The entry before last got some discussion going about the manner in which Christians advocate the pro-life position. Unfortunately, I have to agree with David that many on the right come across as shrill and unloving.
In II Corinthians, Paul refers to us as Ambassadors for Christ. This is such an illustrative way to put it. The term ‘ambassador’ is rich with meaning. I can think of two primary qualities that make for an effective ambassador.
The first is the courage of their convictions. An ambassador has to be willing to stand up for what his sovereign intends for him to represent come what may.
The second is a winsome and persuasive way with those he’s called to affect. He must have the tact and skill necessary to make a difference in the land he is sent to.
If either quality is missing, the ambassador generally fails. For some of us, the first one comes easy, but the second is harder. For others, the situation is reversed.
It seems that I am always the devil’s advocate, BUT doesn’t the Bible use rather harsh and abrasive language at times when speaking to non-believers? What do we do with such language that in today’s culture would be deemed “unloving.” Examples that come to mind are that of God calling people fools, Jesus calling others “a brood of vipers” and Jesus’ overall tone with Judas. The question that I am asking is not whether or not it is appropriate to call others fools, but rather how can we as ambassadors for our God, represent the seriousness of sin in our apologetic endeavor?
Wasn’t Jesus mainly harsh with those that were more religious than the “usual every day sinner” types? I see Jesus speaking more harshly to the church today than the lost world that we are supposed to be representing Him to.
Jason, I agree with you that there is Biblical precedent for being harsh. There is also precedent for being gentle, if the context requires…
For a concise example of one followed immediately by the other, consider John 3-4: ch. 3 features a harsh exchange with Nicodemus; ch. 4 describes Jesus’ gentle treatment of the woman at the well.
To Eric’s point about the necessity of blending guts and grace in our witness for Christ, the folks at Stand to Reason often highlight a perhaps-obvious fact:
The Gospel is offensive.
Offensive enough, that is.
That means we ought not make it any harder to swallow; nor should we try to make it any easier, either. In other words, if someone finds the truth offensive, let it be because of what the truth is, not because of the way we present it.
Until Eric brought STR to my attention about a year ago, I had never heard of them. As I’ve devoured the free material they have on their web site (iPodders: you can download their radio shows in mp3 format), I’ve found that they really do an excellent job developing the “ambassador” idea as a way of living as a follower of Christ in a fallen world.
In some ways it’s kind of intellectual, but please don’t be intimidated. STR really emphasizes keeping things approachable and tactics for getting past all the confusing details so you can just deal with the simple ideas at the heart of a matter.
With regard to STR – I don’t find the resources on the website to be too technical or intellectual. They are easy to read from that standpoint.
With regard to our responsibility to be ambassadors – I think that is important that we remember what Jesus said about the most important commands.
To summarize – Love God and love your neighbor as yourself. This means we are to love both followers of Christ and the lost – just as we love ourselves.
Furthermore, Jesus goes on in John 13 to give his disciples a new commandment – love one another, just as I have loved you. Certainly, Christ’s love for us should be expressed to fellow believers, without condition, through our lives. This is how the world will know we follow Him.
Finally, Paul made it pretty clear in 1 Corinithians 13 that I can have every spiritual gift in the world – discernment (perhaps over issues such as abortion), prophecy, teaching, tongues – but without love – it is worthless – in fact, without love the gifts are annoying.
Faith, hope and love – especially love.
So – our responsibility in the world is great – to point out sin – but to do it in the utmost humility and love for our God and for one another.
We can open a whole new can of whoop worms if we try to conform to what the world sees as loving. My guess is that there are many that will view any Christian that says abortion is sin as unloving – no matter how lovingly they communicate and behave.
Three questions:
1. With whom was Jesus gentle and winsome in his presentation of Himself?
2. With whom did he speak harshly?
3. What seems to be the issue that dictated how Jesus responded to each?
IMHO I would say that as ambassadors, we need to be as balanced as the Bible is in our approach.
I think those are good questions, but here is a question that might sound heretical to some, but…
Is Jesus really the best model for the role of an ambassador? Jesus is the one we represent, but would Peter, Paul, and the other Apostles be better models of how to represent Christ to the world?
Jesus’ role was to be Jesus. The Apostles (and our) role was to represent Him and His message.
Yes, Jesus is the best model for the role of an ambassador. Jesus was an ambassador (if you will) on behalf of God the Father and represented him to mankind (John 1:18; 5:30). In his priestly role, Jesus was an ambassador on our behalf and represented us to God (Heb. 2:17; 7:24-25; 9:14, 28) and still continues in this role today. It would be entirely appropriate and I will go so far as to say, mandatory, that Christians think through how Christ executed his role as an ambassador and to try to model ourselves after Him. After all, Christ is the Second Adam and therefore, everything we are supposed to be in our duty to glorify God and enjoy him forever.
It is also appropriate to model ourselves after the apostles, Peter and Paul for example, but this is more of a secondary type of modeling due to the fact that they are sinners. If I followed Peter blindly, for example, I would have sympathized with the Judiazers in the early church. We must remember that our modeling of them can only be partial due to the fact that they themselves are actually modeling Christ, the one whom Paul calls others to imitate as well. Paul said to imitate him, but only because he was imitating Christ (1 Cor. 11:1) and worked hard to have his life be consistent with Christ’s example (2 Thess. 3:7-9).
I also am concerned that you see some kind of an inconsistency between Christ’s ambassadorship and that of Paul? Are the two different in such a way that they are inconsistent with one another? If you do believe that such an inconsistency exists, what are your reasons? If not, strike the last paragraph.
I’m not trying to say that Jesus is not the ultimate model for godly living. I’m just throwing out some ideas to think about.
Here are some of the things that make a straight WWJD approach to our mission look a little over-simplified to me…
For one thing, Jesus said a few things that I probably won’t say…
“…your sins are forgiven.” (Matt. 9:2)
“I am the way, and the truth, and the life…” (John 14:6)
“He who has seen me has seen the Father.” (John 14:9)
I’m also probably not going to heal the sick, give sight to the blind, or walk on water.
In short, I’m not Jesus. Maybe whether or not I am Jesus has no bearing on how I should perform evangelism or apologetics, but I suspect that it does.
In addition…
In Luke 19:10 we have Jesus saying “For the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost.”
In 1 Cor. 2:2 we have Paul saying “For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified.”
Jesus mission was to save the lost; Paul’s was to preach Christ. Doesn’t Paul’s mission sound a little more like ours?
In Matthew 15:24, we have Jesus telling a woman to beat it, because “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” While Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles.
Like I mentioned, I’m not trying to make too much out of it, just pointing out that there are some distinctions.
On the question of whether or not I see ‘inconsistencies’ between Paul and Jesus’ approach… No, not really, except that they have different missions as shown above. In fact, I think we see the same pattern in Paul where his harshest criticism is for his own people (the Church) , just as Jesus’ harshest words were for His people (the Jews).
Finally, on to some instructive passages…
The most directly relevant is probably 1 Peter 3:15-16 “but in your hearts regard Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect, having a good conscience, so that, when you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame.”
Paul’s example in Acts 17:16-34 shows him engaging people where they are and showing them the truth in a manner that they could relate to.
Eric, just for clarification, I did not say we should have a WWJD approach to life or apologetics, that implies that I believe a whole bunch of things that I do not agree with and oversimplifies my position. I feel it is a straw man. I assume you were just kidding and that like many of my posts, tone is hard to convey in this format for communication and can easily be misinterpreted.
I agree with you that Jesus and Paul had different roles/missions. I know you say you are not saying this, but I still do not understand you: it seems to me that you are saying we cannot model Jesus as our Savior/Godman, therefore, we cannot model Him as an apologist. If that is true then the fallacy is obvious, if not please help me better understand you.
To give you insight into what I am thinking it seemed to me that when this discussion started several days ago, that we might be over generalizing our application of passages like 1 Peter 3:15-16. This passage speaks about giving defense in the face of suffering persecution, which has implication on apologetics, but it was not given to be instructive as a general rule for how to practice apologetics- we must read our whole Bible for that. Also, it would seem that if one wanted to argue that we should be winsome in our apologetics they can find that in 1 Peter 3:8. Proverbs has a lot to say about how to argue with a nonbeliever, but we overlook this book in seeking a model for apologetics often. Again, I think we should be as balanced as the Bible is.
My original question was how do we represent the seriousness of sin in our apologetic endeavor? As a pastor, there are many times that a person’s heart was hardened against the Word and I have had to use tougher language, in love and with gentleness, but nonetheless flatly warning a person that they were in danger of hell. They related about as well as the Jews in Acts 17- they thought I, like Paul, was babbling.
“If a wise man has an argument with a fool, the fool only rages and laughs, and there is no quiet” (Prov. 29:9). Proverbs makes it clear that a quarrelsome man cannot be considered wise. The ultimate question that I am asking is this: What has the power to convert a man’s heart?
Paul’s words: “And I, when I came to you, brothers, did not come proclaiming to you the testimony of God with lofty speech or wisdom. For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. And I was with you in weakness and in fear and much trembling, and my speech and my message were not in plausible words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, that your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men but in the power of God” (1 Cor. 2:1-5).
If only we modeled this.
No, I didn’t mean to say that you take a WWJD approach. I was just trying to point out that there might be something to watch out for in who we model and how because Jesus’ mission and ministry was different than ours, and that the Apostles had a mission that was closer to ours—proclaiming the resurrected Christ.
So, if you find striving to be winsome and attractive as an ambassador as not being biblically balanced, then what do you say the Bible calls for? Is there a proverb that I’ve missed that calls us to be unattractive and abrasive?
I feel like it is inaccurate to say that I find striving to be winsome and attractive as an ambassador as not being biblically balanced- I did not say this. Even using the term “balanced” implies that I believe that winsomeness should be there in some way.
I think that I have already answered your question. I think the Bible calls for us to be like Christ as he is presented in the whole of the scriptures. I have built a case specifically from the gospels, and I already quoted a passage from Proverbs.
I would like to hear discussion on how to apply verses like Proverbs 14:7; 17:10, 12; 23:9; 24:7; 26:8; 27:22; 29:9, and not only these but other relevant passages from other books of the Bible. For example, if we believe that we are to be attractive to a non-believer, then how do we reconcile that belief the fact that according to Isaiah, Jesus was not? “Who has believed what they heard from us? And to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed? For he grew up before him like a young plant, and like a root out of dry ground; he had no form or majesty that we should look at him, and no beauty that we should desire him. He was despised and rejected by men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief; and as one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not” (Isaiah 53:1-3).
A particularly relevant passage for apologetic methodology is Proverbs 26:4-5, “Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him yourself. Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes.”
I just get nervous when we use words like be “attractive” and be “loving” without having nuanced them enough to attach to them a Biblical definition. In a more famous example, we do the same thing with “love” when we ignore that the Biblical definition of love includes justice as well as mercy.
Unfortunately – the tendency is to deviate away from love and compassion. It is far too easy to dismiss ‘love’ as an essential part of our sanctification.
For reference, here are the Proverbs passages Jason referenced…
Proverbs 14:7
7 Leave the presence of a fool, for there you do not meet words of knowledge.
Proverbs 17:10
10 A rebuke goes deeper into a man of understanding than a hundred blows into a fool.
Proverbs 17:12
12 Let a man meet a she-bear robbed of her cubs rather than a fool in his folly.
Proverbs 23:9
9 Do not speak in the hearing of a fool, for he will despise the good sense of your words.
Proverbs 24:7
7 Wisdom is too high for a fool; in the gate he does not open his mouth.
Proverbs 26:8
8 Like one who binds the stone in the sling is one who gives honor to a fool.
Proverbs 27:22
22 Crush a fool in a mortar with a pestle along with crushed grain, yet his folly will not depart from him.
Proverbs 29:9
9 If a wise man has an argument with a fool, the fool only rages and laughs, and there is no quiet.
I’m not sure how the wisdom expressed in those proverbs is in contrast in any way to being ‘attractive’ in our method.
Also, it seems like a stretch to me to employ Isaiah 53 in regard to apologetic method. What is it that needs to be reconciled?
(Warning: Long Post- Sorry)
I apologize; in the future I will list the verses in such a way as to help people see them. First I just want to reiterate that it is not my intention to say that we should not be “attractive” in our apologetic methods, only that we should define such terms by Biblical definitions. I meant only to add this nuance to your original post by asking us to consider such a definition. We should also define “love” and “gentleness” by biblical standards in order to avoid relative definitions. For many people, to be loving might include, and often does include, overlooking sin in favor of gaining a person’s acceptance. We tend to define such terms as “love” and “gentleness” by using whatever method best fits our personalities. Personality sometimes dictates whether or not we are permissive with sin or too harsh in reaction to it. The goal is to be biblical in our methodology in such a way that our methodology is consistent with our theology. I believe that we must obey commands like that of 1 Peter 3:8, 15-16; but I also believe that we should do so by studying the Bible to gain a better understanding of how to do that.
I never sought to set Proverbs up as an argument against being attractive in our apologetics. To repeat myself, I feel like it is inaccurate to say that I find striving to be winsome and attractive as an ambassador as biblically unbalanced. You are leaving my main point without discussion and forcing me to continue to refute this misrepresentation of my beliefs. Consider Christ. What methodology did he follow? Consider him as he is presented in all the scriptures. Proverbs is teaching that there is some point where we are to disassociate with nonbelievers. What dictates that decision? If we do disassociate with a nonbeliever, is that “loving?” How do we do such a thing with “gentleness?” I believe it can be done, but only upon defining such terms Biblically and knowing what they mean.
(Eric, I know you are still not sold on our need to model Christ in apologetics, but we simply must. He is fully God and fully man and therefore, we cannot say don’t imitate him because he is God because he is also fully man. The Old Testament is filled with examples of God asking us to be like him because he is holy. Not only this, but we must reject any notion of Jesus and Paul preaching a different gospel. Did Jesus not preach his own resurrection? From whom did Paul learn the gospel that he taught? Jesus’ message, Paul’s message, and our message are one in the same- one gospel.)
In reference to Isaiah 53, I agree that this passage is not normative for our apologetic method, but that wasn’t my usage of it. My point is that modeling Jesus is normative for our apologetic method and that Isaiah 53 informs us about who He is. Isaiah 53 should be used as a check against us feeling unsuccessful if we are found unattractive by the unbeliever. Therefore, we need to reconcile our desire to be attractive to the unbeliever with the example of Christ, one who was despised. Or, in other words, define attractive Biblically and allow that definition to include rejection. For example, we should seek to be attractive in our methods as much as the gospel allows, but we must be willing to be found unattractive when the truth about Jesus Christ is at stake.
I agree with Hugh when he said that the gospel (referring to its content) is offensive and I believe that Jesus, who was the Word in the flesh, was offensive just by right of who he was. Therefore, he was rejected. The passage also says that he was unattractive in appearance. I also want to reiterate that there were many times that Jesus did things that would be deemed “unloving” and lacking “gentleness” by our culture’s definitions. Scourging the Temple would be the classic example. But, there were also many times where Jesus did not spare an opportunity to say things that were true, and yet would not be received properly and therefore were unattractive.
On one occasion he told people to leave their families behind,
“Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. And a person’s enemies will be those of his own household. Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. And whoever does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it” (Matt. 10:34-39).
On another, he told a mixed crowd of believers and non-believers at the synagogue that unless they ate his flesh and drank his blood, they could not believe in him.
“So Jesus said to them, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, have no life in you.’ Jesus said these things in the synagogue, as he taught at Capernaum. When many of his disciples heard it, they said, ‘This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?’ But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples were grumbling about this, said to them, ‘Do you take offense at this? Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is of no avail. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. But there are some of you who do not believe.’ (For Jesus knew from the beginning who those were who did not believe, and who it was who would betray him.) And he said, ‘This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.’ After this many of his disciples turned back and no longer walked with him. So Jesus said to the Twelve, ‘Do you want to go away as well?’ Simon Peter answered him, ‘Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life, and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God.’ ” (John 6:53, 59-69; italics mine).
Sorry, it seems the more I feel misunderstood, the more I probably try to over-clarify. Lord willing, this is the last long post. But, I do appreciate the challenge to clarifiy. Good apologists should try, in as much as they are able, to be good communicators.
Jason, I don’t disagree. That’s why my first point was about being an ambassador was having the courage of one’s convictions. It wouldn’t require courage if I was advocating an easy message that everyone will like. Hugh clarified nicely with the fact that the gospel is offensive enough—we don’t need to add to its offense.
Also, I’m sorry if you misread any of my comments as saying that Jesus is not our model or that Jesus and Paul had a different gospel. I was just trying to point out the differing contexts in which we find Jesus, the Apostles, and ourselves. If you don’t find the differences I pointed out to be helpful, then ignore them. I probably should have left that whole subject alone, because it ended up derailing the original discussion.
Eric, fair point. You did highlight the point I am making. I was more responding to the tone of the last several posts about this subject from a few different strings. Just calling for a nuance.
If anyone is responsible for derailing discussion it is usually me. One of the problems with the blog format is that it seems easy to chase rabbit trails. I am trying to learn to communicate in this format. I enjoy reading all of the posts on this site and find myself doing so regularly. I have learned a lot, but it appears that I need to learn to help keep us on track a little better as well. It is too easy to spend a lot of time making a relatively minor point. I type fast as well, so before I know it, my posts are the length of small books.
Like now. Maybe to keep from derailing the blog we can discuss side points in emails if they are rabbits worth chasing, or “have meat on them” as Jerry used to say.
Thanks for sharpening me though.