One of the challenges about engaging in discussion online, whether through blogs or social media (in fact Twitter/X was originally described as a ‘microblog’ site) is that it can sometimes feel like the conversation has got tense. It can feel like that in a conversation, both as you read what others say to you and wonder what tone it is said in and as you wonder or even pick up on the tone that others are experiencing from you. Then there are the ways that others looking in might perceive what has been said. Again, someone might read a blog article as direct, personal or confrontational. Or they may perceive a conversation on Facebook and Twitter as an argument which it may or may not be.
There are ways to avoid such dangers. First of all, you can limit who you interact with. If you only interact with people who agree with you, then you won’t get into arguments. Similarly, you can be careful not to talk about contentious issues. I don’t think there is a right or wrong here. I don’t think we are particularly under any compulsion to engage with people who disagree with us or to talk about specific topics. However, I also think it can be a positive, especially when those disagreeing are friends as that shows a willingness to engage and be friends with people who might disagree with you. So, I wanted to share some thoughts about how we can navigate contention. I’m not claiming to be an expert who gets this right everytime.
First, it is worth saying that there are two types of overall online engagement, especially in the blog and social media world. There are those who set up primarily to be provocative, to challenge and debate. You might say that they go looking for fights. There can be two reasons for this. First, in pure and simply terms, controversy sells and even if you are not charging for subscriptions, traffic to websites does matter to most. Engaging in hot potato subjects can drive up your readership. So, some blogs and sites have a specifically polemic feel to them. Secondly, some people feel passionately that in a kind of prophetic way they have been set apart for the task of calling out either the church or wider society over its sin and idolatry.
I am not convinced that this is healthy. I’m not convinced that our overall disposition should be of those out looking for a fight. First because we need to be cautious about taking on prophetic roles and pronouncing judgements outside of clear, specific, special revelation from God. Secondly because when that is our take, we can become presumptuous. We presume we have a helicopter view to see the whole picture when we don’t. Thirdly because I fear that such a disposition tends to feed into our own spiritual and emotional health. We become negative and hostile.
However, many people don’t specifically set out to be contentious or polemic. Take for example Think Theology (Andrew Wilson), Psephizo (Ian Paul) or Ministry Nuts and Bolts (Chris Green). I hope too that we might include Faithroot.com in that list though with nowhere near the same reach of those big, high profile blogs. What those sites have in common is that they aren’t set up to be polemic. That aren’t even set up to offer day to day controversy. What you will find though in each of those cases (including with Faithroots) is two things.
- Whether or not intended as such, some of what they say will be contentious in some quarters. People will disagree with them, passionately.
- From time to time they will engage with issues that are contentious and so in effect will write polemically.
That being so, it is worth considering what we should do when we find ourselves in such situations. First, what do we do when we find ourselves in a more contentious debate discussion? Here are three things I think we should try to do.
- Engage with the substance of the argument, not the person and think charitably of their motives.
- If things feel tense/personal in public discourse, try to find ways to take the heat out of the situation. This might include attempting to speak to them one to one, privately and if possible face to face.
- Be willing to walk away (not storm off) from an argument. Try to leave well and graciously. Try to keep doors open. I in a couple of instances have decided that this means removing parts of articles, comments I’ve made or even taking down whole articles. This is not necessarily because I believe what I’ve said was wrong or untrue but simply it isn’t worth that level of heat.
The other side of the coin is that whilst there may at times be good reason to engage with a controversy, we need to be careful about when, how and why. Indeed, in my experience, people are more likely to catch sight of the polemic stuff, even if it is infrequent and even if the majority of what you write isn’t polemic. People can still let those pieces dominate their attention so that they perceive you/your work as polemic or defensive.
In other words, we shouldn’t pick fights, we should pick our battles. This means first being alert to the potential cost/fall out from any contribution. Secondly, we need to think carefully about which issues to engage on. For me, there are really three tests.
- Is it a significant issue that it could have a negative impact on either the local church or the wider church and so needs challenging?
- Is there an opportunity here for wider teaching for the church?
- Is there anyone who needs or would benefit from/appreciate being defended/supported when they are being unfairly attacked?
In each of those situations we should further ask.
- Am I under an obligation to engage?
- Is anyone better placed/equipped to engage?
- Is anyone engaging? (it may be that others should be best placed but they choose to remain silent).
Well those are my thoughts. How would you approach the issue?
Faithroots 