Correcting other Christians?

[Guest]

I know Peter said to always be prepared to give a defense for the hope that you have, but when does that apply?

JC, I think that you've answered your own question by this reference to Peter's words.

He said, Always.

[Guest]

Paidion,
Jesus also told us not to cast our pearls before swine. How do you see that passage?

[Guest]

1 Peter 3:15 but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence;

And these are Jesus' words:

Matthew 7:6 "Do not give what is holy to dogs, and do not throw your pearls before swine, or they will trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces.

I don't think there's a contradiction here.

The swine don't ask us to account for the hope that is in us. They don't believe we have a hope.

We are not to spread our beliefs randomly among any and everyone. They'll ridicule our precious "pearls" and tramp them underfoot, and turn again to attack us.

Peter may be referring to sincere seekers. We should be prepared to answer them, and to explain our hope in the Lord, and to defend it.

[Guest]

Paidion, by your response I guess you'd say that we are to share the gospel with sincere seekers and not with hardened individuals, correct? Peter's command seems to refer to only those who ask and Jesus warned against giving the gospel to an unwilling audience so I can see how this view is biblical. Would others agree with this asessment? Steve, do you want to jump back into this discussion? I really appreciate all the thoughtful replies.

[Guest]

It looks like the subject has shifted from correcting other Christians to correcting unbelievers. I don't have much to add other than that I wouldn't let your Buddhist friend's comment go by without correction. But that's just me. Some people might feel led to simply choose a better opportunity to correct her.

[Guest]

I would have defended the truth to the Buddhist friend also.
That friend appeared to be a seeker.

From my experience, seekers sometimes appear to be very critical of the disciple of Christ and his stand. But in reality, they are looking for answers. I'm not sure why they sometimes begin their search with an attack, but my guess is that they are testing the disciples to see whether they really have anything worth considering. If so, they should be able to withstand the attack.

[Guest]

Sorry for the shift in topic but I don't want to clutter the board with another post when there are paralells in the subject matter. From what I can gather, based on the opinions expressed here, correcting Christians is more or less an issue of being lead by the spirit and considering the implications of "rocking the boat." With unbelievers, one needs to discern whether or not the unbelieving party is open to correction and then proceed if that individual is not fiercely opposed to us? I don't mean to sound so mechanical but I really want to understand this because it's frequently on my mind.

Let me go back and say that I'm not talking about sharing the gospel with non-believers, but correcting their false ideas about Jesus and his teachings. I don't encounter too many people who haven't heard the gospel where I live but daily I'm confronted with people who have mistaken views of Christ. These range from "he was just a wise man" to "he never existed."

I'm more than prepared to explain and defend the hope that I have, but that hasn't been the issue for me, personally. The issue has been that of good timing versus bad timing and keeping a humble spirit when verbally attacked. I refuse to engage in venomous arguments and the grace of God has kept me humble. But I'd be dishonest if I said it doesn't make my blood boil when I see someone try to bully their ideas on someone else. I've seen this both inside and outside the church. Does anyone else have trouble striking a balance between humility and correction? Obviously, if you're offering correction to either a believer or non-believer then it follows that you consider your views to be more correct. This will usually be percieved as trying to bully others. Is this just a matter of caring too much about man's opinion?

[Guest]

Hi JC,

In your original post, you used Word of Faith and eschatology as your examples of disagreements to consider for correction.

My opinion is that for things that are more serious (Word of Faith, anti-nomianism as Homer suggested, misconceptions about Jesus, etc), I think a gentle correction from the scripture is warranted.

For "doubtful things" (eschatology or Calvinism/Arminianism, etc), I think it's wise to use a certain amount of discretion and again, let the Spirit lead. If your "blood is boiling" at the moment, it may not be the right time.

You wrote:

Does anyone else have trouble striking a balance between humility and correction?

I doubt you'll find yourself alone in this. I can't tell you how many times a gentle correction turned into a battle fueled by stubborn pride on both sides. But I don't think humility and objectivity are possible when we're emotionally attached to our viewpoints, even if we're right. The more you become committed to simple truth rather than your pride and favorite views, the easier it becomes to remain humble and objective. Steve is one of the best examples of this I've seen (not to puff you up or anything Steve).


In any of these situations, I think we should apply the principles in 1 Cor 13:

1 Cor 13:1-2
13:1 Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I have become sounding brass or a clanging cymbal. 2 And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.
NKJV

We can be right in all the wrong ways and simply come off sounding like a "clanging symbol" (obnoxious and annoying).

For controversial debates, I've adopted a variation of one of Steve's common phrases "you may be right, but I tend to see it...". I think something like that tends to take the edge off an argument because it gives some room for validity of the other persons opinion and shows respect.

Anyway, for what it's worth that's my current approach. I don't know that you're going to find a one-size-fits-all formula for this question. I think we simply must be obedient to the leading of the Holy Spirit. God usually lets me know when I've understepped or overstepped.

Lord bless.

[Guest]

Christopher,
Now that you mention it, I've also noticed that when my words are driven by humility it tends to eschew defensiveness. Coming at someone with fact after fact can indeed sound like a clanging symbol. The more I ponder this question and meditate on the related scriptures, it seems as though denfensiveness is the culprit and the cure may very well be offering corretion only when it's bathed in love and charity.

I happen to think Jesus calling the pharisees "snakes" was done out of love and charity. He wanted them, and those within earshot, to repent. Sort of like a divine "tough love." Now having said that, I'm pretty sure Jesus wouldn't take kindly to me using that kind of rebuke, but what are your thoughts on verses like this? Jesus' words often come off as uncharitible at first glance, but I see love in his rebukes.

Jesus also seemed to speak out more harshly on the "religious" people of his day. He wasn't called a "friend of sinners" for nothing. I take it that Jesus was more harsh with the pharisees because they should've known better, whereas the sinners simply needed to know him. What can we glean from this in terms of our current practice of communicating graciously with others?

[Guest]

Hi JC,

I happen to think Jesus calling the pharisees "snakes" was done out of love and charity. He wanted them, and those within earshot, to repent. Sort of like a divine "tough love."

You may be right . But I tend to think Jesus was talking to people that had already hardened their hearts enough to blaspheme the Holy Spirit (Matt 12:31) and was informing them of their impending judgment (Matt 12:41-42). Also, Jesus told them to keep "filling up" their guilt in Matt 23:

31 "Therefore you are witnesses against yourselves that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets. 32 Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers' guilt. 33 Serpents, brood of vipers! How can you escape the condemnation of hell? 34 Therefore, indeed, I send you prophets, wise men, and scribes: some of them you will kill and crucify, and some of them you will scourge in your synagogues and persecute from city to city, 35 that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. 36 Assuredly, I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation.
NKJV

I think Jesus was giving a condemning prediction here rather than a call to repentence.

However, when Jesus told Peter "get behind me Satan" (matt 16:23), He was doing this as a correction to Peter.

Now, Jesus is God and I'm not. So I don't think I'm at liberty to speak as He did in most cases. There may be times that a believer would be led by the Spirit to speak this way. John the baptist, the apostles, and the prophets certainly did at times. But I think these were exceptional cases and not the norm.

I like to lean on the side of grace unless the Lord puts it on my heart to speak more firmly (which is not altogether unusual). I suspect its a progressive process as well. When someone is not responsive to correction, we're told to escalate our treatment of them appropriately (Matt 18:15-17, 1 Cor 5:5, etc.). But this has more to do with sin than it does doctrinal misunderstandings.

That's the way I see it anyway.

Lord bless.