Friendly Fire

Canada’s into a federal election year.  This means that we Canadians will be subjected to a more-than-tolerable amount of political character assassinations and governmental villainizing from every direction.  What makes it so time consuming to get to the truth of any candidate’s actual and fuller views on a given issue, however, is each party’s shameless tactic of mis-representing their opponent’s positions to make themselves look like White Knights by comparison.  Shady, frustrating, but unfortunately not shocking.

What is shocking is seeing this tactic come into play within theological controversies, where the observer should be able to give both sides the benefit of the doubt regarding their mutually declared desire to get to the bottom of Scriptural truth on a given subject.  We would hope, of course, that whenever two views on a Biblical doctrine are being debated, that any misrepresentations that crop up are the result of either poor research or an inadequate grasp of the issue at hand, and not wilful intent to deceive.  Whatever the motive, however, the result is the same; when the smoke clears, among the casualties there usually seem to be at least a few straw soldiers.

Why do we so easily fall into this trap of wasting our time shooting down inaccurate representations of our opponents’ views?  For one, because it’s easier.  I’ve thought back over things I’ve said or written to others in years past defending my theological views and realized that I really didn’t take the time to do a very thorough job examining some of the relevant passages in Scripture, and as a result both my arguments and my comprehension of the weight of my opponent’s arguments were sadly lacking.  It’s also tempting to take the weakest and most poorly constructed arguments that some zealous but misguided individual has brazenly asserted in defense of his position, and simply destroy those and claim victory rather than looking further to see if that’s the best the position has to offer (or to see if that one individual even has a firm grasp on his own declared position).  How many times have we creationists watched with frustration as the evolutionary representative in an origins debate confidently refutes point after point that no informed creationist has held to for years, if ever?  There is obviously a time when enough is enough when it comes to researching a position we don’t agree with, but if we’re going to try to refute that position with any kind of credibility, we best to do our homework.

Secondly, a great deal of the time we’re quite convinced that we are taking aim at arguments that are legitimately, however in our estimation erroneously, held by the other side.  Unless we’re willing to do a fair bit of reading from the other side’s perspective or we’re willing to listen while someone who holds to an opposing view explains the intricacies of his position to us, we’re likely going to find ourselves misrepresenting him at least part of the time.  For example, although I personally hold to the credo(believer)-baptist position, it frustrates me whenever I hear a credo-baptist teacher painting all paedo(infant)-baptists with one big Roman Catholic brush as believing that baptism washes away original sin and is basically equal to salvation, as if Rome’s twisted view is the only one possible apart from their own.  Such ignorance is inexcusable, especially in our time of having so much information only a click away; but the error and misrepresentation rages on through those who won’t go to the “horse’s mouth” for their information.  How much more agreeable to our confirmation-seeking sensibilities, not to mention our pride, when we stick to reading summaries of the other side’s views by someone who already agrees with us!  Of course there’s nothing wrong with reading works that promote what we believe is a right and true understanding of the Bible, but we need to be on our guard against slipping into “other-guy” bashing territory that really doesn’t contribute anything of value to any discussions we may have with those who disagree.

In short, we’re only given so much time in each day; we’re not obligated to become apologists in every single theological controversy we hear about.  But if we feel so strongly about a certain point of view within a debate that we must speak out against it, if we wish to maintain our credibility, and more importantly our integrity while doing so, it is imperative that we take the time and energy required to research, understand, and accurately represent those with whom we disagree.  And if, in the course of our research, we should find that we were mistaken about our opponent’s views, we must concede as much.  After all, we’re hopefully not in it to win an argument, but to fight against error (which does sometimes turn out to be our own) and for biblical truth–and all for God’s glory, not ours.