Conversational Terrorism

I love this page about conversational terrorism.

Some of these tactics seem awfully familiar.

The 'gentle answer' discussion

It would help me (and might help others) if were to crystallise my position on the matter of Christian polemics. Partly, the debate has revealed that there is a consensus at a theoretical level, and that what we are discussing is a matter of discernment or wisdom. What's my big problem?

• 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?

I have some doubts about Hart...

Photo: In Nantes Cathedral

Some further thoughts on DB Hart:

Hart mounts a defence of the ‘beauty to whose persuasive power the Christian rhetoric of evangelism appeals’[1] against the charge from contemporary philosophy that this Christian rhetoric of peace is in fact inescapably violent. As Hart writes:

Christ is a persuasion, a form of evoking desire, and the whole force of the gospel depends upon the assumption that this persuasion is also peace: that the desire awakened by the shape of Christ and his church is one truly reborn as agape, rather than merely the way in which a lesser force succumbs to a great, as an episode in the endless epic of power.[2]

If the gospel is merely an iron fist, even if placed in a velvet glove, then the Nietzchean/postmodern charge – and the Tempter’s charge against Thomas – is sustained. Hart closes his book with a chapter entitled ‘The Gift of Martyrs’, in which he shows well that the Christian practice of authority contrasts markedly in form from the exercise of governmentality (to use Foucault’s term) because it is different in nature:

...theology has no choice but to cling to its own peculiar practice of persuasion, in order to resist the temptations of power (and in a history governed by sin, these temptations inhabit every moment); Christianity can only return to its understanding of peace, its unique style of rhetoric, as the sole source of accord; it must always obey the form of Christ, its persuasion must always assume the shape of the gift he is, it must practice its rhetoric under the only aspect it may wear if it is indeed Christian at all: martyrdom…Theology must, because of what its particular story is, have the form of martyrdom, witness, a peaceful offer that has already suffered rejection and must be prepared for rejection as a consequence.[3]

Through its imitation of Christ’s manner of rule – which the martyrs exemplify – the Christian community shows itself to be ruled by such a servant Lord. Hart’s emphasis on the ‘renunciation of violence’ as the core meaning of the crucifixion to be imitated in the practices of the church takes the place that rightly belongs to ‘sacrificial love’.[4] However, what he rightly shows is that, in the very ‘clinging’ of the disciples of Christ to that mode of speech and life which is the only one consonant with the message of the gospel Christians are commissioned to preach, the ubiquitous temptations of power are to be evaded.

[1] Hart, The Beauty of the Infinite: The Aesthetics of Christian Truth, p. 1
[2] Hart, The Beauty of the Infinite: The Aesthetics of Christian Truth, p. 3
[3] Hart, The Beauty of the Infinite: The Aesthetics of Christian Truth, p. 441
[4] I would further complain here that Hart’s language of ‘theology must…’ is a dangerous abstraction which contrasts with the concrete experience of martyrs. Who is this 'theology'?