Intro: The first and previous installment of 'Let's Talk' gave preponderance to the variegated motives and reasons we have for wading into the waters of debate and argumentation. Does our interest lie in our vainglory of God's glory. Often times our reason's, whatever they may invariably be, give rise to a broad range of tone's, undertones &/or overtone's. Aside from whatever our reason's may be often times our passion's play us like fiddles. You know, we are so zealous to convince, persuade or defend our positions that our tone's eschalate into obnoxious and pernicious overtones! What is more, often times self-control is discarded in the name of a passionate plea, uncomprimising polemics, an intrepid commitment to orthodoxy and the like. So we excuse our tones on the basis of our passion. As Christians though our tones and/or overtones should be just as important to us as what we are arguing or debating for or against.
As Sinclair Ferguson has said, "if we act in a wrong spirit, we shall bring little glory to God." Orthopraxy (right representation) for a Christian should be given its proper place. Sound orthodoxy, after all will promote sound orthopraxy any way. I have seen too many occassions where a person will eschew right representation on the grounds that truth supersedes the value of their tone. That is nothing other than an inventive rationalization and in fact untruthful. Scripture unambiguously addresses what the tone and posture of the Christian should be.
Therefore, the tone and posture of a Christian is to be just as truthful as their theological position. Think about it. Though our incorporeal doctrinal position (theological formulae) may be true it is entirely possible that our corporeal position (personal representation) may be untrue thus rendering our entire postion a half truth. It is not a biblical virtue to argue for truth in an untruthful way!
At the onset I am reminded of an old production entitled Back to the Future. There is an occassion where a character named Biff (a quintessential bully) illustratively knocks on the head of a character named Mcfly (a quintessential push over) saying, "Hello, McFly. Is anybody in their?" How often is this act degradation done in our debates or arguments with non-Christians and Christians alike?
Now, I have heard the assertion, "Well, the prophets were often bellicose and vociferous. Or there is this little chestnut, "Jesus chased many out of the temple with a whip and he was often vitriolic toward the religious caste." There is also what is touted as the Pauline modus operandi. It sounds something like this, "Paul spoke of many as wolves, dogs and told the Corinthians that he may return with a rod..." These fallacious reasonings are commonly employed to excuse anger and justify sinful rage. While such postures have their place they are few and far between. These sort of biblcal accounts are scant at best in comparison to the corpus of specific teaching on Christian sanctification and to build a behavioral doctrine on such grounds is biblically inconsistent or nieve. This posture routinely resounds an unwarranted 'overtone'.
There is also the opposite extreme that is equally incongruous with biblical nomenclature. This position tends to avoid confrontation or correction on grounds of 'love'. Reference is often made to I Cor. "love is patient, love is kind, love does not insist on its own way..." This posture routinely whispers an unwarranted 'undertone'. Paul regularly admonishes and corrects various congregations for not guarding the faith (Galatians & Colossians for example). Victorian niceties must not be allowed to distort what is a permissible and appropriate tone and/or posture
Both of the above postures fail to properly contextualize their proof texts within the overall sweep of what scripture espouses for proper posturing while engaging in debate or argumentation. The Reformed hermeneutical principle that the narratival portions of scripture cannot supersede the didactic portions of scripture must be injected into this topic. The didactic, or instructional genre of scripture must guide the narratival genre.
For instance, while there are accounts of Paul responding with a sarcastic, satirical or aggressive tone he specifically instructs Timothy to engage in argumentation with a certain posture and a particular tone: "And the Lord's servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, correcting his opponents with gentleness." (II Timothy 2:24-25) This was the tone and posture Timothy was to exemplify when addressing any maledictions. Paul prescribed this necessary manner of locution just after referring to those who were denying the resurrection, a core tenent of the gospel.
While there are instances interspersed throughout holy writ where godly personalities are demonstrably 'overtoned', and to be sure under certain circumstances and in the right context they are still warranted, those variegated instances must be properly contextualized and not taken as a paradigmatic license to be overtoned. What is more those occassions simply do not circumvent the clear 'teaching' of Paul on tone and posture.
Moreover, Paul also presents us with a portrait of godless debate and argumentation in his letters to Timothy. For Paul godless debate and argumentation exudes the following sinful characteristics: II Timothy- quarreling over words (2:14), irreverant babble (2:16), foolish, ignorant controversies that breed quarrels (2:23), abusive, proud, arrogant, lovers of self, heartless, unappeasable, slanderous, without self control, brutal, treacherous, reckless, swollen with conceit, having the appearance of godliness (3: 2-5). I Timothy - conceited, unhealthy craving for controversy, dissension, slander, evil suspicions, constant friction (6:4-5).
It is incumbent upon us as Christians to engage in respectable and admirable debate and argumentation. We should aim to always exhibit the fruits of the Spirit such as love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self control (Gal. 5:22). How can we argue or maintain that the truth of scripture is binding upon others while not being governed by that sanctifying truth ourselves?? As Polycarp as opined, "If a man cannot govern himself in such matters, how shall he join them on others?"
Credo Ut Intelligam
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
