I don’t want to beat a dead elephant here, but I wholeheartedly agree with Don Carson and Tim Keller’s comment that “controversy can . . . provide a teaching moment, not least because the interest of many people is focused on the disputed issues. It is hard to deny that such a moment has arrived.” Toward that end, I think Thabiti Anyabwile’s most recent post, on 11 lessons he’s learned from the Elephant Room controversy, are well worth reading. The more I read Thabiti’s work and interact with him, the more I appreciate him. (I would highly recommend his very readable and practical and instructive new book, Finding Faithful Elders and Deacons, which is a great read not only for finding such folks, but also helpful for being such people.)
Here’s an outline of his 11 points—followed at the end by an extended excerpt of one of them:
1. Nothing has changed with Jakes.
2. Something may have changed with us.
3. Theological depth is critical.
4. We need a practical understanding of repentance.
5. Divisions come swiftly and easily.
6. A lot of reconciliation and brotherly affection gets shared privately, but it’s sometimes not useful to be insisted upon publicly.
7. Our cooperation needs to be principled rather than pragmatic.
8. Our cooperation can have a liberalizing tendency.
9. There are descriptive and prescriptive ways of using “race.”
10. “Race” is not only powerful, it’s also about power.
11. My assumptions about my usefulness need chastening.
Here is #6—an important point for both those who think every private corrective conversation should instead be public and those who think every public corrective conversation should instead be private.
A lot of people have taken it upon themselves to be the “private conversation police.” They want to enforce a new rule for public discourse: Talk privately with those with whom you disagree before you disagree publicly. I think that’s well intended, but it’s quite problematic. Again, Carson and Keller handle this very well. I just want to add that this desire to require private conversations before public redress has two unintended and negative consequences.
First, it means that the first persons to speak have the controlling leverage in the conversation. That’s not much of a problem unless the first one to speak speaks heresy or some false teaching. In that case, everyone who would act to counter the falsehood is held hostage by the purveyor of falsehood! That’s a very bad outcome.
Second, the vocal insistence on private conversation, or rather the suggestion that no such conversation is happening, can actually frustrate and undermine very real private efforts at unity, restoration, and correction. It’s surprising how public comments (ironically, without first making private contact!) about perceived private failings actually complicate the very private efforts being called for. It’s also interesting to note how many unrelated parties feel entitled to know what’s happening in private sessions. They don’t seem to realize that asking for private matters to be disclosed publicly might actually hinder trust and communication. As it is, these things don’t always work out. So, it’s probably prudent to use that few moments of keyboarding to instead offer a few words of prayer and intercession.
Here’s a rule of thumb: If you have to speculate about whether this or that conversation is happening, you’re probably not close enough to the situation to be useful. If you can’t pick up the phone and ask one of the parties, “What’s going on?” then you’re probably not positioned to help or insist on private communication.
Speculative and sometimes accusatory writing in public forums, in my opinion, actually do very little to help situations while doing a fair amount to complicate matters and frustrate people. I’ve become a fan of the old rules of engagement: If a person speaks or publishes something for public consumption, that speech or publication is automatically fair game for public critique and correction. It can be useful, courteous, and sometimes necessary to contact a person to be sure you’ve understood them correctly. But public addresses are fair game for public redress. This in no way releases us from all the biblical requirements for charity, grace, and the like. But it does free us to respond where situations warrant.
On Matthew 18 with respect to blog conversations, see this editorial by D.A. Carson.
