The Case Against Niceness

By David Weber
TE, New River Presbytery

In the lead-up to the 44th General Assembly, we all knew that some contentious issues were on the table. The buzz around the New River Presbytery’s overture, in particular, was palpable. Yet instead of embracing the opportunity for rigorous debate — with the aim of protecting and defending the faith and arriving at a more faithful manifestation of biblical orthodoxy — there were open calls to be nice. People seemed more concerned about feelings and appearances than about aligning our denomination with biblical truth.

One online comment summarized this niceness approach well: “What matters more than what we decide is how we decide.” Translation: what the EPC decides about the ordination of self-identifying homosexuals is not really important. The most important thing is that no one raises their voice, questions authority, rocks the boat, or makes others feel bad. I have even heard this weak-kneed approach to governance defended with our church motto: “In Essentials Unity, In Non-essentials Liberty, In All Things Charity.”

The assumption seems to be that if an issue is not deemed an “Essential,” then it is not worth debating. And if we do muster the courage of conviction or express any anger in our articulation, then surely, we are not showing charity in all things. Yet this aversion to conflict does not appear to be a biblical virtue. Over and over, we see in Scripture that for truth to be defended and the gospel advanced, men of God had to put aside niceness and boldly proclaim the truth. It is my conviction that if the EPC is to survive as an orthodox expression of the visible church and not fall into the ever-growing population of heretical denominations, our Teaching and Ruling Elders must be willing to rigorously debate, argue, and contend for the faith once delivered (Jude 1:3).

The Biblical Case Against Niceness

As a child of the ’80s and ’90s, I was no stranger to the beta-male stereotype portrayed across media. Sitcoms fed young men a steady diet of husbands who kowtowed to their wives and children, were incompetent at work and home, and were essentially good-natured buffoons. They were knuckleheads who never took anything seriously. But they were nice. Niceness seemed the way to go in this world. Nice people don’t make others uncomfortable. Nice people don’t rock the boat. Nice people don’t get into conflict. So, be nice and avoid conflict.

However, when I began to study the Bible seriously, I saw that niceness was never extolled as a virtue, nor was conflict condemned or avoided. Actually, the opposite was true. Those unwilling to engage in conflict or execute difficult commands were seen as weak and fearful, such as the ten spies in Numbers 13 who, out of fear, discouraged the Israelites from entering the Promised Land (Numbers 13:31-33). Or Saul, who failed to fully obey God’s command to destroy the Amalekites (1 Samuel 15:9). Meanwhile, those who fought on God’s behalf were commended for their faith, such as Moses confronting Pharaoh (Exodus 5:1), Elijah challenging the prophets of Baal on Mount Carmel (1 Kings 18:21-40), and Stephen boldly proclaiming the gospel before the Sanhedrin (Acts 7:51-60). The heroes of our faith were not feckless buffoons but serious men of competence and conviction. Let’s consider three examples of men who upheld the truth of God in the face of conflict.

Nathan Confronts David

First, we have the prophet Nathan, who courageously confronted King David. As you remember, David had committed adultery with Bathsheba and orchestrated Uriah’s murder (2 Samuel 11). In the ancient Near East, the king’s authority was virtually unquestionable. To accuse a king of such grievous sin could have been met with severe consequences. Nevertheless, Nathan confronted David with his sin, declaring, “You are the man!” (2 Samuel 12:7).

Nathan’s confrontation illustrates one of the purposes of such boldness: to bring about repentance and restoration. David’s heartfelt response, captured in Psalm 51, reveals the depth of his contrition: “Have mercy on me, O God, according to your steadfast love; according to your abundant mercy blot out my transgressions” (Psalm 51:1). Nathan’s willingness to risk conflict brought about God’s restorative work in David’s life. This example underscores that confronting sin, though uncomfortable, is often the means God uses to bring His people back into fellowship with Him.

Paul Opposes Peter

The Apostle Paul was also no stranger to conflict. He was continually willing to contend for what was right and even used biting language when necessary (2 Corinthians 11:19-20; Galatians 5:12; Philippians 3:2; Titus 1:12-13). One episode from Paul’s ministry is particularly striking. In Galatians 2, Paul recounts an occasion where he confronted Peter. Out of fear, Peter had separated himself from Gentile believers when men from the circumcision party were present. Paul saw this as undermining the gospel and boldly opposed Peter:

“But when Cephas [Peter] came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned” (Galatians 2:11).

It would have been easier to show deference to Peter, who was Jesus’ closest earthly friend and a leader in the early church. But Paul recognized that niceness and deference to authority must not obstruct the truth. Confronting error, even in those we respect, is an act of love — for it is not loving to allow falsehood to thrive and error to spread (Ephesians 4:15). Some argue that conflict will bring division to the Church. This example shows that the opposite is true. By confronting Peter, Paul preserved the unity of the Church by ensuring the gospel message remained undistorted. This kind of biblical conflict not only protects the integrity of doctrine but also strengthens the bonds of fellowship among believers who are united in truth (Ephesians 4:3-6). True biblical conflict combats division.

Jesus and the Pharisees

Our third example comes from Christ Himself. In Matthew 15, after Jesus taught on what truly defiles a person, His disciples asked Him, “Do you know that the Pharisees were offended when they heard this saying?” (Matthew 15:12). Of course, Jesus knew exactly what He was doing. He was not afraid of confrontation. He flipped tables to defend the holiness of God’s temple (Mark 11:15-17), called the Pharisees hypocrites and whitewashed tombs (Matthew 23:27), and even declared them the offspring of Satan (John 8:44).

Jesus’ love was not about avoiding conflict but about embracing it when necessary. He triumphed over the authorities of this world, putting them to open shame through His work on the cross (Colossians 2:15). But His conflict with sin, Satan, and death was not merely for the sake of victory; it was rooted in the deepest love as He gave His life as a ransom for many (Mark 10:45). This sacrificial love is the ultimate demonstration of God’s love for us: “In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins” (1 John 4:10). To hide from conflict in an attempt to be nice is not Christ-like; it is weakness. True love fights for the truth, not with hatred, but with sacrifice.

Conclusion: Truth in Love

What kind of church would we have if men of conviction, truth, and love were unwilling to engage in conflict? Church history provides the answer. If Athanasius had not stood against Arius, we would be Arians, not Trinitarians. If Augustine had ignored Pelagius, we would embrace works righteousness. Without Luther’s stand against the Pope, Calvin’s opposition to Francis I, or Knox’s boldness against Mary, Queen of Scots, the Reformation would never have shone the light of the gospel into the darkness. Similarly, if men like Andrew Jumper, Bart Hess, and George Carey had not engaged in debate and conflict, the EPC would not exist today.

So, what kind of church will we have if we prioritize being nice over standing for truth? In the short run, we will have a church that ordains self-identifying homosexuals, evaluates ministry success based on skin color, slides toward greater centralization of power, and administers the Lord’s Supper to those living in open rebellion against Christ’s command to repent and be baptized. In the long run, we will not have a church at all, forfeiting what our forefathers in the faith fought so hard to preserve.

The motto of our church cannot be used to stifle debate or conflict. Instead, it should rally us to robust, spirited debate that leads to truth. The often-forgotten conclusion of our motto is this: “In Essentials Unity, In Non-essentials Liberty, In All Things Charity; Truth in Love.” Without truth in love, the rest crumbles. We need truth to define the essentials, truth to discern the non-essentials, and truth to act in charity.

There is no purpose for needless conflict; to disrupt the peace of the church unnecessarily is sin (Romans 14:19). But love seeks the good of others and seeking that good often requires courage and sacrifice. So, Christian, don’t settle for niceness. For the sake of the church and the glory of God, boldly speak the truth in love (Ephesians 4:15).