Keith Giles, over at subversive1, seems to have had an interesting experience regarding a person shutting down the conversation (or the comments) that challenged this individual’s theology/teaching. Keith states that he rarely, if ever, does this kind of public revealing (and I believe him. I just wanted to put that out there), however, he felt compelled to in his post Speaking The Truth In Love.
I can’t say as I disagree with either Keith’s motivation, his acted upon reticence (versus just saying it) to call people out, or his post.Â However, it brings out something that is an ongoing issue, not just in the church, but in general human discourse.Â It is no longer about disagreeing, but it is much more.Â It is more emotional.
For whatever reason, I just thought of the story in U.S. history, when some offended member of the U.S. Legislature decided to go beat some other legislator with a cane in the time leading up to the War Between The States (or the Civil War).
Frankly, a lot of discourse today isn’t discourse, but proverbial caning.Â The real issue is that there are a lot of people that, when challenged, say that the person challenging them is prejudiced in someway, and by calling them prejudiced, seek to (and, sadly, far too often succeed) shut the other person up by what is effectively name-calling.
I could say that Keith was lucky that the posts were only deleted, rather than an ensuing name-calling in an attempt to shut him up.Â However, it is way too easy (and I am prey to this as well) to succumb to the pressure to just “let it go,” and accept them, despite their teaching being contrary to yours.