We all could be kinder, nicer, love more, forgive more. I believe that. However, how “nice” we are does not mean we are correct when we speak about the Bible, salvation, or any number of theological issues. God’s transcendent truth decides right and wrong, good and evil – not how we feel about it, or how we feel about the persons presenting it.
Furthermore, this is not an issue of one side is always nice and the other side is always naughty (i.e., mean, mean-spirited).[i] Both sides in the Bible versions debate can be both nice and mean. It is a matter of how the different sides approach this, their “style.” The “fundamental” side (and KJVO in Bible version debates) tends to express their meanness plainly without any façade.[ii] The “neo-conservative” side (and MVO in Bible version debates) tends to dress up their meanness in “nice clothes” so we can focus on the clothes instead of the meanness. This is especially noticeable to me because I have worked part of my life in construction, where strong men may get mad and express it forcefully; and part of my life in education, where you seldom see much of the in-your-face mean and nasty stuff. Instead it is more likely “stab you in the back with one hand while shaking your hand with the other” – all the while keeping a bright smile on the face, being quite “nice.” There is something better about the severe blow that you can see coming from someone you know is mean, as opposed to the sucker punch that is about to blindside you from someone whom you thought was nice![iii]
This “nice equals right” mentality rises from secular, saccharine, and silly views of what “nice” is. In support of this – or because of it – both secularists and people called Christians have recreated Jesus in their own image of “nice.” The Jesus of the Bible tells us to turn the other cheek. The Jesus of the Bible also turns over the tables of the moneychangers. The Jesus of the Bible tells us to speak the truth. The Jesus of the Bible also calls people hypocrites, serpents, and vipers. I have a feeling some people need to reassess the concept of Jesus that they have installed in their minds.
“Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.” John 17:17
“Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever.” Psalm 119:160
“Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth…” John 14:6
“…yea, let God be true, but every man a liar…” Romans 3:4
[ii] Perhaps this is a general trait of “Fightin’ Fundamentalism.” Additionally, too many King James supporters have drunk from the fountain of Peter Ruckman’s nastiness. I lived 60-something years of my life without owning or reading any of his works, except one small pamphlet on segregation that another preacher gave me years ago. Last year I decided I might not be as knowledgeable as I should be on the KJV debate issues without actually reading something Ruckman wrote, so I ordered a couple of his books. If the rest of his books are anything like those, they could be edited down to about half size by taking out all the bombast about how wrong everyone is except him.
[iii] Example: “I’m going to guess you can’t read the original Bible languages,” by a guy who might not be able to read them in the way regular folks think folks mean when they say they can read something.
2 comments:
Brother, this post is NOT devoid of truth. There is fake niceness. "Let love be without hypocrisy," the NT says. So it surely is possible to pretend to love others. I'd rather have open rebuke than secret love; I'd rather have someone yell at me than smile and shake my hand while stabbing me. Yes, I'm with you thus far!
But this reminds me of the parallel discussion in culture over civil discourse. Should conservative Christians stop trying to use the courtesy of a David who let Saul "cover his feet" without harming him? Of a Reepicheep or King Peter who gallantly upheld the honor of their opponents (Eustace and Miraz)? I think discussion of the fruit of the Spirit is often absent here. There has to be a way for righteousness to be promoted righteously, in a way that demonstrates love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control.
It simply cannot be wrong—unless the "love" on display is hypocritical—for the servant of the Lord to be “kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, correcting his opponents with gentleness.”
I try to take seriously the passages of Scripture which hit other themes. It seems to me that there are times to mock and then kill the priests of Baal, or certainly to pronounce withering woes on the Pharisees. But I think these are comparatively rare circumstances, and I think these withering words are directed at especially wicked people—who ought to know better.
Only God truly knows whether my love for my opponents in the Bible version debate is genuine. But I know that genuine love is what he calls me to. I pray that he will grant it always to me.
Mark, Thanks for stopping by and commenting. I appreciate your thoughts on the post. (Yes, really, not hypocritically. It is good for our humility and understanding truth to have your thoughts challenged, and I agree with most of what you write.)
Perhaps fake niceness itself can be hard to identify and define correctly. If I am so mad that I could punch a hole through a wall and I don’t, is that fake or is it self-control? Or perhaps some of both?
Truly Paul wrote, “...the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, in meekness instructing those that oppose themselves.” The principle also recognizes that some need “repentance to the acknowledging of the truth” and that they need to “recover themselves out of the snare of the devil.” A mixture of gentleness and hardness, that, perhaps, we often fail to achieve in proper proportions.
If my post somehow opposes civil discourse, then I did not write it well! That is my writing and my deficiency, so I take responsibility for it. I thought I had a main point in there somewhere – we cannot judge a truth based simply on who is naughty or nice (though maybe Santa can). The truth is based on God and his word, no matter how naughty someone who agrees with it might be, or how nice someone who disagrees with it. It is one thing to point out that someone is “naughty” (not behaving according to biblical standards) and another to insinuate that because they are naughty, then the argument itself is devoid of truth (I think we used to call that argumentum ad hominem). Perhaps ad hominem argument itself is not nice?
In addition to truth based on the word of God, in case I am not or have not been clear, I favor our discussions being marked by common courtesy, our actions driven by the love of God, and our walk conducted by faith and not by sight. I make no claims of having achieved such, but hope, by the grace of God, once in a while I rise to the standard.
Post a Comment