it is usually at the point of the extreme, and on the lips of the prophets, or Jesus, or Paul - ie someone who has a particular and unusual authority. It is almost always the case that when a command or proverb is given to us as to how we are to speak, then we are to be winsome, gentle, peaceable etc.
- a foothold for the devil - so many of the NT lists of sins include things like quarreling, dissension, strife and discord and what have you. As a hotheaded young man, hearing preachers regularly denounce other versions of Christianity fed the self-righteousness and pride of my heart. I think it has taken me some years to repent of this. I don't think I was a very unusual young man - and so it is pastorally unwise to encourage this tendency, I feel. I wouldn't go so far as to say it is like passing Playboy around a group of young men, but... it certainly is encouraging in them a temptation that lies close at hand.
- a matter of integrity - the use of hyperbole and extreme rhetoric is effective. It gets people thinking. It can blow apart people's frameworks. But the line between hyperbole and outright dishonesty is quite a blurry one, isn't it? Saying one thing in public and yet conceding that things aren't so simple in private leaves me scratching my head: was the rhetorical effect really worth the perjury? Shouldn't we eschew the rhetorical tricks of politics and advertising?
- educationally unwise - in the short term, the use of extreme language can be convincing, even overwhelming. It can be transforming. But it doesn't help people to encounter the world in a mature and wise way, because the world is complex and difficult, and people need a depth of wisdom to live in it by God's spirit. Also, when people find that things aren't as it was explained to them they experience a great sense of dissonance, and lose trust in the original speaker.
- keeping your powder dry - remember that teacher you had in school who only ever shouted at the class once? And that was enough?
- the impression of defensiveness - too much negative and aggressive speech actually conveys to outsiders the impression that we don't believe what we are saying. Can't God defend himself?
Over at Giraffepen, Tony P asked a great question:
... in our postmodern world, does the accusation of nastiness, or being overly critical partly stem from a deep aversion to truth telling?
I am sure there is something in this. My own research is into moments when truth-telling becomes a matter of life and death, in fact. Jesus predicted it. But, my question in return would be: is an accusation of nastiness or being overly critical then become a necessary hallmark of truth telling?
18 comments:
Thanks so much for writing that, Michael. It gives me a lot of room for thought and matters to consider.
Cheers, Haydn.
Thanks Michael,
I appreciate your observation about creating a temptation for young men particularly - especially in the light of Paul's advice to Timothy in 2 Timothy 2 in the context of fleeing the evil desires of youth. And possibly this is a particular area to watch within apprenticeships like the MTS model that give young men opportunities early.
I also agree that it is a matter of wisdom in applying the tongue's power for the good of others. Truth in the shape of love is what we're after. It is only a small step to move from speaking the truth in love to thinking that speaking the truth IS love. I notice that Paul in Romans 14:22 says silence on the truth is sometimes the best thing for a particular context.
There can be an attraction in either 'beating the sheep' or finding an enemy to attack - because in the short term it feels 'effective'. Yet in the long term in can cause the kind of damage you talk about.
I'd be interested to explore the 'biblical evidence' paragraph though. I'm not convinced it's there yet. Removing the prophets, Jesus and Paul from discussion doesn't leave us much to deal with! Moreover, there are other options to consider when weighing them up. Are their comments because of their unusual authority? Can we actually demonstrate that?
I've often wondered about Jesus' polemic in Matthew 23 of the teachers of the law and the Pharisees - and trying to think through THAT as a model of speaking the truth in love.
Unique authority is one option.
Unique insight into their motives is another (cf Mark 2:8, Luke 5:22, 6:8).
Yet possibly Jesus is a model of how to speak into some contexts that would be valid for all Christians, without either unique authority or divine insight.
I've yet to see it demonstrated that this is not an option to consider.
For my money, this is where the theoretical difference lies between the 'polemic averse' camp and the 'polemic for the sake of communicating the gospel' camp.
I do recall a Briefing article on this years ago - 'The Risk A Preacher Takes?' or similar.
Pastorally, I would suggest those who are polemic averse be careful in overstating their case in the light of the biblical examples we do have. It may not be a style that would work for them, nor one that is ever appropriate in the academic context. Yet, it can be one that refuses to play ball with those who express a heart problem by hiding by academic 'process' - and sometimes this can be as helpful as the blow by blow response (particularly when this has been done well in a range of other contexts). Indeed this may be an entirely appropriate way of answering a fool according to his folly.
I would also point out that there is not only one evil to avoid here. The failure to speak when we should have is equally dangerous for the flock. Just because this is less obvious to others when it is committed does not reduce its seriousness. The number of people I have seen leave the church because no one had the courage to speak up when the issue first became apparent disturbs me. The desire to be loved by men is at issue (‘..woe to you when all men speak well of you…’ Luke 6:26).
To the polemic inclined (and I include myself here), perhaps it would be useful to speak to some of the casualties of that mode of speaking and have James 3 on our screen savers and tattooed onto our foreheads. It would be good to recognise that our victims probably haven’t come back to hear us clarify or patch our mistakes up.
A greater awareness and discussion of context may be useful for us – in which contexts is polemic an instance of speaking truth in love? As models we need to also be aware of the danger of imitation of our style in contexts that we would have never used it in. Perhaps polemic should be seen as a triple back flip with tuck – a high risk maneuver and not one we have a go at in Preaching 101.
That should leave us all with plenty to repent of for many years…
Be glad to hear some responses….
In Christ,
Nick
Thanks Nick, that's brilliant. Very perceptively and sensitively done.
I had in mind the Proverbs, James, and texts like Titus 3:2, and 2 Tim 2.
Michael I agree with almost every word in this post (some kind of record, I think), but as an academic the points you listed under the heads "a matter of integrity" and "educationally unwise" strike a particular chord.
One aspect that you've left out is (for want of a better word) that of group culture. I am afraid my reaction to the statement from Tony P that you quoted, "in our postmodern world, does the accusation of nastiness, or being overly critical partly stem from a deep aversion to truth telling?" was not that this was a great question, but rather an urge to run as far as possible in the opposite direction. All other things being equal, if many people are accusing you of nastiness, does it not rather behove you to ask, "Am I being nasty?"
Please understand me: I am known for making trouble within my experimental collaboration, and I think that automatic deference, or any argument that purports to show that one should be uncritical, are plagues. But if I were told that colleagues who I otherwise respected generally thought "he causes needless controversy" (as opposed to, he is a pain in the arse but he often has a good point) I would take it as a profound personal criticism and go off for a week to re-examine my life.
By contrast there is a kind of pride in contentiousness in the sentiment you quoted that gives me the creeps. I have not been privy to the discussion on the other site and (to be frank) the fact that there have been 46 comments in one day on your earlier post (let me repeat that number: forty-six posts; I did skim through them BTW) doesn't dispose me to check it out. So having chosen ignorance, it may be that I'm being unfair. But really: I lose arguments all the time, even when I'm right. This happens, and it is a bad thing, but hey --- I have read Qohelet, and at the end of the day I understand that the world is like that, and that this too is absurd. So I am ill-disposed to the idea that someone being accused of nastiness in discussion has large metaphysical implications. Maybe the criticism was in bad faith. Yeah, that happens. But maybe the criticism was made in a sober manner. What then?
Michael
thanks for clarifying your position
my quick read of the various threads has left me with a bitter taste in my mouth.
I wonder how many of our problems come from a failure to apprecitate the diversity of our God given gifts, even as writers. As much as I love Oliver O'Donovan and Gordon Cheng I am really pleased that not all Christians write and speak like either of them. I am really pleased that God has made both of these men who they are to serve the rest of us. We all need to use gifts in love, and so its not wrong to question whether this is being done. But are we trying to call everyone to speak the same rather than enjoying God given diversity which builds up the church? We need to speak differently in different contexts. I think we also need different writers and speakers who speak with different voices. That is certainly the experience within the human authors of Scripture. Perhaps a bit more love and grace would cover over a multitude of speaking wrong.
Sorry bout the bitter taste...
yes, agreed, personality plays a part here. I am an extreme 'F' in Myers-Briggs language, and so I don't understand 'T' ways in particular...
As an entp I probably shouldn't care enough to get a bitter taste anyway...
Keep up your good work
Yes, we T's need your love and support, F's, to prevent us from putting our foot in it so often!! I've learn a lot from F's over the past few years, but I obviously still have a long way to go...
Amen and amen, Michael.
On the point on integrity: Since when did biblical truth need to be exaggerated in order for it to be commended to us? If it is true: say it. If not, leave it out. God's word does not need that extra shove of hyperbole to achieve all for which God inspired it. It strikes me as a sign of NOT trusting in Scripture when some feel the need to spice it up in some beefy rhetoric.
I've done it myself, of course. And more often that not I can honestly say it was more to do with liking the sound of my own voice, and being thought of as being a bold speaker, than with fidelity to the Bible (which is what I would have claimed).
As we have explored previously in this blog: the form is also the message.
Mmmm, spicy beef...
Should never post when I'm hungry...
On the point on integrity: Since when did biblical truth need to be exaggerated in order for it to be commended to us? If it is true: say it. If not, leave it out. God's word does not need that extra shove of hyperbole to achieve all for which God inspired it. It strikes me as a sign of NOT trusting in Scripture when some feel the need to spice it up in some beefy rhetoric.
Nor indeed does it require understatement, illustration, explanation or translation.
depends if these are analagous or not. Your examples don't require stretching of the actual truth...! Explanation isn't a rhetorical trick
Overstatement = +
Understatement = -
Explanation =/= original
Discuss.
Sorry, that anonymous was me, don't know what happened.
My point is that it's not just the hyperbolists that can be accused of overegging a case that they're trying to make. All speech will involve interpreting the Bible into a context, and all speech carries its own inherent risk of creaturely and sinful distortion, both by communicator and hearer.
oh, except the Bible, where this statement must be qualified somewhat.
Well: I do think Paul's salvo against the powerful clique of local rhetoricians in 1 Cor 1-4 is relevant here...
Which is to say, not that there isn't the perfectly reasonable business of interpretation and creativity - perhaps even involving hyperbole! - but that there is a caution against the rhetorically smoothness and trickery and the way in which this encourages power religion.
I think it should be noted that Jesus and Paul reserved their most polemical language for their fellow Jews, particularly on issues related to hypocracy, and were comparatively easy going on Gentiles. This should be remembered in dialogue with non-believing post-moderns one would wish to share the good news with. Good post.
Post a Comment