Verbosity is counter-productive

So since my last post on dialoguing was basically a book due to my tendency to be exhaustive on my blog as I just throw all of my thoughts out there, I thought I'd sum it up.

Really, my entire post can be boiled down to this one point: is it not appropriate to be trenchant when necessary? When something is abhorrent, or irrational, or immoral, or harmful, or a gross distortion of the Gospel, shouldn't we be truthful in our critique of it and thus choose language that is sufficiently strong? We can disagree on what specific instances qualify for such strong speech (what practices or beliefs fit the above characterization), but it's hard to argue that it is not necessary to be trenchant at times (in whatever context God calls, including ecumenical dialogue) in order to be truthful or that it is "un-Christlike" to do so. To soften it in these instances would be to compromise the hard truth, plain and simple, even if it is done in order to avoid offending people or allegedly to be "more effective" (and if the truth is not spoken, you are guaranteeing lack of effectiveness since no one will hear the truth) . These type of strong critiques are bound to offend by their very nature, and that is not at all necessarily a fault of those who proclaim them (prophets and Jesus were both quite unpopular, even in the eyes of most, at times). The frequency of this kind of speech will be person dependent. Professional theologians and philosophers who have their hands deep in controversial issues at great length will find themselves needing to do this more often than your average Joe Christian.

On certain issues, it is impossible to make our message more tolerable or less offensive without at the same time being less truthful. In the case in question, both Collins and I have talked to Spirit-filled Christians (not that being one of those guarantees good judgment) who either were fine with or were supportive of his antics in the talkback session and in class.

This one story is sufficient to show that the appropriateness of speech, just like God's love, is not to be measured by a largely positive response ("being effective"), unless we are willing to say Christ was being un-Christlike. Here is Jesus offending and turning away His own disciples with truth:

John 6:60-66
On hearing it, many of his disciples said, "This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it? Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, "Does this offend you? What if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life. Yet there are some of you who do not believe." For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. He went on to say, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him." From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.

There, much more swallow-able!

Yours succinctly,

Kyle