How to Argue Like a Christian, Part 3

When we get mad at another church and want to rebuke their sin, we feel that we may stand in the sandals of the Son of God and condemn these sinners in the harshest of tones, just as Jesus condemned the Pharisees. After all, we are supposed to follow Jesus’ example, and Jesus was capable of some very harsh language.

Just so, in Galatians 2, Paul tells how he rebuked Peter to his face. Galatians has been read by hundreds of millions, so Paul evidently felt justified making his criticisms very public indeed. May we do the same? I think not, but it’s a question of some subtlety. Consider the following:First, anyone familiar with the history of the Restoration Movement church knows that these kinds of tactics just don’t work. Our history is of division compounded by division. Our unity movement has failed to produce anything resembling unity. The fact is that “writing up” sister congregations in bulletins, periodicals, and web sites has done nothing to bring reconciliation. I know of not a single occasion where a church was brought to repentance by this way.

Second, we are told to be gentle and kind in our dealings with each other. We do much better by following what’s commanded–

(2 Tim. 2:22-23) Flee the evil desires of youth, and pursue righteousness, faith, love and peace, along with those who call on the Lord out of a pure heart. Don’t have anything to do with foolish and stupid arguments, because you know they produce quarrels.

When I was young, I was sarcastic and condescending. I thought I knew everything. God taught me better. The goal is not to prove your theological genius but faith in Jesus (we agree on that, don’t we?), love (again, we agree), and peace (oops). We don’t agree on peace. We like fighting, but we are commanded to be peacemakers. Emails condemning a sister congregation to 30,000 readers does not lead to peace.

We don’t like peace because we see ourselves competing with sister congregations in town. If we make them look bad, we might steal a few of their members. Rather than caring about the Kingdom, we care about our own congregations to the exclusion of–and even to the detriment of–other churches in town. This is just as wrong as can be.

No one is inclined to admit that his arguments are foolish and stupid, and not all arguments are. Paul just gave us the test: arguments about faith in Jesus, or how to love effectively, or how to bring peace to the church, these are worthwhile. Everything else is stupid–at least if you argue in a way that leads to quarrels.

(2 Tim. 2:24-26) And the Lord’s servant must not quarrel; instead, he must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful. Those who oppose him he must gently instruct, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth, and that they will come to their senses and escape from the trap of the devil, who has taken them captive to do his will.

This is pretty plain language. We are commanded to be kind and gentle to those who oppose us. Now, I think all church leaders struggle with this. I know I do. Cheap shots are just so much easier–and fun. But they’re wrong.

And Paul tells us why. If we aren’t kind and gentle, our opponents won’t listen to us and we won’t be able to instruct them. Quarreling just doesn’t work.

Third, Jesus and Paul have a little advantage over us, known as inspiration. They didn’t have to worry about being wrong. We should.

(Matt. 7:1-5) “Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

“Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.”

Are we really willing to be judged by the same standards we impose on our sister congregations? Is any mistake in doctrine enough to damn? Are we really perfect? I’d say not. Incredibly, I’ve had preachers tell me they have every single doctrine right! Really? What about humility?

Jesus warns us in no uncertain terms about the danger of condemning our brothers and sisters. I’ve figured this one out! The smart move is to be just as gracious and kindhearted as possible, as that gets me the same result! Any other approach is sheer idiocy.

Fourth, as pointed out in Yoder’s The Politics of Jesus, pp. 130-131,

[T]here is no general concept of living like Jesus in the New Testament. According to universal tradition, Jesus was not married; yet when the apostle Paul, advocate par excellence of the life “in Christ,” argues at length for celibacy or for a widow’s not remarrying (1 Cor. 7), it never occurs to him to appeal to Jesus’ example, even as one of many arguments. … [T]here have been efforts to imitate his prayer life or his forty days in the desert: but never in the New Testament.

There is thus but one realm in which the concept of imitation holds–but there it holds in every strand of the New Testament literature and all the more strikingly by virtue of the absence of parallels in other realms. This is at the point of the concrete social meaning of the cross in its relation to enmity and power. Servanthood replaces dominion, forgiveness absorbs hostility. Thus–and only thus–are we bound by New Testament thought to “be like Jesus.”

This is big. And it’s right. Yoder quotes numerous passages each of which urges us to be like Jesus in his suffering and submission. You won’t find one that teaches us to follow Jesus in his harsh rhetoric. And this is not surprising. The Son of God doesn’t have to worry about being mistaken. We do.

(Phil. 2:3-14) Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves. … Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death– even death on a cross!

… Do everything without complaining or arguing,

(1 Cor. 10:33-11:1) … I try to please everybody in every way. For I am not seeking my own good but the good of many, so that they may be saved. Follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ.

(Matt. 20:25-28) Jesus called them together and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be your slave–just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

We are not called to sandal-shod itinerancy. We are called to self-sacrifice and submission. If I offer to pay for the poor to attend a seminar taught by a rival church, then I’ve understood the lesson. If I delight in mistakes of the rival church, then I’ve completely missed this point.

Third, the Golden Rule applies here, too. “Love thy neighbor” is still law. If you’d messed up and forgotten to make allowance for the poor in your literature, how would you want to be treated?

(1 Cor. 13:4-6) Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth.

Finally, we need to reflect on the pattern of who Jesus and Paul reserve their harsh rhetoric for. Jesus condemned the Pharisees in vivid language. In Galatians, Paul criticized Peter (who had already repented) and the Judaizing teachers. Paul even suggested that these teachers should “emasculate” themselves in order to fully realize the circumcision they were teaching!

What do these condemnations have in common? Why does Paul insist on patience and forbearance for the error mentioned in Romans 14–requiring vegetarianism and holy days–but condemn the false teachers in Galatians? Did his mood change? Or is there a theological difference?

The difference is this. In Romans 14, the false teachers were not contradicting the gospel. They were still teaching faith, penitence, and grace. Therefore, their error did not threaten the salvation of their listeners. Hence, Paul commands that we treat with grace those who are still in grace.

In Galatians, the false teachers were teaching a “different gospel.” Their error threatened to cause the Galatians to fall from grace. Therefore, Paul could not treat the false teachers with grace. Rather, they had to be repudiated to protect the souls of the congregation.

The error taught in Galatia was not mere circumcision, but circumcision as a condition of salvation–that is, as a test of fellowship. And Paul condemns in no uncertain terms any effort to limit the scope of grace.

(Gal. 5:3-6) Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law. You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace. But by faith we eagerly await through the Spirit the righteousness for which we hope. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love.

Now, we sometimes misinterpret this, teaching that Paul is condemning imposition of the Law of Moses. But, in fact, he condemns any effort to be justified by any law. Indeed, we have to give v. 6 its full force. Faith in Jesus, resulting in a life of love, is the only thing “that counts.” Therefore, nothing else counts.

“Counts” means is necessary for salvation, which is the subject at hand. The way you fall from grace is by setting up a system of salvation other than grace. If you insist on circumcision as a means to salvation, you’ve contradicted grace and so fallen from grace.

But, just so, requiring Christians to be vegetarians or to celebrate holy days would destroy grace if these were required as salvation issues. Teach these errors as commands, you remain in grace. Teach them as commands that are required for salvation, then you’ve left grace.

Obviously enough, when churches condemn others for (oh, I don’t know) instrumental music, they tread on very dangerous ground if they insist on making instrumental music a salvation issue. Teach it as an apostolic command, and no one’s salvation is jeopardized. Teach it is a condition of going to heaven, then you have to get every doctrine right to be saved because you’ve denied that grace can cover doctrinal error.

Obviously enough, doctrines that get you into salvation must be insisted on–hear, believe, repent, confess, be baptized. And any intentional violation of known commands contradicts repentance. But any other innocent mistakes in practice or doctrine–even on matters we feel very strongly about–are within grace.

And it’s those of us who insist on adding to grace, who impose laws as conditions of salvation, that Jesus and Paul spoke so harshly of. Peter was condemned because he wanted to insist on obedience to Jewish practices, which threatened the gospel of grace.

And so, ironically enough, the harshness that we so want to participate in, the loud denunciations that so thrill us, are reserved for … us! Because we are the ones guilty of the Phariseeism and teaching a different gospel. Indeed, the loudest, most vocal critics among us are often the very people whom Jesus and Paul were criticizing!

Therefore, we tread very dangerous ground indeed when we undertake to criticize our sister congregations. It’s particularly important that we not challenge their salvation, unless they are denying faith in Jesus or teaching license or adding to the plan of salvation.

If I were a preacher, I think I’d find something to preach on other than the damnation of sister congregations. Maybe I’d talk about helping the poor. In fact, maybe I’d really do it. That seems a much safer, wiser path to follow.

I explain this view of Galatians more thoroughly at Do We Teach Another Gospel?