Mark, this is spot on and well-written. It called to mind for me (at least) three things which, in my opinion, are so important for us to bear in mind as we compete for influence in the marketplace of ideas:
1. "As iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another." I think this Scriptural soundbyte can be overused to the point of becoming cliche, but Mill's line of thought shows us how essential it is to earnestly, even joyfully remain open to hearing and interacting deeply with viewpoints that are different from our own. It forces us to a deeper level of understanding (and therefore stronger conviction) of what we hold to be true.
2. Wheat and tares. For Christians who become frustrated with, or who refuse to admit God's arrangement that unbelievers can exist alongside believers in what I've learned to call the "visible church:" the presence of "tares" helps us to recognize the "wheat" among us. And we are not called to reject the tares - God will judge them in the fulness of time. Meanwhile we're called to engage with them in the hopes that they will eventually prove themselves to be "wheat."
3. Finally, essential truths become hollow, fragile, and easy to walk away from when they are not tested, questioned, defended and in a sense, re-established afresh for every generation. We've clearly seen this over the last 150 years or so in the U.S., both in our American version of Christianity and with respect to the original principles of US government and public policy. Whenever we take the principles upon which our Republic was founded for granted - or we fail to ensure that our children truly grasp the spiritual realities of the Christian faith... within as little as a single generation society's grasp of those priciples is significantly eroded. Within 3 or 4 generations, as we've seen, those principles may be entirely replace by the ethos of "in those days, every man did as seemed right to them" which of course, is a reference to Israel's spiritual condition recorded at the end of the book of Judges.
Anyway, these are all the thoughts your essay stirred up in me. I'd love to know what you think I might be missing, so you can sharpen me!
Thanks for the encouragement, Dave, and for your thoughts. Your application of Mill's argument is helpful. He was, of course, writing from a broader perspective, and in his day, the Christians were generally the ones guilty of viewpoint suppression, mostly of the soft variety, but he gives an example in a footnote of legal sanctions against atheists, including a case that arose just as he was preparing to publish his book.
My intent was to write broadly as well, and I was not necessarily thinking about the interaction of ideas within the church or between believers and non-believers. But I agree fully with your observations, and I appreciate your application to that sphere.
Your last point about first principles is particularly important, and it reminds me of Dabney's work on the subject. I don't know to what extent he may have been relying on Mill, but he makes a point very similar to Mill's, observing that when our children embrace beliefs handed down from us, they will not pass them on effectively if they do not search out and grasp for themselves the first principles on which those views are based.
You've probably heard the saying, "God doesn't have any grandchildren." I repeated that often to my kids as they were growing up.
Mark, this is spot on and well-written. It called to mind for me (at least) three things which, in my opinion, are so important for us to bear in mind as we compete for influence in the marketplace of ideas:
1. "As iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another." I think this Scriptural soundbyte can be overused to the point of becoming cliche, but Mill's line of thought shows us how essential it is to earnestly, even joyfully remain open to hearing and interacting deeply with viewpoints that are different from our own. It forces us to a deeper level of understanding (and therefore stronger conviction) of what we hold to be true.
2. Wheat and tares. For Christians who become frustrated with, or who refuse to admit God's arrangement that unbelievers can exist alongside believers in what I've learned to call the "visible church:" the presence of "tares" helps us to recognize the "wheat" among us. And we are not called to reject the tares - God will judge them in the fulness of time. Meanwhile we're called to engage with them in the hopes that they will eventually prove themselves to be "wheat."
3. Finally, essential truths become hollow, fragile, and easy to walk away from when they are not tested, questioned, defended and in a sense, re-established afresh for every generation. We've clearly seen this over the last 150 years or so in the U.S., both in our American version of Christianity and with respect to the original principles of US government and public policy. Whenever we take the principles upon which our Republic was founded for granted - or we fail to ensure that our children truly grasp the spiritual realities of the Christian faith... within as little as a single generation society's grasp of those priciples is significantly eroded. Within 3 or 4 generations, as we've seen, those principles may be entirely replace by the ethos of "in those days, every man did as seemed right to them" which of course, is a reference to Israel's spiritual condition recorded at the end of the book of Judges.
Anyway, these are all the thoughts your essay stirred up in me. I'd love to know what you think I might be missing, so you can sharpen me!
Thanks for the encouragement, Dave, and for your thoughts. Your application of Mill's argument is helpful. He was, of course, writing from a broader perspective, and in his day, the Christians were generally the ones guilty of viewpoint suppression, mostly of the soft variety, but he gives an example in a footnote of legal sanctions against atheists, including a case that arose just as he was preparing to publish his book.
My intent was to write broadly as well, and I was not necessarily thinking about the interaction of ideas within the church or between believers and non-believers. But I agree fully with your observations, and I appreciate your application to that sphere.
Your last point about first principles is particularly important, and it reminds me of Dabney's work on the subject. I don't know to what extent he may have been relying on Mill, but he makes a point very similar to Mill's, observing that when our children embrace beliefs handed down from us, they will not pass them on effectively if they do not search out and grasp for themselves the first principles on which those views are based.
You've probably heard the saying, "God doesn't have any grandchildren." I repeated that often to my kids as they were growing up.