It’s a long story, but because of Tim. I got to thinking about when we should follow Jesus’s example when he warns the spiritual leaders of the day with words such as “brood of Vipers,” “children of the devil,” and “hypocrites.” Of course I wrote too much for a comment on Tim’s blog and decided to subject you to my musings. These are musings though they may come across as strong beliefs. I’m open to thoughts. Let’s get some more great discussion on spiritual matters like we had going a while back! (Yes, that was a shameless plug for comments) :-D
I can’t remember a time when Jesus mixed speaking the truth in love and speaking the truth harshly. Jesus reasoned with the scribes and Pharisees and then once they closed their hearts and minds Jesus refused to debate any longer and pronounced judgment on them. Is it then appropriate to use such language on people while we choose to still debate with them? To give a trivial example, think of how two children play a game. If Johnny cheats, Sally might tell him not to and Johnny might deny it and he might continue or stop. While they are playing they are still in dialogue and a good little girl Sally will have patience for a while until she has had enough. She ends the discussion saying “I won’t play if you’re going to cheat” and walks off. She has lost faith in Johnny: he won’t stop cheating and he won’t listen to her. I doubt Sally (if she’s still young enough) bears any hatred toward Johnny, she’ll simply entertain herself with something else until he decides not to cheat and they’ll resume the game at some other time: the forgiveness is complete. Sally does not say “Look, Johnny, you’re a cheating liar. I’ve proved it! Confess that you are a cheating liar!” If she does, Johnny is unlikely to confess his sins right then, but the more important point is that Sally is not interested in the moral question of Johnny’s cheating, she just wants to enjoy a fair game. When Jesus gave up on the ‘game’ with the Pharisees he was saying something like “This is what you really are. When you are ready to face it then I will speak with you again.” His aim was winning their hearts to God, when Jesus saw he wasn’t getting anywhere, he left the fruitless battle with the full weight of the truth as his last weapon for reaching their hearts. I am sure if any one of them had admitted the slightest bit of their error to Jesus, he would have resumed the discussion in love.
Isn’t the time to give the heavy weight of the naked truth also the same time to leave our opponent to God? Every word before should be in love and patience and respect leaving absolutely no spot for anyone to pick at. Then the reasons for giving up should be clear, devoid of extraneous adjectives, and said with great sorrow and love. (You do this, Tim. I hear the groan that comes from love whenever a discussion ‘experiment’ fails. It is because you love and hope that you are still surprised and troubled when they do fail.)
A for Paul’s harsh words to his followers, he has built up a relationship of love and has earned the right to reprimand his ‘children.’ He calls them ‘foolish’ not ‘evil’ and he is not speaking to strangers.
I may be a coward, but until I know my love of my opponent is greater than my love for myself, I’m loath to employ any techniques of our loving Lord that might tempt me to self righteous anger.
In theory, that is. As anyway who knows me will admit, I do not bridle my tongue as I preach it should be.
George MacDonald warns use not to thinks so much of ‘hating mother and father’ but loving Christ ever so much more. He imagines that the disciples were shocked at this strange teaching of Jesus’s. Except for Judas. He lapped it up. Until we can learn to love like Christ we should not aim to hate like him. It seems like sound advice, provided we make sure the object of our growing love is God.
Admittedly, I haven't taken the time to read Tim's offerings. I like your ideas, though, Janet, though I think I might even go farther. I'd be reluctant to ever "give up" on someone. I can think of two examples against me, though: Paul talks about "turning over" some apostates to the devil, and Jesus, when sending the disciples out, advised them to "shake the dust" of a rejecting town off their feet, in effect "washing their hands" of them. For Paul's, I'd respond by pointing out that even then it wasn't a punishment so much as a last avenue of communication, intended to shock these people into a realization of the gravity of their sin, and still motivated by love for them. Hm... I'm just thinking out loud here, but I have less of a response to the second example.
As for "giving the weight of the naked truth," there are still different ways to deliver "weight." If you simply mean telling them they're a sinner, then I do feel that's necessary. If we think we've evangelized someone and have left them in a state that they can think they have any standing before God, we're mistaken. Of course, there's a productive and a non-productive way to do that. The only productive way is when it's couched in a relationship, such that the other person understands fully that they're loved, not attacked. I really don't think anything is served by telling strangers they're sinners.
If, on the other hand, you're talking about simply conversing with opinionated jerks and telling them that they're opinionated jerks, that seems to be less a matter of doing my duty to the truth and more a matter of easing my pride. (Disclaimer: I'm almost never that bold about speaking the truth in love to close unsaved friends; usually only when they really make an effort to drag out of me what I believe. And I'm very, very prone to answer fools according to their folly, and to let opinionated jerks know that they are such when there's no real need to. (And what does that make me?...))
There are two things you're talking about here, Janet, that we often intertwine but shouldn't. One is evangelism, the other is debate. It is so easy for people - Christians, too - to see an argument for or against Christ as an opportunity to witness. They aren't quite the same thing.
With evangelism, it's not our job to talk people into becoming Christians. Think about it - if someone can persuade you to faith, what's to prevent someone else from persuading you to disbelief? This is why Scripture makes it clear that we are to leave the other person's decision in God's hands.
With a debate, people can really only do one of two things. 1 - persuade the audience that your opponent is wrong. Or 2 - persuade your opponent that you might be right. Both styles cater to different people and can be used with varying degrees of effectiveness. (Jesus, as you pointed out, uses the first on the Pharisees in public but the second with Nicodemous in private) When we enter into a discussion (okay, argument), we should keep in mind which one is our goal. They require very different techniques, and neither of them build us up. The inclination in such a fight is to tear your opponent down, and that's not the goal of a persuasive debate. Sometimes the opponent isn't persuadable. What to do, then?
