The Final Exchange - This is long, but might be worth it for you

Here is the final exchange between Tim and I (see a couple posts down for the back ground and to get a link on the whole exchange). We both agreed that we needed to stop this because we weren't really getting anywhere.

This is his email that I got this morning:

Zach -

This is going to be my final e-mail on this topic because this is no longer a good use of time. As I said in a previous e-mail, we are not going to gain any ground, because we have a fundamental difference of opinion on whether or not my words to Bob Ryan were ''gentle.'' You suggest that my arguments are ''void of anything Biblical.'' That is absurd. We do not disagree on the efficacy and authority of the Bible passages you have quoted, as I have said at least twice (maybe three times) already. We disagree on whether or not my words violate the standard laid out in those passages.

You say that we should talk less about social theory, but your entire argument is predicated on social theory and perceptions. The basic premise of your argument is that my words weren't ''gentle.'' Your categorization of my words is based on social perceptions or social "common sense" that phrases like 'you're clueless'' simply cannot be ''gentle.'' To me, gentleness is an overall character trait reflective of love, meaning that a gentle person acts out of concern for where others stand in relationship to God. I believe my view of gentleness is consistent with Scripture, while yours is better grounded in the research of a sociology professor at, say, Berkeley.

What is saddest to me about this situation is that all the time you have spent critiquing my approach would have been much better spent critiquing those who never take a stand against the crap spewed by the Bob Ryans of the world. And that is why I believe that over-caution about what qualifies as ''gentle'' could ultimately destroy Christian influence. 95% of Christians lack the zeal to take a hard public stance against anything. Unfortunately, it's the other 5% who bear all the criticism - often even from fellow Christians - as maybe once in a while they step over the line. But which group had the guts to speak up?

I don't feel the need to defend or explain myself any further. Even as our back-and-forth has been happening, several other people have either called or e-mailed thanking me for my words to Bob Ryan. I don't need additional feedback from other seminary professors or even my local pastor...I have enough feedback already. Without you having the chance to stand in my shoes and understand the impact that my e-mails have had on those who read them, you can't fully understand why I'm glad I said what I said as well as how I said it. As I have said before, the hope of influencing Bob Ryan was a distant peripheral goal to me. More important to me was encouraging and influencing the believers and non-believers who read my e-mails. And, I can tell you unequivocally that the influence has been positive.

So, I'm calling it quits on this discussion. Thanks for the give-and-take.

Tim

This is how I responded:

Tim,

Ok, fair enough. I see that this needs to stop. This will be my final crack at it! I think it is very important to think through these kinds of issues though, so I would encourage you to keep seeking counsel on this matter from others.

You said:
"You say that we should talk less about social theory, but your entire argument is predicated on social theory and perceptions. The basic premise of your argument is that my words weren't ''gentle.'' Your categorization of my words is based on social perceptions or social "common sense" that phrases like 'you're clueless'' simply cannot be ''gentle.'' To me, gentleness is an overall character trait reflective of love, meaning that a gentle person acts out of concern for where others stand in relationship to God. I believe my view of gentleness is consistent with Scripture, while yours is better grounded in the research of a sociology professor at, say, Berkeley".

Here is how we define the word “gentle” in English - gentle |ˈjentl| adjective ( gentler , gentlest ) 1 (of a person) mild in temperament or behavior; kind or tender : he was a gentle, sensitive man. • archaic (of a person) noble or having the qualities attributed to noble birth; courteous; chivalrous. 2 moderate in action, effect, or degree; not harsh or severe : a little gentle persuasion | a gentle breeze. • (of a slope) gradual : a gentle embankment.

Now, I assume we agree that in order to understand the Bible rightly we have to have a shared agreement on what words mean. (If you have a different take on language theory then let me know.) If we don’t, then we are swimming upstream in our attempt to come to any conclusions together in terms of the Biblical text. We can’t just redefine words however we want. This would cause our society to devolve into chaos. We both know this is true. So when the Bible says the word “gentle” I assume it’s adhering to the above definition, unless someone who is knowledgeable in Greek can show me otherwise (which is often the case). I assume you are not a Greek scholar, thus I think we have to both submit to the agreed language of our culture (unless it can be demonstrated differently from the greek) and see that using the three phrases that I have continually quoted would not be able to be categorized under the term “gentle”.

You continue to appeal to the fact that Bob should have his own category in terms of evangelism. Can you demonstrate Biblically what the warrant for this is? I’m not saying that there is not one, but I just can’t think of what it would be. Jesus calling the Pharisees a “brood of vipers” does not work because they were the religious elite who had zero care for those like Bob who were “harassed and helpless, like sheep with out a shepherd”. Jesus is also in his own category with this one. He knew hearts completely, we don’t. He did things all the time that we can’t do (forgive people sins, completely redefine the assumed meaning of a Biblical text or command, etc) He had the goal of going to the cross and he knew the Pharisees would be the ones to put him there. He had a much bigger picture in mind (basically the whole center of redemptive history) when he was talking with the Pharisees (who were the supposed “believers”), thus we can’t always say “Jesus said some crazy stuff, thus I can too!”.

You said:
“You suggest that my arguments are ''void of anything Biblical.'' That is absurd”.

You have yet to quote any scripture (other than Jesus in the temple, which is loose at best) in your defense of your position. You continue to claim that your position is Biblical, but have yet to demonstrate this Biblically. Give me texts baby! :)


You said:
“95% of Christians lack the zeal to take a hard public stance against anything.”

I agree. I think there are ways to take a “hard public stance” without resorting to insults in the process. This is my only problem with your initial email.

You said:
“I don't need additional feedback from other seminary professors or even my local pastor...I have enough feedback already”.

If I was to be most honest with you, I would say that this statement above is the most dangerous of any that you have said thus far. To say that you don’t need spiritual guidance in this matter from those who you have choosen to be in authority over you spiritually is very bad place to be in. If you don’t need their thoughts, then maybe you should find a church where you really desire to have the input of your pastor in spiritual matters. I know this is of utmost importance for me. Maybe you have a different view of ecclesiology, but my view is that God has placed the church in believers lives for many reasons, but one of the biggest ones is for spiritual guidance and direction on the part of pastors for their people. If you choose to think that you don’t need your pastor’s “take” or feedback in dealing with the topic of correctly dealing with unbelievers for the sake of the gospel, then that means you pretty much feel like you have all the answers or, you feel like you have something to hide from your pastor. Both are dangerous places to be in my opinion. This is not a humble position and the Bible has so many warnings against a lack of humility that I couldn’t begin to list them all here. Proverbs is full of them and 1 Peter 5:5-7 is one of the most common.

You said:
“As I have said before, the hope of influencing Bob Ryan was a distant peripheral goal to me.”

I seems that we have a different view on the correct approach to evangelism. If you think you have a correct belief system and that Bob’s is wrong (which is my assumption as well) then I think he would fall in the “lost” category Biblically. This being the case I would challenge you to see read your Bible over the next few months and see how God deals with lost people (Not the religious elite, that’s a different category for Jesus, which one could say me and you fall into... That’s even scarier, be humble or get thrashed!!). If Bob is in the “lost” category, then I think the Bible shows over and over again how compassion with truth telling needs to be the norm and not insults. (See the Parable of the Lost Son, Paul in Acts 17, “I came to seek and save that which was lost”, etc and on and on)

I think maybe the goal you had in my might be bit off. As I read the Bible, encouraging believers and modeling good behavior is very important. But of equal (if not more) importance is the goal to “Go into all nations, make disciples and teach them to obey everything I have commanded”. If this was NOT your goal with Bob, I think you should have a Biblical warrant for that, assuming he is an unbeliever. Why with this not your goal with Bob? Why is he in a unique category of unbeliever? The Bible does not make this distinction.

This could be broken down really simple... Do you like it when people call you clueless? Would you like it is a prof of yours wrote on one of your term papers that “unfortunate is what happens every time you put pen to paper”? I assume that if you are being honest, you would say, “no, I don’t like that”. If that is the case then I would say you are breaking the great commandment to “do unto others as you would have them do to you”.

Let me close by saying this. In spiritual matters, it’s the Holy Spirit that changes hearts, not wise and persuasive words. I could be wrong in my stance here. I am open to that. But you could be wrong too. I’ll pray that God humbles us both and enlightens both of our hearts. If I am wrong, then the Biblical promise is that God will discipline me (Hebrews 12). If you are wrong then he will do the same for you. To me this truth should humble both of us in this conversation. I pray that God will give you much grace in the future as you deal with unbelievers for the sake of God glory and your joy. Email is a dumb way to go about talking about things that matter. Not having non-verbal communication is really bad. My intent was not to offend you in anyway, but I just felt that this issue needed to be address. It’s that important. I hope to see you in CF sometime! I’ll take you to Starbucks and buy you a coffee and we can talk about it more if you want.

zach