Dominic Bnonn Tennant

My friend David Ponter recently made an observation to me which reflects a gradual change in my own thinking since I started blogging. He noted that when we interact with others online, we are generally quick to deal decisively and harshly with them if they disagree with us. (I say “we” because I myself am by no means exempt from this practice, as anyone who has followed my blog will know.) I think we do this largely because (i) online interaction mitigates social niceties which would temper our tone in a face to face discussion; and (ii) this encourages people to be bold and draws out those personalities who thrive on anonymous conflict. Inasmuch as this is true, it’s hardly a situation confined to Christian bloggers; it is a general observation about discourse on the internet. However, (iii) simply put, there are many online who set themselves up in a position of some authority, from which they judge, rebuke, and mock those with whom they disagree. This practice they believe is right, and defend it from Scripture, which does indeed contain examples of exactly these sorts of things. Elijah mocked the prophets of Baal; the Lord Jesus rebuked the Scribes and Pharisees; Paul had a harsh word for any number of people. But there are some specifically Christian observations which David made about this which I think it important to elaborate upon and share:

I. These examples have an alien social context

That is, in the ancient society in which these examples appear, a strong and (to our ears) harsh rebuke was sometimes necessary to save face. To fail to defend oneself in such a way was shameful; conversely, to do so maintained one’s honor. But we do not live in an honor/shame society where this is understood and accepted as appropriate behavior. We live in a guilt/reward society with quite different norms of discourse. Therefore, whatever else we take from these examples, a certain amount of circumspection is required in converting them to our own situation. They are not immediately normative.

II. These examples are generally inapplicable

When I look at the examples in Scripture of one party disciplining or deriding another, I find it hard to see how they are applicable to any typical online scenario. In order for us to be warranted in emulating the Bible’s examples of discipline and derision, there must be a parity between (a) the parties we are disciplining and those parties in Scripture; (b) ourselves and the disciplining party in Scripture; and ideally (c) the mechanism of discipline itself. But when I consider the situations involved, the analogy between any and all of these elements seems tenuous.

a. The disciplined parties

The examples we find in Scripture where discipline or derision are used seem generally to be examples of unbelievers teaching falsehoods or otherwise questioning the authority of God. The prophets of Baal; the Scribes and Pharisees; the Judaizers; etc. Examples of less severe rebukes are common in the case of believers who are led astray by such false teachers.

Now, it is true that online there are many ministries and individuals who have assumed the authority to teach heresies, blasphemy, and falsehood—and they should be exposed and dealt with in some way. Assuming that items (b) and (c) below are analogous to this situation, they should be dealt with even with discipline and derision. But that remains to be seen; and I am not thinking so largely of these sorts of people, but rather more generally: of bloggers who simply hold to different views of some doctrines than we do. They are not necessarily assuming any particular authority or running any ministry, and they are not necessarily heretics or unbelievers—they just don’t agree with us on everything, and they wish to explain and defend their contrary views. These are not necessarily cult leaders, nor even cult members. They are not generally unbelievers, and don’t consider themselves so; and they are not usually mocking God (at least, not deliberately). In short, as long as we are conversing with professing Christians, even when they are not Christians, it is atypical for us to be in discourse with people who are like the sorts of people who are disciplined and derided in Scripture.

b. The disciplining parties

Perhaps more importantly, though, we must ask ourselves if we are warranted in emulating who we are emulating. And not merely who, because Jesus certainly mocked the Pharisees, and as Christians we are certainly to emulate him, but in what capacity? That is, is there a parity between the role of the person doing the disciplining in Scripture, and our own role online? Are our situations analogous?

In every case that I can think of in Scripture, it is either a prophet who is doing the disciplining and deriding (Jesus and the Apostles being foremost among them), or it is someone in a position of leadership. So either their role is one of authority appointed directly by God; or it is one of authority appointed by men. I think we can safely dispense with the first group as being entirely inapplicable today, since none of us think we are appointed as prophets by God. As regards the second group, it is certainly true that some of us may be in positions of authority in various ministries—but what bearing does that have in the larger online community? Such authority is specifically limited in scope. I am not subject to the authority of, say, John Piper. He is a Reformed Baptist pastor—but he is not my Reformed Baptist pastor. But how many of us are even in a position such as that? If you are a pastor or an elder in your church, then you are certainly obligated to exercise discipline among your congregation; yet your authority does not extend to other congregations. But most of us are not pastors or elders; we are simply Christians passionate about the truth. So our situation is by no means analogous to the situations of those in Scripture who we find disciplining and deriding unbelievers and false teachers. We just don’t have the authority they do. In fact, we have no authority at all (except perhaps what authority is imputed to us by Christians who recognize that we accurately and faithfully expound the Scriptures—but that does not supersede the authority of their church). So, online, to assume the sort of authority over someone which leads us to rebuke him is to usurp the authority of his own church. Do we think that highly of our own standing? Do we despise the church that God has built, and make ourselves elders of the internet?

c. The mechanism of discipline

Thirdly, what is the medium of communication for discipline or derision which we find in Scripture? Since online interaction is primarily written, we should be looking for written examples. Those examples where discipline or derision is spoken are a step removed from our own circumstances, and therefore cannot be immediately transferred. This is not to say that they are inapplicable—just that they are not directly analogous. We need to justify our use of them. Yet all of the strongest examples of discipline and derision in Scripture seem to be face-to-face encounters. True, there are written examples also, but they are more tempered and diffident, precisely because (we may assume) it is more difficult to gage what is being said when there are no non-verbal cues. Therefore, it is reasonable to ask: even assuming (a) and (b) are analogous to our situation, would we be willing to say the same things to the person’s face and as they appear (not necessarily as we mean them) as we are saying to them online? If not, then it seems our situation is still not analogous to Scriptural examples. And, if not, we must also ask ourselves why not. Is it because we are in fact being overly harsh? Is it because it would not be appropriate? Is it because we are afraid? Is it because we are speaking above ourselves in some way?

III. Other, contrary examples are generally more applicable

The people with whom we are conversing are usually professing Christians. Now, it is reasonable to be discerning regarding that profession, but even in cases of significant doubt we are not necessarily warranted in treating someone as an unbeliever. What can we glean from Scripture with regard to how we should treat others who profess the faith (even when they are expounding serious heresies)? Consider the Corinthians, or the Galatians. Paul certainly spoke harshly to them at times, and was thoroughly warranted in doing so. Their errors were certainly magnificent. Yet, while many of us today might well have simply dismissed them as unbelievers, Paul did not. Similarly, his language was not as harsh as that which many Christian bloggers might use today against far less egregious views.

More pertinently, we are given specific instructions in various places as to how we ought to conduct ourselves—either with believers or unbelievers. We are reminded to examine ourselves before drawing attention to the fault of another. We are reminded to make ourselves last even if we may be first. We are told to conduct ourselves with gentleness and respect, having a good conscience—even when we are reviled and that respect is not deserved. We are told that discipline is not warranted before we have reasoned and pleaded with a brother; and that we are to hand him over to his church, rather than disciplining him ourselves. These are all difficult to reconcile with the attitude we customarily might adopt online.

Furthermore, when we seek to correct someone, or when we interact in a pedagogical capacity with another blogger, we are implicitly claiming to have wisdom and understanding—even wisdom and understanding that they do not. If we genuinely do, then this alone is sufficient to lend authority to our words; we do not need to magnify our own importance with rebukes and stinging remarks. We do not need to insult or ridicule our opponents. Indeed, though I claim no perfection on my own part, let me ask: Who is wise and understanding among you? By his good conduct let him show his works in the meekness of wisdom. But if you have bitter jealousy and selfish ambition in your hearts, do not boast and be false to the truth. This is not the wisdom that comes down from above, but is earthly, unspiritual—demonic! For where jealousy and selfish ambition exist, there will be disorder and every vile practice. But the wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, open to reason, full of mercy and good fruits, impartial and sincere. And a harvest of righteousness is sown in peace by those who make peace (James 3:13ff).

It seems to me that this is a genuine indictment upon the attitude of many well-meaning Christians online. It is certainly an indictment upon my own attitude on occasions; particularly in the past. It is easy to say that the Bible commands harsh language and a disciplinary attitude at times; but it is harder to show that it is ever justified in our own case. And regardless of how we intend to come across, blogging is generally an implicitly instructive exercise. We would do well to remember that teachers will be judged more severely. It is easy to say that we are rebuking someone out of love, and mocking them because, in our charity, we wish to show them the error of their ways. But God knows our hearts, and know that love is patient and kind; it is not arrogant or rude or irritable or resentful. It bears all things and endures all things; it does not insist on its own way.

IV. Some practical suggestions

That said, let me offer some considerations which I have been increasingly trying to keep in mind as I write—

• Even if I am genuinely acting out of love, how do I appear to be acting to others? If I appear arrogant and rude, irritable and impatient, unkind and resentful, then I am not representing Christ or Christianity, and contradict my intentions. I may rightly be called to account.
• Conversely, God knows the heart; I do not. It is not my place to judge the intentions or motivations of those with whom I am debating. Perhaps they are thoroughly unreasonable. Perhaps they are not saved. Perhaps they wish only to slander me or promote their own agenda, being quite disinterested in the truth. But perhaps they are saved; perhaps they are just having difficulty with the doctrines in question; perhaps they think they are acting as they should, even when they are mistaken; perhaps they are simply immature. It is uncharitable and counterproductive to dwell negatively on my opponents’ motives—even if I am right.
• I can trust God, or I can trust myself. When I am defending a difficult doctrine and trying to persuade my opponent of its truth, I can either do it in a way which encourages him to consider it further, and then trust God to work in his heart over time—or I can insist on my own way and condemn him as a heretic if he does not listen, and thereby encourage him to never associate with me or others like me again. In one situation I will be jointly accountable for his error on the day of judgment; in one I will not.
• God uses debate to correct all parties. The possibility exists that I am wrong. If I keep this in mind I will be appropriately humble, as the Bible commands; and I will remember that my place is not that of a teacher except inasmuch as I am recognized as such by others because I am faithful to the Word. If I fail to keep this in mind, I will be inappropriately overbearing and self-assured, and probably ignore or overlook a valuable insight of some kind, because I did not believe that God could use my opponent to teach me.
• I am saved by grace from sins against God which utterly eclipse any sin against me. How then can I be ungracious to anyone, let alone my own brothers in Christ?
• On the day of judgment everyone will give account for every careless word. I therefore write carefully, re-reading and rewording what I intend to say until I am certain I will not be ashamed when I am asked to give an account for it.

Finally, let me encourage all my fellow bloggers to re-read the book of James. Consider the demeanor of its author, and meditate on what he says about the tongue. In writing online, in such a public arena, we are particularly beholden to these teachings. So let everyone be quick to listen, slow to speak, and slow to anger—for the anger of man does not produce the righteousness that God requires.