The term polemic comes from the Greek word for “war” or “battle.” It is not about a battle against personal enemies. For this a different Greek word is used. Christ says of personal enemies that we should love them (Matt. 5:44). But in “war” we are not dealing with personal enemies. In war, one does not even know the opponent’s face or name. This is also the case with polemics, the battle fought with the pen. The purpose of polemics is not to attack someone’s person, but to fight a battle that should comply with what the Bible calls “the good fight” (1 Tim. 1:19). And this battle must be waged, as befits a Christian anywhere, “with faith and a good conscience.”
 

Pitfalls and Obstacles ​⤒🔗

When we talk about church polemics, we are confronted by pitfalls and obstacles. It is as if we are stepping into dangerous minefields where many explosions are possible. Even if we follow a dictionary definition of polemics, which describes it as “defending a church doctrine against the ideas and objections of other denominations,” we are still on hazardous territory. “If anyone is never at fault in what he says, he is a perfect man,” says James, and that also applies to the written word.

Let us mention a few of the dangers. There appears a number of church magazines in the Netherlands each week. Each of them needs to be filled with content. A magazine cannot be published with blank pages in it. The person responsible for the weekly content of such a magazine must be innovative and always ensure a “fresh supply.” That is not easy. When you have to search for a topic, the danger is there that you will only try to find something that you can easily put your finger on. When that happens, there is the danger that polemics will degenerate into hairsplitting or into a war of words about nothing.

Here is a second danger. We pointed out that the very word “polemics” wants to filter the “personal” character out of the fight, as one may extract caffeine from coffee. The slogan and the sincere intention is: we are not attacking persons, we are debating issues. In practice, however, this distinction is not that easy. We are quick to feel personally injured when our positions are attacked. After all, a person’s conviction cannot be separated from his heart and soul! A conviction means something like “a fixed opinion” or “an unshakable feeling.” When someone now begins to “shake” at one’s conviction, one will feel oneself also to be “shaken,” and who would then not react in a personal manner?

A third danger can lie in the “tone” in which polemics is written. One can be merciless in telling, or even announcing, the truth to someone. One can also do it mercifully, especially when it comes to “announcing” truth. To announce something is to make it known in a solemn way. Think, for example, of the announcement that someone has died. It is a delicate matter. It demands that the announcer searches for words that will not come across as “hard.”

The reality is that a person’s criticism of another person’s convictions often comes across as very hard. The idea that “it does not matter how it is said, as long as the truth is spoken” is a false idea that mocks reality.

We know of an occasion where one minister asked his colleague, “Do you ever see people leaving the church during your sermon?” When the latter replied in the negative, the first minister’s response was, “Then you are not preaching well!” For now, we will just mention in passing that this very minister later became so “peace-loving” that he avoided becoming part of any battle whatsoever. Often, such a reaction follows on the stress of exaggerated action. But more than this, the tone really does make the music. It is not a light matter to admonish another person, to point out errors and sins. This is even more the case when it happens in the press, before the eyes of the public. On the other hand, there are often unjustified complaints about “the tone,” made by people who could not muster any arguments and could only present their “feelings” on a matter. All the same, the biblical command still stands: we should instruct even our opposers with gentleness (2 Tim. 2:25).

Many more dangers could be identified. For example, attributing positions to an author which that author never intended to convey. Or gloating over the inconsistencies in someone’s arguments. Furthermore: pretending that one is discussing the issue, while one is actually attacking the person. Then we are not acting “with faith and a good conscience,” but with malice. The temptation is there for every writer to chase after dramatic effect and cheap applause. One way of doing this is to come up with dilemmas that do not actually exist.

Polarization←⤒🔗

Another difficult word, derived from a completely different field than that of theology and the writing of articles and books. In practice it means: emphasizing differences to such an extent that people are unnecessarily alienated from one another. D. Koole has made some important remarks about this in De Wekker, the magazine of the Christelijk Gereformeerde Kerken (Christian Reformed Churches). He pointed out, as we did earlier, the danger of having columns to fill on a weekly basis: “Nowadays writing has become a ‘must’—a sacred duty. Pages have to be filled all over again every week. Writers strive to find suitable topics, to develop thoughts about them and then to add them to the spiritual supplies of their readers. Many resources for writing can be found in what others have said or written. And one word calls for a next word to be spoken.”

One can indeed sharpen one’s own thought by interacting with the thoughts of others. Koole rightly points out, however, that it is not a matter of indifference how one makes this interaction public. He continues, “Of course, where incorrect ideas and dubious notions exist in the churches, these have to be identified and refuted, but then always with prudence, with an attitude of general and Christian respect, and never in an atmosphere of personal attack.” The author is not referring here to the discussion of specific untruths and errors, but to matters and questions that are still being discussed in the churches and to which the final answer is not always immediately apparent.

Up to this point we can agree with him, but when he offers concrete examples, we may ask whether these can truly be classified as instances of objectionable polarization. Example 1: “How do you think did the outside world look on as we bickered and squabbled over “the future unity of the church?” We ask: was that merely bickering and squabbling and nothing more?

Example 2: “What about the report in the newspapers that the Gereformeerde Kerken Vrijgemaakt (Liberated Reformed Churches) has accused the Nederlands Gereformeerde Kerken (Dutch Reformed Churches) in their synod of “false doctrine,” such as the denial of eternal election and reprobation.” We say: if this is really what is at stake, are we talking about trifling matters?

Finally, example 3: “Think also of the public objections that were raised from out of our reformed circles against the Evangelical Broadcast a few weeks ago, and to which the chairman of this broadcast reacted quite sharply in the Koers magazine.” We ask: does such criticism fall under “unnecessary polarization?” According to Koole it does. He lists these three examples under “mutual wrangling and squabbling.” And he points out that the “world outside of the church” is reading over our shoulders and that this leads to “ridicule and scorn surrounding the Christian faith.”

We should not forget: the world outside of the church sometimes has no idea of what central issues are at stake. Fortunately, this is not always the case. I think of what the journalist Martin Ros remarked about the 1940s debate regarding covenant and baptism: In the heat of the moment (the war year of 1944), was it not to be expected that the ultimate questions of faith would take centre stage? (Hervormd Nederland of September 12, 1987).

Without entering now into the three examples mentioned by Koole, we would like to enter deeper into the phenomenon of polemics itself. After all, it has a broad background, deeply rooted in history.

Theological Polemics←⤒🔗

God’s revelation did not enter a “neutral” world, but a world full of sin and error. The first promise of God, in Genesis 3:15, remains valid long after the Fall. If we limit ourselves to the period of the New Testament, we see how God attacks, through his Word, the apostasy and error among his own people – first among the Jews and then also among the Gentile Christians. The Christian church therefore saw it as their clear calling to continue in this course of the Bible. The church fathers fought all kinds of errors and the first councils have had to cut off many heresies. It was a “defensive and offensive war,” sometimes divided into apologetics and polemics. The former aims at defending the Christian faith against all kinds of attacks. The latter attacks all kinds of errors. Yet, just as attack is sometimes the best defense, it is not always possible to make a sharp distinction between the two. When the Israelis acted with lightning speed to destroy the Egyptian air fleet in the six-day war in 1967, it was all for the sake of successful defence.

However, in theological polemics it is not about the “war” as such, but about the preservation of true peace. Here too the principle applies: whoever wants to preserve peace must be prepared for war! That is why it is said that honest polemics functions in the service of irenics (“peace”). Polemics may not sprout from a desire to fight. Christ has indeed called the “peacemakers” blessed (Matt. 5: 9). It will always be necessary to test ourselves, to see whether we are polemicizing out of a desire to fight or out of a love of peace. For how quickly can a battle not be distorted by wrong, sinful, yes, evil motives. It is not for nothing that the “rabies theologorum” — the fury of theologians — should also be pointed out when we study church history. We should also be aware of this in our own age. H. Colijn, our former prime minister, once expressed the wish that theological debates could be conducted only in Latin, so that the peace of the church need not be disturbed by them. He was wrong about the actual situation. Even when, in the Middle Ages, these battles were being fought in Latin, they were often far from being a “holy” war.

For example, one theologian once wished his opponent a speedy promotion to higher glory. In plain language this meant: fall dead. Oh, the fury of theologians!

Areas of Theological Polemics←⤒🔗

Because God’s Word is the source and measure of all of Christian life, the offensive and defensive battle will play an important role in the interpretation of the Bible. Anyone who says “the Bible is only a book that records how religious people thought about matters in their time,” evokes such a struggle.

Then there is also dogmatics, which has the church’s teaching as its subject and is meant to maintain “wholesome doctrine” and to combat error. Because the doctrine of the church of all ages has been recorded in the confessions, these will occupy a significant place in our intended battle. That has to do with symbolics — a theological subject that deals with the confessions. Because the Bible speaks very clearly about our behaviour, the theological subject of ethics will also have a polemical character.

These dogmatic, symbolic and ethical foundations create a framework in which the proper order of the church play an important role, such that church polity also cannot do without polemics in its explanations and defenses. The same applies to the so-called diaconal subjects (which deal with the offices in the church).

Because the church in this world is still “on its way,” church history also deserves a great place in the reflection of all Christians. After all, God’s Word has not come to their generation only, but has addressed and captivated the hearts of people for many ages. This legacy can be found in the exegetical, dogmatic, symbolic, ethical, church political and other books and writings. If there is one danger in this area, it is the danger of the falsification of history. That is why a strong apologetic and polemical battle will always be necessary in this area. And then we have not even touched on the great importance of evangelism and mission.

The Armour of God←⤒🔗

The church always has to be putting on the “armour” of God, as we read in Ephesians 6:10-20. The number of military terms used in this text is striking. It is completely in line with the Old Testament, in which God himself is declared to be a warrior. In the New Testament we are confronted with the same battle, now waged with spiritual weapons. These weapons are qualities and activities that do not originate with man himself, but are given by God. They include weapons both for defence and for attack. The sword of the Spirit next to the shield of faith, but also: the feet fitted with the readiness of the gospel of peace. The gospel of peace! Whether one defends himself on his strong and mobile feet, or whether he uses his feet to walk forth and attack with the sword of the Spirit, in this war – polemos – the aim is peace with God through the blood of the cross, the reconciliation work of Jesus Christ. The “spiritual weapons” serve to bring those who are “near” and those who are “far off” to obedience to Jesus Christ, submitting themselves to his “easy yoke” and his “light burden.” Practically, this also implies that we “take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ” (2 Cor. 10:5).

Thus, the church stands on the front line, but then on a front line that is not only directed toward the outside, but also toward the inside. It is about every person. For the aim of the battle is: to instruct and to admonish everyone in all wisdom (through apologetics and polemics, amongst other things), in order to present everyone perfect in Christ. This is what Paul was always toiling and “struggling” for (Col. 1:28-29).

It should be pointed out that Paul here, as in a few other places, uses a word for “struggle” which is derived from the world of sports. We are dealing with a new metaphor here. This shows that the battle is neither an earthly war with earthly weapons nor an earthly contest with earthly medals, but that it is always a spiritual battle. The background of this battle, both in the Old and New Testament, is human guilt. This human guilt before God has been caused by Satan, who enticed man to sin. And so, when we read of “war” (“polemos”) in Revelation 12:7, it is about overcoming the ruler of darkness, the father of the lie, therefore: victory over error, falsehood and sin. It is a fully spiritual battle. Thus, it is quite biblical to say with K. Schilder, “He who does not polemicize has not repented.” After all, the spiritual battle is “the good fight.” Schilder has also explained himself more precisely: “I am convinced that a person who is not polemicizing, is not busy repenting.” Not busy repenting. It is therefore about the concrete, present situation. Proper polemics is not done out of a general fighting spirit, but out of a readiness to fight when necessary. Hopefully more about this at another time.