Some criticisms are especially unintelligent. I recently received a rebuff from a Christian for applying the word "moron" to a non-Christian, as the Bible does. In it he says "a good rule to remember" is that "it takes one to know one." But this principle is problematic for several reasons.

First, by "it takes one to know one," this Christian intends to suggest that if I call someone a moron, then I must be one myself to be able to recognize him as one. Thus he claims that by this principle he recognizes me as a moron, but then by the same principle, "it takes one to know one" (and he knows me as one), he must be a moron himself. So all I hear from his objection is that he is calling himself a moron, and I am mystified as to how this is supposed to discourage me from applying the word to a non-Christian as the Bible does.

Second, after insisting that he is himself a moron, by this principle he is also calling the faithful and significant Christians of previous centuries all the derogatory names that they have applied toward those who disbelieved and disobeyed sound doctrine. This is because name-calling modeled after the biblical examples had always been the custom of the Church Fathers and the Reformers. From Augustine to Calvin, and even Matthew Henry and Charles Spurgeon, harsh but accurate invectives had always been applied to the opponents of the gospel. But by the principle, "it takes one to know one," this Christian condemns this whole host of God's servants with all the labels that they have applied toward unbelief and rebellion, as if these servants of God were in fact the enemies of Christ.

Third, even if we yield to the Christian's second implication, that all these significant figures in church history were just as much the children of hell as those that they denounced, surely no Christian should say the same about the inspired characters of Scripture. Yet the prophets and the apostles almost unceasingly called some in their audience sinners, fools, idolaters, adulterers, liars, whores, dogs, and many other things. By the principle "it takes one to know one," this Christian asserts that the prophets and the apostles were also all of these things. By this point, if we take this Christian seriously – if he takes this principle seriously – we must conclude that it is impossible for him to affirm the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture.

As if that is not enough, the fourth implication is still more severe. Our Lord Jesus himself called many people harsh and derogatory names, using a wide range of invectives to denounce them. He speaks of sinners, adulterers, idolaters, liars, and demons. He rebuked his disciples for their lack of faith and understanding. He called the Pharisees vipers, murderers, hypocrites, and even the children of hell. By the principle "it takes one to know one," our Christian is by implication calling the Lord himself all these things – that he is a demon, a murderer, a hypocrite, even a child of hell.

In connection with the above, we could make a fifth point out of the fact that the principle also implies that, when God the Father calls someone a sinner, this makes God himself a sinner, since "it takes one to know one." Moreover, a sixth point can be developed out of a reverse application of the principle. That is, when I call the Father "God," this means that I am God myself, for "it takes one to know one." Now if the principle is qualified to eliminate all these undesirable, and probably unintended, implications, then it is pretty much useless and a waste of my time. This Christian might as well just call me a moron without any justification and without making any connection to the fact that I applied the term to a non-Christian. But of course, "it takes one to know one."

If I base my use of invectives on biblical precepts and examples, as I repeatedly assert and demonstrate, then this Christian must either refute any alleged scriptural support and connection between my practice and what we find in Scripture, or he is applying his principle to me fully aware of the connection that I claim with Scripture. Thus he is without excuse. By implication, his rebuke against me is the equivalent of a renunciation of Scripture and of Christ.

Thus if we take his point seriously – if he takes his point seriously – by his rebuke against me he must be considered for immediate excommunication from the church. By no means do I now assert that this person is indeed an unbeliever. The point is that my practice has an irrefutable biblical and historical foundation, and to attack it merely shows up the objector as one who stands squarely against Scripture. Moreover, his use of the cliché and irrational principle "it takes one to know one" reflects a common practice among Christians of using non-Christian standards to regulate all aspects of their theology and practice, even to the point of condemning those who follow Scripture rather than the world.

Rather than a champion of biblical love and kindness, if his use of the principle by which he rebukes me is taken to its devastating logical conclusion, then we must insist that he is not a Christian at all, but an unbeliever and a blasphemer. Unless he has never read much of the Bible or many of the prominent Christian works throughout history, our most charitable conclusion is that he employs a double standard against me, and proves himself to be a self-righteous hypocrite. And what we find today among Christians is a cliché system of theology and ethics that is not very different from what the non-Christians believe. This is, inevitably, the pathetic condition of those who wield an unbiblical standard to judge a biblical doctrine, practice, or ministry.

In the same rebuke, he also admonishes me with the statement, "It is easy to sling it but its not nice to receive it." But is he prepared to say this to the likes of Augustine, Athanasius, Luther, Calvin, and so on? Does he dare to say the same to Jeremiah, to Paul, and even to the Lord Jesus? No, like a hypocrite, he says it only to me because I am one who has not achieved hero status in his mind, and therefore I am not exempt from his non-Christian standard.

Now, if I am following a biblical practice, applying the same words that Scripture uses to the same kind of people that it applies these words, why do I have to "receive" the same? Why is even a question whether it is easy to "sling it" or "receive it"? What does that have to do with anything? How is it relevant? In this context, the admonition makes no sense. It is just another cliché from one who has been indoctrinated by the world instead of by biblical teachings and examples, and who now takes upon himself to rebuke me when I rebel against the anti-biblical standard, seemingly in the hope that I will get back in line with the accepted non-Christian practice and attitude. There is no chance that I will comply.

Long ago I had to make a decision. I could cater to the non-Christian standard to make my speech and writing sound academic and professional to people. Or, I could forsake worldly respectability and follow the examples of the prophets, the apostles, and the Lord Jesus. The former would make me a pitiful drone, a polite hypocrite who offends fewer people but by implication blasphemes even the Lord himself. The latter would make me a faithful minister of Christ, scorned by professing believers and hated by the unbelievers – that is, if I can even tell them apart – but the reward is divine light and thunder in my proclamation of the word of God, and the Father's approval that comes from obedience through the Lord Jesus Christ. The options were clear. The consequences were obvious. The decision was easy. "If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a servant of Christ."

Posted in Expositions | Permanent Link