“The line between good and evil runs through every human heart.
~Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
There are a lot of debates going on within the different realms of Christianity. There are issues surrounding the New Perspective(s) on Paul, the emerging church, postmodernity, the Federal Vision, and whether or not Peter Enns is the antichrist (for the record, I still maintain that the antichrist is either Pat Robertson or Tyra Banks). There are also the older issues such as ecclesiology, Calvinism vs. Arminianism, paedobaptism vs. credobaptism, and the somewhat newer (last 100+/- years) debate of dispensationalism, progressive dispensationalism, and covenant theology.
If you’ve ever read and/or heard some of these debates, they can get pretty heated. What I’ve noticed in observing and participating in some of these debates is that there is a certain trend that is usually repeated in these debates: the demonizing of the other side.
This is reflected, most often, in the words that are chosen to describe the “other side.” For instance, those who are opposed to the New Perspective(s) on Paul don’t simply say, “Wright/Dunn/Sanders/Hays/etc. is wrong and here is why…” Rather they resort to alarmist statements such as, “The New Perspective challenges the very heart of the gospel.” Or, “The New Perspective is nothing more than a step back towards Rome.” The same type of language is also found in debates within the emerging church movement. They are not just shown to be wrong, but said to be threatening historical Christianity or relativizing all truth which will lead to killing kittens and drinking pig’s blood. The same rhetoric can be found in almost any debate.
My question: why?
I think one thing that drives this type of rhetoric is that it is easier to justify some of the harsh things (read: unChristian things) that are said within these debates if one draws a sharp line between “us” and “them”: “we” are the true Christians who are standing up for the faith once delivered to the saints; “they” are wolves in sheep’s clothing attempting to tear down the church…therefore, we have the right to be rude, read them in a completely negative way, and write them off as heretics and/or neo-orthodox liberals. Many times in these debates the “other side” is demonized not because they deserve it, but because it is a tactic of debate.
This happens in many debates and it happens on both sides. It is a very poor reflection of living according to the teachings of the Scriptures in a very dangerous way. The danger is that the people who read others in the worst possible way and then rip and tear them apart without listening to the person they are ripping apart are honestly attempting to live out Biblical teachings. They will not stop to hear a more level headed approach or listen to the other side explain themselves because they are so convinced that they are defending the gospel and defending the faith. The irony is that they use this Biblical justification of defending the faith in order to violate another Biblical teaching: namely, love one another as yourself.
If we cannot talk to each other in love, treating each other as we wish to be treated, then are we really talking as Christians should? In dialogue between Christians, there should be no place for demonizing the “other side” and then using this to justify a rude, sarcastic, or less-than-Christlike attitude and/or tone.
We claim to preach and believe “the whole counsel of God,” then we should also practice it through our discourse. The body of Christ is not served by demonizing people and then reverting to sarcastic, uncharitable, and/or rude discourse. If we are both secure in our beliefs and serious about searching for the truth, then we should not conduct our inter-faith discourse with such tactics. Rather, we should be charitable in our readings of each other, honest about both what we believe and what our opponents believe, and always remember that the person who we are arguing with is a person for whom Christ died.
Arguments and debate are going to happen. Rude and arrogant discourse which demonizes another brother or sister in Christ does not have to.
I wonder what would happen in these discussions if people focused on John 13.34-35 as much as they focused on Jude 3?
27 January 2008 at 11.41 pm
And lets be honest, it happens both ways in these debates. I’ve lately been on the brunt end of some satire and mockery from people on the web who oppose my positions, and it’s made me think hard and repent of the times I’ve used the same on my opponents. At the time, it was easy to excuse it, and when people acted offended, say “c’mon, get a sense of humor.” But when you’ve been on the target end, when you’ve experienced the frustration of people mocking instead of engaging your issues, you realize how ineffective (not to mention unchristlike) that approach is.
27 January 2008 at 11.47 pm
Mark: I definitely agree with you. It does happen on both sides and I have been in a similar position when being on the brunt end of those tactics. Those times serve as a good reminder to me to be more loving when I am in a debate or doing a critique. I find it easy to get so caught up in the issue and so passionate about my position that I forget that people will know us by our love, not by our arguments.
28 January 2008 at 10.35 am
When you are an old guy like me whose theological framework has been these many years the Reformed Standards and someone comes along and says, “Luther had it all wrong” yes, there is a knee jerk reaction. But there is never a reason in discussing someones view to be hateful or arrogant.
28 January 2008 at 11.10 am
Personally I get rankled every time someone uses the term “demonize”. Nobody in any of your quotes referred to anyone as a demon. Your use of this term is exactly the kind of thing you are railing against.
28 January 2008 at 11.16 am
ummmm…I thought we were friends
28 January 2008 at 11.17 am
びっくり: I’m sorry that you feel rankled, but I don’t think that you have to. The term demonize, in the sense that I am using it (which I thought was clear), can be defined as “to represent as evil” (AH Dictionary). I do not intend to mean that one side is actually equating the other side with the devil’s minions.
Furthermore I am either demonizing everyone (by saying that this happens on both sides of the debate) or no one (which is most likely the case).
28 January 2008 at 11.23 am
D: Of course we are! I never meant to say otherwise. I am all out for debate and critique (that’s a majority of what this blog is: reviewing books and critiquing theology). This post is born out of a recent controversy happening at my seminary as well as a reminder to myself that true, helpful critique and growth comes from actually addressing the data before us, not by reverting to ad hominem tactics such as alarmist statements and unwarranted rude comments that have very little to do with the issue at hand.
28 January 2008 at 2.26 pm
You’ve hit it on the head. I can’t think of anyone who has been ruder to me than angry Christians who think I’m a Christian who is not in perfect agreement with them on every jot and tittle of doctrine. It’s not a really effective way to spread the joy of Jesus. Thanks for writing this.
-WD
28 January 2008 at 8.43 pm
You’re Reformed, thus part of a sect that historically has not been overly friendly toward the Catholic Church yet you sport three rosaries in your present header. Curious.
28 January 2008 at 9.18 pm
It appears that there really needs nothing else to be said than what you have said here Art. The call to reflect Christ and to be charitable in all our ways really does cut to the heart and should penetrate to the deepest areas of our being if we are truly seeking Christ-formation.
Two things; One thing that is exhibited in all the caustic postures and bantering is a general lack of humility. I mean really…as if the truth belongs to us as like we wrote the fricking book! Many people who are involved in these debacles have progressed from one form of theological persuasion to another and are themselves stark examples of the nature of theology being always reforming. We lack respect for the nature of development when we look at others and verbally accost them because they think differently. The other thing is somewhat related; are we so fixed upon having it all figured out that we lack epistemic humility? Our knowing…however systematized is not the Truth! Truth is a person. The written word points us to the living Word himself. When we abstract truth to be [merely]codified propositions we are very quickly become clowns in the semantic circus.
28 January 2008 at 10.33 pm
winstondelgado: Thank you for your kind words. I admit that I used to be one of those people who would be rude while debating. This post is not simply a rant about others, but a condemnation of myself.
curious7: You left a false email address, so I was unable to email you about your concerns. Simply put, Reformed people can appreciate art. I like the picture in my header in the same way that I enjoy looking at the Sistine Chapel. It doesn’t mean that I agree with the Catholic Church. It just means I appreciate art, especially religious art. And I’m all about being friendly with the Catholic Church. I love talking to Catholics. Many Catholics that I know are very nice people that I love to talk to. Just because some within the Reformed tradition haven’t been friendly with them does not mean that I am not friendly with them.
mig: Very, very well said.
28 January 2008 at 11.19 pm
aboulet-
I think part of the problem lies in people’s desire to be dramatic, convincing, and above all, right. (I base this on personal observation as well) This approach doesn’t work because comment boards are a poor stage for drama, and it is impossible to be convincingly right when you’re talking about things which are by definition up for debate. There is no final and absolute answer regarding God, at least there isn’t one that any of us will ever posess. Faith by it’s nature forces us to confront doubt that the faithless turn away from. Good for you.
-WD
29 January 2008 at 7.54 am
I’ve learned much about tone from leaders like John R. W. Stott. In his debate with Edwards (published) you learn more than content, you learn tone (Even if I don’t buy into his anhilationism). But on the other side, we must remember that we don’t have to be single-toned in ministry. Read the letters of Paul and you’ll find a variety of tones—even spiritual sarcasm: “Would that we could reign as Kings with you” “Crafty fellow that I am, I caught you by trickery”. 1 and 2 Corinthians offer ministry training in the necessary variety of tones in ministry (Galatians is also significant on this matter). Sometimes a firm word of rebuke becomes necessary. I guess the really important thing is to make sure it is a matter dealing with THE faith and not just a debatable matter (Romans 14:3). Because tone of debate on the “street” is more often focused on issues like music and attire (worn, poked or tattooed) and lifestyle choices. This is another matter for another post.
A few quick thoughts,
The Uncle from Millersville!
http://thinkpoint.wordpress.com
29 January 2008 at 9.50 am
Add to the traditional demonization tactic the good old slippery slope argument. “A” isn’t necessarily wrong but it’s kind of like “B” and “B” might some day lead to “C” and “C” is wrong.
29 January 2008 at 1.50 pm
Uncle Steve: Great thoughts. I do agree that a firm stand needs to be made at certain points and that the Christian is called to be firm when the issues are central, not peripheral, to the faith.
Meade: Good point. Here is an interesting refutation of the slippery slope argument.
2 February 2008 at 7.10 am
[...] Wise words from a young man. [...]
2 February 2008 at 10.31 am
Demonization is a sub-category of what C. S. Lewis called “Bulverism.” Two years ago I wrote a post From Robert’s Rules to Bulver’s Rules that gets at some of these same issues. Instead of dealing with the merits of someone’s position we assume them to be either evil or stupid, and turn the debate to focusing on how they became so silly. The substance is rarely discussed.
Great post!
3 February 2008 at 12.05 pm
[...] demonizing: the leading tactic in christian debate – Art is absolutely right. It’s unfortunate, but I’ve seen this all too often. Even recently, I’ve seen this take place. Honest questions are easily dismissed when the questioner can be made out to be something less than a person, or at least the type of person that one normally associates with. [...]
1 March 2008 at 4.34 pm
[...] in its ancient Near Eastern context and wanted to take the Bible seriously. So let’s not revert to demonization, [...]
13 March 2008 at 4.52 pm
[...] and Faith I’m absolutely fine with disagreements. But the ‘demonization‘ (term stolen from Art) of the faith of people genuinely attempting to follow Jesus is [...]
6 May 2008 at 4.41 am
Excellent post, sorry for delayed comment.
Three points:
(1) Jude 1:3. Alarm bells ring when people quote this verse (but not in your case). It’s one of the most abused bits of the bible. We don’t know exactly what the “faith that was once for all delivered to the saints” was, so let’s drop the arrogance and stop claiming that our doctrinal distinctives (which only go back a few hundred years and are not shared by all evangelicals, let alone all christians) are the only valid interpretation of the Bible.
(2) A very perceptive comment was made in 1957 by Carl Henry:
The real bankruptcy of fundamentalism has resulted not so much from a reactionary spirit — lamentable as this was — as from a harsh temperament, a spirit of lovelessness and strife contributed by much of its leadership in
the recent past. One of the ironies of contemporary church history is that the more fundamentalists stress
separation from apostasy as a theme in their churches, the more a spirit of lovelessness seems to prevail. The theological conflict with liberalism deteriorated into an attack upon organizations and personalities. This condemnation, in turn, grew to include conservative churchmen and churches not ready to align with separatist movements. It widens still further, to abusive evangelicals unhappy with the spirit of independency in such groups as the American Council of Churches and the International Council of Christian Churches. Then came internal debate and division among separatist fundamentalism within the American Council. More recently, the evangelistic ministry of Billy Graham and [the] efforts of other evangelical leaders, whose disapproval of
liberalism and advocacy of conservative Christianity are beyond dispute, have become the target of bitter
volubility. This character of fundamentalism as a temperament and not primarily fundamentalism as a theology, has brought the movement into contemporary discredit… Historically, fundamentalism was a theological position; only gradually did the movement come to signify a mood and disposition as well. In its early [years] leadership reflected ballast, and less of bombast and battle… If modernism stands discredited as a perversion of the scriptural theology, certainly fundamentalism in this contemporary expression stands discredited as a perversion of the Biblical spirit.
(quoted in http://www.vineyardusa.org/upload/Charismatic%20Chaos.pdf, which is also worth reading)
(3) I tend to think that power and control are partly the driving forces behind this sort of incivility. People react aggressively when others refuse to submit to them by believing the same things that they do. It’s also related to a mistaken view that salvation comes through doctrine, so anyone who questions accepted doctrine is a dangerous heretic who will cause people to go to hell and must therefore be stopped. Sounds like the Inquisition is still around today…
27 October 2008 at 10.00 am
[...] evangelicals into believing that a vote for John McCain is a vote for freedom as well as a complete demonization of the homosexual [...]