People may not recognize it, but when they speak of themselves as “centrists” or disavow extremism, it is likely that in the background of their thought is an idea that has been called the “golden mean” of Aristotle.
In writing about the nature of virtue, Aristotle observed, “…virtue has the quality of hitting the mean” (Nicomachean Ethics, II.vi.9). The idea is that in between too much (excess) and too little (defect) there is a sweet spot where virtue resides.
This is a rule of thumb, rather than a universal moral principle. There can be no excess in the love of God when we are commanded to love the Lord our God with all our heart, soul, and strength (Deut. 6:5). Aristotle himself recognized that this principle must be somewhat flexible (Ibid., II.vi.4) and acknowledged that “…while in respect of its substance and the definition that states what it really is in essence virtue is the observance of the mean, in point of excellence and rightness it is an extreme” (Ibid., II.vi.17).
As Christians, we can recognize that this rule of thumb is useful in our own moral quandaries. Indeed, we can give it some Biblical support. Deuteronomy 5:32 says: Therefore you shall be careful to do as the Lord your God has commanded you; you shall not turn aside to the right hand or to the left (see further Deut. 17:11, 20; Josh. 1:7, 23:6; Isa. 30:21).
There is a narrow path of obedience, and there is more than one way to veer away from it. It is possible for us to be mistaken by being too rigid, or too flexible. Sometimes we close our doors to good things; and sometimes we open them to evil things.
One area where this shows up is what we could call theological nitpicking. My dad used to ask people (in a good-humored way) how many years John the Baptist spent on the island of Patmos. That is a trick question, because it was the Apostle John who wrote Revelation from Patmos, not John the Baptist. That one seems fairly harmless.
But you may well have met people who had theological traps to spring on you. There are those who have an apparently endless series of shibboleths (see Jud. 12:6), strange passwords to see if you belong to their club or not.
The prophet Isaiah complains about those who make a man an offender for a word (Isa. 29:21). Job thinks that his friends are not right to sift his words precisely given the state he was in (Job 6:26): Do you intend to rebuke my words, and the speeches of a desperate one, which are as wind? Perhaps most directly relevant to our purpose, Paul condemns logomachy (fighting about words) in his description of a proud and contentious man who is obsessed with arguments and disputes over words (1 Tim. 6:4).
When we care more about the expression than the substance, when we insist that everyone always use our preferred language, when we forget the variety of Scripture, we can easily become guilty of theological nitpicking. This can fortify our pride, discourage others, and create or inflame conflicts and disagreements.
To be sure, there is an error on the other side as well. Thought is expressed in language, which requires words. And using words carelessly or idiosyncratically will create misunderstandings. Furthermore, false teachers carefully choose their words. By using orthodox language with subtle redefinitions, they bring in mistakes that are hard to detect. They also speak in a way that allows for plausible deniability. They can be masters of strategic ambiguity in speech.
Thus we are warned about deceptive words (2 Pet. 2:3), smooth words and flattering speech (Rom. 16:18), the trickery of men in the cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting (Eph. 4:14), and deceitful workers who pretend to be apostles of Christ (2 Cor. 11:13). Paul reminds us to be on our guard against persuasive words (Col. 2:4).
How can we avoid the excess of strictness and the defect of inexactitude? There is no substitute for wisdom in this regard. We must cultivate our hearts and our discernment as we seek to follow Christ.
It is important to have a good grasp of the system of doctrine taught in the Bible so that we are able to distinguish an idea that distorts the structure from an imperfect expression. This requires the hard (though very rewarding) work of learning, understanding, and remembering the main lines of the Bible’s teaching. On this point, our Heidelberg Catechism, Belgic Confession, and Canons of Dort are immensely helpful tools.
It is also important to cultivate a desire to be useful and edifying. If we ask questions about an expression, or tell someone a better way to describe things, it should never be to assert dominance or display superiority, but as a humble service. This involves humility and love, graces which strongly reinforce one another, and which only God can give. It calls for prayer that these character qualities would be formed in us.
At the same time, we do need to remember that there are wolves in sheep’s clothing (Matt 7:15). We should never let sympathy for the wolves lead us to give them access even to just a few sheep! Provision for the wolves is not our responsibility. There are both specific teachings and teachers that should be stoutly opposed, even when they are appearing only in subtle ways.
Finally, we must seek balance in our hearts as well as in our interactions. We do not want to be so afraid of danger on the right that we veer to the left, or vice versa. We can reflect that some people are more gifted with precision than others and be gracious as well as discerning. And we can distinguish the technical language of dogma from the more flexible language of everyday speech and of the Bible itself. Each one has its proper place.
Between the extremes of indifference to good doctrine and nitpicking about minor matters of language, may God direct us to the place where we enjoy and effectively communicate the pattern of sound words (2 Tim. 1:13)!
Rev. Ruben Zartman
Editor, Reformed Herald
Read more articles here.