Polemics requires careful counterbalance in the life of its authors. One must take pains to abet polemic argument with use of the means of grace of devotional scripture reading, prayer, fellowship, and attendance to the worship services of the church, lest one’s piety become polemic and not gracious, reverent, and productive of love toward God and Man.

The following reflections are unscientific and ‘off the cuff,’ as it were, and they are presented in no particular order of importance. I have gleaned them from my own practice of polemics over the last three years, and submit them in the hope that they will spur my readers to more careful reflection on the nature of polemic writing and of both writing and reading it.

1. Polemics must be limited to matters of consequence. “Avoid foolish controversies, genealogies, dissensions, and quarrels about the law, for they are unprofitable and worthless” we are told (Tit. 3:9); yet the same apostle who did so also instructed Titus to rebuke those that depart from the faith into error (1:9, 13), and he himself “had no small dissension and debate with” the opponents of sound doctrine (e.g., the Judaizers, Acts 15:2) and even rebuked the otherwise faithful when they erred (Gal. 2:11-14).
2. Polemics must be one part of the larger intellectual life and practice of the church, and must accompany apologetics, works of mercy and witness, and the general teaching of sound doctrine. Probably its part in comparison to these other things should be small, even very small. Many people who might not be won with even the most eloquent and well-attested arguments may be won by the witness of Christian love in action (e.g., that “they may be won without a word,” 1 Pet. 3:1; comp. 2:12, 15; 3:16; Matt. 5:16; Tit. 2:7-8). Most people are not of an intellectual frame at all, much less a robust one that is buttressed by wide reading in the best academic disciplines and authors. Polemics has a doubtful ability to affect them directly for the good, whereas demonstrated sincerity and goodness might.
3. The question of who ought to engage in polemics is a timely one. Certainly, there is occasion for those who hold office to do so, but they must take great care that polemic involvement does not undermine their authoritative teaching of truth. Martyn Lloyd Jones has an extensive teaching on this in his Preaching and Preachers, in which he gives an example of an able man who ruined his ministry by excessive polemics.[1] There is much to be said for much of the polemic work of the church (speaking of it broadly, and not merely as an institution such as a particular denomination) being done by academics like seminary professors or even members of the church who do not hold office. This prevents officers from being distracted and undermining their duty of teaching sound doctrine, administering the sacraments, and providing counsel to those who are suffering.
4. Polemics can and should include sound doctrine. It must not only contradict, but also offer the alternative, and the failure to do this is a frequent failing (speaking of my own writing). While polemics presupposes that what it controverts is mistaken, it cannot presuppose that its audience knows the opposite truth and must try to share it openly as well.
5. Tone matters in polemics, though the tone that is appropriate will vary depending on whom or what is being controverted. There is occasion to wax indignant at times, but also much to be said for gracious and gentle disagreement. (“Have mercy on those who doubt;save others by snatching them out of the fire; to others show mercy with fear, hating even the garment stained by the flesh,” Jude 22-23). Thankfully the polemics of the present is not nearly so ugly as that of previous generations, but this lack of ferocity is not always a virtue—there are occasions where a man ought to be angry when he sees the sheep of God assaulted.
6. Polemics ought not to stop at argument, but should include the appeal to the errant to recognize their error and repent, as well as appeals to action. Hence when I controverted ByFaith’s inaccurate reporting on causes of children’s deaths in the United States – itself a civil matter that is hardly appropriate for consideration in the ecclesiastical realm – I not only showed the error of their claims, but also urged readers to contact ByFaith and urge them to retract the erroneous article in question.
7. Polemics must be realistic in its aims. Probably few people will be converted entirely to the author’s views on account of a single controversial work (of whatever length), and many of the readers are apt to be people who already agree to a greater or lesser extent. But while polemics may not win over opponents fully or en masse, it can achieve the limited but useful goal of helping to warn its readers against error, inform them of the progress of various errant ideas within the church, to see things more clearly, and to be at least partly swayed to the truth. I doubt I have ever had correspondence from a reading saying something like ‘I have come over entirely to your way of thinking because of your latest article on Topic X.’ But with some regularity I have correspondence saying things like ‘thank you for putting that into perspective,’ or ‘that latest article summarized the nature of the controversy well and helped me to comprehend what is going on,’ or ‘I had no idea such things were being discussed in our denomination,’ or ‘I am not entirely convinced, but I see your point and will give this matter more thought and attention in the future.’ Polemics aims to wholly win everyone to its own position, but recognizes that its actual results are likely to be much less than that noble aspiration; further, that in God’s providence truth is appointed not only to convince and win men, but also to repel them (Isa. 6:9-13), such that it might sometimes seem to be counterproductive.
8. Polemics requires careful counterbalance in the life of its authors. One must take pains to abet polemic argument with use of the means of grace of devotional scripture reading, prayer, fellowship, and attendance to the worship services of the church, lest one’s piety become polemic and not gracious, reverent, and productive of love toward God and Man.
9. Polemics ought to be used sparingly, and ought to be engaged with what an author has recently called, quite astutely, reluctance. One should not be eager to argue – and whether done wisely or not, polemics is always argument – and should be willing to let many things pass in peace. There is an idea abroad that one should leave nothing in the world that displeases one without making an attempt to address it publicly. That is sheer nonsense: if one wrote an article on every silly or erroneous idea that rears its head, one would have no time for anything else. Indeed, any man who attempted to do so would end his days in an asylum, or else (asylums being out of fashion these days) as a bitter and broken failure. There is simply not enough time in the world, and man’s constitution is simply too weak and his other duties so comparatively large, that no one can manage to controvert more than a small, carefully chosen part of all that he disapproves.
10. Polemics is a special activity which ought to be performed only by those who have the right gifts and calling. It requires not only an understanding of the matters in view and of their likely practical and logical consequences, but also the personal ability to disengage and, as above, prevent it from dominating one’s life and making misery of it. Probably those who should engage in public theological and ecclesiastical polemics with any regularity are very few; and well might those who do not have this unpleasant calling account themselves blessed.
11. A good polemic author desires his readers to make use of his writings sparingly and to read them in combination with far more of other things, especially things (as reverent, prayerful scripture reading) that are edifying. In the political sphere there are many people who feed themselves a steady diet of political polemics and thereby put themselves in a state of constant irritation. The same will happen in the ecclesiastical and theological sphere if the reader of its respective polemics does not keep such polemics in its proper (read: comparatively small) place.
12. Polemics welcomes disagreement. As orthodoxy made itself more clear and showed its own goodness in conflict with heresy in the ancient church, so also does contemporary polemics help to sharpen our thinking upon matters of consequence. As light is distinguished best in comparison to darkness, not other intensities or colors of light, so also does error help truth to shine that much clearer. But this welcoming of disagreement is provisional, not absolute. As temptation to error must needs come (Lk. 17:1), polemics welcomes it being brought into the open that its depravity and the comparative goodness of truth may be shown. But it does not revel in evil, nor enjoy disagreement. It welcomes disagreement that evil may be exposed (Eph. 5:11) and its hold on men broken. Viewed from another angle, a polemic writer also values disagreement from his own camp. The best correspondence is that which says, ‘I largely agree with you, but—’ and then proceeds to question whether a particular argument might have proved too much, or to ask clarification on some point. Such questions or contradiction, whether via private correspondence or public controversion, play an important part in a polemic author sharpening his own thinking. One of my favorite articles, “On Properly Distinguishing Law and Gospel,” was written in response to a gentleman publicly disagreeing with me and quite reasonably suggesting I was not clear as I ought to have been on the point in question.

Again, the above points do not represent an exhaustive list of all that may be said about polemics, nor do they involve a full, robust theory of its practice. Consider them helpful advice, not anything that aspires to be a definitive treatment upon the subject. And if you find that you have stumbled in any of the points above, whether in the reading or the writing of polemics, then take heed and mend your ways for the better.

Tom Hervey is a member of Friendship Presbyterian Church in Laurens County, South Carolina. The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of his church or its leadership or other members. He welcomes comments at the email address provided with his name. He is also author of Reflections on the Word: Essays in Protestant Scriptural Contemplation. 

[1] In the chapter “What to Avoid,” pp. 258-261 in the 1972 Zondervan edition.