AD Owns The Gospel Coalition and ERLC Yet Again! ;-)

Why “Owning the Other Side” Can Be Appropriate

So, I came across this article on the Gospel Coalition and thought I'd just mention it really quick. It's actually not a terrible article. It's written by Daniel Darling, who is the Vice President of Communications for the ERLC.

And you know, I think that this is very, very representative of sort of the primary thrust of evangelicalism today, that there are certain activities that they don't approve of. And I think primarily the reason they don't approve of them is because they are so effective against the nonsense that they're putting forward that they almost want to anathematize it and kind of question the motivations of the people behind the activities that they don't like.

Now, again, let me just stress that this article actually has some good stuff in it. I think that the idea of, you know, minding your tone and making sure that—and I really do believe the Bible is correct when it says—I mean, imagine that, I think the Bible's correct—when it says that the sweetness of speech increases persuasiveness.

That's something that everyone should consider when they're talking to people, including myself. This is something that I consider as well. I think if your default mode is just flamethrower all the time, no matter who's coming at you, whether it's honest questions, dishonest questions, whether it's a little old lady or an arrogant teenager or whatever it is, like, I do think you should consider, you know, your tone should, you know, you should try to be as persuasive as possible and use different tones for different people in different situations.

I think that's true. But the real kind of thrust of this article—I mean, I'll just read you a quick paragraph here. This is the thrust of this article. But, again, just hear me. I do not disagree with this whole article.

I like this article in many ways, but this is just quick comments here. But anyway, here's what the thrust of the article is. It says here, it says, "...but we are often tempted to make knowingly offensive arguments not because they are the power of God unto salvation, but because owning the other gives us credibility in the eyes of the right peer groups.

We dismantle the ideology and wait for the retweets and likes. We post the awesome clip not to win over our atheist neighbor, but to further ingratiate ourselves to our tribe.". That's the idea. So when you post a video where you're owning the libs or something like that, what you're really doing is you're trying to get pats on the back from your own tribe.

And I find it ironic that he puts this on social media and the way I found it was someone giving him an attaboy on the back, you know what I mean? So this kind of an argument is just kind of silly because it can be used against you for doing this.

I mean, it's kind of silly in that way. But in any case, that's the idea, that if you're trying to own the lib, you're trying to own the opponent, you know, by essentially destroying their arguments in a kind of a bombastic kind of way, that that's some kind of...

He's not saying it necessarily rises to the level of sin, but it's something that you shouldn't do. And that's just not true at all. I completely disagree. Yes, I intentionally sometimes try to own my opponents.

I intentionally try to destroy their ideology in a bombastic, obvious, kind of shock and awe kind of way. And I do it intentionally. Not all the time. And if you watch my videos, I think you'll see this.

I mean, a good example is my reparations week video. I did five days of videos all on the same topic. And some of them, I tried to own my opponent like the Thabiti two-step video. I owned Thabiti in that video.

I owned him. It's just that simple. And then the very next day, I posted a video, I believe it was the next day, called The Tale of Two Slaves. And that was a much more heartfelt, kind of soft, not soft, but like, but gentle sort of plea, essentially, about the same topic.

So on one hand, I tried to own Thabiti, on the other hand, I tried to be a little bit more of a pleading type situation, you know, where Paul talks about how he pleads with people with tears. I didn't cry in the video.

But, you know, on the inside, I really felt the emotions of that video. So anyway, the point being, though, the point being, though, is that I've talked about this many times. We've got Ezra's and we've got Nehemiah's, and both of those strategies are needed.

Both of those strategies are needed. Look, Ezra, very pious kind of man, would pray all the time, would kind of wait for God to act. And I'm not saying he was totally in that way. He did act on his own as well.

But Nehemiah, you know, he prays as well, and he's faithful also. But he acts, he acts, and he confronts people to their faces, and he makes things happen. Like, like Ezra and Nehemiah are so good because they were prophets at the same time.

They encountered a lot of the same situations. In fact, some of the exact same situations, Ezra would pray to God and would kind of wait for God to do something. And Nehemiah would pray to God and he would do something about it.

You know what I mean? It's just so, it's just such a good contrast. And Ezra's, or Nehemiah is famous for pulling out people's beards and beating them because they were intermarrying with, with pagans and things like that.

And I'm not saying you should go and do that. But I'm just saying there's a contrast between those two people. And the reality is, in modern evangelicalism today, there is no room for Nehemiahs. There is no room for direct confrontations and for owning people.

But here's the reality. There is room for that. Look, here's what Paul says about, about his ministry. It is not all he says, of course, but I want you to listen to this paragraph, right? Listen to this paragraph.

This is 2 Corinthians chapter 10. Paul's defending his ministry here. And he says, I, Paul, myself, entreat you by the meekness and gentleness of Christ, I who am humble when face to face with you, but bold when I am away.

So there's a kind of a contrast in Paul's character, right? It's not like he's, not like he's trying to put on a face or something like that. But when he's face to face with you, he's a little more tender, he calls it humble.

And, and he's, and he's saying he's, he's, he's saying this by the meekness and gentleness of Christ. Okay, so that's framing this whole conversation, ready? So he's humble when he's face to face with you, but bold when he's away, and then he goes on and says this, I beg of you that when I'm present, I may not have to show boldness with such confidence as I count on showing against someone who suspects us of walking according to the flesh.

So he's talking about boldness and kind of a direct confrontation, you know, you know, talking face to face, confronting someone to their face. And he does that in his letters, but he says when he's face to face, he doesn't do that as much.

And he will do it, but he doesn't do it as much. Here's, here's what it says here, okay. For though we walk in the flesh, we are not waging war according to the flesh. For the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh, but have divine power to destroy strongholds.

Listen to this, this is verse five. We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God and take every thought captive to obey Christ, being ready to punish every disobedience.

When your obedience is complete, we destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God. Absolutely. Sometimes I set up and I intentionally try to own the libs. I'm trying to destroy their arguments.

I'm trying to destroy every lofty opinion raised up against the knowledge of God. I want to destroy it. And you know, sometimes there's some, there's some good that you can do with a good finishing blow.

I think about my own past. You know, I used to be scared to watch like Richard Dawkins videos and things like that. I used to be scared to watch like, um, maybe you've had this experience as well. When I was a new Christian, you know, I just, just come into the faith.

I just kind of accepted, um, that the scriptures were from God, you know, his words directly to people and I could read and I could understand them. And he, you know, Christ had died for, for the sins of his people.

And I was one of those sinners and he died for me. And I, you know, I, I trust that, that, that, that sacrifice, that sacrifice is all I needed in order to have good standing, right standing with God.

You know what I mean? And so, so this is what early on, I'd be scared to watch some of these videos because I was like, man, these, these, these arguments sound pretty good. But I mean, I have, I have this faith, I have this trust in God, but at the same time, you know, this Richard Dawkins videos is, you know, and then I saw someone destroy Richard Dawkins and I mean, destroy him.

I forget who it was, man. I, I think it was, it might've been a James White video. I, it might've been a James White video. Anyway, demolished him, demolished him. I mean, we're talking, he was owned, big time owned.

You know what? That was the finishing blow for me. And I, and I started to understand the scriptures a little bit better because I saw how he, I saw how Dr. White handled it and he handled it as if it was totally authoritative.

And I was still young, you know, I, I, in my faith and I, I, I believe the scriptures. Yeah. But, but you, but you mean it's like totally authoritative in every area of life? Like everything it says applies to, you see what I'm saying?

Like, like that was a finishing blow for me. I wish I could find that video that I saw. And you know what? He owned Richard Dawkins, owned him. And for me, that was, I mean, it was so encouraging. It was absolutely encouraging.

And I think too, for someone on the other side of that debate, that's going to make them stop and think about it first. That's going to shut their mouths when they hear how authoritative that scripture is.

And they, and their hero, Richard Dawkins just got owned. And yeah, it's a little embarrassing for me to say that. Yeah. I was afraid of watching those kinds of videos. I was. So let's just, let's just not pretend like there's no room for Nehemiahs.

And I, I'm calling sometimes, you know, you know, Dr. James White, he can be like a Nehemiah. He can be like that. And, and it's not, he doesn't have like, he doesn't put the flamethrower on every time.

I think that's the reputation that guys like him get sometimes, where it's just constant flamethrower. I, that's not what I see. I see in some situations, there is some domination in the rhetoric and stuff like that.

No question about it, but that's not how he is all the time. And I bet you, he's not like that in person. I've never met him, but I bet you, he's not like that in person. Paul seems to act the same way where in person, you know, he's, he's different than he is when he's, you know, talking remotely from his letters.

You know what I mean? And so, so here's the thing, man, here's the thing. Don't get guilted. You know, don't, don't, I mean, look, there's some good stuff to learn from this article, you know, because if you're one of these people, that's just flamethrower constantly, maybe you should consider some of this stuff.

But the reality is that, that owning the other side is completely appropriate at times, and I think it's required, especially for ministers to own the sometimes to own them, destroy that argument because not only will it encourage those on your side, when you get, when they see that finishing blow and that's just the end of the conversation, but I think it could wake people up because look, evangelism is not always just a sweet, like Jesus, Jesus died for your sins, but you know, there's a better chance that he died for your sins than if he didn't like, like that kind of stuff.

Sometimes you just need to say it how it is. And sometimes you need to shake people out of their stupor and be like, look, this is enough. This is enough because here's what the Bible says you are. And here's what the Bible says I am.

And this is completely authoritative. And no matter what you say, I'm not considering it on anywhere near the level of what scripture says. It's just that simple. And so, yeah, sometimes, you know, that you're going to make an argument that's going to be offensive.

And you know what? You still make it because it might be exactly the strategy that's needed at that time. It might be exactly what's needed, but there's room for Nehemiah's. So don't let this kind of article guilt you out of being bold because you need to be bold.

We destroy every argument and every lofty opinion raised up against the knowledge of God.