Christian Civility...With Gentleness & Respect?

1 Peter 3:15 ~"But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and [be] ready always to [give] an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:"

The internet can be both a welcoming aid to discovery and also a discouraging and depressing tool of engagement. Recently, there has been much conversation regarding how Christians engage one another in the blogosphere...

Now, I must first admit, that emotions can sometimes hijack a good message and enter into the conversation all too easily causing a separation between individuals that were thought to be previously inseparable. I remember a debate between two ministers over then Presidential candidate Barack Obama that not only escalated into insults, but ended in at least one party throwing slurs, pronouncing judgement on the other, name calling and just flat out condemning anyone who had any affinity for Obama.  This was a reminder that we must be careful as to not engage in or approach commentary with an "all in" or "I'll prove it to you" type of mentality that often prevails in the blogosphere and among internet email systems.

Salvation At Stake

What we want to examine however is that there are skirmishes that often happen where individuals "claim" that their relationship in Christ was damaged as a result of internet chatter and dialogue between Christians. It stands to reason that if individuals can feel that they have been bullied and go on to commit suicide because of what is said on the internet, it is possible that some could have their faith, both in God and other Christians, severely challenged if they are not careful.

What I am afraid of however is that there are two messages and actions that recent discussion over this issue seems to lump together as one.

1- Disrespectful dialogue and debate over Christian truth or doctrine

and

2- Dialogue that exposes heresy, apostasy and failure among the church, church leaders and "gospel" personalities.

To my understanding, both of these topics are uniquely different and must be differentiated.

First, we can readily admit that Christians can sometimes show and face disrespect over doctrine, church, or theological belief. I have experienced that much early on in my blog/commentary career and have probably been both the cause and recipient of such treatment and interaction. For my part I certainly apologize to any of those who have been the recipient of such interaction. I soon learned however, that different persons are at different stages in life dealing with certain truths that challenge certain understandings or perceptions and it takes God ultimately to speak to the heart. One should keep in mind that not every issue is a matter of salvation or Christian fellowship. Some issues should not divide, although some inevitably do.

The second part that to this puzzle is the confusing part however. Should we as Christians be so "gentle" and "meek" as not to indicate, clearly, strongly and in an uncompromising manner, those teachings, doctrines and practices that subvert minds and cause damage to the body of Christ and to the church in general? This part of the question has led many to believe that it simply just isn't "Christian" to argue or debate church matters or expose matters involving religious leaders and leadership.

Dr. James E. White in his book "Christ Among The Dragons" while calling the church back to it's sense of direction  focusing on truth, culture, unity and church, indicates that a sincere Christian, truly understanding grace, should be "more concerned with owning their own sin and overlooking it in others” (p. 119).

In other words, according to Dr. White, the stance of the Christian should not be to engage in dialogue where sins are pointed out to the point of debate and ultimately disrespect among Christians. He points out that this type of engagement has had a negative effect on the cause of Christ causing some to reconsider being and becoming a Christian. Many take Dr. White's position to one degree or another inferring that it simply isn't "Christian" to vigorously debate, forcefully asserting one's opinion without leaving room for alternate opinions.

In other words, many believe that truth should be tempered by the "possibility" that one could be wrong. On the surface this seems like a fairly wise thing to do and a method that does have it's virtues, but dealing with the moral issues that we deal with in modern society, we should ask, are there any captives that should be taken in exchange for truth?  

There are homosexual advocates who believe that it's not a display of "Christian love" to preach against or condemn homosexuality. Their are sympathizers with almost every action that one can think of that believe it's not a "Christian" act to condemn the actions of individuals while simultaneously saying or pronouncing the love of Christ.

There are others who believe that the exposure of heretical doctrine and teaching should be left for God to decipher and sort out, and that such things shouldn't be "preached' against. Some say that it is shameful for individuals to point out the sins and actions of those who are wrong. Yet others who point out that sinners do what sinners do so individuals have no right or place to point out the sins of sinners in a way that may bring shame to Christ. Many that have these opinions believe that Christianity should always reflect a positive message and that certain ministers are too negative and should not be endorsed. 

When Striving Against Sin Becomes A Sin To Some

Isaiah 58:1 ~ "Cry aloud, spare not, lift up thy voice like a trumpet, and shew my people their transgression, and the house of Jacob their sins."

While I agree that it's not the job of the Christian to gossip, spread rumors, false innuendo and go on the mission to find and bring out what would otherwise be considered as "dirt", I would hold that it is the Christian's responsibility to speak to the culture and clearly proclaim the council of the Lord and the truth of God's word. It is also the place of Christian leaders to expose the "hidden works of darkness" and protect God's church from those who would otherwise take advantage of it and make nonsense of the church, God's word and the sacrifice of the cross.

The question is, how is that done? Is this to be done through internet blogs displaying and telling certain information that feed atheists and agnostics in their affirmations that Christianity isn't all that it's "cracked up" to be in the first place?

Do the G. Craige Lewis's, Melvin Jones's, D. L. Foster's and even Pastor Harvey Burnett's of this world do the church a favor by standing against false teaching and certain misguidings of leadership and taking individuals and situations to task, or is the church and Christian community better off without sometimes the negative expressions, and portrayals that exist on these sites?

As stated, it's not uncommon for Christian to make mistakes even in their efforts to help, but is the church damaged or made better by causing individuals to return to biblical sensibilities and truths? Is the truth the truth at all costs or is there a limit that should be put on certain information for the sake of unity and harmony within the body of Christ?

Galatians 6:1 ~" Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted."

 

I think that those on the internet can stand a few lessons of civility, but I also believe that we must clearly distinguish the difference between how Christ commits us to address sins and how he commits us to address faults and errors. Those that look on deserve an answer and we need to give it to them like Jesus has commanded us to. 

Blessed!