Suggestions on how EUs should argue in public?

[Alex_Smith]

Recently there was some fairly offensive comments made publicly by the Australian Christian Lobby (ACL) and a prominent Australian blogger (Nathan Campbell) criticised the ACL about the comments. As expected there was a backlash as some people then criticised Nathan for criticising the ACL & causing disunity… I (& I expect other EUs) have faced similar criticism about disrupting the unity of the church. What are peoples’ thoughts about that?

To kick us off, here are some extracts from the post (worth reading even if you’re not Australian) Nathan wrote in reply to people criticising him for criticising:

Why I think it’s ok to criticise the ACL in public

, Nathan Campbell"]5. Christian unity is in Christ – not in a conservative political position or our “Christian heritage” – one of the constant criticisms when my posts hit the interwebs is that Christian disunity is unattractive to non-Christians. And there is a fundamental truth there that I agree wholeheartedly with. It would be much better for our witness if we all just got along – but if there’s one thing church history shows us – it’s that it’s unlikely we’re all going to get along, and it’s especially unlikely when people stop being united on the main thing – Jesus, and the next main thing – loving one another as a testimony to our relationship with Jesus (John 13:35). This is part of the reason Paul tells Christians not to sue each other in Corinth (1 Corinthians 6). I’m going to argue below that this is not the only passage that has any bearing on public disagreements between Christians, because it’s not really saying “don’t argue with each other in public” – though it provides an ethical paradigm to work from, which does value unity.
…
I think that 1 Peter 3:15 is probably as important – I suspect the gentleness and respect that we’re to show to outsiders should be typical of our dialogue with each other. I need to be better at speaking in love when directing my writing at Christians, there is a remarkable difference in tone between my posts to Christians, and those aimed at non-Christians. Though perhaps this is the difference between “rebuke” and evangelism. 2 Timothy 2 is also particularly pertinent (but note that it doesn’t say “don’t disagree” or anything about the context of the disagreement (be it public or private)…
…
Ephesians 4 is also relevant… but again, maintaining unity doesn’t mean avoiding criticism. Criticism doesn’t equal disunity except in the most modern adversarial approaches to life. I’ve bolded the bits I think are relevant to this post.

Have nothing to do with foolish, ignorant controversies; you know that they breed quarrels. And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth, and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will.

I therefore, a prisoner for the Lord, urge you to walk in a manner worthy of the calling to which you have been called, with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love, eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call— one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all. But grace was given to each one of us according to the measure of Christ’s gift.

And He personally gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, for the training of the saints in the work of ministry, to build up the body of Christ, until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of God’s Son, growing into a mature man with a stature measured by Christ’s fullness. Then we will no longer be little children, tossed by the waves and blown around by every wind of teaching, by human cunning with cleverness in the techniques of deceit. But speaking the truth in love, let us grow in every way into Him who is the head—Christ. From Him the whole body, fitted and knit together by every supporting ligament, promotes the growth of the body for building up itself in love by the proper working of each individual part.

Since you put away lying, Speak the truth, each one to his neighbor, because we are members of one another.

No foul language is to come from your mouth, but only what is good for building up someone in need, so that it gives grace to those who hear. And don’t grieve God’s Holy Spirit. You were sealed by Him for the day of redemption.

Why I think it’s ok to criticise the ACL in public

, Nathan Campbell"]2. Murray’s Rule—You must take full responsibility for even unwitting misrepresentation of someone’s views.

If someone can demonstrate that I have misrepresented them I will retract, edit, and apologise for such a misrepresentation.
…
4. Gillespie’s Rule A – Take your opponents’ views in total, not selectively.

5. Gillespie’s Rule B – Represent and engage your opponents’ position in its very strongest form, not in a weak ‘straw man’ form.
…
6. Calvin’s Rule – Seek to persuade, not antagonize, but watch your motives!

“In short, it is possible to seek to be winsome and persuasive out of a self-centeredness, rather than a God-centeredness. We may do it to be popular. On the other hand, it is just as possible to be bold and strongly polemical out of self-centeredness rather than God-centeredness. And therefore, looking very closely at our motives, we should be sure our polemics do not unnecessarily harden and antagonize our opponents. We should seek to win them, as Paul did Peter, not to be rid of them.”

**7. Everybody’s Rule: **Only God sees the heart—so remember the gospel and stick to criticizing the theology.
That’s got to be the best quote of Calvin I’ve ever seen

[Cindy_Skillman]

I like that quote from Calvin. I’m willing to bet I know at least a couple of Calvinists who skipped over that one.

But yes, I would agree that when we publicly disagree with other believers, we need to do it in a loving and lovely way – winsomely (great word!). The organized church hierarchy has a right to argue against any doctrine they deem to be false (though they also SHOULD follow these most excellent ‘rules,’ though typically most people feel that the rules are for the other guy). Likewise, every believer has a right to argue within the confines of the same rules that a given doctrine is mistaken (winsomely).

When we started organic (small group) church, we were warned and cautioned and enjoined that we were endangering ourselves in the matter of falling prey to heresy. The more we participate in this form of gathering, the more I realize that it is the large top-down governmentally structured church that is in far more danger from heretical doctrines. A decision made at the top affects everyone in the denomination, and most of the ‘everyones’ have no say about it except to leave the denomination or shut up.

With our group, if one of us introduces an idea, he knows he had better be prepared to defend it, because he WILL be called on (winsomely) to do just that. If it’s heresy, the entire group will have to be thoroughly taken in or said idea will not only not take root, it will eventually wither and die. But here you have a top-down organization dictating to the rest of the body what is and is not acceptable doctrine. No discussion, as it’s a decree and any discussion has already been finished.

So yeah, I don’t have any problems whatsoever with a civil argument in the public view. One of the accusations the world levels at us as Christians is that we unquestioningly swallow whatever is fed to us from our authorities, star-speakers, tele-evangelistas, etc. I can’t see that it hurts to let our fellow earthlings know that we also think. If the higher-ups have a real problem with anyone disagreeing with them in public, then maybe they should be the ones to graciously decline to comment.

[JasonPratt]

I like that quote from Calvin. I’m willing to bet I know at least a couple of Calvinists who skipped over that one.

Calvin being first and foremost.

[Sherman]

Jesus said that people would know his disciples by their love for one another, not by their conformity to a specific doctrine. I’m very thankful for my mom and dad’s relatationship with some dear friends whom we called aunt and uncle. They attended different fellowships and yet they were the closest of friends. They would regularly meet to discuss scripture, their differing beliefs and modes of devotion and worship, and passionately disagree with eachother. Both couples grew immeasurably because of these discussions. They grew in knowledge of the Word and especially in their love for one another!

Wouldn’t it be wonderful if we could passionately discuss our differing understandings (misunderstandings) of scripture, God, and life - all the while loving and respecting one another, affirming and encouraging one another, and even thinking the best of one another! If our attitudes are right, especially towards one another, then we can openly and passionately discuss issues that are important to us. If our attitudes are not right, then we’ll struggle to discuss anything, even things we almost totally agree upon.

The following are key attitudes necessary for such open, passionate, and yet respectful discussions/disagreements:

1. Love - if we love others we will seek to understand, seek to encourage, assume the best of others, not make negative assumptions, be gentle and kind, not be easily offended even when the person disagrees with something we are passionate about, etc.
2. Humility - we must recognize that we could be wrong and thus we seek to listen to others and seriously consider what they have to say. We should also recognize that if God has opened our eyes to a revelation, then it’s going to take God to open their eyes too. If I was blind but now I see, I should have even more compassion and grace on those who are still blind!

Such open passionate fellowship would be very challenging, but also very much a testimony of the love and grace of God in our lives. Fracturing over doctrine only shows how little grace and love we have for one another, and how much pride we have in our hearts! “You will know them by their love for one another.”

I could be wrong!

[Alex_Smith]

I like that quote from Calvin. I’m willing to bet I know at least a couple of Calvinists who skipped over that one.

Calvin being first and foremost.

I was going to say that but you beat me to it

Thanks Sherman, I totally agree.

[Alex_Smith]

I found this article helpful too: st-eutychus.com/2012/plundering-gold-from-public-relations

I’m increasingly aware not just that there’s a gap in the market for thinking about how churches engage with the public via the media (a subset of PR), and not a huge number of resources out there for thinking about what Christianity looks like in the Media. CPX does a great job, the Sydney Anglicans, and especially Peter Jensen, have some resources, which we saw come into play on Q&A this week, and Communicate Jesus is a great first step for thinking about how to communicate timeless truths in a timely way.

I’m also aware that for many people “PR” is synonymous with “Spin” and deliberate deception, or providing inane sound bites so that you’ll get picked up in the news cycle. These are essentially antithetical to Christian ethics, and the message of the gospel. Though clarity and being succinct is important.