Editor: This was originally published at sbcIMPACT on June 30, 2009. David gave me permission to republish it here. It is amazing to me how currently this 3-year-old post is!
;)
It is human nature to choose sides. All of us do it all of the time. We choose: between good guys and bad guys; between those with white hats and those with black hats; between red-blooded Americans and everybody else; between Republicans and Democrats; between the Moral Majority and the Immoral Minority; between Baptists and those of other denominations; between Conservatives and Liberals; or—if you please—between Fundamentalists and Moderates; between Calvinists and Arminians; between Continuationists and Cessationists; between BI folks, GCR folks, and Institutional Traditionalists…
Or, as Dr. Seuss might say, between Star-Bellied Sneetches and Plain-Bellied Sneetches. You know, the Sneetches on Beaches who chose sides based on having stars on their bellies, or none, until the day Sylvester McMonkey McBean showed up with his amazing Star-On machine, allowing those without stars to have stars; then, pulled out his Star-Off machine, allowing those with stars to have none; and, then, allowed each Sneetch to do as he pleased “until neither the Plain nor the Star-Bellies knew whether this one was that one or that one was this one or which one was what one… or what one was who.” And they all learned the lesson that day that, behind outward appearances, a Sneetch is a Sneetch is a Sneetch.
The Bible also has a few things to say about choosing sides…
For example, the time in Joshua 5:13-14 when Joshua “looked up and saw a man standing in front of him with a drawn sword in his hand,” and asked him, “Are you for us or for our enemies?” and he replied “Neither, but as commander of the army of the LORD I have now come.” It makes you wonder whose side the Lord would be on, if He were to come to earth today, and see some of the conflicts we get involved in.
That is not to imply there is never a time to choose sides. Once again, Joshua himself provides us with the classic example of this, when he says in Joshua 24:15, “But if serving the LORD seems undesirable to you, then choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your forefathers served beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you are living. But as for me and my household, we will serve the LORD.”
We must choose sides. Jesus said, “He who is not with me is against me.” However, as Paul teaches us in 1 Corinthians 3:1-4, as Christians, even though we must boldly choose sides, our criteria for choosing sides is to be different than that of “mere men” who see things from “a worldly point of view”:
Brothers, I could not address you as spiritual but as worldly—mere infants in Christ. I gave you milk, not solid food, for you were not yet ready for it. Indeed, you are still not ready. You are still worldly. For since there is jealousy and quarreling among you, are you not worldly? Are you not acting like mere men? For when one says, “I follow Paul,” and another, “I follow Apollos,” are you not mere men?
Once we repent of our sin, and submit our lives to the lordship of Jesus, we see things differently. As Paul says in 2 Corinthians 5:16-17, “So from now on we regard no one from a worldly point of view … Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come!”
One of the big implications of this, as I see it, is that if anyone is truly in Christ (that is, if they are truly trusting in the gospel, and not in “a different gospel—which is really no gospel at all” to save them), we are to see them, more than anything else, not as members of this group or that group, with this label or that label, but as brothers and sisters in Christ. And, just as a Sneetch is a Sneetch is a Sneetch, a brother or sister in Christ is for us, above and beyond anything else they may happen to be, a brother or sister in Christ. And even those who are not yet in Christ we are to see as souls for whom Jesus died, and individuals with whom we may potentially spend eternity together in heaven.
I am aware that, as I write this, I run the risk of being misconstrued as saying there is no need to voice our convictions on what we believe on this issue or that, to discern truth from error, or to take a prophetic stand against sin. But that is not what I am saying.
As Christians, we are certainly never going to agree among ourselves on every single point of doctrine, political stance, or ethical standard. But that doesn’t mean we should just keep quiet, lest we run the risk of offending someone who thinks differently than we do. Nor does it mean there is not a time and a place for redemptive church discipline. It doesn’t even mean we should never call out certain groups of people or name names. Our Lord Jesus had some pretty choice words for the Pharisees and Sadducees. And He called Herod a fox.
However, as I understand it, no longer regarding anyone “from a worldly point of view” means approaching our brother or sister in Christ with whom we disagree with a different attitude. It means talking more about issues, and less about individuals. It means being more convictional and less political.
Politics is all about choosing sides. It’s largely about championing certain individuals, and demonizing others. But the truth is no one is perfect. Even our most reverenced heroes have their faults and shortcomings. And, if someone is truly in Christ, in spite of our disagreements with them, and in spite of the extent to which we may feel they are wrong on this issue or that issue, they are still our brother or sister in Christ, and are worthy of our unfailing love and respect.
In the Body of Christ, on the bottom line, we are all on the same team. We are all members of the same family. “Our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms” (Ephesians 6:12). But “if [we] keep on biting and devouring each other, [we had better] watch out or [we] will be destroyed by each other” (Galatians 5:15).
Good post. Exactly.
Paul, in 1 Corinthians 3, seems to relate that tendency to choose sides as signs of “worldliness” and spiritual immaturity.
Maybe those are our biggest problems in the SBC?
I hope that was rhetorical, Dave. Those who are worldly and immature will of course disagree. And those who aren’t won’t say anything…
I guess it was, in a sense, rhetorical. I know my opinion.
There are over 30 instances in the bible contains verses about “discernment” in the bible. Today even when you ask questions you are accused of taking sides. Many of the immature do not even want you to question. Instead you are just suppose to accept the opinion they present and shut up.
1 John 4:1 ESV
Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world.
We are to test, we are to question, or we will follow false prophets. At times we must take a side other times it is best to listen.
Proverbs 1:5 ESV
Let the wise hear and increase in learning, and the one who understands obtain guidance
But most the time I pray that I would keep silent
Proverbs 17:28 ESV
Even a fool who keeps silent is considered wise; when he closes his lips, he is deemed intelligent.
Do you think the angry exchanges that often take place in blog discussions are the fruit of spiritual discernment or of a more fleshly pride and strife?
To be honest, I grow tired of this response. Every time I have raised issues, I have indicated that biblical and theological issues need to be addressed, but that my problem is with HOW they are being addressed on blogs.
Yet, time and again, we get this kind of side-stepping answer, “are you trying to suppress debate and discussion?”
If you think the way we debate these issues is okay, say so. But I am weary of this response.
Dave,
I agree with you–partly because if I don’t you will simply put me in moderation–(invisible smiley face).
I have not always lived up to my own expectations and have been drawn into the mud on too many occasions. I have come to realize of late, though, that my purpose for blogging is to sharpen my understanding of God’s Way.
Sometimes, that happens when I have a moment of agreement with a brother or sister. Sometimes, that happens when I have a moment of disagreement with a brother or sister.
Seldom–if ever–does my view get sharpened when I have a moment of discord with another believer.
During what I thought was a peak time in my health, two years ago an ambulance came to my office at church an took me to the ER. The doctor said that in another couple of minutes, it would have been too late to do anything to save me–in a medical sense not a Calvinistic sense.
When I allow a blog thread to elevate my blood-pressure, I ask myself: “Does this really matter? Is this person likely to change his or her views?” The answer comes back, “no.”
SBC Voices is my source for staying in touch with the broader Baptist family. I am committed (and some say I should have been committed years ago, but that’s a different story) to using Voices to stay in touch, not to try to change people’s minds.
I hope I can contribute some light, and little heat. Feel free to remind me or give me a “time out” if I don’t keep my commitment. I’m not here to “choose sides.” I’m here to stay in touch and sharpen my understanding of on issues pertaining to Baptist Life.
Dave,
Blogs are not a venue that get opinions across very well. I take it you are saying you are weary of the response I presented.
Yet the bottom line of what I presented was that I am a fool, you should be weary of the response I presented.
Biblical and theological issues do need to be addressed and you will know what media to use and how to use it by the fruit it produces. Find what you consider a successful biblical and theological blog and if you exam the best practices of what they do then implement those practices.
As we read the articles we associate our flesh bias. As we read comments we insert our flesh bias. As we comment we become flesh for the most part. After ALL I will express my opinion and that must be the true truth.
If the article is Christ exalting expect Christ exalting responses. If the original article is edgy and encouraging responses, expect edgy comments. If the article is attacking a respected person or attacking respected doctrine expect war.
Every day I live I understand I know less and less. I also pray daily that I will listen more and comment less.
Specifically, I am tired of the accusation that when I (and others) challenge the WAY we have carried on the discussions, we are trying to stifle debate.
I read that in your comment. If I misinterpreted it, I apologize.
Dave,
Accusing you stifling debate never entered my mind when I responded to the original article. But feel free to use me to get your point across. My original point in my mind was “discernment”. Guess that was a swing and a miss.
“””If the article is Christ exalting expect Christ exalting responses. If the original article is edgy and encouraging responses, expect edgy comments. If the article is attacking a respected person or attacking respected doctrine expect war”””
John K.
I think this is very insightful. I have a heard time with “edgy and attacking.” I have a heard time ignoring it at least. It gets my “fightin’ side all flared up.”
In such cases, I’m not likely to be silent. I pray I can be thoughtful, direct, and civil in offering any contrary opinion. I absolutely intend to fail miserably in my attempts at such.
Unity is great…but never at the expense of the gospel.
In unity, someone’s point of view will prevail.
We always want to contend for the gospel.
We can do so (hopefully) in a civil and loving fashion.
I am always willing to contend for the gospel.
I wouldn’t expect anything else from you, Dave.
Or any of the other good folks here.
ON the other hand, to be clear, I think most of what we contend about has little to do with the gospel.
I disagree.
God’s freedom to forgive sinners…real sinners, out of His sheer grace and mercy (the gospel) is part and parcel and at the root of many of these discussions.
Methinks.
When it comes to the current theological debate in SBC ranks, it’s increasingly clear that both sides can’t be right. But it could be that both sides might be wrong. In such case, the Scripture cited by David Rogers would be appropriate: “Joshua looked up and saw a man standing in front of him with a drawn sword in his hand,” and asked him, “Are you for us or for our enemies?” and he replied “Neither, but as commander of the army of the LORD I have now come.” (Joshua 5:13-14)
There is a vivid example of the Lord taking sides as recorded in Ezekiel 9. Only those who escaped His “slaughter weapon” were those “that sigh and that cry for all the abominations that be done in the midst thereof.” When the Lord decides to put an end to the SBC war of words, it would be best to be in the ranks of those who carry a burden for the lost that we’ve been called to reach.
While the Commander of God’s Army was on God’s side (Joshua 5) His side was with His people. The walls of Jericho came down and everyone inside those walls (excepting Rahab and her family) were put to the sword. While it is nice to quote that scripture saying God has no side of human squabbles, God DOES have a side that is True, and will vigorously support His side when needed and necessary. The quest for His children is to find His side and join Him – albeit spiritual, political, theological, doctrinal, etc. That is why it is necessary to pray for discernment, and cast our lot with what is True.
Grace and Peace,
Rob
Rob,
Good to see you over here. I agree with you that God has a side, and it is our prerogative as His people to find that side and join with Him. However, we must have clear we are not looking for God to join or support our side, but rather to find His and support it. Israel, at more or less continuous times throughout their history, had the idolatrous tendency to consider Yahweh as their own personal tribal deity, rather than the Great God over all the universe.
Mal. 1:11. “My name will be great among the nations, from where the sun rises to where it sets. In every place incense and pure offerings will be brought to me, because my name will be great among the nations,” says the Lord Almighty.
Thank you David. I don’t think we disagree. We should take God’s side, and not demand that He take ours. Most of God’s side though is found in the Word – He did not desire us to be blind or walk in darkness as to what He believes as True. It is our fault that we don’t get Him right :-).
Grace,
Rob
I don’t think you can apply that to the Calvinist/”Traditionalist” debate Rob and be true to scripture. In this case, there is no scripture to back up this battle or even the battle before this 6 years ago. It’s just a case of people in the same denomination battling. It’s wrong.
Debbie,
I do not believe I was making any application to any specific question – just generally speaking. As a Compatabalist, my take on the Traditional/Calvinistic debate is it is “a much ado about nothing.” I as human am totally incapable of changing in any way those things which the Lord has kept as His prerogative of knowing . I know my job, and attempt to do it within the best of my abilities. I wish that everybody else would too and stop trying to control the box and leave the channel selection to God.
Grace,
Rob
As a Compatabalist, my take on the Traditional/Calvinistic debate is it is “a much ado about nothing.”
Not sure what a compatabalist is, but I tend to sympathize with the thought!
A compatibilist is someone who believes God is in control and that man has a free will within His parameters. Most C’s are here.
That is opposed to a Libertarian Free willist who believes God has given Man a freedom apart from the sovereignity of God. Most Trads are here.
And in contrast to a hard determinist, who believe there is no free will at all period. No one seems to be there.
“God DOES have a side that is True, and will vigorously support His side when needed and necessary … it is necessary to pray for discernment, and cast our lot with what is True.”
Amen, Brother Rob! The greatest need of the hour in SBC ranks is to pray … to humble ourselves, repent and seek His Face … and as you note, for discernment to sort out Truth from all the noise. “IF My People … THEN Will I.”
“iThis is a vivid example of the Lord taking sides as recorded in Ezekiel 9. Only those who escaped His “slaughter weapon” were those “that sigh and that cry for all the abominations that be done in the midst thereof.” When the Lord decides to put an end to the SBC war of words, it would be best to be in the ranks of those who carry a burden for the lost that we’ve been called to reach.”
When the Lord decides to put an end to the SBC war of words? Max. We can put an end to this war of words, war of doctrine. I do not think God has anything to do with this latest war. We however do. We must put a stop to it. As for the lost, both Calvinists and non-Calvinists have passion for the lost. This war is hampering that passion and mission. God doesn’t need us, he can let us keep warring and use others. In fact he has in and out of the United States. There is a world full of Christians and a world full of those who need the Gospel.
Meanwhile other religions are moving in giving their religion to people who are buying it. While we argue, fuss and fight for what? Nothing. But fussing and fighting. I don’t think you can use God in this case. He has nothing to do with it.
Another question. In this “side the Lord takes”, were both sides Christian or believers in God, Christ? I think we need to read these passages in full context here.
I think the problem we have right now is that we’re dealing with a scorched earth kind of situation. Since the traditional statement came out back in early June, every blogger and his brother has written an article dealing with Calvinism. At this point, the intricacies of every point of tulip has been hashed and rehashed. The spirit of the debate, which in my opinion began with strong words from both sides, then calmed a bit, has now reached the point of overload. What’s sad is that it seems some of the traditionalists in the discussion think it’s some kind of “tactic” by calvinists to “win” by asking everyone to accept the status quo and hope that this will mean the calvinists win by default. I can’t speak for the motives of all, but I’ll speak for myself. I’m seeking a win for the Kingdom, not a win for calvinism. I don’t even LIKE the term calvinism. This thing isn’t going to be solved on a blog. It’s going to require some face to face discussions between those who can actually have some way of affecting the situation.
The problem is the feeling of being displaced and dispossessed of one’s rightful place in the kingdom. In our local state paper we had a guest column in which the writer was quite harsh toward calvinists, and the guest who wrote a response was not a calvinist though he approved of them, to some degree and certainly thought they had a place in the arena. One has to wonder at the editorial policy that did not have a calvinist write a column, too. It is painful to consider that my ordaining pastor was outspoken about his calvinism and was also a soul winner, that one of my ancestors was noted in a history of Alabama Baptists in 1840 and might have been one of the executors of the will of Daniel Marshall in Georgia in 1781. And I’ll give every one a guess as to the theology of Daniel Marshall, Abraham Marshall, the first Assn. in Georgia, and Holland Middleton (my ancestor). It should be noted that Daniel had helped his brother-in-law Shubal Stearns establish Sandy Creek Assn, and the theology of that Assn., contrary to several historians, was calvinism (they just never took a look at the Articles of Faith of the individual churches, nor the theology under which Stearns and Daniel Marshall were converted (the theology of George Whitefield). There has also been a failure to notice that Sandy Creek Assn. corresponded with Philadelphia Assn., and that the churches of Sandy Creek established in Tennessee often adopted the Philadelphia Confession of Faith.
The problem is that it appears we are being prepared for a Third Great Awakening, and the theology which produces Great Awakenings is calvinism as any one will soon note who studies the First and Second Great Awakenings. It was also the same theology that produced the launching of the Great Century of Missions. Folks need to ask themselves this question: Why? Why does this theology produce great awakenings?
Calvinism didn’t produce the Great Awakenings, it was the Lord. It is the Lord who adds to the church as His Holy Spirit gives the gift of salvation by grace through faith. “For when one says, ‘I follow Paul,’ and another says, ‘I follow Apollos,’ are you not being merely human?..Neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God who gives the growth.” I Cor.3, Acts 2:47
I thank all those who labored for the Lord before us; Calvin, Savaronola, Zwingli, Luther, Augustine, Farel, Whitefield and many more. But they’re fallible men with personal bias as myself. The significance is they were submissive to the Lord and were used as servants. He that would be first in the Kingdom will be last. There’s only one Head and He is Christ, the only One without error.
“There’s only one Head and He is Christ, the only One without error.”
And everybody said AMEN! (or they should have).
“All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal Him” (Matthew 11:26). The Kingdom of God is built on revelation knowledge, not the teachings and traditions of men. As Brother Horton points out, men are fallible, Christ (the Truth) is not. Jesus must reveal truth from the Father by the Holy Spirit. You cannot receive revealed truth on your own just by reading the Bible, going to church, or following some “ism”. It’s really about relationship, not religion nor theological preference. While we are chasing isms, Christ is building the Kingdom through those who hear what the Spirit is saying to the church. I hope I live long enough to see religion’s funeral preached and every ism swallowed up in victory!
Max: “You cannot receive revealed truth on your own by just reading the Bible, going to church….”
Do you really believe that Max? If so, wow, I have to disagree. The Bible is revealed truth that I as an individual can read and get it through the power of the Holy Spirit inside of me.
How do you think one can receive revealed truth?
“Study to show thyself approved unto God a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. ” 2 Timothy 2:15
Hi Debbie – you actually answer that question as I would: “through the power of the Holy Spirit inside of me.”
“When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth” (John 16:13).
It is possible to read the Bible and go to church and not be Spirit-taught and Spirit-led as the Word is studied and proclaimed. Our churches are full of folks who grieve and quench the Holy Spirit and who fail to receive Truth in the inner man. There has always been the Church within the church who read the Scriptures with unveiled eyes by the Holy Spirit. The Word then becomes revealed truth to them as it was revealed to those who first jotted down those black words on white paper. It is indeed possible to read the Bible for a lifetime and miss Truth … without the Spirit.
James: Obviously Calvinists would agree with you because that is the whole teaching of Calvinism. Giving glory to God and that He does everything.
Debbie,
yep…
Give glory to God because he does everything.
Phil. 2:
So then, my beloved, just as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure.
I’m glad we can agree but it’s not Calvin’s teachings that we are called to follow nor that binds us together in agreement, it is the teaching of the Holy Spirit. Don’t misunderstand me, I greatly admire, appreciate, and agree for the most part with much of what Calvin has to say. However, when we rally to or for any human we have robbed God of His glory. And even the smallest amount is too great. Calvin acted on personal preference too often, and myself also I must confess. Read the Consistory he wrote on the church discipline he implemented. As great a servant as he was he made serious errors in judgment by biblical standards trying to implement Mosaic law into the work of grace by the Lord. People were beheaded when judged to be practicing witchcraft. Didn’t the Lord teach all those the Father has given Him will not be lost and to not concern oursleves with the matter but to be busy preaching the Gospel to all who would receive it? Does not all life belong to God and to His discretion of heaven or hell? Calvin saw such corruption that he took it upon himself to correct it. The Lord nowhere gives us such authority. We can warn through reproof and instruction but we cannot wield authority as to spiritual life. It is Christ Who separates (wheat & tares). It is the Word of the Lord made alive in us and to us (II Cor.5:17) and the Holy Spirit in us as the Lord says (He’s the vine/we the branches) Who intreprets divine truth and wisdom and gives understanding seaparating us by character and holiness. (II Pet.1:3;19-21)
Glory only to our Lord and blessings to you all!
I would disagree with your history, but that is not the point of this post. You totally lost what Dr. Willingham said in his post.
Doug: I do agree with your statement that Calvin tried to correct things himself, but isn’t that also what all this warring is doing? Look back at SBC history, there are those who tried to correct it themselves, some, most things did not need correcting and when it was corrected it was done wrong. Methods were all wrong. Innocents got caught in the fire as well.
This war today is no different. This chapter of Calvin’s life should be a lesson on how not to do things, especially using the name of God in doing it as some are doing now.
Now we can see that we can disagree but not with history. The history is recorded (actual documents by Calvin’s pen) and does not need interpretation. I followed Dr. Willingham’s point exactly; the teachings of Calvin would produce a third awakening, to which I responded that his teaching didn’t inspire or produce the first two nor will it a third. They may have read Calvin but without the illumination from the Holy Spirit it would have been of no effect. God could have easily have them read Romans and granted them enlightment. Yes there have been many calvinists admirers throughout baptist history but there’s also many who were devoted biblicists, not choosing to identify with any camp other than that of the Lord of Hosts. God is truth not because anyone says so but because of Who He is and He will gather all the elect with or without Calvin, me, or anyone else. Did the Apostle not say that if he did not preach the very rocks would cry out? Again I am an admirer of Calvin agreeing with much he believed. My remarks are to cautions us from relating to a great servant as infallible in all truth and being. Only God is holy, high and lifted up. His Holy Spirit in grace and truth saves and no one or anything else. Christian love to all!
Dr. Horton
Interesting that you decided to include Dr. in your salutation. 🙂
I do disagree with your view on history and meant to write James and not Doug, my apologies. Again, that is not what Dr. Willingham said James. This is how the fighting begins, one which I have no wish to take part in.
The point of this post is that God has no sides in this war. This is all flesh. It needs to stop. Both views have equal right to be taught, people can decide for themselves which the Bible teaches. Both have a right to a seat at the table. This war is not a war in which God’s name can be invoked. That is the point. In fact Joshua has said it better than I could. A rereading of this post would give my view on this entire matter.
I should quit while I am ahead. Joshua’s post on this was good, but David Rogers wrote this post. Sorry David. The point stands however.
David. As I thought about your proposition that Christ requires a choice I thought how can I choose theological positions without causing strife with the Family in general?
It comes down to the autonomy and primacy of the local church.
Doing theology beyond that level will be problematic it seems
Frank,
Not entirely sure what you are suggesting, but if it is that within a local congregation everybody agrees with each other on theological details (or at least ought to), I’m not sure I follow you here, either in actual practice, or from biblical precedent.
Perhaps you could spell out a little more what you are alluding to.
Dear Debbie, I included the Dr. out of habit of which I had carefully refrained from previously to not insert another label- there was no intent or purpose in doing so just failure to refrain. My apologies if it was misconstrued. Last word concerning history. It’s not my view. It is documented and signed by its author and no matter who reads it it reads the same. There are no sides with God – If you read carefully you will see that is my point. God does not favor Calvinists or non-calvinists. Brothers and sisters that have and do favor the teachings of Calvin are welcome as are those who do not. There are no sides with God but there will be until we cease in being anything other than Christians. Instead of debating (discussing what Calvin believed) why can’t we sit down and discuss what we believe? We can learn from many but we can only be identified with Jesus Christ. If we live and teach our convictions without inserting labels we will be able to exist and work together for the glory of God. I’m not attacking Dr. Willingham. Dr. Willingham wrote and I quote; ‘the theology which produces Great Awakenings is Calvinism as any one will soon note who studies the First and Second Great Awakenings.’ (END OF QUOTE) It wasn’t Calvin’s theology, nor anyone’s study of God that caused men and women to turn to Christ, but the Gospel of God’s mercy by grace through Jesus Christ in the redemptive work by and in the Holy Spirit unto repentance that produced the first two awakenings and any others to come. It matters not if I or anyone else agrees or acknowledges God truth that releases or restrains the movement of Holy Spirit. God only chooses and produces without need and when He intends totally based on His sovereign will and not men. I’m only sharing from Scripture Who is responsible for salvation of souls. I’m not at war with anyone and I welcome and am at peace with all that profess Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. “Finally, be strong in the Lord and in the strength of His might. Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the schemes of the devil. For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities,… Read more »
Find the side that criticizes both sides without being criticized in return. This is wise and brave.
Eg., GLBT and liberal economic terrorism of Chick Fil-A vs. supporters of Chick Fil-A on August 1.
“Find the side that criticizes both sides without being criticized in return.”
One effective way to find this side is to focus on the perceived lack of civility, grace, and loving tone from both sides. The side that emphasizes on HOW the disagreement is being conducted is the side to be on. Always ask participants to look at themselves first.
Choose the side of the wise moderator, not that of the arena battlefield partisan.