If you’ve seen the Princess Bride, you are familiar with the character Inigo Montoya, played by Mandy Patinkin. Inigo Montoya was a Spanish swordsman who lived to avenge his father’s death and would eventually encounter the culprit in the story, with his sword drawn and citing that famous phrase ‘my name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Now prepare to die’. He was not interested in explanations or apologies (not that any were offered), but solely to get the guy who did the dastardly deed.
Unfortunately, I think that many Christians treat defense of their faith in the same manner. Threats to faith result in polemics that draws swords of hostile defenses and uncharitable words. We are insulted and must retaliate. Sometimes, in this counteraction to assaults on our faith, there IS no defense only ad hominem attacks on the offenders’ character.
Let’s face it, we Christians take our faith personal. I think the primary reason this occurs is due to affront of a personal nature. When someone disputes or attacks the faith, it is the same as attacking us. Therefore, we must draw the sword.
I’m finding that such defenses are not just relegated to exchanges with non-Christians. Sadly, it happens with doctrinal deviations ranging from the essential to the insignificant. I have a friend with whom I have shared much fellowship in my earlier Christian years. He has now come to believe in some ideas espoused by alternate Christianities and comparative religions. He informed me that I was the only person who hasn’t treated him with disdain and sought to have a discussion with him regarding the tenets of his faith. Other Christians have told him he was deceived, called him names and have been downright hostile to him but not one engaged with him concerning the deviations from his new found beliefs. One Christian said he was stupid. His recent statement to me was telling ‘if I have been deceived, that is no way to win me back’.
Friends, this is no way to defend the faith. We may feel hurt or insulted that someone has challenged what we have taken so personally to the point that our buttons are pushed. But castigating someone who does not believe as you do will not accomplish anything in defense of Christ. I suspect the primary reason is because of the personal and emotional investment made that challenges have a way of yelling ‘yo stupid, what do believe THAT for?’ I also suspect the reason for the hostility might be insufficient understanding of why belief is found in Christ. In other words, an inability to defend the faith is due to a lack of critical analysis thereby giving no support to explain our faith. Josh McDowell has some interesting things to say about that here, Most Christians Cannot Explain Their Faith.
But defense requires that we set our personal affronts aside and deal specifically with the claims that are challenging the faith. There is no need to be hostile or rude, but to simply make the case for why you believe what you believe. That means we ourselves have examined our own position of why we believe what we believe and continue to do so. Lesser examination will result in greater polemics because the only thing we have to rely on is a personal belief.
For more thoughts on civil and effective apologetics, I found this article really interesting, Six Enemies of Apologetic Engagement.
“Let your speech always be gracious, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how you should answer everyone” (Colossians 4:6 NET)
61 replies to "A Theology of Civility: Some Thoughts on Apologetics"
While I agree that one problem is inability by some to defend the faith. It is always easier to call names then give reasoned answers. I think another reason is that we live in a culture (at least in the United States) where it used to be respectable and comfortable to be a Christian. It was something I think we have tended to see as an entitlement. Now that we are no longer respected there is a tendency to react in anger. We need to remember that we were never promised we would be comfortable in the world or have it on our side (John 16:1-4) but rather trust in God to carry out His work in a pagan society (Matthew 16:18).
Mike, I agree and great point. I don’t imagine that missionaries working in predominantly other-worldview environments defend their faith with the hostility we see here.
I just wanted to comment to tell you that I very much liked this post, and to thank you for the reminder today to be gentle in witness. I always need more of them. I have nothing interesting to add to what you said, besides thanks! In Christ, JL
Donald Miller in his book Searching for God Knows What describes something called Lifeboat theory that sheds an interesting light on this subject and why we might want to be right so badly … and why we react the way we do when challenged.
It’s too long to go into on a blog comment but … I think its a reminder to seek Glory for God alone and not ourselves. Something that is strangely difficult to do. It’s chapter 8 … check it out …
http://preview.tinyurl.com/LifeboatTheory
I think we do have to be careful not to slow the progress of another person’s journey toward relationship with Christ by getting in their face on a theological point that shows a lack of Grace in our own lives.
Hello Lisa,
I appreciate very much your call to civility. Jesus challenged the religious leaders of his time directly, but those who came to him seeking help, answers (Nicodemus) and conversation were answered again directly, but with love and gentleness. Jesus was not threatened by opposition. Why are we?
I only take issue with Josh McDowell’s statements in your attached article. I believe Josh McDowell, whom I have read and appreciate, means when he says he did not hear an intelligent answer, “I did not hear an answer that agrees with my theology and it is therefore invalid.” I think the point is not intelligent answers, it is precisely what you say – the inability to discuss variable possibilities intelligently and with the grace and self-control granted to us by the gifts of the Holy Spirit.
Thank you for your words!
So TUAD, by mentioning the other post are you suggesting that civility is unnecessary? Just curious.
I think civility is good. I just wouldn’t make it a false idol, that’s all.
Speaking the truth in love is a biblically sound principle. Thanks for reminding us of that, Lisa. Sometimes on these blogs, (and in other relationships) in our human need to be ‘right’ in our own opinions, we often forget that the Lord commands us to love one another, whether we always agree with each other or not. I was reminded of that today in an interaction with a good friend with whom I disagree on the comp-egal position, that we must always be open to correction ourselves in the Lord, and have a teachable spirit.
God bless.
Lisa,
Like TUAD, I agree that civility in the sense you advocate isn’t “always” how things should be done. I think there is (rarely) a place for harsh polemics. It seems that Jesus, especially when confronting legalism, wasn’t always very civil. In any situation I think it is important to discern very very carefully the best approach. For instance, confronting legalism is one of those instances where sometimes harsh polemics and exposing the inability of legalists to live up to their own standards is perhaps appropriate. Trying to give polite reasoned responses to people with bullhorns on the street telling everyone they’re going to hell for watching Harry Potter probably isn’t going to work.
Thanks for this post. I approached this issue from another angle on my blog – violence within the community as to others who aren’t in agreement – but the point is well taken. Civility is essential otherwise verbal violence that ensues chills any effort to dialogue.
Latte Links (6/5/10)…
Miscellany for the weekend… Ben Terry: Why God exercises His sovereignty in the eternal salvation of mankind Representative Michele Bachmann (R-MN): Helen Needs to Go! Christian Reader: The Fear of God New York Post: Iman Unmosqued First Things: On The…
I find a gentle and caring approach works best. Thanks for the share. 🙂
Luke 6:38
Give, and it will be given to you. Good measure, pressed down, shaken together, running over, will be put into your lap. For with the measure you use it will be measured back to you.”
Let that beautiful verse sink in and surf on over to http://www.hybridhondas.com. Please click on a link or two when you’re there. It costs nothing and by doing so you’ll be helping a fellow brother out so he can continue helping others.
Please spread the word to other brothers and sisters. Be blessed and thank you 🙂
How can we carry the message in a way that will most benefit the other person?
How likely are you to listen to someone who can only see their own point of view, and is determined to show you how wrong you are? Why should we assume that they are any different?
TUAD post # 8 said:
The weight of evidence in the blogosphere is heavily leaning on the other side. The need to be right seems to be a far more prominent ‘
falsereal idol’ than civility. I doubt that anyone who conducts a cursory survey of Christian blogs will come away thinking; ‘gee, we’re waaay too civil here, it’s about time some of us got a little more aggressive’.It’s not impossible to be firm and still remain civil. I think Challies has managed to strike that balance.
John From Down Under, you stole my thunder 😉 I was thinking that this morning, that firm and even forceful apologetics can still be done civilly. I do believe there is a time to be forceful, particularly when sheep are being led astray by unorthodox doctrine that is essential to the Christian faith. I recall one exchange that I had recently on Facebook with a woman who had brought into some strange teaching. When her ‘pastor’ stepped in, my approach was different and stronger with him since he was the one dispensing falsehood. But being forceful does not necessarily mean hostile or demeaning. There is far too much demeaning ‘apologetics’ going on IMHO.
Lisa, love the opening rhyme. Waxing poetic on a Sunday afternoon!
As Driscoll said at a conference some time ago (disclaimer: quoting him does not mean I fully endorse him, but his point was good), “we love the sheep and shoot the wolves” …or words to that effect.
echo what ‘John From Down Under’ said #15. This applies most especially for one the blogs that TUAD posts at, and his personal ‘pope’..Steve Hayes
op said: “There is no need to be hostile or rude, but to simply make the case for why you believe what you believe. That means we ourselves have examined our own position of why we believe what we believe and continue to do so. Lesser examination will result in greater polemics because the only thing we have to rely on is a personal belief.”
I agree – this is great advice for all humans, not just christians.
@18, This applies most especially for one the blogs that TUAD posts at, and his personal ‘pope’..Steve Hayes
What a civil thing to say!
John from Down Under: “The need to be right seems to be a far more prominent ‘false real idol’ than civility.”
And what about the need to feel civil seems to be a far more prominent idol than the need to be right?
For what matter, is it right or wrong to be civil?
Think about this: If we demote the importance of being right,
then why be civil
– unless civility is right,
and it’s important to be right?
I don’t think the importance of being right is demoted by being civil..am I right? We can strive to be right and do it civily, like speaking the truth in love. I believe that should be the general rule as Lisa’s post did a good job of reminding us.
#21: I heartily agree with you and with John from Down under when he said:
“The weight of evidence in the blogosphere is heavily leaning on the other side. The need to be right seems to be a far more prominent ‘false real idol’ than civility. I doubt that anyone who conducts a cursory survey of Christian blogs will come away thinking; ‘gee, we’re waaay too civil here, it’s about time some of us got a little more aggressive’.
It’s not impossible to be firm and still remain civil.”
And I think we often confuse what we call ‘being right’ with the right to personally discredit others who don’t see it exactly our way, and thus make ourselves personally seem superior. When that happens, the real point of the theology of a subject too often gets lost in the need to bolster our theological or personal egos, or show off our knowledge.
Knowledge is a wonderful and enlightening thing, but for the Christian message to go forth effectively, it should be tempered with the Godly wisdom defined in James 3: 13-18.
“To the angel of the church in Thyatira write:
These are the words of the Son of God, whose eyes are like blazing fire and whose feet are like burnished bronze. I know your deeds, your love and faith, your service and perseverance, and that you are now doing more than you did at first.
Nevertheless, I have this against you: You tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess. By her teaching she misleads my servants into sexual immorality and the eating of food sacrificed to idols.
I have given her time to repent of her immorality, but she is unwilling. So I will cast her on a bed of suffering, and I will make those who commit adultery with her suffer intensely, unless they repent of her ways. I will strike her children dead.” (Revelations 2)
I wonder if the toleration of that prophetess Jezebel was done out of a dominant concern for “civility”?
Cadis and mbaker – you both have understood what I was trying to convey. I especially liked this comment “we often confuse what we call ‘being right’ with the right to personally discredit others who don’t see it exactly our way, and thus make ourselves personally seem superior.”
Defense means discrediting the argument, not the person and this can be done in a civil manner.
Lisa Robinson: “Defense means discrediting the argument, not the person and this can be done in a civil manner.”
Compare and contrast this with John the Baptist’s civility:
“But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to where he was baptizing, he said to them: “You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath?”
Or compare and contrast this with Jesus’s civility:
“You brood of vipers, how can you who are evil say anything good? For out of the overflow of the heart the mouth speaks.”
Did John the Baptist and Jesus discredit the argument, and not the person in a civil manner?
TUAD –
The title of this post refers to civility in apologetics, or when the faith is defended in general. Peter hints(!) HOW this ought to be done.
but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect (Gk literally ‘meekness and fear’) having a good conscience, so that, when you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame. 1 Peter 3:15-16 (contextually referring to nonbelievers ‘asking’ believers, but the ‘attitude’ Peter highlights is worth noting)
The general context of this imperative (exhortation?) is that the one who defends is the respondent not the instigator. Defense therefore is not the same as an attack and need not be a counter-attack either. The references you cited are not examples of apologetic engagement. Your examples address a particular conduct and disposition. When Paul publically confronted Peter he identified that his conduct, not his verbally articulated beliefs, contradicted the foundation of the gospel.
But when I saw that their conduct was not in step with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all…. Galatians 2:14.
So let’s compare apples-with-apples, not oranges.
You are also pitting tolerance against civility (in your Jezebel example). Why should civility be construed as tolerance? Civility has to do more with the ‘how’ not the ‘what’ we say. It is that ‘tone’ that comes with our conversation.
None of us denies the biblical mandate for rebuke when called for. Jesus ripped into the Pharisees big time but didn’t use the same tone when educating an ignorant Nicodemus on ‘doctrinal matters’. A biblical case cannot be made that hostility and aggression ought to be our default position, especially in apologetics.
“The general context of this imperative (exhortation?) is that the one who defends is the respondent not the instigator.”
So in the above references with John the Baptist and Jesus, you’re saying that they were the instigators?
“The references you cited are not examples of apologetic engagement.”
What would you say they are examples of? And would you say that they were civil in whatever category that you happen to list them in?
“Why should civility be construed as tolerance?”
John from Down Under,
(1) So you’re saying that it’s okay to be intolerant as long as you’re civil about it?
(2) Have folks ever understood “civility” towards their position as tolerance for their position?
(3) What I may think is incivil, you may think is civil. And what you may think is incivil, I may think is civil.
There is a subjective element.
Like a woman’s looks. I may think a woman is pretty, and you may think she’s ugly. And visa versa.
After the mess we have just been through on the comp/egal thread, is that the best comparison you can come up with to make your point TUAD? I’m sorry, but you have left me not hardly able to believe what I am reading.
Jesus: “Nevertheless, I have this against you: You tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess. By her teaching she misleads my servants into sexual immorality and the eating of food sacrificed to idols.”
John from Down Under: “You are also pitting tolerance against civility (in your Jezebel example).”
John from Down Under, do you think the Church of Thyatira were civil to Jezebel while they were tolerating the prophetess Jezebel? Or do you think they were incivil to Jezebel while they were tolerating the prophetess Jezebel?
If they were incivil towards the prophetess Jezebel (which to me shows that they were intolerant of her), would Jesus have held it against them for being incivil towards the prophetess Jezebel?
TUAD,
Are you comparing someone here with jezebel because they don’t agree with your personal view of things? This is the 3rd time you’ve brought that up in answer to a comment rather than engaging it directly – twice now on this thread and on the comp-egal thread. What has that got to do with being civil? Intolerance of false teaching implies something entirely different from common human courtesy to each other. As in do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Jesus also said that.
No.
C. Michael Patton: “Now, let me give my short and sweet answer as to why Paul did not allow women to teach:
Paul did not let women teach due to the often aggressive and combative nature that teaching must entail concerning the confrontation of false doctrine.
“Often aggressive and combative” is also perceived as being “civil”, yes?
TUAD, how clever of you to continually vent your opposition to women teachers/leaders in the guise of engaging in a topic. Not the thread for it, so don’t go there. Although, I must say your propensity to stir up strife and contention is quite fitting for the topic of this post.
John the Baptist: “But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to where he was baptizing, he said to them: “You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath?”
Jesus: “You brood of vipers, how can you who are evil say anything good? For out of the overflow of the heart the mouth speaks.”
Did John the Baptist and Jesus have a “propensity to stir up strife and contention” which would be quite fitting for the topic of this post?
Is there an echo echo in here here? I seem to remember this same post, #36, also appearing several times. This is getting quite tiresome to most of us, not to mention highly disrespectful to the creators of the blog. I don’t know why it is allowed to go on, because it certainly results in sabotaging the threads where people are serious about about having a sensible and enlightened discussion on the topic. If this person cannot contain himself he needs to banned, especially if he will not heed repeated warnings from the blog moderators. Others have been for far less.
I’m all for freedom of speech, but this is strictly unChristian like conduct.
TUAD –
It’s been a long day and when I’m typing this, you North Americans are sound asleep!
I am saying that just because one chooses to be civil does not necessary mean that they tolerate what they are addressing in a civil manner. Civility does not presuppose tolerance.
The answer to the biblical examples you referred to, is ‘NO’ but once again, they are stern rebukes toward the conduct of certain individuals/groups. Acts 8:20-23 is perhaps the most stern rebuke I can think of for one’s conduct. Bottom line, the post’s title refers to civility in apologetics, not denying the need for rebuke which is the examples you quoted.
Hope it makes sense.
TUAD,
Let’s not forget that almost without exception when Jesus used harsh words it was directed at people like yourself who think they have all the right answers and mock, disdain, and view as lesser anyone who disagrees with them. It wasn’t the sinner’s or even those who erred doctrinally (i.e. the Samaritan’s) who got the harshest treatment from Jesus, rather it was the religious, legalistic, hypocrites. Since no one here seems to fit that mold other than yourself I’m not sure what you’re point is.
Michael T.,
Your remarks are uncivil and your accusations describe you, the accuser.
Michael T,
Note: Your remarks are uncivil because you are discrediting the person (me) and not the argument.
TUAD, your continued baiting and disdainful remarks are not welcome here. Either engage with the topic and others in a civil manner or don’t comment. Thanks.
John, I agree. I just read The Lost Letters of Pergamum for my Intro to NT class and I was struck my the manner in which apologetics were engaged in the discourse between Luke and Antipas. In Anipas’ letters he would address things that were a direct affront to Christianity and would probably draw some hostility and contempt from Christians today. For example, he would conclude letters asking that his gods provide protection and provision for Luke. However, many of us would attack that? Yet, Luke would overlook it to address Christ. Did he condone pluralism? Absolutely not. I thought the exchange was a really good example in healthy apologetics.
Lisa Robinson,
I’m the one receiving baiting and disdainful remarks.
Your acknowledgment of that would be welcome.
Thanks.
John from Down Under: “Civility does not presuppose tolerance.”
You’re addressing a claim or argument that’s not been made.
Here’s what I asked you: “Have folks ever understood “civility” towards their position as tolerance for their position?”
Would you say that’s ever happened?
Also, you wrote “You are also pitting tolerance against civility (in your Jezebel example).”
John from Down Under, do you think the Church of Thyatira was civil to Jezebel as they were tolerating the prophetess Jezebel? Or do you think they were incivil to Jezebel as they were tolerating the prophetess Jezebel?
If they were incivil towards the prophetess Jezebel (which to me shows that they were intolerant of her), do you think Jesus would have held it against them for being incivil towards the prophetess Jezebel?
TUAD,
The prophetess Jezebel was in the middle of a local church. They were “fellowshipping” with her. She had card carrying membership. She was teaching in that local church at Thyatira. It’s not a good example.
Although I must admit sometimes a harsh, short, disdainful remark to a person who is taken in a falsehood will ping their conscience and set in motion a mindset of shame which in turn can prepare thier heart and mind for the next guy to get into a dialogue. I’m not totally convinced that harshness does not have it’s place. But if you employ harshness don’t expect to be friends or dialouge with the person you use it on. So judge the situation and weigh the effects of your approach, don’t go off half cocked and claim as an afterthought it was for the other guys good. And personally I think it is a last resort tactic , kind of like delivering a the heart punch in the course of CPR on a heart attach victim.
There are many things, IMO, to consider if a harsh tactic is employed but a straightfoward yet reserved answer is always welcomed and useful. IOW there is no restrictions on control.
TUAD,
I’m the one receiving baiting and disdainful remarks.
Please TUAD. You do realize do you not, that you had been pushing buttons for days on this blog and acting in a very inappropriate way on the other thread before anyone started pushing back at all? Now you are claiming “victim status”?
Sorry, it just won’t work. People grew tired of it days ago.
I’m merely pointing out that I have been the recipient of baiting and disdainful remarks.
This isn’t civil.
TUAD,
“I’m merely pointing out that I have been the recipient of baiting and disdainful remarks.”
Lisa, in her post:
“I suspect the primary reason is because of the personal and emotional investment made that challenges have a way of yelling ‘yo stupid, what do believe THAT for?’ I also suspect the reason for the hostility might be insufficient understanding of why belief is found in Christ. In other words, an inability to defend the faith is due to a lack of critical analysis thereby giving no support to explain our faith. ”
You are sure proving her point there by continuing with your inappropriate comments, which seek to make others who disagree with your personal views look like either fools or apostates.
I’m sure you must have some better arguments to make if you are genuinely a student of the Bible. If so, I’d like to hear those for a change, and I’m sure that would be a welcome change for others on this blog too. This is about the Christian theology of the entire body of Christ, not about one commenter trying to intimidate others into believing his personal opinions, and making every thread he posts on all about him personally.
TUAD,
“they haven’t discredited the arguments presented.”
Because you have not made any arguments that are actually responsive to the posts in question. Off-topic, thinly veiled accusations (i.e. linking egalitarianism to the pro-gay and pro-abortion agenda) do not qualify as arguments.
Also TUAD, every thread on this blog is not about the egal/comp debate but you seem to try to make it so. You even had to put a long quote on the subject in the Sam Storms/doctrinal statement thread the other day. It had absolutely no place there and you know it. Maybe you should get off this hobby horse for awhile, don’t you think??