What kind of discussion is this?

|

 

I picked up and modified this helpful rubric:

  1. Fight for what is right (truth)
  2. Argue for what will work (tactics)
  3. Keep quiet about everything else (preference)

Fight for the God-given biblical principles, argue for how to put them into practice, and just leave all the personality or preference issues up to each person to work out for themselves. I can hesitate on preference—in a meeting, I can even back down on my view of tactics—but I must never back down on truth.

I’ve found this very helpful in my thinking about ministry. It is helpful to know what sort of discussion I am having. Truths and strategies must be very clearly separated, and not confused. It is only when a ministry team can be totally committed to the same truths that they can have healthy and positive disagreement and discussions about tactics.

It’s also helpful in applying the Bible: fight for what the Bible is actually saying; argue how to apply it; and just leave room for those issues about which the Bible is not explicit.

Maybe you have heard of another way of putting it. Maybe you can think of other examples. Maybe you disagree with what I have said. After all, we have to work out whether what I have just said reflects biblical truth, or whether it is just a tactic for handling discussions wink.

(Edited: The word ‘strategy’ was replaced by the word ‘tactic’; see Tony Payne’s comment below.)

6 thoughts on “What kind of discussion is this?”

  1. Good rule of thumb, Andrew, only I wonder where the idea of sharing life and doctrine fits in. Part of the great joy I have in ministry relationships is a delight in the trivial; discussions of the merits (or demerits) of herbal tea, the latest ‘who killed JFK’ conspiracy theory, a mutual whine over the poor support Cadel Evans gets in the Tour de France…

    I won’t go so far to say that such trivia is what binds us together. Only the Lord Jesus working through the Holy Spirit can break down the dividing wall of hostility between us. But that broken wall is evidenced by the happy sharing of matters great and small.

  2. Andrew

    This is really good. If I was going to modify it, it might to be rethink whether ‘strategy’ is the right word for your second category—because depending on how you define it, some aspects of ‘strategy’ are matters of right and wrong. So the overall strategy of gospel ministry is a biblical given—Prayer, Proclamation and People is one way of expressing it. This is something to fight for.

    But the practical, day-to-day implementation of this strategy—what is often referred to as ‘tactics’—is in the famous words of Daryl Kerrigan “a bit iffy”.

    Come to think of it, I’m only agreeing with you that we ‘fight for the God-given biblical principles’—so long as we recognize that some of those biblical principles are also methodological ones.

    TP

  3. @ Gordon.  I also enjoy discussions/arguments about small issues: that the American office is much better than the original; that Mac users are far more creative than PC users etc….  I think it is the fact that we know that they really don’t matter that we can “mock” fight over them.  Like lions cubs who look like they are sinking their teeth into their brothers but are actually playing.

  4. @ Tony.

    I agree 100% with what you are saying.  I think I was using strategy in a 5 year goal planning sense.  If we as a staff team have to make decisions about where we go next, we should first outline all the Biblical principles and be agreed on them AND THEN we can discuss the plans.  I call it strategy, but you may be right – tactics may be a better word. 

    God is the general and provides the overall strategy. We are field officers who apply tactics as we plant churches, start ministries, publish books etc..

  5. @ Tony.  What is the online etiquette?  If you are persuaded of a word change can you change the original so that the original is a work in progress?

  6. @Everyone

    After writing this post mid-last week I read Pete Ko’s blog talking about Driscoll’s “Vintage Church”.  He has four levels of certainty.

    Decide for, Debate for, Divide for or Die for.

    These may fit in as sub-levels in my first two points:

    1. Fight for the truth (choose whether “to die for” it OR “divide over” it)
    2. Argue for what works (“debate for” it OR “decide for” it if it doesn’t matter too much )

    I’m very interested in Driscoll’s approach.  I’d like to read his book.
    There are some truths more worth fighting over than others and some tactical decision more worth arguing over than others.

Comments are closed.