|
My mentor, Greg Bahnsen, cited 1 Corinthians 13:5-7 to support the proposition that we must always treat our intellectual opponents in a loving and scholarly manner, which always assumes the best about their intentions and puts the best possible construction on their argument. We do better to refute the best formulation of a position than the worst (even though it's easier to refute the worst formulation of an argument than the best, and we look the best “on stage” when we are seen “crushing” another man's argument). And if it turns out that the argument is true -- despite all the other errors the messenger may entertain -- we do well to learn all we can from it, rather than killing the messenger. Too often we try to “refute” arguments by insulting the messenger, or labeling the messenger (“He's not part of our group, he's a ________ist.” [fill in the name of a rival theological camp)] and this is an instance of the logical fallacy known as ad hominem (“against the man” rather than against his argument).
In spite of the seriousness with which I take my calling as a minister, I don’t doubt my capacity for error and the need to be open to critique. Reviews are great ways of taking on board important critiques that lead to further reflection and correction. However, as I tell students in class, you have to earn the right to critique first by stating the position held by others in terms that they would at least recognize as fair. It’s one thing to say that you believe a certain view should lead logically to such-and-such a conclusion; it’s quite another to misrepresent someone’s view as actually advocating a position that he or she in fact rejects.
Why Befriend Your Opponents? Bavinck on ‘Critical’ Friendship