Being gracious does not mean backing down and shutting up when something needs to be said. At the very least, you’d think God might have considered it wise to have taken down many of the verses in the canon which might cause offence to the delicate ears of future generations? God, it seems, doubles down when he means what he says. We should not be afraid to stand by our convictions when we are convinced they are in line with His convictions. 

Zachary Garris is an American Presbyterian pastor and author of excellent books on masculinity and feminism such as Masculine Christianity (2020) and Honor Thy Fathers (2024) with New Christendom Press, who are also publishing my own book on masculinity and David’s mighty men sometime later this year. Earlier this week he was suspended indefinitely by the ecclesiastical authorities in the Rio Grande Presbytery of the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) on the charge of “unwholesome speech” (cf. Eph. 4:29). Two examples given for this charge are what appear to be entirely straightforward social media replies to prominent bad faith interlocutors.

His “speech crimes” were specified by two examples which truly boggle the mind. In one interaction, he said to the academic, Anthony Bradley: “Sometimes things are more complex than a PhD can handle.” In another interaction, he said: “You started by misusing a Bible verse and then calling others ‘biblically illiterate’. But arrogance can’t tolerate banter.” You, like me, might also be wondering why such comments could be enough to strip a man of his qualification for ministry and his livelihood?

As I commented on X at the time, perhaps the PCA would feel safer by indefinitely suspending the prophets, the apostles, and the Messiah for their “unwholesome speech” to their detractors too? If only the Bible could be suspended (or at least re-edited) the PCA might finally feel themselves liberated from the “tyranny” of masculine leadership, after all?

It’s not even a surprise anymore that things like this happen to anyone who doesn’t toe the party line today. It’s almost boring how often it happens, actually, following the precise same playbook each time, whatever the institution, whatever side of the Atlantic, it’s always the same result and the same kind of people behind it. If you promote unfashionable truths or challenge fashionable lies, the well-heeled and Highly Educated respecters of Christian fashion and modern convention will come for you, one way or another.

These things keep happening because everyone seems to have caught the same virus. We keep placating anxieties and protecting effeminate leaders who use felt offence and emotive castigation (with a dash of bureaucratic lever-pulling) to override the significance of truth and courage when it is most needed.

The situation reminded me of an article on a similar situation I faced a few years ago regarding “inappropriate tone”, the consequences of which I’m still dealing over three years later. As with Garris’ situation, the “process” is the punishment, and even when fighting for what I hope will be vindication both for him and myself in the long term, in the interim period you are still somewhat held at arm’s length by the establishment.

Indeed, just the other day, I had my second eleventh-hour BBC cancellation when I was due to speak about my experience at the Tommy Robinson rally on BBC Radio 4 (based on them having read my recent Substack article on the topic). However, as has happened before, I was called last-minute to be informed that an executive higher up the chain had waded in with an “editorial change” because of the ongoing controversy surrounding my tribunal. It’s also the reason I still cannot get an academic job in the UK, because however much I may say in my defence, and however much support I may have, the charge of “being institutionally disreputable” still hangs over you, and from afar no one can ever be quite sure you’re not “a problem case”. The same uncertainty will now be hanging over Garris in the eyes of many, however long it may take him to appeal the decision, which, knowing Presbyterianism (which tends to move at ent-like speed) could take a while.

Early on in my Substack life, I wrote various articles in defence of combative Christian speech as well as the new evangelical “sin” of inappropriate tone in light of my situation at the time, which—in light of Garris’ situation now—I am republishing below for your new readerly enjoyment and/or policing…

How should Christians defend their beliefs when challenged? What counts as “appropriate” or “inappropriate” tone for Christians to adopt in public statements or debates?

Most Christian leaders in recent years have emphasised the necessity of softer, non-confrontational approaches to sharing faith or responding to opponents. ‘Softer’ may not always be wrong, of course: “A soft answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger.” (see Prov. 15:1). Such answers may well be very effective in personal conversation, but when this becomes the default mode of public interaction there are usually underlying problems. Christians who soften their expressions for too long may find they’re no longer able to “contend for the faith” (Jude 1:3) when the time comes to do so.

Most Christian leaders across Church history would find it shocking that Christians even need to contend for the idea of “contending”. How did we get to this point? Why is robust confrontation almost always seen as a “bad witness”? This ought to raise all sorts of other questions about the appropriateness of our default mode of engagement. Why is gentle winsomeness always deemed to be the “wise” option, by the way? When does so-called “appropriate” speech become inappropriate?

On Inappropriate Tweets

In case anyone needed reminding, this was my highly “inappropriate” tweet for which I was fired from an evangelical Bible college a few weeks ago:

The college swiftly and publically condemned my language as both “unacceptable” and – here’s that word again – “inappropriate”. The Tweet was deemed so inappropriate, in fact, that my refusal to take it down led to the college declaring it had been “brought into disrepute” as a result. Quite why an evangelical college finds the expression of evangelical opinions so disreputable remains a mystery to many, but all may have been different if only I had expressed such an opinion with different language that made it sound slightly less like the opinion that it was. As I argued in an article for Premier Christianity, many western Christians now seem to live by an apocryphal eleventh commandment: “Thou shalt not use inappropriate tone”. It would seem Christians can mock the Bible, hang Pride flags on pulpits, and host drag queen shows in church sanctuaries, but heaven help you if you talk about any of these things using strong words.

What do we actually mean when we say “inappropriate”? The word is often brandished like a judge’s hammer, crashing down instantaneously upon the words or actions of any poor soul who happens to fall foul of the latest ever-changeable socio-political conventions for speech.

Read More