I did my Reformation Era paper on Invectives against women preachers/teachers/writers in the Reformation, and one of the questions I asked was, “should we be shocked and appalled by it?” Part of what I wrestled with was whether these invectives were unique, or whether they were a part of the rhetoric of the day. The invectives hurled at the women preachers were just as nasty as the invectives hurled between men. Indeed, all one has to do is look at the insults that Luther threw out left and right to anyone who dared disagree with him. (For fun, check out the Lutheran Insulter, it’s a hoot!)
And now as I am neck-deep in Patristics, I find the same pattern of invectives. Athanasius, the great defender of the faith against Arianism, was not polite in his disagreeing with Arius and his followers.
In his Orations against the Arians (Book 1), he takes several swipes at Arius:
Arius is the “forerunner of the Antichrist.”
Arius is “weak and effeminate”.
Arius has an “unmanly character of his soul.”
His writing has an “effeminate manner and melody.”
Those who follow Arius are “Arian-maniacs!”
Arius’ writing and theological treatises are “jokes”, “fables” and “a laughable document”.
Does Athanasius need to say these things to disagree with Arianism? Does it actually improve his argument to throw out names and insults? Once he settles down and actually engages the ideas of Arianism and weighs them against Scripture, he has a pretty good argument.
Are the insults necessary? 
That is the question that I keep coming back to as I read the invectives, insults and rhetoric in the writings of the “heroes of the faith.”
Are the insults necessary?
That is the question that I keep coming back to when I read blogs and debates going on between evangelicals today.
Is there a way to disagree strongly and smartly without having to resort to insults? And if there is, why don’t we do that? Why is it that in 2,000 years of Church history, disagreement and even condemnation of heresy is done not solely through sound exegesis, wrestling with theology or in the spirit of truth and love, but is instead peppered with insults, and name-calling?
Now of course, we could argue that it’s just simply human nature. But as Christians aren’t we called to be different? Our words belie what is in our hearts, and if the Holy Spirit resides in our hearts, how can insults flow so freely from our tongues?
I’m not saying that we can’t disagree or that we can’t specifically defend Truth or that we can’t name heresy and sin for what they are. But, are the insults necessary?
Pingback: 10 Reasons Christians Shouldn’t Read the Patristic Fathers « Cheese-Wearing Theology