On Controversy

Status
Not open for further replies.

py3ak

Unshaven and anonymous
Staff member
In his, Reformers in the Wings, "Nikolaus von Amsdorf (1486-1565): Set for the Defense of the Gospel" David Steinmetz remarks:

Commenting on the tepid religious convictions of the early twentieth century, G.K. Chesterton once observed that tolerance can be the easy virtue of people who do not believe anything in particular. Still it is preferable to the uncharitable and suspicion-laden atmosphere of the sixteenth century.
(...)
Forced to a decision between ecumenical openness and confessional purity, Amsdorf chose confessional purity. One can only regret that he saw as antithetical what ought to be regarded as complementary.​

Is Steinmetz correct? Is the tolerance of the twentieth century, or of our own time, preferable to the approach of the sixteenth century? Certainly, the sixteenth century would not seem to agree, at least if its greatest theologian is any indication:

There is something specious in the name of moderation, and tolerance is a quality which has a fair appearance, and seems worthy of praise; but the rule which we must observe at all hazards is, never to endure patiently that the sacred name of God should be assailed with impious blasphemy — that his eternal truth should be suppressed by the devil’s lies — that Christ should be insulted, his holy mysteries polluted, unhappy souls cruelly murdered, and the Church left to writhe in extremity under the effect of a deadly wound. This would be not meekness, but indifference about things to which all others ought to be postponed. (John Calvin, The Necessity of Reforming the Church)​

Of course there are degrees of error, and it is not necessary to suppose that every mistake cruelly murders souls. But what Calvin shows is that intolerance is not necessarily uncharitable: contending for the faith need not stem from nor result in a contentious and cantankerous personality.

And so because there will be, indeed there must be, controversies I offer two articles for your consideration. In "Christianity the Truth" B.B. Warfield asserts and explains that controversy is our duty. And in "Letter XIX", John Newton offers sage advice on our attitude and manner in conducting a controversy. I hope the upshot of reviewing the two articles will be that we are more motivated to engage in controversy according to our stations and callings, and more scrupulous to do so in meekness.
 
Machen on Theological Controversy

Clear-cut definition of terms in religious matters, bold facing of the logical implications of religious views, is by many persons regarded as an impious proceeding. May it not discourage contribution to mission boards? May it not hinder the progress of consolidation, and produce a poor showing in columns of Church statistics? But with such persons we cannot possibly bring ourselves to agree. Light may seem at times to be an impertinent intruder, but it is always beneficial in the end. The type of religion which rejoices in the pious sound of traditional phrases, regardless of their meanings, or shrinks from "controversial" matters, will never stand amid the shocks of life. In the sphere of religion, as in other spheres, the things about which men are agreed are apt to be the things that are least worth holding; the really important things are the things about which men will fight.
Christianity and Liberalism pp. 1-2.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top