Eight Ways to Lose Your Influence in Theology
Here are a few ways that you increase your chances to illegitimize your influence in the marketplace of ideas.
1. Be Imbalanced: Militantly focus on a particular non-essential issue. Whether it be in defense of a particular Bible translation or a particular view of the end times, make it your purpose to push for the necessity of the acceptance of something that is not part of the historic Christian faith. Oh, and be passionately relentless about it.
2. Overstate your case: Always use phrases like “That is the stupidest thing I have ever heard” or “Nothing could be clearer.” That way your audience knows that you have never really studied the issue. While your goal is to distance a false position from one that is true, you have really just separated yourself from having a true impact.
3. Misrepresent your opponents: This is often called a “straw man.” It is where you represent your opponent in the worst possible light, bringing up their worst arguments and making them very easy to dismantle. This shows your fear of looking your opponents directly in the eyes.
4. Obscure the options: Act as if your belief is the only option out there. Don’t ever let those under you know that there are others who disagree or that there are even any other positions. If you do, make it sound as if they are flat-earthers and preemptively spoil the well, making them look really stupid.
5. Get defensive: When someone challenges you or your position, become militantly defensive or demeaning. A good thing to do is to immediately attack the person who is challenging you. This is called an ad hominem or “to the man.” When you do this, you don’t engage their arguments, but you become defensive and attack the person. Call the person a liar. That is a good one. It’s not that they just have come to the wrong conclusion, but that they are definitely a liar.
6. Lack of grace: Sure the Bible talks about gentleness and respect in defending your faith, but we can ignore that when the person holds to really bad doctrine. Immediately respond with the opposite of gentleness and grace: harshness and judgment. It is the Christian thing to do. Act as if you are the way you are because of your own righteousness.
7. Be perpetually non-committal: Be in fear of what others will think. Be in fear of being offensive. Call it grace, call it tolerance, call it whatever, but don’t ever take any definite stand. In every situation be timid, walk on theological eggshells, and never ever, ever act as if your view is the right view to the exclusion of others. Qualify everything you say with “this is just my opinion” or “to me.”
8. Define yourself by what you are against. Rejoice when someone goes astray because now you have something to do. Be an attack dog for God and the watchdog for the bride of Christ. Go on heresy hunts, never looking to your own failures, but day and night, night and day, bring attention to the apostasy out there. Good news does not bring publicity, so only focus on the bad. Someone gone astray? Open for business!
9. Label everyone. Try to control people by placing them in predetermined circles. Label them as Evangelicals, Fundamentalist, Liberals, Emergers and the lik . . . Wait, I like this one. Scratch it.
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!- The Most Influential Christians in My Life
- Constructing a Credo: Will Dominoes Do the Trick?
- How to Listen in Sunday School
- A Calvinist’s Understanding of “Free-Will”
- Grace At Kanakuk
Print This Post

Buks on 10 Nov 2009 at 12:44 am #
One you can add to no 2:
Head your blog posts with
[your favourite pet peeve here] … and other stupid statements.
Ha ha – Sorry, couldn’t resist that!
Lisa Robinson on 10 Nov 2009 at 12:49 am #
Awesome! You forgot #8 – overly spiritualize everything as if the other person is carnal pond scum.
C Michael Patton on 10 Nov 2009 at 12:50 am #
lol…You are probably right. I should have used the word “dumb” for the series instead of “stupid.” Then people would understand the intentionality of the rhetoric in making inviting overstatements. As it stands, I have to explain myself every time I post one.
Laurie M. on 10 Nov 2009 at 12:59 am #
Another great post. Oh, and I like Lisa’s addition to the list as well.
Karl on 10 Nov 2009 at 1:09 am #
In the first few centuries, the early church apologists used to be sure you knew who they were against by identifying them as adulterers, liars, thieves, immoral people, instruments of Satan, and did I mention that they called them immoral people? Our notion of civility – and I totally agree with the thrust of this post (including the last point!) – has not been the history of experience in the church in many periods. I wish I had hope for this generation; but if many blogs are an indication (this blog notwithstanding), I am not sure I have much hope. The current climate of our age can get pretty nasty – as we are now all entitled to publish our opinions . . .
C Michael Patton on 10 Nov 2009 at 1:24 am #
Now it is eight.
Karl on 10 Nov 2009 at 1:32 am #
Okay, I will take 8 – let you have #9 back. But I also notice what is (presently?) #7. I rather like that one. We used to talk about “academic weasel words”: “in the view of many,” “this seems to be the case,” “which on balance seems to lean us towards,” and so forth. Also known as “academic agnosticism” or “academic ambiguity,” lest one get caught in some misjudgment and need to adjust his or her opinion. We gotta remain flexible, you know. Earl Radmacher once mentioned that the reason he did not write too much for publishing is that he was afraid he might have to change his opinion – and that is simply too much trouble. And a bit embarassing. I know that sentiment personally!
Buks on 10 Nov 2009 at 1:35 am #
Yes I fully agree with your post…
(By the way, I sense an evil carnal sinful darwinian evolutionist anti-creationist anti-supernatural materialistic person that believes in pond scum right here on your blog!)
especially point no 9 is a good one.
(Sorry Lisa, just joking – I know you’re not!
)
C Michael Patton on 10 Nov 2009 at 1:41 am #
“academic agnosticism” or “academic ambiguity”
I like that. Never heard that.
Marv on 10 Nov 2009 at 9:52 am #
CMP, this is more like a wish list.
All these illegitimize one’s influence in the market of ideas???
Unfortunately…nothing could be further from the truth (!!)
All (well, many of) these seem to be the rule rather than the exception in theological discourse. Particularly misrepresentation and obscuring the options. Also overstating the case, though perhaps not as overstatedly as your examples overstate. Words such as “clearly” and “obviously.” Problem is, of course, things often look obvious or clear to one person, while the other cannot see them at all.
Mr T on 10 Nov 2009 at 11:12 am #
My brother loves the Lord, sharing his faith in Christ, and leading people to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ. But his flaw, and we all have flaws, is number 1. He loves what I call ‘fringe ideas’.
The one he latched onto a year or so ago is that the King James bible is the only accurate bible. All others are full of serious errors.
Because he is fanatical about this matter, he has caused division between himself and others.
I’ve tried to tell him that we should agree to disagree on the non essentials, and stand firm on the essentials, such as the fact that Jesus Christ is the only way to God. But that is one of the things he likes to disagree with me on.
Marv on 10 Nov 2009 at 12:47 pm #
Yeow…yeah, for some reason the KJVO crowd, at least the vocal ones seem to be characterized by all the above except #7.
C Michael Patton on 10 Nov 2009 at 1:44 pm #
I know that Marv, believe me. I am dealing with one as we speak. Some people just need to be banned from interacting with people
C Michael Patton on 10 Nov 2009 at 1:44 pm #
BTW: Is there such a thing as a non-vocal KJVO?
Jugulum on 10 Nov 2009 at 1:49 pm #
If there were, how could you tell?
Brian on 10 Nov 2009 at 5:45 pm #
Michael,
I have a problem with your first point. From what I’ve read previously, you are in the particular camp that believes its OK for doctrine to become more clear over time (For example, you are a Calvinist even though the early Christians prior to Augustine did not hold these tenets). You probably don’t have a problem holding a different position than the early fathers because, in your view, over time (centuries) further enlightenment can be obtained by the church.
It is this further enlightenment position that indeed classifies doctrinal positions as essential or non-essential. Your statement, from your first point, suggests that there can be doctrinal positions that are not a part of the historic Christian faith. And maybe even a position on the end times is one such belief.
But, the biblical authors made no such distinction (between essential and non essential). For example, can you imagine Paul chastising a believer for ardently pushing for the correct view of eschatology? I can’t. Granted, we don’t have apostolic authority around today, but it’s against the very nature of the tenor of Scripture to suggest that we should not be adamant about a particular issue (especially a doctrinal one- not KJV only stuff) that was taught personally by the apostles, and one in which they fought adamantly for themselves.
Brian
C Michael Patton on 10 Nov 2009 at 5:57 pm #
Yes, Brian, I do hold to doctrinal development. It is almost a necessity unless you are an Eastern Orthodox.
1 Cor 15:1 Paul says that he delivered to them that which was of “first importance.” Christ told the Pharisees that they strain out a nat and swallow a camel. The entire chapter of Rom 14 deals with essentials and non-essentials. Seems to be good precedent for a biblical distinction between essentials and non-essentials.
Brian on 10 Nov 2009 at 6:16 pm #
Michael,
I’m not doubting that there are things that are more important to salvation. I’m simply doubting that the sharp dichotomy (between essential and non essential) was a trademark of the early Christians.
It would seem from Irenaeus that doctrine was very much established among the local churches of the 2nd century. We have probably muddied it up by adding a lot of things, but it remains that such issues as baptism, free will, eschatology, spiritual gifts, etc. were indeed understood by the early christians. What better witness to the apostles teaching than those they personally discipled?
Brian
C Michael Patton on 10 Nov 2009 at 6:26 pm #
Brian, we have direct access to the Apostles teaching as well through the New Testament. That does not gaurantee that it is understood perfectly. The early church had a concept called the regula fide, which was an early form of an essentials/non-essentials dichotomy. The early church understood not only this, but that there were obscure areas upon which we should never build our theology with.
So even if you go with a paleo-theology (which I don’t), these principles are still relavent.
Then there is the kyrugma in the NT…
Brian on 10 Nov 2009 at 8:02 pm #
Michael, IMO certain aspects of eschatology would not have been considered an obscure area.
Regarding the early church, there is good evidence to believe that they had a lot of doctrine pinned down and that they didn’t have the development mindset so common today (the faith once delivered).
Notice the chapter headings from Tertullian’s Prescription Against the Heretics (Chapters 25-28)
THE APOSTLES DID NOT KEEP BACK ANY OF THE DEPOSIT OF DOCTRINE WHICH CHRIST HAD ENTRUSTED TO THEM. ST. PAUL OPENLY COMMITTED HIS WHOLE DOCTRINE TO TIMOTHY
THE APOSTLES DID IN ALL CASES TEACH THE WHOLE TRUTH TO THE WHOLE CHURCH. NO RESERVATION, NOR PARTIAL COMMUNICATION TO FAVORITE FRIENDS
GRANTED THAT THE APOSTLES TRANSMITTED THE WHOLE DOCTRINE OF TRUTH, MAY NOT THE CHURCHES HAVE BEEN UNFAITHFUL IN HANDING IT ON? INCONCEIVABLE THAT THIS CAN HAVE BEEN THE CASE
THE ONE TRADITION OF THE FAITH, WHICH IS SUBSTANTIALLY ALIKE IN THE CHURCHES EVERYWHERE, A GOOD PROOF THAT THE TRANSMISSION HAS BEEN TRUE AND HONEST IN THE MAIN
C Michael Patton on 10 Nov 2009 at 8:13 pm #
Brian, I can’t keep at this for any longer, but I do appreciate the conversation.
What you are referring to is the regula fide or the canon veritas. You are right that they did have much nailed down. Holding to a development of doctrine theory (as most people do) does not assume that everything was up in the air in the early church, including eschatology. The basic DNA of doctrine is there. To say that the DNA developed is not to contradict or go against the regula fide of the early church, but to see it mature.
The best place to go and see my thoughts on this is here: http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2008/06/an-emerging-understanding-of-orthodox-2/. In fact, I was going to repost this and change the name since “emerging” has connotations that are no longer as relavent. I will post it as a fresh post and we can pick up the conversation there if you wish, my friend.
Thanks for being cordial in your disagreements. I have had quite a day dealing with its opposite!
Brian on 10 Nov 2009 at 8:20 pm #
No problem, Michael. I know you are busy and have a lot on your plate.
Eight Ways to Lose Your Influence in Theology « Pettus’ Blog on 10 Nov 2009 at 10:00 pm #
[...] Eight Ways to Lose Your Influence in Theology Posted on November 10, 2009 by pettus Eight Ways to Lose Your Influence in Theology [...]
Charles Williams on 10 Nov 2009 at 11:03 pm #
I just thought of something. If KJVO had any real validity just think how much cheaper Logos would be! Sorry, end of the semester and I’m fried.
Michael on 11 Nov 2009 at 9:02 am #
Funny, you’ve done number 9 a few times recently and now you’re losing influence with me.
John T III on 11 Nov 2009 at 10:37 am #
CMP
In regards to your point 7:
“7. Be perpetually non-committal: …., but don’t ever take any definite stand………”
How do the Apostles and Paul fit into this category? How about those who have been martyed over the ages for their faith and refusing to renounce it? Or even the book fo 1 John which puts things as you are or your are not?
I am currious as to how that works.
C Michael Patton on 11 Nov 2009 at 11:33 am #
John 3,
I don’t understand. I would say that they took a definite stand. Obviously, they have had influence!
John T III on 11 Nov 2009 at 1:48 pm #
CMP,
You say in point 7 never take a definite stance, be perpetualy non-committal. You list is about how to loose influence correct?