A Place for Invective in Polemics?

"Iron sharpens iron, So one man sharpens another." Proverbs 27:17

Debate. Discussion. Argument. Exchange. Reasoning. Polemic. Exciting words for some. Discouraging words for others. A mixture of personality, experience, and setting can determine our attitude regarding these synonyms. Another determining factor is kindness. Should charity be a critical element of discussion? Remember 1 Corinthians 10:31? "Whether, then, you eat or drink or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God." And Galatians 5:21? "But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law. Now those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. If we live by the Spirit, let us also walk by the Spirit." Obedience to God brings glory to Him. Then, if we are Christians, we must show forth the fruit of the Spirit in our lives whether eating, drinking, or debating.

In history, there are many examples of men of the faith who debated men of the church and men of the world. Luther. Calvin. Dabney. Machen. Bahnsen. Etc. Read any one; you can observe their skill in polemic. Dictionary.com defines polemic as "a controversial argument, as one against some opinion, doctrine, etc." or "a person who argues in opposition to another; controversialist." In their vocations, God gave them great gifts of eloquence, forthrightness, and wisdom. It is surely not a overstatement that God providentially used these men and their proclivity for debate to witness to the world.

So what circumstance in debate can detract from our witness or the demonstration of the fruit? Consider invective. Dictionary.com defines invective as, "an insulting or abusive word or expression." Martin Luther is famous for his withering insults. Even today, you can let Luther insult you. See this link. Calvin, so I have been told, is not an exception. (Calvin scholars, do you agree? My experience with reading Calvin is limited. Soon to be rectified!) As the story goes, Dabney stated the the ad-hominem attack was the only one a Darwinist would understand. In this modern age of internet debate and discussion, it seems to be in vogue to follow the example of our forebears and verbally abuse our opposite.

But all of these men were sinners. Should we follow the example of Luther, Calvin, and Dabney? Is invective a gift or a curse? What do we gain by mocking our enemy? Or reviling him? Do our points become better, stronger, or more irrefutable? Do our words become more eloquent or better timed? More importantly, did the impassioned derision lift up the name of God? Or did it detract from the witness? Did it sharpen a man's iron while displaying the fruit of the Spirit for the glory of God? That's the litmus test. If words cannot pass it, then they don't deserve to be spoken, typed, or thought. It's a question we would do well to consider before putting pen to page.

In the end, denouncing someone as a willfully-ignorant, monkey-brained wastrel isn't helpful. It doesn't demonstrate kindness, and it doesn't bring glory to God. Our arguments will never regenerate someone for that is God's work alone. Remembering this, we should demonstrate humility and kindness. For our great intellectual prowess didn't bring us here. God, by His grace, did.

Picture Credit: Google Search