1

Anybody who believes salvation requires faith is going to argue about the faith part with anyone who disagrees. I don't see any way around it.

I don't believe in an after-life, so I don't have that particular problem. But I do believe a lot of other things, so I end up arguing a lot anyway.

But you know, that's O.K., because debating, under the right circumstances, can be a real hoot. Just remember to love and respect your interlocutors to the best of your ability, that's the main thing.

"There is no 'other world.' I only know what I've experienced. You must be hallucinating." - Jalal-Uddin Rumi (1207-1273) Turkish Sufi Mystic Poet

2

Anybody who believes salvation requires faith is going to argue about the faith part with anyone who disagrees. I don't see any way around it.

I don't believe in an after-life, so I don't have that particular problem. But I do believe a lot of other things, so I end up arguing a lot anyway.

But you know, that's O.K., because debating, under the right circumstances, can be a real hoot. Just remember to love and respect your interlocutors to the best of your ability, that's the main thing.

"There is no 'other world.' I only know what I've experienced. You must be hallucinating." - Jalal-Uddin Rumi (1207-1273) Turkish Sufi Mystic Poet

3

This has to be the most pertinent blog post I've ever seen on modern post in tooling around reading this stuff.

Thanks, that was fantastic.

4

Great article. I call "wife beater" types, people who have a "high committment to a low cause". If you are truly right, then perhaps these "wife beaters" should spend some time with me as I seek to be involved in the "Great Battle", i.e. working with men addicted to pornography, lust, and illicit sex. Perhaps then, they might realize there are more important battles to fight, indeed.

5

Joe,

Perhaps there can be a further parallel between actual domestic violators and the "wife beater" term.

Isn't the root problem, in both cases, a focus on self rather than others?

Indeed, if I encounter a doctrine that I do not agree with, then shouldn't my focus be on those around me rather than my own arrogant knowledge?

This will provide the proper distinction between refuting heresy and whipping the brethren. Jesus always used this approach, and he was always more interested in the hearts of the people we was addressing than the doctrines they adhered to...

That is what you were saying today, and you said it well. The irony (for me) is that "wife beaters" is such an accurate metaphor for the problem.

Great post!

6

I've been cornered by a "wife beater" enough times to just steer clear of them. It makes me sad. I'm a pretty open person, idea-wise, I just can't see the point of arguing peripheral issues to the death. I'm okay with not knowing everything about everything, and I think it's easier for younger generations to live in that tension. Not to having to be right about it all is a huge relief to me. Thanks for the post.

7

I feel a bit contrarian to your well-thought out post. I think blogdom has been outstanding for a more tolerant attitude in Christianity, more communication is good. You are just SEEING more of the ungracious attitudes Christians can have toward other faith groups, and they are seeing more of each other.

The debate on balance is halting some of the ignorant caricaturing of other beliefs, is bringing people from different denominational and evangelical cultural sectors together, it is halting some of the extremes that would occur in some corners as they are forced to defend themselves more in the public square, e.g. in Reformed circles those enticed by New Perspective thoughts are kept from going quite as far and those who would caricature and hereticize Doug Wilson and the Federal Vision types are kept from writing them off so easily and at least a bit more forced to deal with the arguments themselves then they would have in the past. The Emergent Church movement is forced to take a hard look at and defend excesses that they probably would not have needed to do as vigorously just a decade ago... a D.A. Carson critique might have some impact in the academic world, but is more easily ignored then a large hosts of evangelical blogs when a large part of your engaged congregations are surfing blogdom.

Even uncharitable and divisive spirits and dialogue is a major issue called out over and over again in most blogs I've seen, so those who are most intellectually engaging others must consider those factors more than decades ago when they would have engaged others verbally while more often and easily preaching to their own choirs and speaking ungraciously of those who disagree without any felt impunity.

There are great problems in the American evangelical church as I hope for another age of a Great Awakening and revival, more fear of God and theological depth. But I am hopeful with the growing clash of ideas when I see that, perhaps, iron is sharpening iron in the American church as never before. I am hopeful that there can be a more visible manifestation of what we know by faith is occuring universally, that the true church is growing up to the unity of the faith.

8

Joe,

Thanks for posting on a trend that bothers many of us, and causes us to examine ourselves as well. To the extent we exalt criticism, we buy into the culture of critique rather than of edification. When we do defend our belief, we can at least do so "with gentleness and reverence." (I Pet. 3:15). Good reminder.

9

There's a joke in political science circles that I think has applicability here:

What is the first item on the agenda of any far-left wing party meeting? The split.

At the end of the day I always ask myself this question. Is this belief of my bother/sister that I disagree with going to prevent them getting into heaven? 99% of the time the answer is no.

10

Hey, you should have spent 6 years at a Christian college. During such time you would develop first a passion and then a stubbornness followed by a built up resistance to the newest fad.

The best side of the issue from which to argue is relevance to reaching the world with good news. Everything else is entertaining for a time, but fruitless--except for a few laughs.

Man, 36 churches is too many--don't you agree.

11

Joe,

Nice post.

This problem of putting the smackdown on other Christians--be they wrong or not--has become an ongoing issue for me and I've blogged about it extensively (see this for the latest post in this series.)

The larger part of the problem is that it's easy to complain from a mostly anonymous comment on a blog, but it is far harder to offer solutions; that's why so few "wife beater" bloggers and commenters don't. It is my hope that I can at least be one blogger who does try to find answers and offer solutions.

If we Christians don't do a better job of this, we'll turn the Christian blogosphere into nothing more than midget wrestling, and how dishonoring to Christ would that be?

12

Actually, I think the only fair target for Christian activists is other Christians.

You've chosen these beliefs and these issues for yourselves, and ceaselessly advertise your commitment to them. I'd say that's an invitation to others with similar beliefs to engage in disputes over them with you. But non-Christians have never asked anybody to come around and bug us with their foreign beliefs. We just want to be left alone.

Now you tell us you're going to stop beating your wife in order to have more time free to go outside and beat up the neighbors.

Please. Stay home.

13

Hey,

Many today believe Christians should not be involved in politics. Jesus is not a politician, but he is a king. He was not a political scientist, but he is a master teacher. He was not a lawyer, but he is a lawgiver. In the course of Jesus ministry, he dealt with many political issues. I am defining political issues as topics concerning the laws of the land that were controlled by the government.

There were many political hot topics in Jesus day. The nation of Judea was occupied at that time by the Roman Empire, which led to vast political divisions. Some of the issues of the day were: whether or not you should pay taxes to Rome; being conscripted to carry items for Roman soldiers for one mile; what constitutes work on the Sabbath; should children be responsible for their parents in their old age; can you pay the temple tax in Roman currency; and the legalities of divorce. These were divisive issues people were ready to fight and even die for.

If you look at Jesus life and teaching, he dealt with each one of these issues. How could he not? You cannot separate morality from the law. Law must have its roots in a value system or it has no logical justification whatsoever. Law without a moral basis is merely the use of force to impose the tyrannical will of the more powerful on the weak. In contrast, law based on morality provides for the protection of inalienable rights and delivery of justice where those rights are violated. By the very definition, rights are something we deserve, and therefore, it would be wrong to take them from another without just cause. To say we have rights, presumes morality. Law is legislating morality.

Jesus spoke on the morality of politics. Jesus taught his followers to pay their taxes. (Matthew 22:17-21) He taught his followers that when they were unjustly forced to go one mile to go two miles to demonstrate love for their political enemies. (Matthew 5:41) He taught that it was not in violation of the Sabbath law to work on Saturday, if it was to save a life or do good for someone in need. (Matthew 12:12) He taught that laws were created to serve man and man was not made to serve the laws. (Matthew 2:27) Government is there for us, we are not there for the government. (No wonder communists hate Christianity.) Jesus taught it was a child’s responsibility to care for their parents in their old age. (Matthew 7:5-11) Jesus taught that money changers who charged excessive rates in the temple were a “den of robbers.” (Matthew 21:13) And Jesus taught that divorce, except for fornication, was adultery and wrong. (Matthew 5:32)

Jesus was not a politician, but he sure was "politically incorrect." Because of his teachings on law, religion, and the nature of the kingdom of God, he was crucified. The world and its politics are in direct opposition to the plain teachings of Christ. He spoke out about our moral responsibility to government, our attitude toward oppression, the purpose of law, how to care for the poor, social justice, and the nature of marriage.

When making a decision in life, the question is often asked, "What Would Jesus Do?" On issues where morality and government intersect, Jesus spoke out about politics and so should we.

if you are ever out surfing the net and you would like to check out a site try www.scripturist.com

I think you would like it.

thanks!

14

"Where does it end? When will we stop being “wife beaters” of Christ’s bride? And when will we finally heed the exhortation of Titus to, "Avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and arguments and quarrels about the law, because these are unprofitable and useless."

*cough*Leviticus*cough*

15

I think an example I use with Christian wife beaters (literally) is in order. "Husband love your wives the way Christ loved the church." What way did He love it? He died for it. (most guys seem to get this) but He was also set up by it, lied to, spat upon deceieved (is that an oxymoran?) and put down. (add any pet names here of your own) I think at this time the term "worm" starts to come up.... well then comes the one about "better if he never lived if he causes just one of these ( little believers) to fall." I wonder if this model can work with doctrinal disputes as well?

16

Great post, Joe. I know I'm guilty of infighting, but lately I've been seeing the futility in trying to make everything black and white. Much of what is labeled "doctrinal error" is relative to individual (or denominational) interpretation of Scripture. I would like to see more humility and cooperation, so I guess I better start with me :)

17

I like the analogy of “wife beater.” Our disagreements should not be as spousal abuse, but as Barnhouse used to say, “that of a husband who tells his wife that her slip is showing.” Good stuff.

18

Seems this wifebeater thing is a matter of perspective. In our fellowship we like to hold up the often quoted slogan which says it so well:

In essentials unity
In non-essentials liberty
In all things love

Of course some want to argue about what goes into the "essentials" pot, but once we agree that is an extremely short list, centering around the person of Jesus Christ and salvation in him, it gets easier to get on with the Great Battle.

One more thing -- churches set the tone. When we reward and make heroes out of wife beaters, or invite them into leadership or give them pulpits, we get what we deserve. One constructive thing we can do is stop celebrating wife beating and doctrinal slashing which we do when we equate doctrinal anal retentiveness with Christ-likeness. They are not the same, and when we put into leadership those who exhibit the latter, the church will be better able to handle those who still sling mud, because this time they do it from the periphery rather than center stage.

BAC

19

I think a lot of the problem stems from a desire to "win the argument" rather than a desire to love. This happens not just within the church family (and by "church family" I mean all who are seeking to know Him), but also (and more importantly) when we rub up against those who don't yet know Him.

I once heard of a truly amazing and effective ministry to people waiting outside abortion clinics - no protests, no signs, no harsh words. All they did was set up a little table with coffee and donuts (mmmmm, donuts). When people stopped by, they talked with them, but more important, they LISTENED. What's more, they took great pains not to get into arguments, but to find out where people were coming from, and what their needs where. A lot of lives were changed by this group.

I think we could all benefit from their example - less arguing, more listening, and a genuine and loving concern for the other person.

If our hearts are in the right place, God will use us. Actually, he will whether they are or not, but it's a lot easier in the first case.

20

He was thinking.
He was thinking about theology.

He was thinking
That if it is true
That there is nothing outside God,
Which is pretty obvious
If God is really God -
Mr Big Big Huge,
The Ontological Real Deal,
Cosmic Mind,
Sugar Daddy in the empyrean
Creator of Creators,
Ground of our Being,
Sustainer of our Becoming,
Mr Maximal Mystery
Metamanager of All That Is –
If there is nothing outside God,
Then that means
That Coca Cola
Is not outside God.

Which offers some hope
For America.

Theology must be positive:
It should posit benevolent outcomes.

And if it is true
That God's will is Evolution,
Then that might mean
That America could change
Gradually,
Over time,
And rejoin the civilised world.

21

Well doctrine is very important as it divides truth from falsehoods. I praise God that I have not associated with over 35 different what ever you call them. Eventually you have to draw a line in the sand for truth and contend for it

James

22

I'm pretty much with you Joe. As one in a church leadership position, I've used a similar analogy to gently remind people that the bridegroom (Christ) may not appreciate their tact toward the bride (the Church).

On the other hand, cartoonizing a serious issue into two words, "wife beaters", has inherent dangers (and I'm fairly certain you agree, but I've got to vent anyway because I've been on the receiving end of criticism for taking stands on doctrinal issues that had real consequences and were not just the splitting of hairs). Anyway, I guarantee that simple-minded people will simplemindedly use the "wife beater" idea to defend themselves or others even when a serious doctrinal error is royally screwing up their life. There are very important issues in this life that do not necessarily relate to salvation. For example, here are just a few I'm (at least somewhat) involved with:

- One guy in the church is into "health & wealth" teaching. His business has been forever outmoded by the current economy, but at his family's financial peril, he won't do anything different because he just knows God's going to give him a "breakthrough".
- Another guy refuses to deal with his own sin because he says he needs "deliverance" from evil spirits and not biblical counseling or repentance.
- An extended family member is into yoga and refuses to even exam any information that it may conflict with her Christian beliefs.

Please, please, PLEASE do not let any of them see this blog post. I know I'd be called a "wife beater" the very next day.

23

The analogization to a "wife beater" necessarily assumes a spousal relationship. What if the target of the criticism is heretical, apostate or falsely claiming the designation of Christ's bride?