When is it ok to be a jerk?
Written by Mark Van Steenwyk : September 10, 2008
I am committed to nonviolence. But sometimes I wish I could reach through the computer screen and slap someone senseless.
If you’ve been visiting blogs for very long, you know what I’m talking about: you stumble into a heated conversation in the comments of a controversial blog post and, as you read stupidity after stupidity, you last out.
Or perhaps you consider yourself a defender of truth. You find yourself on a website where people are saying things that foolishly deride beliefs that you consider non-negotiable. And in your quest to defend the truth, you punitively lash out at the heretics posting their inane drivel.
Or perhaps you stumble into the sort of comments section where all of the above is already happening. You find a blog where the comments are growing and find the discourse less-than-charitable. There you are wondering if there is anything you can do to smooth things over or, perhaps, you feel like jumping into the attack to show those self-righteous assholes just out ridiculous they’re being. But, in the end, you end up being a jerk just to make the point that people shouldn’t be jerks.
What a sad assembly of human failings blogs are! They gather together our prejudices, insecurities, and frustrations and wrap them in anonymity! In real life, few of us would ever call our friends a “heretic” or a “fool” or a “legalistic prick.” Yet, because blogs are filled with people we don’t know, we can say whatever we want without any real consequences.
In an effort to bring healing to these internets, I’d like your thoughts about when it is ok to be an e-jerk. I think we all recognize that 100% civility is not a realistic goal. Nor is it noble. Everyone from Dr. King to Gandhi to Mother Theresa got upset. The Apostle Paul could be ornery with his advesaries. Even Jesus got pissed when the situation required it. Unfortunately, in the Christian blogosphere, the anger of Jesus and Paul have been used to legitimize all manner of stupid anger-mongering. I, for example, was once called a “fool” and a “heretic” by someone who felt like their right to call me such things was based in Scriptural precedent. In response, I called my critic a “son of hell” because, likewise, I was invoking biblical precedent.
Using the “H” Word
Many websites exist simply to chronicle the emergence of heretics. Apprising Ministries and Slice of Laodicea are two among many blogs that set themselves up as guardians of the true Gospel. As guardians, they have focused primarily upon the emerging church phenomenon with some occasional grumpy nods towards the seeker movement. Both sites wouldn’t blink to call some leaders of the “Emergent” church “heretics.” They would probably call most liberal mainliners heretics but I’m assuming that they consider this common knowledge.
Calling a religious person a heretic is like calling a president “Hitler.” It is an over-the-top way of trying to quickly establish the high ground without having to go through all the trouble of reasoned discourse. It is an attempt to put one’s opponent on the defensive so that they have to spend time explaining why they’re NOT a heretic so that one doesn’t have to listen to the sedductive blasphemies the opponent is spewing.
The word “heretic” isn’t a very useful term any more. That isn’t to say that I believe that everyone is orthodox. No, I’m fairly certain that there are still heretics in the world. But calling them heretics doesn’t do much good anymore. Why? Because everyone used the word differently.
I’m of the camp that reserves “heretic” (if I were to use the word) to those who do not affirm the Creeds. And to me, even if you were a formal heretic, I’m not sure that you’d be “out” of God’s grace. I’m fairly convinced that folks like Turtullian and Arius will be skipping along the streets of the New Jerusalem with me someday. A “heretic” is someone who doesn’t believe the important core doctrines of Christianity, but that doesn’t mean that they are hell fodder. Either way, however, the line between orthodox and heterodox is, it seems to me, adherance to the Creeds.
Unfortunately, some folks have raised the bar on orthodoxy, making it easier to be a heretic. I’ve seen the following sorts of things added to their list of heresies:
- non-adherance to the Penal Substitutionary View of the Atonement
- non-adherance to innerancy and infallibility of Scripture
- open-theism
- “letting” women be pastors
- sanctioning same-sex unions
- believe it or not, but I’ve heard some folks say that it is a heresy to believe that God is against violence
There are certainly other issues that have made the “heresy” list. The problem isn’t simply that folks want to add to their heresy list. It is that different groups have different heresy lists. So calling someone a “heretic” is just an inflammatory thing to do that lacks substance, since the accused doesn’t usually get a long explanation of why they have departed from essential belief about God.
Therefore, I suggest that we take the word “heretic” out of our vocabulary. It seems better to call particular beliefs “unorthodox” or “heterodox.” That way there is still room for dialog over why a particular belief is heterodox. It makes all the difference. If you call Brian McLaren a “heretic” it communicates something very different than saying “Brian McLaren’s view of X is heterodox.”
Personal Attacks
It is amazing to me how many people will attack someone else and then claim that they didn’t attack them. Here’s what I mean:
Person A: You’d have to be profoundly stupid or perhaps amazingly naive to believe that the earth is 6,000 years old.
Person B: Hey man, no need to get personal!
Person A: Hey, I didn’t call you stupid. I just said that your beliefs are stupid…there’s a big difference.
Person B: Well…you’re a heretic!
Anytime you’re using mocking language that is meant to belittle someone’s beliefs or ideas, you’re mocking them personally. Here’s how the above conversation could have been handled without personal attacks:
Person A: I’m sorry, but the idea that the earth is 6,000 years old makes no sense to me whatsoever. Everything we’ve learned in science contradicts that belief.
Person B: My view of Scripture requires me to hold this belief, even in the face of so-called scientific “evidence.”
Person A: Is there any amount of evidence that could change your mind?
Person B: You’d have to show me from Scripture.
Person A: That will be challening, since you don’t seem willing to have an open conversation about how modern understandings of the world can inform our reading of Scripture.
Person B: I believe your openness to reading Scripture in light of modern “insights” erodes the authority of Scripture.
Mockery is almost NEVER productive. There are better ways of communicating. The only real reason, it seems to me, that folks mock other people is to rally like-minded folks and encourage them to entrench further. It is similiar to what happens when elementary kids call the fat kid in class “tubby tubby 2 by 4.”
Therefore, I suggest that we refuse to use mocking or inflammatory language (with a few exceptions I list below).
What about Paul and Jesus?
“Hey Mark…what about Paul and Jesus? They acted like jerks sometime. Why shouldn’t we?”
It is true that both Jesus and Paul used forms of mockery for their opponents. They both also went into what could be seen as rants. Because of this, I believe that there is a time and a place for angry rants and mockery. But I think they are overused. Here are some observations about jerky language in the New Testament:
- It tends to be focused on those who could be called oppressors. In other words, jerky language is used more often from the margins towards those in power.
- SImilarly, it is used primarily to warn people about falling into bondage. Paul gets jerky about the Judaizers. Jesus gets jerky with the Pharisees. A Southern Baptist might try to argue that they’re simply doing the same thing with the Emergent Church, but if they want to make such a move, they’d need to substantiate their claims rather than simply employing rhetoric.
- WIth Paul and Jesus, we get context. They use mockery or rants for rhetorical effect within a larger coherent argument.
- Jesus and Paul suffered for their convictions. Also, they demonstrated love and a willingness to receive outcasts. As much as Paul gets a bad rap for being a jerk, he also demonstrates humility and love and a desire for reconciliation. Some blogger guy in American comfort should be careful before laying it on too thick, since their ideas come easily without cost or risk. And yes, I realize that this applies to me.
- Just to play the evangelical card…it could be argued that the New Testament instances of mockery are inspired. I doubt that Mark Driscoll can claim that for himself.
So, it seems to me that we should be jerks sparingly. When we are jerks, we should aim at oppressors and those who put people into bondage. We should be careful to support our jerk-speak with thoughtful reasoning. We should strive to make instances of jerky language pale in comparison to our lives of love. And, throughout it all, we should humbly recognize that we aren’t as right as we think we are.
When have you been a jerk online? Was it justified? Do you have any wisdom for engaging in civil discourse on the web?
Image: The Story of Dick, Jane, and Sally by Wm Jas
Mark Van Steenwyk is the editor of JesusManifesto.com. He is a Mennonite pastor (Missio Dei in Minneapolis), writer, speaker, and grassroots educator. He lives in South Minneapolis with his wife (Amy), son (Jonas) and some of their friends.
Print This Article
Anchored in the West Bank neighborhood of Minneapolis, Missio Dei is committed to following Jesus' way of peace, simplicity, prayer, and hospitality.
Comments
Add New Comment
Viewing 11 Comments
Thanks. Your comment is awaiting approval by a moderator.
Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.
Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.
Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.
Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.
Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.
Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.
Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.
Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.
Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.
Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.
Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.
Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.
Add New Comment
Trackbacks