In my last blog post, "Coming Together on Culture, Part 1: Theological Issues," I said that, despite all the division over Christ and culture in the Christian church today, I perceived that some people in each camp were listening to the critiques and were incrementally making revisions that moved them closer toward the other camps and positions. The post generated some resistance. 

I don't think you can tell it from reading on the internet, but among many younger leaders with Reformed and evangelical convictions there may be a slow convergence coming on the subject of the mission of the church and the relationship of Christ and culture.
 

my previous posts (see Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3), I have summarized some of the key insights of respected Christian writers on how to engage in polemics and theological controversy in a constructive way. Today I finish the series with the 7th and final “rule”… 

7. Everybody’s Rule: Only God sees the heart—so remember the gospel and stick to criticizing the theology.

[Continued from Part 1, Part 2]

In reading what a number of respected Christian authors have said over the years about polemics and theological controversy, I have distilled a few “rules.” These rules, I believe, will help us neither avoid polemics nor engage in them in a spiritually destructive way. Almost every rule is mentioned in some ways by multiple authors, but when a writer has put a principle in a particularly strong or apt way, I’ve put his name on the rule.
 

Perhaps Alexander’s most interesting rule however, was this. “Attribute to an antagonist no opinion he does not own, though it be a necessary consequence.” (Calhoun, p.92). In other words, even if you believe that Mr A’s belief X could or will lead others who hold that position to belief Y, do not accuse Mr A of holding to belief Y himself, if he disowns it. You may consider him inconsistent, but it is one thing to say that and another thing to tar him with belief Y by implying or insisting that he actually holds it when he does not. A similar move happens when you imply or argue that, if Mr A quotes a particular author favorably at any point, then Mr A must hold to all the views that the author holds at other points. If you, through guilt-by-association, hint or insist that Mr A must hold other beliefs of that particular author, then you are violating Alexander’s Rule and, indeed, Murray’s Rule. You are misrepresenting your opponent.