# Controversy on behalf of truth a sacred duty?



## Wayne (Dec 28, 2010)

Reading this evening the opening of Kenneth J. Foreman's 1977 Princeton dissertation, _The Debate on the Administration of Missions...1838-1861_.
(very enjoyable thus far).

In the Introduction, Foreman makes this statement in a footnote, speaking of Presbyterians in the early 19th century:



> This was a controversial age. Its Presbyterian children still felt psychologically close to the Reformation, *in which controversy on behalf of truth was a sacred duty..*.


 (emphasis added)

Does Foreman speak too strongly here, phrasing it as he does?

Can one of our fair readers point to further discussion of this idea? Something by one or more of the Reformers would be particularly helpful.

And lastly, where are we today by comparison?


----------



## Pergamum (Dec 28, 2010)

Depends on what "truth" is being argued for.


----------



## Wayne (Dec 28, 2010)

I assume you mean something along the lines of "What hill would you die on?" - which truths are worth controversy?

That is slightly off-topic, and perhaps we can hold that question aside for a bit. Good question, but perhaps even more difficult to answer. Context and setting could be a big part of any answer.


----------

