Tuesday, December 13, 2005
How To Disagree?
Joe Carter is upset about the tenor of debate in the Christian blogosphere lately and I have to agree with him.
So what to do? Well, I think one thing is to treat the malcontents in the same fashion that their local congregation has -- marginalize them. Certainly don't link, and if it is a continuing problem, don't read, not only don't send traffic their way, don't give them your personal traffic. I have missed a few flame wars altogether because I simply don't read a lot of the places where they happen.
Criticizing a critic is a mixed bag because it sends traffic their way -- it rewards them. There are cases where it has to be done, but cautiously and minimally.
Another thing I would suggest is to remember there is a person behind every blog. Do not write criticism you would not be willing to give that person over coffee to their face, and write the criticism in exactly the way you would phrase it in that circumstance. Never go personal.
It's OK not to post if you don't have anything original to say.
Remember the maxim, "When arguing with a fool, make sure he is not similarly occupied." I personally tend to extend it -- arguing with a fool is generally foolish. A fool generally does a better job of making him/herself look foolish than you can ever do.
Finally, remember it was Christ's example to allow his critics to crucify Him.
I believe that we must find a way to address this behavior which has inexplicably become commonplace yet is explicitly condemned by Scripture. How do we hold our fellow Christian bloggers accountable? How do we respond to this "talk-radio"-style of debate in which no disagreement on even inessential matters (i.e., should churches be open on Christmas?) can be tolerated?Joe reposts something he wrote a few months ago:
Is there anything that Christians do that will not earn them criticism by other Christians? We complain about both church growth initiatives and stagnation in the pews. We whine about both the conformity of mainstream evangelicalism and the dangers of the emergent church movement. We warn against both the church being too involved in politics and against the church not doing enough prevent state-sanctioned injustice. We even have Calvinists being criticized by Hyper-Calvinists for not holding closely enough to the strictures of Calvinism ? while never having bothered to actually read the works of John Calvin!I have some random thoughts here
- I have commented before that the "big blogging successes" (Memogate, etc.) have been critical in nature -- blogging has developed as a culture of criticism.
- Because blogging is really all about links, the best way to get linked to is to disagree with someone. Blogging has a bit of a built-in incentive to be critical.
- Flame wars in general build traffic
- It's a lot easier to find a mistake in soemone else's writing than it is to write something original
- I think blogging has a natural draw for periennial malcontents. Those whose criticial nature results in them being marginalized in thier local congregation may find voice for that nature in the blogosphere.
I guess what I am saying here is that I think it is unsurprising that Christian blogging would end up where Joe laments that it is. I agree with Joe's lament incidentally -- I brought it up at GodBlogCon. Joe ends his post by pointing out that Christians are supposed to be different in this aspect of their lives:
Where does it end? When will we stop being "wife beaters" of Christ's bride? And when will we finally heed the exhortation of Titus to, "Avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and arguments and quarrels about the law, because these are unprofitable and useless."Now, none of this is to imply that criticism is always inappropriate, but it does mean we need to be highly selective in what we criticize and very gentle when we do it.
So what to do? Well, I think one thing is to treat the malcontents in the same fashion that their local congregation has -- marginalize them. Certainly don't link, and if it is a continuing problem, don't read, not only don't send traffic their way, don't give them your personal traffic. I have missed a few flame wars altogether because I simply don't read a lot of the places where they happen.
Criticizing a critic is a mixed bag because it sends traffic their way -- it rewards them. There are cases where it has to be done, but cautiously and minimally.
Another thing I would suggest is to remember there is a person behind every blog. Do not write criticism you would not be willing to give that person over coffee to their face, and write the criticism in exactly the way you would phrase it in that circumstance. Never go personal.
It's OK not to post if you don't have anything original to say.
Remember the maxim, "When arguing with a fool, make sure he is not similarly occupied." I personally tend to extend it -- arguing with a fool is generally foolish. A fool generally does a better job of making him/herself look foolish than you can ever do.
Finally, remember it was Christ's example to allow his critics to crucify Him.
