In light of the internet, I thought the following from Jarslov Pelikan, on the matter of ‘polemics’ would be apropos to highlight. He writes:

There were still versions of the “domino theory,” which cautioned that indifference or the leas concession on any point of doctrine could lead to a toleration of the most extreme excesses, but such an admonition that “fundamental truth cannot be ignored except at the cost of salvation” was often accompanied by the acknowledgement that this did not apply to “secondary elements of fundamental doctrine,” nor to the nonfundamental doctrines. Jonathan Edwards could speak of “zeal” expressed in “vigorous opposition” as “the fervor of this flame [of love],” but he cautioned that it was directed “against things, and not persons,” a distinction that was not always easy to observe amid such “zeal.” A theologian with “a contentious nature” could easily abuse doctrinal polemics for self-aggrandizement. Even those who urged the necessity of polemics added that the pulpit was no place for scholastic controversies about obscure theological points. It was, a professor of theology declared in his inaugural lecture of 1696, “the task of the theologian not only to confirm true doctrine, but to refute errors that are opposed to the truth, above all if they are dangerous and pernicious”; but he went on to urge that in polemics the theologian must strive to do justice to the opposing position, not to caricature it, because “nothing should be imputed to someone that he does not acknowledge in deed or in word.”[1]

The temptation for the theologian, the Christian to fall off into the pit of “polemicistry,” is always as near as the sarx (‘flesh’). Our frames remain but dust, but God’s mercy is ever present to buoy us upon his holy breath beyond such vitrolituous downfalls. The human heart homo incurvatus in se has always already been bent upon self-congratulation and elevation. But the cross of Christ contradicts such antics. Thus, the Christian life, existence, is one marked by living in the midst of this battle between the flesh and the Spirit; even, ironically, when the Christian is attempting to present and discuss theology about our blessed Lord.

The internet only amplifies the putrefied heart to the grandiose heights of self-exaltation and muse. It siren calls, even the Christian in step with the Spirit, to toot one’s own horn behind the surliness of the digital confessional; as in a mockery of the holy habitation of the communio sanctorum. May Christ have mercy upon us, the rascally lot we are.

[1] Jaroslav Pelikan, The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine: Christian Doctrine and Modern Culture (since 1700) (Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press, 1989), 57.