In a day of polarization and politicization, it is easy for any to fall into the trap of speaking of all proponents of any given issue as if they are the most extreme proponents of that issue. It is equally easy for any to fall into the trap of minimizing the extreme end of any group on any given controversial subject. It may be that the collectivization of agendas has created a nearly indistinguishable spectrum on which proponents fall. But, it is equally plausible that we willfully refuse to acknowledge the nuances of adherents of any given debate.

John Newton once wrote a letter on rules of controversy to a fellow minister who informed him of his intention to confront another minister about that minister’s supposed unorthodox doctrine. In this letter, Newton warned the man to 1) consider his opponent, 2) consider the public, and 3) consider himself prior to entering into the fray of theological debate. This sage counsel continues to bear fruit, in a day of internet outrage and trigger happy polemics. No matter the theological issue, we can be sure that a litany of quick-fire responses often only exacerbate the issue for those who are in need of biblical instruction and theologically nuanced clarity. To that end, I would suggest that the antiquarian tripartite modes of persuasion (i.e. ethos, logos, and pathos) are helpful when seeking to engage in theological controversy.

Ethos is an appeal to the ethical character of the person with whom we are debating. Logos is an appeal to the logic or reason of the arguments raised by the person with whom you are debating. Pathos is an appeal to the emotions of the people to whom you are appealing.

Read More