To “contend” means “to struggle in the face of opposition; to strive against rivals; to dispute and debate earnestly.”

It’s also the title of a book by Aaron Armstrong. Armstrong states from the outset that contend is not a passive word, but rather requires action. It’s a struggle; it’s a fight. And the premise of the book is that the willingness to contend is both sorely needed by largely neglected in the church today.

One of the key passages Armstrong comes back to again and again is found in Jude 3: “Beloved, although I was very eager to write to you about our common salvation, I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints.” Using this call as a basis, Armstrong puts forth his idea that sometimes the right thing to do is not to make peace, but to stand firmly and unbendingly in order to vocally defend elements of the faith.

Perhaps at this point, you might be asking the same question I was a chapter into the book: Aren’t we doing this already? A quick Google search reveals a number of blogs that seem to be devoted not only to contending, but being contentious. Armstrong recognizes this, and helpfully points out the difference between these two attributes in his writing. What he is proposing is not the argumentative nitpicking that you find to be so apparent in the anonymity of the blogosphere; it’s rather the upright and public defense of the truth in an intelligent and open dialogue.

In other words, it’s not arguing for the sake or arguing, which many are prone to do; instead it’s the acknowledgment that there are indeed some things worth fighting for. It’s at this point that I found the book to be particularly convicting.

It seems to me that the line between contending and being contentious is a very fine one, and most of us err greatly on one side or the other. Either we are trolling the internet, looking for the slightest sign of doctrinal deviation so that we can rip through a church leader or author, or else we are far too ready to simply gloss over error for the sake of supposed “unity.” I tend to err in this second way, and most of the time (at least for me), though, my refusal to stand on principle is not really motivated by a desire for unity as it is an avoidance of conflict or laziness.

Neither is helpful; neither is right. There must be a middle road, one that is not fueled by insecurity or bitterness, but rather by the firm knowledge and belief in the absolute.

Of course, this is where the issue becomes problematic again, because to walk that line, you must know the difference between what is “essential” and what is “important.” That’s where the rub is, because opinions vary at this point between those two things. Armstrong can help us here as well, as he provides a good synopsis of the essential points of doctrine – those things that are worth giving your life for.

This is a good book. It’s a challenging book. It’s one that I needed to read, and one that I’m grateful for, though I would say that I think it’s probably more helpful for those people like me who tend to shy away from confrontation naturally. In a day when tolerance is chief among all virtues, Aaron Armstrong helped me to remember the words of GK Chesterton, that “tolerance is the virtue of men who don’t believe in anything.”