Back Porch Neighborliness

Okay, this is going to be a challenge. I’m on a rather small airplane, and the passenger in front of me has leaned back so that I can’t open up my computer enough to be able to see the screen as I type. I really wasn’t intending to get my computer out on this flight. But I was reading Dallas Willard, and I was just struck by something I need to write. There will be typos, but I know I’ll get a chance to rewrite this before I post it [which I have now done, and I hope the typos are all cleared away].

For several weeks I’ve sensed something has gone off track with this blog. I’ve just figured out what it is.

I’ve been reading the teaching of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount, as expounded by Dallas Willard in the Divine Conspiracy. I quoted from this book a few days ago, on the topic of loving one’s neighbor, and I noted Willard’s conclusion that the question is not, “Who qualifies to be my neighbor?” but, “To whom will I be a neighbor?”

Fast-forward a few blog posts and you have my restatement of my discussion guidelines. What I intended to portray there was that discussions ought to be friendly, good-natured, and kind. But I realize now that in the “back porch” analogy I used there, I contradicted what I had learned about being a neighbor. I said, in effect, “There are some people out there to whom I will not be a neighbor, and to whom I will not be hospitable.”

I made the quality of the argument or the discussion the major thing. This was wrong. I have been in error in d. Following that standard, I’ve made decisions about who may contribute here, and those decisions made sense under the standard I had set; but the standard was wrong.

I intend now to ensure that the importance of the relationship or of the person (the contributor) will outweigh the importance of the argument.

That is not to say I will contend any less vigorously for truth. It is also not to say there will be no standards for discussion, or that no person will ever be excluded. I’ve revised the comment guidelines slightly just now, but for the most part they say what they have said before. The difference, I hope, will be in the approach and the application.

But I am introducing a new standard which calls for some explanation. (This may come as a surprise to some.) Taking the Bible as guide, there are some persons who cannot expect to be treated with neighborly hospitality on the “back porch.” Two key passages explain it. The first is 1 John 7-11, which is understood by major commentators to be a warning in reference to persons who claim to be followers of Christ but are in fact false teachers:

“Do not receive him into your house or give him any greeting, for whoever greets him takes part in his wicked works.”

(In context of the culture, the “greeting” was not just “hi, how are you” while passing on the sidewalk; it was a significant expression of welcome, an invitation to spend extended time together.) The second relevant passage is 1 Corinthians 5:9-13, where Paul says we certainly ought not to try to disassociate ourselves from persons outside the church who practice various kinds of misdeeds; but we are

“not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one.”

(Please note carefully – see verse 5 of the same chapter – that this action is redemptive, not punitive, toward the person in question; it is for the purpose of waking up such persons, in hopes that they will return to godly living and be saved from the destruction of their soul. Other passages supporting this attitude are Matthew 18:15-17 and Galatians 6:1-2, both of which clearly point toward restoration and redemption as their goals.)

Based on the teaching in these two passages, I will quite intentionally apply a separate standard for one group. The “back porch” will welcome all kinds of people, but this welcome does not include those who claim to be followers of Christ yet bring manifestly false teaching about the faith, or who promote or practice wrong practices in Biblical terms.

That means I’m reversing my decision to ban some people from commenting. I ask that in return, you show respect to your fellow visitors here. Please respect also the fact that (as one person reminded me in a private discussion on this) even Christians are under no moral obligation to give everyone a chance to speak at every meeting.

The bottom line: I will continue to contend for the truth of the good news of Jesus Christ; but the importance of the argument is not as great as the importance of the persons who visit here.

You may also like...

6 Responses

  1. Charlie says:

    Good show, Tom, and best of luck.
    Only partially off-topic, Willard’s book has been huge in my life. I read it last summer and was challenged page after page. I’ve loaned it out to others and think every Christian should read it.
    Willard’s take on the Sermon on the Mount, the Lord’s Prayer, discipleship to Christ, Heaven, honouring your father and mother and life after death, etc. was more than just enlightening. This book inspired a significant change in my attitude and outlook on life and this change has been very noticeable to people in my life.

    Unfortunately, I don’t think it has been visible in my online arguments – except insofar as I am less inclined to enter the fray.

  2. SteveK says:

    My back porch was 105 today so I’d perfer to visit some of you neighbors in cooler regions. We spent the day at Huntington Beach with about 1 million of our closest friends.

  3. Heath says:

    I am a rather new reader to this blog, but I am interested in how you will go about discerning who are “false teachers” and what standard you will apply to deciding what is and is not false teaching about the faith. As many groups of Christians are often in disagreement as to what constitutes an orthodox position, it seems a difficult standard to enforce withour a detailed explanation as to what is and is not false teaching.

    For example, I notice you are a memeber of the SBC. Would that preclude those of us who hold views vastly diffrent from Calvin from contributing to the discussion here? What about proponets of Open Theism, Wesleyanism, Methodism, etc.? Shall Reformed theology serve as the standard for orthodoxy? If so, you may miss out on some very informative and productive discussions because of an unwillingness to be challenged on matters of faith…

    Just a suggestion, but perhaps it really is best to just allow people to discuss the matter openly and without threat of expulsion and then let their comments stand or fall on their own merit…

  4. Tom Gilson says:

    Good question, Heath. My standard is what C.S. Lewis called Mere Christianity. Within that realm are included almost all of the groups you mentioned except for probably Open Theism, which has a significantly reduced view of God. The historic creeds provide a good framework for describing the framework.

    Deciding whether someone does or does not fit into that general set of Christian beliefs has not been hard in practice over the several years I’ve been blogging. The decision on whether someone’s invitation to participate will continue to stand is mine, but I often ask for advice from other Christians who blog here. That’s how it has worked.

    To allow people to “discuss the matter openly and let things stand or fall on their own merit” is indeed the general goal I have for this blog. Desiring to follow Scripture, however, and to apply it to a new medium of communication, I conclude there must be a place where the line is drawn. Otherwise I would be failing to follow the wise counsel of God’s word.

    It is those who come inside, representing themselves as members of the family of God, who “stir up division” (Titus 3:10), with whom, we are advised, we are to have nothing to do after two or three warnings.

    Experience has in fact shown this can happen on the blog. It’s a new medium, a new kind of “fellowship,” and this is how I think the timeless principles probably best apply here.

    So please note that I’m not closing any new doors with what I’ve stated in this blog. I’ve opened new doors. This in regard to false teachings by professed Christians is not a new standard in the Bible or in my own thinking, but it was certainly about time that I let readers know about it.

  5. Tom Gilson says,

    “Within that realm [Mere Christians] are included almost all of the groups you mentioned except for probably Open Theism, which has a significantly reduced view of God.”

    I have been reading about open theism and am interested in what sense it has a “reduced view of God.” I hadn’t noticed that. Thanks!

  6. Tom Gilson says:

    I’m not that well-read on it, Bob. That’s why I used the word “probably.” I have reason to worry about Open Theism, but my reasons are second-hand, so I’m not presuming to make my own judgment on it.

    What I find is that other thinkers I trust, like John Piper, have that view of Open Theism (see also here), but I am not equipped to speak to it much more than I have.