There have been times in the last few months that I considered that I may have gone a step too far. Sometimes I actually thought that my commentary might have turned a few people off by my passionate words displayed for the world to see. There is something about me that doesn’t like to hurt people’s feelings, and I think that is a good thing.
In the last week it seems that my most viewed article, A Clumsy Retreat, was light compared to a letter to interested members of his church by Ben Cole. This letter was a withering assessment of the recently released rationales for the now infamous IMB policies concerning Prayer Languages and Baptism. It was posted by prolific commentator, Dorcas Hawker, who is in a leadership position with the children’s ministry at Cole’s church.
The reaction on her blog equaled the passion of the letter, but with a few differences. I want to say first that I don’t really know Ben Cole, but I support what he said and I think those that abused him in response left themselves quite open for their own criticism. Well, almost. They didn’t exactly own their words, for the most part, so criticizing them is quite hard to do – which is why they didn’t leave their names, no doubt. That on its own is criticism of great merit.
Now here are a few thoughts about strong words …
1. Unless your life or at least your job is on the line, state your name first. Ben never posted the letter on the net, it was done for him. Still, when posted, he owned it, defended it and made no apologies. If you can’t stand by your own words, don’t expect the rest of us to pay you one iota of attention. As far as I am concerned, you have nothing to say.
2. When you speak, speak to the issues. Ben spoke to the issues at hand. He did not assault Dr. Hatley’s character but his ideas and published writings. Still, some felt free to hide behind their anonymity and snipe his character with innuendo and outright defamation. No one provided any evidence of wrong doing on Ben’s account, mostly, they just whined or postured self righteously. Some accusations flew, but no evidence offered.
3. The claim of Scripture does not necessarily stand on the side of those arguing for gentleness at all costs. There is a time and a place for strong words to oppose those we believe to be outside of God’s will. When might that be? When you have to. Sometimes you just have to.
“White washed tombs.” “You will not make my Father’s house a den of thieves.” Accompanied, by the way, with a whip and some forceful action.
Peter said to thousands of Jews on Pentecost, “Let all Israel be assured of this: that God has made this Jesus, WHOM YOU CRUCIFIED, both Lord and Christ.” (emphasis mine – duh)
Paul called for the judiazers to not stop at the foreskin. He also opposed Peter to his face in front of the church, in effect calling him a hypocrite, concerning the judiazers influence over him.
Sometime you just have to use strong words. It is not unchristian to do so, and the implication that it is reveals a sincere lack of Scriptural understanding.
A quick glance at the references above reveals that I have completely left out our Old Testament. Nathan said to David, “You are the man!” when David called for judgment on the fictional lamb slayer. OT prophets. C’mon.
The history of God’s people is full of us getting in the faces of others over what is right and wrong.
And for the person who said that we get in the face of people who are lost, reprobate, etc., I refer you back to Paul and Peter in the mention above.
![[del.icio.us]](http://images.del.icio.us/static/img/delicious.small.gif){kind=small}
Kdawg
on Mar 14th, 2006
@ 10:52 pm:
Yes, yes, yes!! I agree. If a person can’t sign their name, I have a hard time taking it seriously. Ben’s letter was right! He did not attack a person, he attacked policy. I really didn’t see why everyone was so upset.
steve w
on Mar 15th, 2006
@ 9:28 am:
Excellent thoughts Art! And you didn’t really delve into much of the OT, but I think people making the claim that strong words are never spoken to true believers (or God’s people) simply have not considered the OT at all. I, like you, believe there is enough evidence in the NT to say that sometimes God’s people (true believers) need strong words. But the OT is equally God’s word, spoken to God’s people, and there are some strong words throughout the OT.
The more I come to understand how much has already been said the IMB trustees by some of their own before and after the policies were implemented, and by many SB pastors and church members, and that they have only stiffened their necks against those that disagree with them, I am more convinced today than ever before that Pastor Cole was right on target with both tone and content.
If Wade is the only trustee people have heard from, they have only heard about the snow on the tip of the iceberg — they haven’t even gotten to the iceberg itself yet!
Kevin
on Mar 15th, 2006
@ 3:25 pm:
Art
After reading the letter by Dr. Cole and even reading many of the comments as difficult as that was. (By the many long and breathy comments) I have to say that the name of Dr. Patterson came up again and again, that same name came up at my local Associations Pastor’s meeting and was wondering why? I personally do not know any of these men. I have meet Wade and have a good friend that served with him in my State Association so I feel comfortable addressing things to him. I do hope that much of the issues we are discussing will be settled in a humble and public fashion so that no one can say it was done in an inappropriate way. I do hope to meet you and many of the others at Greensboro in June I already am praying for Gods good and perfect will to be done.
In Him
Kevin Lancaster
Tim Sweatman
on Mar 16th, 2006
@ 12:55 am:
Maybe I’m naive, but I was truly surprised at the negative reaction to the tone of Cole’s letter. I did not see any personal attacks, nor did I see any unnecessarily harsh language. I expected some to take issue with his arguments, but I don’t recall any criticism of what he said, just how he said it.
I made a remark on my blog that if Cole had referred to the papers in a generic manner and not as Hatley’s papers then perhaps people would not have identified Cole’s remarks as an attack on Hatley. But as Cole pointed out in a comment, Hatley is the one who issued the papers, so there is nothing improper about ascribing what they say to him.
I also made the point that consistency requires that the people who are critical of Cole’s tone and his remarks be critical of the unsubstantiated accusations made against Wade’s character by the board.