Christ and Christians
Christ is “full of grace and truth” (John 1:14).
Sadly, as Christians, and as biblical counselors, too often we are “full of judgment and mischaracterization.”
Kuyper, Johnson, and French
Today we listen as three Christians call us to charity and clarity—to grace and truth: Abraham Kuyper, Eric Johnson, and David French.
Abraham Kuyper’s Call to Charity and Clarity
Mischaracterizing fellow Christians is nothing new. Abraham Kuyper, writing in 1905, in Common Grace, Vol. 3, describes the insidious strategy of his false accusers.
“Anyone who takes the trouble to fully explain his views on an important topic surely has the right to be judged on the basis of his exposition and not merely some incidental comment” (204).
In other words, then, like now, people were taking the writings of a fellow believer out of context, cherry-picking individual statements, rather than rightly characterizing the author’s comprehensive theological argument.
How did Kuyper address fellow Christians mischaracterizing and misrepresenting his teachings? Let’s see six principles Kuyper practiced in publicly responding to public false characterizations.
1. Kuyper publicly exposes how his accusers read him superficially.
People were publicly mischaracterizing Kuyper’s biblical teaching on common grace. Kuyper does not stay silent against these false accusations.
“It shows that perhaps a few of our expositions, which we have published since 1878 and over the last twenty years, were read only superficially and perhaps not even read through to the end; however, such readers surely have not followed us in our writings. We dare to venture that a verdict has been rendered on our expositions concerning common grace without adequate knowledge of those expositions” (3).
“We do think that we are permitted to ask the question as to whether it is good, or reasonable, or responsible to pronounce such a contrary verdict, which is not based on a knowledge of the facts” (3).
2. Kuyper publicly explains how mischaracterizations impact others.
Because of these public false accusations:
“Since 1892 in particular, we have had believers from other circles confess to us that in the past they had been systematically warned against our writings and consequently had harbored the most painful suspicions against our alleged ‘undermining’ of the truth.
Yet, once they personally came into contact with our writings, they confessed to what extent they had been misled by ministers and had condemned what they in fact did not know.
But after they had come to understand it, our teaching appeared to be entirely in agreement with God’s Word, speaking to their hearts and broadening their vision in extraordinary ways.
One of these individuals even wrote to us to tell us that he was still busily removing the weeds that had sprouted from the evil seed of misjudgment that he himself formerly had sown so lavishly” (3).
3. Kuyper publicly defends his teachings by publicly labeling the mischaracterizations.
Notice how Kuyper rightly labels these mischaracterizations as: “an injustice,” “an absurd notion,” “inexplicable,” “utterly false,” entirely unwarranted,” “absurdities,” “spurious rumor.”
“No greater injustice could be done to the present author than to attribute to him—and criticize him for—the supposed claim that divine revelation applies only to believers. We acknowledge that this absurd notion is present in our world, but we still find it inexplicable that seemingly knowledgeable authors impute such a notion to us as if it really represented our true convictions, which it does not…. “…this sort of utterly false and entirely unwarranted view of our position…,” “absurdities of this spurious rumor” (157, 158).
4. Kuyper publicly expresses disappointment in people not defending him publicly.
It is sad enough when “enemies” mischaracterize you. It is deeply disappointing when friends fail to defend you.
“What’s more, someone who is fairly well acquainted with what we have published in the past should be willing to shield us from such an outrageous charge” (157).
The Apostle Paul experienced similar disappointment.
“At my first defense, no one came to my support, but everyone deserted me. May it not be held against them” (2 Timothy 4:16).
I wrote more about the “second suffering” of the silence of our friends: No One Came to My Support.
5. Kuyper publicly confronts the lovelessness of the false accusations.
Kuyper has to this point asked for clarity—honest representations of his views. Now he exposes the lack of charity—the lovelessness of his false accusers.
“Our writings on common grace were attacked in a none-too-gentle manner to cast reproach on the Free University” (1).
“They resort to bitter denunciations” (2).
“And it definitely is not a sign of brotherly love when these sorts of allegations not only are voiced but even find a wider bearing in broader circles unfamiliar with our views” (157).
6. Rather than mischaracterizing others, Kuyper focuses on a positive presentation of the truth.
Kuyper chose not to react by mischaracterizing others. Having exposed how he was mischaracterized, Kuyper then focuses on presenting the truth.
“We simply acknowledge that this spurious rumor has come to our attention. We will limit ourselves to further expounding in a positive manner the position we have always held—a position that simply cannot be subject to doubt for any Christian believer” (158).
Eric Johnson’s Call to Charity and Clarity
In 2007, in his book, Foundations for Soul Care, Eric Johnson exposes the tragedy of misusing the love of God and God’s Word in a loveless manner.
“Sinful saints (like ourselves) can tragically use their love of God and the Bible as a source of self-aggrandizement. Ironically, because of their remaining sin, well-taught Christians can unconsciously serve sinful purposes through vigorous criticism of the sin and limitations of others and even in defense of the Bible’s supremacy. An excessive devotion to the antithesis is often related to an overidentification of oneself (or one’s movement) with the perfect God, and this will tend to be manifested by the ‘works of the flesh,’ for example, in enmities, strife, disputes, dissension, and factions (Gal. 5:20); such divisiveness is paradoxically often promoted by those who hold to the highest Christian ideals” (116).
Contextually, Johnson is talking about biblical counselors who focus almost exclusively on the “antithesis” of the total depravity of unbelievers versus the renewed minds of believers, while minimizing the positive noetic effect of common grace. These biblical counselors then mischaracterize other biblical counselors who, like Kuyper, factor in the biblical doctrine of common grace.
What does Johnson recommend? He recommends focusing on fighting a new “antithesis”—one’s own carnal divisiveness.
“Bible-believing Christians like those in the Biblical Counseling Movement can guard against this tendency by expending greater energy fighting against their own flesh—what we might call the ’internal antithesis’—than they do the counseling inadequacies of their brothers and sisters” (116).
In other words, take the log of mischaracterization and divisiveness out of one’s own eye, before addressing the possible speck in the eye of a fellow Christian.
David French’s Call to Charity and Clarity
In his recent New York Times opinion piece, Why Are So Many Christians So Cruel?, David A. French presented a similar call to charity and clarity. He begins by stating the sad reality that Christians are often more cruel than non-Christians.
“I can’t tell you the number of times I’ve heard someone say something like: ‘I’ve experienced blowback in the secular world, but nothing prepared me for church hate. Christian believers can be especially angry and even sometimes vicious.’”
With wit and pithiness, French expounds on this sad reality of angry, vicious Christian critics.
“Give a man a sword and tell him he’s defending the cross, and there’s no end to the damage he can do.”
“It’s remarkable how often ambition becomes cruelty. In our self-delusion, we persuade ourselves that we’re not just right but that we’re so clearly right that opposition has to be rooted in arrogance and evil. We lash out. We seek to silence and destroy our enemies.”
“But it is all for the public good [so we delude ourselves]. So we sleep well at night. We become one of the most dangerous kinds of people—a cruel person with a clean conscience.”
“It begins with the idea that if you believe your ideas are just and right, then it’s a problem for everyone if you’re not in charge.”
So What Could We Do Differently? Grace and Truth in Biblical Counseling Conversations
I’ve sought to address this call to charity and clarity elsewhere. Here are some practical, biblical steps we could take to move toward grace and truth in our biblical counseling conversations.
Others in the biblical counseling movement have also previously addressed this call to charity and clarity.
