Breaking the Chains of Arrogant and Inaccurate Argumentation

Last week, I posed a question related to several apparent inconsistencies in an early English Baptist document arguing for religious liberty against compulsion of conscience (see the post before this). I prefer to immerse myself in the primary sources and this method prevented me from doing a Google search – instead I just kept reading old, wordy seventeenth century documents. This week, it paid off and I found the answer I sought. The author in question, Christopher Blackwood, wrote a rejoinder to a reply given to his Storming of Antichrist, the abbreviated title of which is Apostolicall Baptisme. Towards the end of this reply to a reply to what I believe was also, a reply, he discusses the three types of evil he named in his former work and admits to having second thoughts about some of what he had said. He then makes the following statement:

“But though my soule abhorre all such opinions, as I do hell, yet do I doubt, whether the Magistrate have any power to deale with any such offender, unlesse he or they break the publique peace; so that I retract the foresaid distinction, as suspecting it of errour, and distinguish sinners, that they are either against the light of Nature, as tumults, whoredome, drunkennesse, theft; or against the light of faith, as pride, covetousnesse, unbeliefe, schisme, heresie, &c. the former belongs to the Magistrate to punish, the latter belong to the respective churches to censure, and not to the Magistrate to meddle with: and for sins against the light of the Nations , I retract the same as being utterly uncertaine, that the Magistrate hath any such power, yea I do thinke the Magistrate hath no power, as he is a Magistrate, in or about matters of religious worship, but onely to preserve the peace, that no man be molested in or about his worship.”

He did not dance around the issue or seek to defend the indefensible. Rather, he admitted that he was, at this point, incorrect. Such retractions, historically and contemporarily, seem rare among a host of often angry and at times more-than-a-little arrogant apologists. With the rise of the internet and its blogs, chat boards, and social networking sites, we have more opportunities than ever to voice our beliefs, opinions, and ideas. Among Christians, careful attention should be given to humility and integrity, key responsibilities if we are to walk with the mind of Christ. Perhaps we could take a few leaves out of this relatively obscure early English Baptist’s writings and deal with both the motivation and the manner of our debates.

As for motivation, Blackwood wrote, according to the front page of Storming of Antichrist, ‘out of his earnest desire he hath to a thorow Reformation, having formerly seen the mischeifs of half Reformations.” He was not concerned with winning the argument. It was his desire to win souls. The Reformation had brought about many good things, but sadly its proponents had not taken their reforms to the fullest Biblical extent. Blackwood’s task was to excoriate error and to propagate truth. His personal testimony as he relates it, as well as his example in the above excerpt, reveals someone willing to look at his own beliefs in light of the Scriptures and if need be, to make adjustments.   

Concerning the manner in which debate ought to be conducted, Blackwood says this (in his immediate context of pleading with magistrates for religious liberty):

“Beware of headinesse and unadvised opinions, flowing from many out of wantonness and curiosity rather than a desire of edifying; which carriage hath but too much alienated the Magistrates, from those that are truly tender and innocent herein, by preaching and printing irrational and undigested principles.”

Being right is no excuse to behave wrongly. A humble spirit, honest speech, gracious behaviour, and winsome warmth of manner ought to characterize our conduct in stating our own beliefs whilst standing against those with whom we disagree. This does not undercut in any way that we are indeed to oppose error, but it enables us to do so well - and with honour - to the glory of God. We ought therefore to do away with ignorant, ill-informed expressions of badly-shaped opinions considered to be ‘facts’, slanderous accusations, personal attacks, stereotyping, and the indiscriminate use of hyperbole and sarcasm. Not only should we rid ourselves of foul play, but also bad attitude: haughtiness is not indicative of holiness. 

I recently watched a video where one man complained about his opponents’ use of straw men fallacies. He then proceeded himself to give them the same sort of unfair treatment. Undoubtedly they will respond with more of the same and the cycle will continue. Both parties profess Christ but have some doctrinal differences, exacerbated I think, by the very things Blackwell warns against: “headinesse and unadvised opinions…irrational and undigested principles”. This sort of behaviour must stop - yes we are to be like children in our faith, but that does not necessitate childishness in our fellowship (or lack thereof). Can we who profess the name of Christ and say we are filled with his Spirit not defend truth without dabbling in error? Let us not be content with ‘half Reformations.’