In my work with TGC Africa I’ve become aware of various discernment ministries around Africa. Invariably, they engage in what we would call polemical theology. As D. A. Carson defines it, “Polemical theology is nothing other than contending for a particular theological understanding (usually one that the contender holds to be the truth) and disputing those that contradict or minimise it.” Though discernment blogging typically majors in disputing aberrant teaching or practices and abuses, the definition fits. But in the short editorial where Carson provides that definition, he also issues a few timely warnings for those who engage in critical theological dialogue—from discernment blogging to response videos. For, as my title suggests, polemical theology is a necessary but perilous undertaking.

In the two sections below I’ll make a case for polemical theology and rescue it from how it tends to be mischaracterised; and then unpack some of the warnings in Carson’s essay for those engaged in critical theology, discernment ministries and reacting to others’s theology in general.

The Necessity of Polemical Theology

Firstly, polemics are both unavoidable and necessary. As Carson argues, it’s difficult to take a theological position seriously unless it also examines other positions offering “serious engagement with those who disagree.” Therefore, writes Carson, “It is not easy for Christians to be entirely free of polemics, and it is not wise to attempt such freedom.”

Secondly, there is a biblical precedent for polemical theology. Carson illustrates this with a host of biblical texts—from Isaiah to Galatians, both Jesus’ parables and his lampooning of the Pharisees—before writing, “In a world of finite human beings who are absorbed in themselves and characterised by rebellion against God, polemical theology is an unavoidable component of any serious theological stance, as the Bible itself makes clear.”

Thirdly, in light of the previous two points, we simply can’t dismiss polemical theology. This is done under a variety of banners, but perhaps primarily in the name of a naive peacefulness. If being angry without sin is possible (Ephesians 4:26), then surely one can disagree without it as well. Furthermore, just as there are truths worth fighting for, there are errors to address. This is well captured in Paul in Titus 1:9, “He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it.”

Fourthly, the arena of polemical theology is one where we must pay special attention to tone and mood, our own deceitful hearts. When disagreeing our attitude and manner is paramount. There’s a reason polemical theology—and some strands of apologetics—have negative connotations. However that doesn’t mean a moratorium on the practice; instead, it’s a call to be Christian when engaged in theological dialogue.

Abusus non tollit usum.

Polemics, Pitfalls and Spiritual Perils

With its place established, we must turn our attention to the perils of polemical theology. In his Exegetical Fallacies, Carson insists that “persistent negativism is spiritually perilous.” From his editorial we can tease out at least three ways in which this is true.

Firstly, as Carson puts it, “there is something wrong-headed about making polemical theology the focus of one’s theological identity.” Reflecting on his essay, that word “identity” stands out. For a self-understanding built around what one isn’t—apophatically defined—isn’t an identity. Perhaps an easy example is the notion that being Reformed means that you aren’t Roman Catholic. Of course, that says nothing about the riches of Reformed theology. Contradistinction has its place, but knowing what you aren’t doesn’t tell you who you are.

Secondly, Carson continues, “Some become far better known for what they are against than for the overflow of their worship or for their generosity to the needy or even for their affirmation of historically confessed truth.” Hot-takes are as easy as throwing shade. And there exists am insatiable appetite for both online. We love those flames and readily confuse graceless polemics with a godly presence. Don’t get me wrong: Jesus occasionally lashed the proverbial whip in his teaching; it just isn’t what we remember him for. “Set the believers an example,” not in antagonism or aggressive rebuttals but, “in speech, in conduct, in love, in faith, in purity” (1 Timothy 4:12).

Finally, “at the risk of a generalisation,” observes Carson, “those who spend their lives refuting and correcting fellow believers but who rarely engage at a serious level with ideas and stances in the broader world almost always find themselves at increasing odds with more and more believers.” His point here is slightly different but related to those preceding it. Instead of ceaselessly critiquing those within the Church, Carson exhorts Christians to work at standing beside other believers and looking at the world. There’s an apt word, often attached to Christians: internecine, which describes destructive infighting whereby all sides are hurt. At the risk of being repetitious, there’s a place for polemical theology but not if it blinds us to “the common heritage of Christians.”

Know Its Place, Beware Its Perils

In closing let me reiterate what I set out to say in the two sections above. On the one hand, polemical theology has its place. Refuting error, defending the truth and positively presenting sound doctrine is all necessary. There is also a well-documented biblical precedent for it. On the other hand, there are many pitfalls in making it one’s aim to always be refuting error or correcting others. “God knows there is plenty of error to confute,” writes Carson. But, he goes on, majoring in that “is likely to diminish the joyful affirmation of truth and make every affirmation of truth sound angry, supercilious, self-righteous—in a word, polemical.”