My brother’s old church actually preached harshly against gays, and the pastor used some unkind epithets. He asked me about it, and this is my response. And even though I have never disobeyed any of these principles in the pulpit, I have here on this blog. Regardless, what can we say about speaking harshly or offensively to others, biblically speaking?
1. Jesus’ offensive and harsh words were almost always directed at the religious hypocrites.
When it came to sinners, he often spoke about sin, but did not call sinners names.
2. God offends the mind to reveal the heart.
While Mike Bickle says that “God offends the mind to reveal the heart,” he doesn’t mean that God does so by insults or derogatory names. He offends the “logical” *mind* with spiritual wisdom.
3. You must hate the sin but love the sinner.
While many people don’t like this aphorism, and find the very thought of judging someone else as a sinner as judgmental and wrong, it is essentially how God treats all of us – he declares us sinners that need a savior, but loves us. It is very clear that all men are sinners, and those who have yet to trust in Christ are still in their sin, hence, we can easily count them as such, and should. Otherwise, we would be playing dumb.
Romans 5:8
But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.
You should preach as if one of those people was present, as if they were your closest friend, or a family member that you cared about, and you were trying to show them Jesus. Conviction of sin through preaching the law is necessary, but it is the goodness of God that leads men to repentance, not threats, and not insults. You must put yourself in their shoes and say “if that were me, what would cause me to desire God?”
4. Are we accused by religious people and unbelievers of “loving sinners” or “loving them”?
Jesus was accused of loving sinners, and we ought to be so accused as well. That doesn’t mean agreeing with sin, but it does mean that they should experience positive regard from us for them as human beings, rather than feeling like we despise “their kind.” Their kind is OUR kind, that is, fallen and valuable human beings, sinners loved by God.
5. Just because you are passionate doesn’t mean your approach is correct.
We need to be passionate for the care of their souls, not for finding reasons to tell them we are right and they wrong. It is very easy for us to despise others who are different from us, whose sin we have not personally been captured by. We should treat them as someone who has had to recover from the same errors, the same sickness – with understanding, gentleness, and firm but kind and balanced application of truth. Jesus said be angry, but do not sin. That passage deserves careful study.
6. Paul said that it is possible to have faith to move mountains, but if we don’t have love, we are nothing.
Passion is nothing if you do not have love for your fellow sinner, no matter what his favorite sin is, no matter how hardened he is.
7. We must use stern preaching to reach some because of their hardness.
The beginning of wisdom is the fear of the Lord (Psalm 111:10), but I submit that it is not the END of wisdom.
Before i explain that, let me add one more scripture paraphrase – the rod of correction is for the back of the fool (Proverbs 26:3), but a wise man receives commands. What these mean is this – when we are hardened to God’s wisdom, he does not discard us. Rather, he gently breaks us. That is what the rod of correction is for – when we are fools, hardened to God’s wisdom, we don’t hear what is being said – instead, we need to experience a little pain to wake us up.
However, God does not want to have to strike us to teach us all the time. That method is for when we are FOOLISH. This principle also applies to the fear of the lord in the above scripture. The *beginning* of wisdom, that is, for the beginner, often the fool, is when they learn the fear of God, the fear of his correction, the rod of his correction. However, once we learn that, God doesn’t want us to be motivated by fear all of the time, but rather, by his goodness.
So, while preaching to fools and other sinners, we should preach about the consequences of sin, which are more than just separation from God in the life to come or God’s anger – people must see how sin affects their lives now – being cut off from their destiny with God, their potential and best possible selves, the love of God, life-giving relationships – we need to preach these consequences. In part, the fear of God is the fear of the *consequences* of sin. This is the wake up call, but not the ongoing motivation for godliness.
But talking down to people, or openly despising them, that is not the type of correction God provides, nor is it the love of God – it shows hardness in our own lives.
Related Articles
You people are certainly full of yourselves. Anyone who disagrees with you is a fool who must receive correction. What if we think your beliefs are a fantastical waste of time and effort, and that it is you who are the foolish ones? Maybe it’s you who need the rod of correction because you have hardened your hearts against reason, insisting on advocating a pack of lies and persecuting those who disagree with you?
It goes both ways.
Regarding point 1, I think the point comes through even more clearly when we think of Jesus as using such language against the smug and self-satisfied religionists.
Harshness
Harshness in homily or speech. So many times what is said says more of the speaker than the topic, at two or three….
You people are certainly full of yourselves. Anyone who disagrees with you is a fool who must receive correction.
This is the position of scripture – the fool does not listen to wisdom. If you agree with such a statement in general (and you would be a fool not to ;), why do you take offense at it’s application to spiritual truth?
Maybe it’s you who need the rod of correction because you have hardened your hearts against reason, insisting on advocating a pack of lies and persecuting those who disagree with you?
I have to ask, by what reasoning and evidence do you consider the gospel message a “pack of lies”? I highly doubt you have anything more than conjecture.
And as I have said often, faith and reason are not antithetical.
What I take offense at is your assertion that xianity in general, and the Bible in particular, represent “spiritual truth,” and that anyone who disagrees with these assertions is a fool – a fool who must receive the “rod of correction” on his back. Yes, I know that the bible tries to preempt such criticism by labeling its detractors “fools” in advance, but this is mere ad hominem and may be dismissed as such. Christianity and its holy book make a lot of unsupported assertions, and try to intimidate anyone who challenges them with threats and ridicule. I think the weight of proof lies with your religion (since it’s the one making the amazing assertions about reality), and until it does I see no reason not to call it a pack of lies (especially in the light of its unfair campaign against its opposition).
What I take offense at is your assertion that xianity in general, and the Bible in particular, represent "spiritual truth," and that anyone who disagrees with these assertions is a fool –
Understood.
Christianity and its holy book make a lot of unsupported assertions, and try to intimidate anyone who challenges them with threats and ridicule.
Well, some of scripture is just plain aphorisms and common wisdom, like that found in Proverbs, so to deny such verifiable things probably is foolish.
But by it's very nature, REVEALED truth can NOT be confirmed by direct empiricism, but must be taken by faith. That does not mean that reason does not have a role ("faith seeking understanding"), but "unsupported assertions" are part of what faith is about – trust in someone and something.
Now, there is historical evidence for such things as the existence of Jesus and all of the historical figures mentioned in the bible. And we can certainly test out certain principles and ideas to see if they "work" for us.
I think that some people use threat and intimidation, but that doesn't mean the bible does. But even when the Bible does threaten with the consequences of unbelief, I take it, not as a threat, but as a warning – which we can heed, or at least seriously consider. If the warnings are true, they are not really threats.
I think the weight of proof lies with your religion (since it's the one making the amazing assertions about reality), and until it does I see no reason not to call it a pack of lies (especially in the light of its unfair campaign against its opposition).
So, can I call string theory or the big bang theory, or any other esoteric and hard to prove theory a pack of lies until it submits to such scrutiny?
How about those who claim there is no God? Can I call such unsupportable claims a pack of lies? On what basis?
You are overreaching and overreacting. The worst I think you can reasonably claim is that the evidence provided is not convincing to you. Declaring such claims as false would mean that you either have proof, or authoritative revelation to the contrary (which is what Christians have, and even though you might call that engaging in the fallacy of "appeal to authority," you do not even have THAT to rely on when claiming that Christiantiy is untrue).
As Hitch says, "That which is asserted without evidence may also be dismissed without evidence."
You xians are the ones making fantastic claims without evidence. Why should I have to prove them wrong? Prove 'em yourself. Your religion has a long history of persecution and intimidation against anyone who refuses to buckle under, and it refuses to provide evidence for its claims. These are not the marks of science, only of faith. Why should I just accept on your say so your fantastic claims? I dismiss them.
You xians are the ones making fantastic claims without evidence
As I have discussed at length, it is not that there is no evidence, but none of the narrow direct empirical evidence that you are demanding. In real life, we believe and act on a lot of things that have no such evidence. The claim that there is no evidence is false and misleading.
Why should I have to prove them wrong? Prove 'em yourself.
You don't, unless you want to claim that they are false.
Your religion has a long history of persecution and intimidation against anyone who refuses to buckle under,
While power hungry and empty religionists may have, this does not invalidate the claims of scripture.
These are not the marks of science, only of faith.
Again, this overly simple binary view of faith v. reason is the hallmark of the narrowest, most dumbed-down definition of faith that atheist's like to rely on. The fact is, reason and faith are partners, not adversaries.
Why should I just accept on your say so your fantastic claims?
I have already explained it. There is evidence, just not the sort you require. You want faith without the need for faith.
Wrong. I reject your falsehoods and suppositions. If you can provide evidence for xianity, I'm listening.