Chris Rosebrough and Dan Kimball

On his radio program, Chris vigorously defended his description of Dan Kimball as a "Christian brother," by which he meant that Kimball believes, teaches, and confesses Christian orthodoxy (i.e. the primary truths that must be affirmed in order to be Christian, and the denial of which makes one a heretic). At the same time, he stressed that Kimball teaches and acts in a way that is not always consistent with the orthodox doctrine he believes (he uses the term heteropraxy to describe this). He didn't go much into detail, however; several times he mentioned that some of what he and Dan spoke about was private.

Chris's show has created confusion and a fair bit of anger and frustration in the circles in which I spend time. There have been a few responses, and some attempts to clarify, and I'm sure that an episode next week on CrossTalk will be used in part to rebut what Chris is saying (or at least the manner in which he's acting).

Another one...

(This was originally posted on a different site, which was taken down, so the context might be lost.)

My wife recently got another critique on the site that took the road less travelled, choosing satire rather than passive-aggressive piety to make its point. I'll let readers decide whether it made any difference.

Again, context, context, context, so here's the note in full (minus the writer's name, which really isn't relevant to his comments or mine).

Is sarcasm sin?

(I originally wrote this in response to an email my wife got about content on a different site, and it dealt specifically with the content of that email.  Since then, my wife has asked that I think about removing the post, since she and the author have had a chance to talk through things productively.  Since I think the general question is still a valid one that many people struggle with, I've recast what I wrote to address that, rather than the initial impetus for my response.)

Sarcasm is a communication tool that tends to produce strong reactions in people when it's done really well or really poorly.  When the speaker is a Christian, the reaction from other believers is often especially harsh.  I frequently get the impression that even if sarcasm isn't sinful, one can't use it without sinning, so the Christian should avoid it. (This sort of rationale should sound very familiar to anyone familiar with pietism.)

I've heard several arguments against the Christian using sarcasm, but they fall into two categories:

1) Sarcasm always tears down and mocks other people

The follow-up, of course, is that behaving in such a fashion is prohibited to believers. This is an easy facile argument; even the dictionary definition of sarcasm emphasizes its mocking quality.

It's true that sarcasm has a cutting edge, and that can be wielded viciously by an expert. But all types of humor are to some extent personality- or culture-based. Some families express their bond through mutual teasing, for example; this is not inherently wrong. That doesn't answer the question of whether it's a proper tool for a Christian in discussing ideas, but the objection regarding sarcasm is rarely raised with that qualification.

I also deny that mockery is always wrong, especially when discussing ideas. There are times when it might be the only way to pierce a shell of complacent self-righteousness; Jesus often did that with the Pharisees (it's pretty obvious in Mt 23:23, but I think it's present in Lk 18:9-14 as well).

2) Sarcasm inflames and divides people

The idea here is that since sarcasm offends and encourages response in kind, it reduces the opportunity to spread the gospel.

I'll grant that we should allow the gospel to be the offense, and not our proclamation style; I'm not trying to make the case that the sarcasm hammer is meant for every rhetorical nail. But...

Sometimes, you need a hammer.

A fire alarm going off in a house of sleeping people may produce strong emotions (it had better produce a reaction!), but it does not inflame the house; it warns of that which is inflaming it.

Yelling "Hey, idiot! Stop running toward the edge of the cliff! What are you, brain-dead?" is mocking only if there isn't a cliff.

We need to be careful about critiquing others for being divisive or otherwise having unloving (and by inference un-Christian) tones. I admit that I really enjoy wordplay, and the right biting comment can be a thing of beauty to me. Yet, as someone who tends more to appeasement than conflict, I've struggled with too-quickly judging someone in my family on this issue; in the past, I've often felt she went too quickly or too often to the long knives when talking about Christian discernment. It's been a learning process for me, and we still disagree on this regularly, but I'm trying hard to evaluate the situation now, rather than immediately judging her motives when speaking.

I bring two big questions into play when thinking about such things:

1. What does speaking the truth in love mean, and what does it look like?
2. How does the "weaker brother" concept come into play when talking about tone, sarcasm, etc.?

That first question is huge, and I'm convinced I'll be trying to answer it for the rest of my life. For now,  I'll just say that I think people fall into two extremes: those who sacrifice truth for the sake of seeming loving, and those who use truth as an excuse to say anything, no matter how hurtful. You'll have to decide which camp you're in (better yet, ask your spouse), but both miss the mark. The problem is that people in one group are sure people in the other group are missing it worse!

The "weaker brother" idea crops up a lot in pietistic circles, and it can become a useful stick to beat others into doing whatever the "weaker" person wants about dress, hair length, alcohol, or whatever. Typically, the argument goes, "If you do X, then you'll be causing me to sin against my conscience by my doing X." That is, X is not sinful per se, but for whatever reason, the weaker brother's conscience considers it to be so, and as Luther said, it's never wise to go against one's conscience. This is a valid consideration that Christians need to keep in mind.

However, in this critique about tone, the argument shifts a bit! Although people may still say the same thing, what they really seem to mean is:

If I said what you just said, then I know I'd be sinning, so you must be sinning, too.

That's an abuse of the concept of the weaker brother, because it labels something as universally sinful because of one's reaction to it, not because of a Scriptural statement.

We need to respect the freedom of conscience in other believers when it comes to non-essentials of the faith and even more so regarding adiaphora. I'm arguing that speaking tone and use of sarcasm and parody fall into that category far more often than many of us are willing to admit.

My response to Chris Rosebrough

[EDIT: Now that I have a little sleep and got some valuable proofreading feedback from others, I went through and cleaned up a couple awkward phrasings and grammar errors. Everything else is the same, and I sent Chris a copy of the original post, in case he has any interest in reading it.]

A couple days ago I posted an outline of the argument Chris Rosebrough made regarding the Ground Zero Mosque (GZM). I've listened to the podcast a couple of times since and edited what I wrote, seeking to make it accurate and complete. I'm comfortable claiming I've made every effort I could to hear Chris out (as he requested) and understand what he was trying to say, even to the point of comparing what was in the original broadcast and the longer, modified podcast.

Now I want to respond to what I heard.

An Outline of Chris Rosebrough's Ground Zero Mosque Argument

EDIT: I didn't get a lot of feedback on my outline, for whatever that's worth. But I've listened to the podcast a couple of times and tweaked what I wrote accordingly. I haven't gotten any confirmation, but it seems the most of the second half of the podcast is different than what was originally broadcast. Its content is largely the same, but the tone was a bit stronger. There was also more discussion of preaching the Gospel, which I've tried to indicate below.

Yesterday, Chris Rosebrough did a show on Fighting For The Faith giving his take on the Ground Zero Mosque (GZM) situation. It was a little different than many I've heard so far, and since I really respect his thinking, I wanted to hear him out, even though my initial take on the bits and pieces he'd thrown out on FaceBook wasn't favorable.