Although I agree with the sentiment to defend the word on our forum, I came out of a fundamentalist background where so many welll meaning folks would use the sword of the word against one another. In some ways i am not overly impressed as much by that stature. This is different though than of course defending His word from the convictions of our heart toward Him. I’ve just noticed over the decades an increase of posturing where it can become waring camps syndrome (an oppposite of John 15:12-15).
Although the % is low of those who will change their adversarial position, there have been some, Simon Greenleaf (of old) as one, and lesser known John Wise (an athiest who’s wife was Christian) recently started a youtube channel ministry to athiests, would be another. We live in a world where world view can be new age-ee (doctrine does not matter lets all hold hands) and Crusades like (fundementalism, pentecostalism, even NAR in ways). As it relates to in-house Christian tension, after having come out of the discernment ministries (who while holding to orthodoxy have loads of bad to false teaching themselves) school the Christian world on how to rightly divide. In light of this contrast, I’d say respectfully that Jason’s approach (love those who insult you) is where the superantural power of God (His spirit, nor our defending His word spirit) to be the best aim.
I understand what you are saying Ken, and there are many on the forum who share your perspective. Of the two positions a) come at others with sttrong defense and guns blazing, vs b) what Holy Writ also reveals (so many verses about), correct with gentleness and patience (Galatians 6:1). Most noteably though would be that which comes from the same bookset (1&2): “Fight the good fight.” Also is said this: 2 Tim 2:
25 Opponents must be gently instructed, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth,
. . . . .
Obviously we want to defend the word and plug up bitternesss and disorder and choas from forming on a forum, amen. But as this forum is a living ministry, those who oppose, in my view, would fit 2 Tim 2:25. Each era has its own controversy and its own species of opposition. Ours in our context would be heavily in the context to escatological issues. In this, I would see foremostly the error not having consideration for what they (or Bruce in this instance) also hold to want consideration in. Bruce is amillenial. The nature of his contention in his eyes is for our camp not to stirup the body but instead just allow the peace of Christ to rule in their hearts. However, the seemingly low hanging fruit issue with this approach of his is that if one wants to uphold the peace in an age Bruce believes will become increasingly godlly until Christ returns, where is his emborsadorial spirit of John 15:12-15 in doing so? He can have his differences escatologically without making giant overtures to “false teaching,” if he merely wants to engender peace for our age. In so seeing this contradiction in his own heart (regardless of defending our escatology), this would be the way most helpful to correct and restore (I would see)…for it is a perspective that he, in his own mind, finds convincing…while practicing an alternative spirit amidst his own claim toward protecting peace.
It would not be likely or perahps not even yet the time…maybe some time later…for a defense of the word to be about escatology here, I believe. Maybe in some light fashion for context, amen. But the deeper issue in how it looks, i believe, is understanding a kind of prime directive in Bruce’s own heart. The best offset would be to be the people of sober longsuffering love Bruce feels have been made unsoundly anxious by the end of the age teaching. In his having to come to terms with his very reasons for sounding an alarm (noticing we are loving, patient, and just as kind and longsuffering just as though an age were unfolding where good would win over evil increasngly daily–which as an amillenialist would be his view), this would or could help lend opportunity to Bruce to consider that end time preaching may not necessarily match the horror story version of this approach to the saints, as he has in that version of things in his own head. In his mind, he is defending the word of God…doing the same we would want to engender. Because of these earmarks of the controversies of our day, I would see Jason’s outreach and spirit extremely fitting.
I love the don’t take the bait meme, for it applies. And it serves not only as a reminder but has great practical application. But I believe if used by default (although i understand nipping in the bud), it could potentially foster a form of stoicism. Bruce may never change his tune, but 2 Tim 2:26 is in hopes of people coming to their senses. Without opportunity to do so, they would be without opportunity to do so. And that places the saints in a rather uniquely very majestic position. If that makes sense? Blessings.
I don’t like going to new places and it doesn’t go well for me…so. People have a hard time getting to know people like me. 
