Archive January 2009

Seeker-Hostile Ministry

An excerpt from Commentary on 1 & 2 Thessalonians.

Statistics can be misleading – not the numbers as such, but the way they are gathered, presented, and interpreted. Even if the methods are honest and the numbers are accurate, there are some important questions that we must ask before accepting the interpretations offered about the statistics. When it comes to quantifying our obedience and effectiveness in evangelism, it is important to consider what we are counting. Many reports of evangelistic programs are characterized by ambiguity. The problem is most pronounced in ministries that spurn doctrinal precision but that at the same time practice mass evangelism. The relevance of doctrine to accuracy in reporting will become apparent in a moment. Of course, we are not against ministry statistics and mass evangelism themselves, but right now we have in mind a particular kind of ministry outreach and mentality.

What are we counting? Many ministries report the number of professions, that is, the number of people who say in one way or another that they have become Christians as a result of the evangelistic outreaches. The soteriology that is assumed by a ministry determines what counts as a credible profession of faith. In many cases, it is considered sufficient for a person to repeat a prayer in order for him to be pronounced a believer in Christ, after which all questions regarding the genuineness of his profession are discouraged. The prayer often lack any doctrinal substance or biblical basis, such as the common practice of asking Jesus to come into one's heart, whatever that means. The message that persuades the person to repeat such a prayer is often equally indefinite and non-biblical.

One female charismatic evangelist of international reputation, who ministers together with her husband, once addressed an audience that mostly consisted of professing believers. The gathering was for some sort of ministry training. Near the beginning of her presentation, she asked those in the audience to repeat a prayer, which turned out to be a prayer for salvation, asking Jesus to come into their hearts or something to that effect. Then, she said, "Notice that I did not ask them if they wanted to get saved. I just said, 'Repeat this prayer after me,' and they did it."

As expected, this couple claims large number of conversions as a result of their outreaches. But what are they counting? The numbers represent not people who have come to faith in Christ, but those who have been tricked into saying the words that she would tell them to repeat. Their statistics might accurately report the number of people that have been manipulated and added to their tally, but they are irrelevant as indicators of success in evangelism, since very little evangelism has been done. So the numbers discredit the ministry rather than endorse it.

To prevent invalid interpretations, statistics must be placed in their contexts. Counting converts is an acceptable practice that the first Christians also found useful, although unnecessary, since the numbers were not emphasized in every outreach. Perhaps numbers were not even gathered every time. Acts 2:41 reports that "about three thousand were added to their number that day." This figure is useful for measuring the impact of an outreach because it is placed in the context of a genuine presentation of the Christian faith.

The preceding passages describe the signs accompanying the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. When the people wonder at the sights and sounds, Peter stands up to preach. He confronts the Jews with the person and work of Jesus Christ, his miracles, his death, and his resurrection, reminding them that they were the ones who murdered him, their own Messiah. He tells them that the coming and the resurrection of Jesus occurred to fulfill prophecy, and that the outpouring of the Spirit that they presently witness is a fulfillment of Joel's prediction. Hearing this, the Jews are "cut to the heart" (Acts 2:37) and asked the apostles what they should do. They are told to repent and turn to Jesus Christ.

So the Jews are confronted with the truth, much of which the natural and sinful man would oppose (1 Corinthians 1:18). They are even told that they murdered Jesus, so that to affirm the gospel in this context would entail an admission that they committed this murder. Against this background, the report of three thousand converts is indeed meaningful and significant. In the face of challenge and offense to their sinful nature, they are able to undergo informed conversions to the Christian faith. There is no trickery, gimmick, or evangelistic sleight of hand.

Compare this to the numbers we would be presented by the evangelist couple mentioned earlier. Even if the numbers are accurate in the sense that they offer a true report of the number of people who repeated the words they were told to say, they carry no meaning and no significance where the impact of an outreach is concerned. At best the numbers indicate the number of people that they have tricked into saying words that they might not mean or even understand, and if the message and the prayer fail to convey the essential content of the gospel, then no known conversion is indicated by the numbers at all. Numbers, then, are useless unless we know the context. And if the context indicates that no true gospel ministry has been offered, then no matter how large the numbers, they cannot demonstrate that an outreach has achieved any measure of success.

In what we refer to as the Great Commission, Jesus instructs Christians to "make disciples…teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you" (Matthew 28:19-20). This is the biblical standard by which we should measure our obedience and effectiveness in our ministry outreaches. And this is what Paul sets out to do in his ministry by the power of God: "We proclaim him, admonishing and teaching everyone with all wisdom, so that we may present everyone perfect in Christ" (Colossians 1:28). His method involves preaching, admonishing, and teaching. And he does these things so that "we may present everyone perfect in Christ," and not so that "we may trick everyone to make a profession of Christ."

A biblical ministry should have as its explicit purpose throughout its agendas and methods the perfection of those people it reaches and not mere profession. This is why a "hit and run" method of evangelism does not even begin to obey the Great Commission, especially when what we "hit" people with is not even the gospel. This approach does not even attempt to teach people "everything," or as Paul puts it elsewhere, "the whole counsel of God" (Acts 20:27, ESV). And it does not aim to produce lifelong disciples that constantly strive for perfection in Christ. A true gospel outreach expounds and enforces the complete revelation of Jesus Christ – all the doctrines of the Christian faith – and thus propel those under its influence and authority toward perfection.

Therefore, to carry out the Great Commission requires ministers (or teams of ministers) who possess extensive, even a "complete," knowledge of the Christian faith as set forth in the Bible. Another way to describe this is that it requires competence in systematic theology, biblical exposition, and the ethical application that follows from these first two items. This disqualifies most of the evangelists in the field today. Those who boast that they care nothing for doctrine but that they only preach a simple gospel represent a departure from the Lord's command and the apostles' practice. The requirement to "teach everything" can often be satisfied, or partially satisfied, through the distribution of publications. We will mention this again later.

The comprehensive nature of the Great Commission in turn requires the minister of the gospel to devote a substantial amount of time to those who hear him. Take Paul as an example. Instead of preaching for only a few hours, he stayed in Corinth for more than a year and a half (Acts 18:11, 18). And instead of teaching for only several days or weeks, he held daily discussions in Ephesus for two years (Acts 19:10). He was unable to remain in Thessalonica for more than several weeks, because the Jews stirred up a violent mob and forced him to leave (Acts 17:2-10; 1 Thessalonians 2:15). Thus he considered his work there incomplete (1 Thessalonians 3:10), and became concerned about the spiritual welfare of the new converts (1 Thessalonians 3:5).

We may regard this as an issue of "follow-up." This stresses that evangelism should involve more than an initial contact with the target audience. However, it would be unbiblical and counterproductive to make an overly clean distinction between first contact and follow-up. Rather, throughout all stages of planning and execution, the evangelistic enterprise should be considered a long-term process. It is indeed possible to preach the gospel and make genuine converts even in an hour, and some people see "evangelism" from this perspective, and regard all subsequent contact with the audience as "follow-up." But as we have noted, this conception departs from the scriptural perspective because the Great Commission commands us to make disciples by teaching them everything about the Christian faith. Therefore, what is often considered follow-up should, in fact, be in the forefront of our thinking at the beginning of our evangelistic effort. It should not be relegated to an inferior, less intense, or even optional position in a gospel ministry.

The Great Commission commands Christians to teach "everything." Paul says to the elders of Ephesus, "I have not hesitated to preach anything that would be helpful to you" (Acts 20:20). One pastor used this statement as an excuse to advocate and distribute homeopathic cures to his congregation, but the next verse narrows the context to Christian doctrines. The point is that Paul shares our understanding of the Great Commission, and attempts to fulfill it everywhere he goes. He continues in verses 26 and 27, "Therefore, I declare to you today that I am innocent of the blood of all men. For I have not hesitated to proclaim to you the whole will of God" (Acts 20:26-27). His declaration of innocence is based on his comprehensive teaching ministry. This implies that a person who refrains from teaching everything about the Christian faith even when he has the opportunity shares the moral responsibility for the failures of those that he is supposed to instruct as disciples and bring to maturity.

Paul is anxious about the condition of his converts in Thessalonica. He was unable to communicate a full body of Christian knowledge to them before the Jews chased him out of the city through the aggressive use of slander and violence. However, he managed to emphasize an important point to them, namely, that they would be persecuted for their faith in Jesus Christ, that they should expect harsh treatment from some of the unbelievers. He writes, "In fact, when we were with you, we kept telling you that we would be persecuted. And it turned out that way, as you well know" (1 Thessalonians 3:4). The apostle gave it more than an isolated and obscure mention. He stressed and repeated this to them during his time there.

Paul's message is not what we would call "seeker-friendly." Although he takes care to remove unnecessary offenses that might hinder people from considering the Christian faith, he makes no effort to make his message palatable to the sinful man. The sinful man is possessed by evil dispositions that render him naturally antagonistic to truth, repentance, and holiness. From this perspective, there is nothing that the preacher can do to make the Christian faith attractive or "friendly" to the sinner without compromising the truth about what this religion teaches and produces. Will the Christian obtain great wealth? Perhaps, but to be a Christian under certain circumstances might mean the loss of freedom and property (Hebrews 10:34). Will the Christian attain a better marriage? Perhaps, but a Christian who is married to an unbelieving spouse,  might become a victim of desertion (1 Corinthians 7:15). Will the Christian achieve harmony in his family? Perhaps, but a Christian who has unbelieving family members might be betrayed to his death (Matthew 10:21-22).

The gospel is "good news" in the sense that it proclaims God's gift in Jesus Christ, through whom forgiveness, restoration, eternal life and bliss, the knowledge of the true God, and many other blessings, are extended to the chosen ones. But these things are "good" only from the perspective of divine knowledge and righteousness, and not from the perspective of rebellious and disbelieving sinners. It is good from the perspective of truth and wisdom, but sinners are ignorant and foolish. For essential aspects of the gospel to become "friendly" to sinners, the preacher must either change the gospel so that it becomes as ignorant and foolish as the sinners, in which case the message has turned into a private philosophy and no longer a revealed message that God honors with his saving power, or, God must change the sinners so that they could perceive truth and wisdom, and thus find the things of God attractive.

In other words, some offenses are necessary and unavoidable. They occur not because of the personal offensive nature of the preacher, but because the truth of righteousness naturally and necessarily offends the sinful man whose heart has not been opened by God, so that his intellectual and ethical dispositions are always contrary to wisdom and holiness. A sound exposition of the Christian faith will include mention of certain aspects of confessing Jesus Christ that might be difficult to hear – so difficult, in fact, that they will tend to repulse unbelievers and pretenders.

Paul does not preach, "The Christian faith is all about fun. Our church has it all – good songs, comfortable seats, delicious snacks, and conversations without all the confrontations. Come one, come all!" Such a message would indeed be seeker-friendly, but it is powerless to save anyone, and it would attract the wrong people, namely, those who would continue to indulge in their unregenerate thoughts and practices, but who simply desire a change in environment. Instead, Paul declares, "What I say to you about Jesus Christ is the truth, and the only way to salvation, to eternal life, and to escape the wrath of God. However – and I will keep telling you this – if you believe in this gospel that I am preaching, if you become one of us, then you will be persecuted by those who remain in unbelief. They will make life difficult for you, make fun of you, lie about you, and even imprison or kill some of you."

The only sense in which the preaching of the gospel should be "seeker-friendly" is that it should welcome all kinds of people to repentance toward God and faith toward Christ. It does not turn away anyone based on their race, gender, and social or economic background. It does, however, condemn all those who remain unrepentant, unbelieving, and who are unwilling to renounce their non-Christian religions, philosophies, and lifestyles. This is not an attractive message to those whose heart has not been softened and enlightened by God. But to those whom God has chosen for salvation, it is irresistible, for they are the ones who hear the voice of the shepherd therein.

The preaching of the gospel, therefore, should stress truth and not comfort. If God does not perform the work of regeneration in the heart, a person would never believe the gospel in the first place – it is against his wicked and foolish nature. But when God regenerates and transforms a person's heart, his work is characterized by excellence and endurance. It cannot be destroyed by offense or suffering, still less by some minor discomfort, but it is rather refined by testing and strengthened by pressure. In fact, the work that God performs in the heart is so pure and robust that it becomes all the more accentuated when confronted by those Christian doctrines and demands that would offend the unregenerate and the pretenders.

When Jesus called Peter, Andrew, James, and John to become his disciples, he said to them, "Come, follow me, and I will make you fishers of men." At this, they left their vocation, their lifestyle, their family, and what sense of psychological attachment and security associated with these, and followed Christ (Matthew 4:18-22). The demand was straightforward, and even severe by some standards, but they complied and their lives became entwined with their master's forever.

Later, Jesus said to a young man, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me" (Matthew 19:21). This dismayed him, and he went away. The young man was indeed a "seeker," and came to ask a question that appeared to demonstrate a willingness to follow Christ. The Lord's response was outright seeker-hostile. It was blunt and extreme, demanding total abandonment of the young man's previous lifestyle. It would have been more seeker-friendly to let him follow at his convenience, so that perhaps he might pick up some truths along the way. Instead, Christ said perhaps the most demanding and disheartening thing to this seemingly sincere seeker.  This is contrary to all the principles and methods of seeker-friendly evangelism.

We acknowledge that the young man possessed great riches, but it remains that Peter and the others left what they had, their income, routine, security, family, to follow Christ. The same passage confirms the significance of their action. When Peter mentioned that they had left everything to follow him, Jesus did not belittle this just because what they left behind, in terms of wealth, was less than what this young man possessed. Rather, he said, "I tell you the truth, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or fields for my sake will receive a hundred times as much and will inherit eternal life. But many who are first will be last, and many who are last will be first" (Matthew 19:28-30).

In other words, the disciples provide a meaningful contrast to the young man – the difference in wealth does not void the comparison. In principle, the same seeker-hostile demand was placed on both – in fact, the young man appeared more eager than the disciples, and initiated contact with Jesus – but the disciples complied and the young man refused. A seeker-hostile approach cuts through mere appearance to test the heart. If God is at work to convert the person, a harsh (but righteous) demand or offensive (but true) comment will not repulse him, but if God is not at work to convert, then it will bypass the mask of the eager seeker and expose the true condition of his heart.

Another example of Jesus' seeker-hostile method is taken from the case of the Gentile woman who comes to request healing for her daughter:

Leaving that place, Jesus withdrew to the region of Tyre and Sidon. A Canaanite woman from that vicinity came to him, crying out, "Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is suffering terribly from demon-possession."

Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples came to him and urged him, "Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us."

He answered, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel."

The woman came and knelt before him. "Lord, help me!" she said.

He replied, "It is not right to take the children's bread and toss it to their dogs."

"Yes, Lord," she said, "but even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters' table."

Then Jesus answered, "Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted." And her daughter was healed from that very hour. (Matthew 15:21-28)

The woman is in great need, and she comes crying out to Jesus in eagerness and reverence. Contrary to a common misrepresentation of Jesus and of the Christian faith, Jesus repeatedly responds in a seeker-hostile manner. Although the woman calls him Lord, recognizes him as the Son of David, cries out for mercy, and requests help for her daughter who is "suffering terribly," Jesus ignores her. He does not speak to encourage her. He does not reach out to comfort her. Whereas the seeker-friendly approach aims to entice seekers, this woman needs no gimmick to attract her. She comes willingly, actively, eagerly, and it seems she could hardly be any more open to Jesus' message and ministry, but he pays her no attention.

Then, when the woman continues her cries, and it appears that Jesus is not going to help her, the disciples persuade Jesus to send her way. And it seems that he proceeds to do this, for he says, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel." In effect, he tells her, "I am sent to minister to some other group of people. I am not sent to help you." This is his response to the woman's cries, and there is nothing in his statement that would encourage her to pursue the issue further. The statement itself leaves very few options for the woman. He even gives the reason for his apparent rejection of the her request, and the reason is such that there is nothing she can do to alter it.

She persists: "Lord, help me!" By this time, many people would expect Jesus to break down and weep, and rush right to her daughter to cure her. Instead, he suggests that it is "not right" to help her, and even insults her by calling her a dog. If not for the fact that it is Jesus doing this and that this is recorded in Scripture, many Christians would call such behavior cruel and heartless. Perhaps they would even say regarding this kind of treatment, "It is not Christ-like"! This reaction arises because they have a false conception of what Jesus is like and how Christian ministry should operate. At this point it seems that the only way for Jesus to be even less seeker-friendly is to punch her in the stomach and kick her down a hill so that he could be rid of her.

Sometimes it is noted that the Jews are accustomed to referring to Gentiles as dogs, as if this makes Jesus' use of the term less offensive. But does this make it better or worse? What if I were to select one of the culturally popular racial slurs to address someone in church? Some Christians would prefer that I commit blasphemy or adultery than to make a statement that would sound racist or sexist. Even Christians are prone to identify with their race, gender, or nationality more than their identity as believers. What a disgrace. So this so-called explanation does not reduce the offensiveness of Jesus' use of the term, but rather highlights and accentuates it.

The way that Jesus deals with this woman is not even slightly encouraging, and not remotely close to what we would call seeker-friendly. And those who would claim that Jesus is an exception are hypocrites. To them, Jesus is a model to follow on those things that they approve, and an exception to admire (or simply puzzle over) but not to imitate on those things that they disapprove or wish to forbid in others.

The woman remains undeterred, and answers, "But even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters' table." This could be taken as an admission that Gentiles are but dogs, although not necessarily so, but it is not a denial. At least for the sake of argument, but perhaps also in reality, she accepts the derogatory designation and employs it to reissue her request. The way that she manipulates the image of children at the table is significant, since it expresses a high level of faith. She implies that God is her master, and that even the "crumbs" of Jesus' power would be sufficient to cure her daughter. She believes so much in his authority that she thinks performing a miracle for her daughter would not at all take away from Jesus' mission or the share of God's blessings that he is sent to provide for Israel. In terms of the analogy, she believes that even an unconscious and accidental release of Jesus' power would satisfy her urgent need.

As it turns out, Jesus' harsh and offensive approach to the woman compels her faith and resolve to surface. The work of God in the woman is robust, and thrives under testing and pressure. It is possible that Jesus intends to induce this effect in the woman, but this does not change the fact that he indeed uses a seeker-hostile approach, so that to be unfriendly in this sense cannot be wrong in principle. And recall that the same seeker-hostile approach did not draw out faith from the rich young man, but turned him away. Thus even if Jesus intends to draw out faith in some people by a tougher approach toward them, this does not mean that he would necessarily use a softer approach when dealing with someone who could not endure this kind of treatment. The seeker-hostile method stimulates the faith of the elect, and exposes the pretense of the non-elect. Although Jesus does not always treat people this way, the examples that we have refute those who insist on a seeker-friendly or a gentle and welcoming approach as a matter of principle.

Our final example from the ministry of Jesus is taken from the Gospel of John, where the Lord declares that it is necessary for a person to eat his flesh and drink his blood in order to have life:

Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever." He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.

On hearing it, many of his disciples said, "This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?"

Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, "Does this offend you? What if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life. Yet there are some of you who do not believe." For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. He went on to say, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him."

From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.

"You do not want to leave too, do you?" Jesus asked the Twelve.

Simon Peter answered him, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. We believe and know that you are the Holy One of God."

Then Jesus replied, "Have I not chosen you, the Twelve? Yet one of you is a devil!" (He meant Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot, who, though one of the Twelve, was later to betray him.) (John 6:53-71)

The teaching is bizarre and repulsive to those present. Of course Jesus knows this, but he gives the teaching anyway, and it is as if he chooses to state it in a way that maximizes its offensive effect. When some in the audience become alarmed at what he says, he presses on and offends them even more. He realizes that some of those who have been following him do not really believe. He tells them this directly, and without any effort to remain subtle or polite, or to provide any hope for improvement or any incentive to remain loyal to him.

Then, when some of them turn away and no longer follow him, he does not chase after them to explain himself or to somehow attract their attention again. Instead, he turns to the Twelve and asks if they would like to leave also. There is no trace of desperation in him. He feels no pressure to attract and retain a crowd. He believes his own statement, "No one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him." If the Father does not cause a person to believe, then there is no use in trying to attract him with seeker-friendly gimmicks. But if the Father does cause a person to believe, then all gimmicks are unnecessary – the person will come, believe, and remain. No demanding doctrine can drive him away, even if it sounds unusual and extreme to unspiritual ears. This person recognizes and follows the voice of the shepherd (John 10:25-30).

We again discern a contrast between the elect and the non-elect from the disciples' response. Both groups hear the same teaching. The sinners who have not been changed by God become offended and abandons the Lord. As John writes, "They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us" (1 John 2:19). But when he asks if the Twelve would also like to leave, Peter answers, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. We believe and know that you are the Holy One of God." Jesus' seeker-hostile approach drives away false disciples, cleansing the community of his followers.

At the same time, the proper reasons for following him come into sharp focus in his true disciples, and they are compelled to article these reasons, that Jesus has the words of life, and he is the Holy One of God. Peter's rhetorical question, "Lord, to whom shall we go?" signals his awareness that there is no alternative, that Jesus is the only one with the words of life and that he is the only "Holy One of God." Therefore, Jesus' seeker-hostile approach is both efficient and effective in forcing both the elect and the non-elect to clarify and articulate their motives, reasons, and options. In contrast, the seeker-friendly approach dulls spiritual awareness and enables spiritual motives and reasons to remain hidden. The crowd might look bigger, but the ministry is far less faithful and effective in pursuing the mandate of evangelism and discipleship.

Seeker-friendly ministry is unbiblical, because the Bible teaches an almost opposite approach. It is unfaithful, because it fails to preach the true gospel. It is unbelieving, because it does not depend on the Spirit of God to draw and to convert sinners. It is unproductive, because it does not produce genuine and lasting faith in the people it reaches. And it is unnecessary, because the gospel will compel the elect to come to Christ in repentance and faith even if we say and do things that would offend the sinful dispositions of the unregenerate.

On the other hand, a biblical, elect-friendly, and seeker-hostile approach that declares the Christian faith in a straightforward manner will keep away those who would otherwise enter the church, not as believers but as pretenders, and it will repel those spiritual imposters – intellectual and ethical garbage – that have already infiltrated our community. If this offends you, is it because I am out of line, or is it because I might be talking about you – perhaps you are this spiritual garbage? If this offends you, it is an indication that there is something wrong with you. Examine yourself, and see if you are in the faith.

The biblical method of evangelism and discipleship is seeker-hostile. This term is selected to provide a contrast against the seeker-friendly approach, but it is accurate if understood correctly, and we have already defined it earlier. That is, relative to what is usually meant by a "seeker-friendly" approach, the biblical way to ministry is outright seeker-hostile. It is not that the biblical approach is to be obnoxious, although Christ himself was considered irksome and offensive by the reprobates. So you should not try to be obnoxious in order to be biblical, but if you try to be biblical, reprobates will find you most obnoxious. If you set out to preach the gospel without attempting to please the sinful dispositions and demands of the unregenerate, even though some of them present themselves as interested "seekers" that desire to investigate the Christian faith, then you will appear obnoxious and hostile to the reprobates. If the content and manner of your presentation attract and retain a substantial number of reprobates, including those who pretend but do not in fact believe, then it can only mean that there is no truth and power in your message.

The Great Invasion

An excerpt from Power Apologetics.

Jesus turned the other cheek, but he also turned over tables. He did not do just one of the two all of the time, but he did both, depending on what was appropriate to the situation. Likewise, we are to do both, depending on the situation. The Christian who turns the other cheek even when he should turn over tables, probably turns the other cheek not because he is humble, but because he is a coward. And the one who turns over tables all the time, and who never turns the other cheek, probably turns over tables not because of spiritual boldness or zealousness, but only because he has an aggressive and impatient personality. Or, perhaps both have been misinformed as to how a believer should act. We are to be able to do both, and an understanding of biblical principles will guide us as to what we are to do in any situation. In apologetics, there are times when we need to turn over some tables.

Sometimes non-Christians use 1 Peter 3:15 to manipulate believers. They exploit the Christian's own false interpretation of the verse to make him answer for his faith, and to do it with gentleness and respect. This answer is usually taken in the defensive sense, so that the Christian is supposed to endlessly provide defensive responses to questions and objections. Given the false interpretation of the verse, there is never a point when the interrogation must conclude, and when the non-Christian must either answer for his own beliefs, or else surrender to the gospel.

The gentleness and respect are understood in a way that makes them resemble the passivity in Buddhism and Confucianism rather than the fruit of the Spirit. This is an abomination, and it allows unbelievers to pressure Christians to offer only defensive answers about their faith that pose no direct intellectual threat to the unbelievers, and that pose no direct emotional strain on their feelings. So they say, "Answer me, Christian! Defend your to faith me! Explain it to me! Prove it to me! Dance! Dance! Dance! And don't you dare raise your voice, or to insult and deride me. Be nice, like the Bible tells you! And when you are done, do it all over again!"

The implications of unbiblical apologetics encourage the unbelievers to keep the intellectual and emotional burden of the conflict on the Christians all the time. The unbelievers are able to get away with this as long as the Christians operate under a false interpretation of Scripture and unnecessarily permit the unbelievers to make them suffer, all the time thinking that they are enduring defeat and humiliation for the sake of Christ. The truth is that they suffer because of a silly hermeneutical blunder. Once the interpretation is set right, the Christians are set free.

In fact, for those who affirm this false interpretation, or who maintain a general misunderstanding of what Scripture requires in terms of the answer that we give and the manner in which we give it, they will make themselves suffer without much effort from the unbelievers. They will offer defensive answers, and refrain from attacking the unbelievers. And all the time they will be doing this with exemplary Buddhist humility and Confucian gentleness. I denounce this pagan rendition of biblical ethics.

But how the truth sets us free! First, Peter is talking about the way Christians ought to behave under official interrogation, so that the gentleness and respect are shown to authorities for the sake of God, who established all authorities. Second, an "answer" refers to anything that might explain why we affirm the gospel or why we are justified in affirming the gospel. This must include our belief that unbelievers are foolish and wicked, that they are mentally bankrupt and morally depraved, and that all their beliefs are false and irrational. Once we possess this understanding, then we will drop that obnoxious, effeminate, and anti-biblical "humble" apologetics. We will take up the sword of the Spirit and slaughter the non-Christians, totally subduing and humiliating them in argumentation. This shall be our answer.

When this becomes our answer, the unbelievers will realize that they are no longer safe. They can no longer manipulate us with our own Scriptures or use 1 Peter 3:15 as a shield for their unbelief and rebellion. If they attack the Christian faith, they are not going to walk away from the conflict unscathed. They will have their own ideas thoroughly examined, challenged, refuted, and destroyed – every time. Every question that they ask us will cost them. Every objection that they launch against us will backfire. And when they become weary of debate, they can no longer excuse themselves from the situation, as if they have no obligation to answer us, to answer our challenges against what they believe and how they behave. They will know that not only will we fight back when they attack, but we are going after them. We are the hunters, they are the prey.

You say, "This apologetic frightens me." You are a fool. Do you not see that this is the Great Commission? Do you not see that the Commission is a manifest for spiritual world invasion? Jesus Christ is Lord over all, and he sends us to every part of the earth, even to every person, to declare his lordship to them, and to teach them to obey everything that he has commanded. Therefore, we have the duty and the right to invade all areas of the earth, to intrude into all lives, and then to challenge and command them to repent, and to tell them what to believe and how to behave. This is the commission and the authority of the Christian.

You must accept and follow your Lord's command, and the power of his Spirit will be with you. When I answer the unbelievers, I do not answer by my own authority – I am not defending myself or asking them to worship me. But I answer in the name of the Lord Jesus, and so I answer according to his teachings, and according to what he has wrought in my life. In his name I order the unbelievers to repent and believe the gospel, and to obey everything he commands. I am a messenger of life and glory to those chosen for salvation, and a messenger of death and damnation to those who refuse to believe. We are called to world conquest, to confront the unbelievers, to attack their way of life, and to convert them to our way of thinking and living. Nothing less than this can count as Christian ministry. If we will think this way, we will advance, we will conquer, and nothing will be able to stand before us. And we will be always ready, ready to win.

The Ready Answer

An excerpt from Power Apologetics.

The word "apologetics" is derived from the Greek apologia, which is often translated as "answer" or "defense." It refers to an intellectual answer or defense, so that the one presenting it does so by using words, by submitting evidences, and by providing arguments. The classic illustration for this is the court trial, in which the accused, or the defendant, is expected to issue an "answer" in response to the charges made against him. The Bible commands us to answer the world, and this suggests that there is an intellectual dimension to the Christian faith. Christianity involves learning, thinking, believing, knowing, speaking, and writing. There are facts, claims, and propositions that we must grasp and apply. This is a defining characteristic of biblical apologetics.

This is accurate as far as it goes; however, the idea that apologetics is an answer or defense could be misunderstood. To be more precise, those who are careless about what an answer or defense means might misunderstand what it is that the Bible commands Christians to do. This misunderstanding has turned the practice of apologetics into a passive and defensive discipline that is propelled by reactions to attacks from the unbelievers.

Some Christians seem to think that we are to put ourselves at the disposal of unbelievers, always ready to react whenever they express their curiosity or animosity, and to do this in a way that yields to the particular manner in which each inquiry takes shape. For the Christians who think this way, the result is that the unbelievers have exercised excessive control over their agendas and activities, and even the form and content of their apologetics.

This false view regards apologetics as mainly a defensive discipline, always reacting to non-Christian intellectual aggression. To "answer" the unbelievers would mean neutralizing objections and correcting misunderstandings, but it would not include a merciless and relentless assault against non-Christian beliefs. That is, this view of apologetics understands an "answer" as mainly defensive, not offensive, and mainly as a response, not as something that we initiate. Their false interpretation of Peter's instruction to answer with gentleness and respect reinforces this position for them.

Of course, there are those who hold to this idea of apologetics for reasons other than a false interpretation of 1 Peter 3:15, but the misinterpretation of this verse has indeed been a contributing factor to the false humility that has so crippled the church's apologetic endeavor. Moreover, even for those who have arrived at this passive and defensive view of apologetics because of other reasons, a true understanding of 1 Peter 3:15, and of what it means to provide an "answer" to unbelievers, will still be sufficient to offer a biblical corrective.

There is nothing in the idea of an "answer" that requires us to be only defensive, or even mainly defensive. The nature of the answer depends on the content of what we are answering for and what we believe to be the reasons that constitute the answer. When a non-Christian demands to know the reason I am justified in affirming the Christian faith, and why it is reasonable for me to be a believer, part of my answer is that there is something wrong with him, that is, with the unbeliever who asks me this. Part of my answer is that any person who is a non-Christian is immoral and irrational. Since I do not wish to be like him, and since I perceive that all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are in Christ, I am justified in affirming the Christian faith. Part of my answer is that God will throw the unbeliever into a lake of fire. Since I do not wish to suffer a fate like his, and since I perceive that Christ was made sin, although he did no sin, so that in him I might be made the righteousness of God, I look to him for salvation – for deliverance from divine wrath, and for the hope of eternal life and glory.

This is an integral and necessary aspect of my answer, my defense. This is what I believe, so this is what I tell him. As it is written, "I have believed, and therefore have I spoken." We also believe, and therefore speak. Thus even a defense does not need to be only defensive. The fact that Peter calls on us to provide an answer or a defense is the biblical basis for incorporating an offensive and aggressive element in our apologetics. We are to attack the people that we answer. We might also call the practice of apologetics the vindication of the Christian faith. The word makes room for both the defensive and offensive aspects of our engagement with non-Christians. Nevertheless, the words "answer" and "defense" are accurate if all their implications are understood.

Consider again the illustration of a court trial. It is common for the defense to attack the prosecution in the process of arguing for the innocence of the accused. This is done not necessarily as a diversion, since the strength of the prosecution's case is indeed relevant to the burden placed on the defense and the success of the defense. So the defense would attempt to dismantle the prosecution's case by discrediting the witnesses, by offering alternate explanations for the evidences, by refuting the reasoning and the inferences of the prosecution, by exposing the inconsistency of their arguments and testimonies, and even by drawing attention to some broader issues such as the reliability of memory and of sensation.

All these aggressive tactics legitimately belong to the arsenal of legal defense, or any rational defense of a position. In fact, the defense would be foolish and even unethical for failing to attack the vulnerabilities in the prosecution's case. And if the prosecution's case is mostly based on conjectures, false inferences, inconsistent testimonies, and arbitrary accusations, then it is conceivable that much of the defense's arguments would be of the aggressive kind.

The illustration shows that to be on the defense does not necessarily mean to be always on the defensive. But later I will show that the place of a defendant does not fully reflect the situation of the Christian, and that there is an even greater justification, even an obligation, for assuming an aggressive posture when it comes to apologetics. Remember that 1 Peter 3:15 mainly deals with how a Christian should behave under official interrogation, and it is not the only verse in the Bible that has to do with apologetics.

There are numerous biblical examples to reinforce the point. Once I point out a few of them, you should be able to notice many others.

The first example comes from Luke 11, from the ministry of Jesus. He was a walking tsunami of divine power, an avalanche of signs and wonders. The Gospels record only a very small percentage of the miracles he performed. John wrote that if all his works (including miracles) were recorded in writing, perhaps the world would not be enough to contain the books that would be produced. Even if we take this as a hyperbole, and even if we take into account the much larger and more cumbersome scrolls and parchments that were used at that time, it would not stretch the imagination to suppose that Jesus performed thousands of miracles, even tens of thousands, if not more. This is more than plausible. He would at times heal entire crowds with a word of command, and sometimes he would spend all night laying hands on the sick. So his healing miracles alone would number in the thousands. It would be impossible for the number to be smaller.

His adversaries were envious because he was attracting many followers, and he was liberating these people from false traditions and authorities. But the sheer number and magnitude of his miracles made his power undeniable. Therefore, as religious reprobates often do, they resorted to slander, and said that Jesus cast out demons by the power of Satan, the devil. No one could accuse him of error in his doctrine or behavior, so the charge that he wielded demonic power was groundless. Nevertheless, this is the nature of slander, that it is irrational and without justification.

Demonology is not the main issue here. We are interested in Jesus' answer, his defense, to this accusation.

First, he exposed the fallacy in the accusation, showing that it was irrational. He said that Satan's kingdom cannot be divided against itself and remain standing (v. 17-18). This in itself was an indirect attack against his critics, since objections do not appear out of nowhere – they are formulated by people. Irrational people make irrational statements. Unintelligent people make unintelligent criticisms. So the way he neutralized the accusation made his critics appear ignorant and foolish. In this case, they were either ignorant of the operation of Satan's kingdom, or they failed to make valid inferences from what they knew. If he had pressed this point, this maneuver that neutralized the objection would have also become a direct attack.

Next, he indeed made a direct attack against his critics. He said that if he drove out demons by the power of the devil, then, "By whom do your followers drive them out? So then, they will be your judges" (v. 19). Although the theology is important, that is not our main interest at this time, so we shall focus on the rational and rhetorical tactic that Jesus used. After he neutralized their accusation with a proper application of biblical demonology, he returned the burden of the argument to his critics, and challenged their own practices. He even set fire to their own camp, by exposing the conflict that would arise among themselves if the accusation were allowed to stand. He went on the offensive.

Finally, he offered a positive answer, and said, "But if I drive out demons by the finger of God, then the kingdom of God has come to you" (v. 20). He affirmed that he could drive out demons, but he did not do this by the power of the devil. Rather, he did it by the finger of God, or the Spirit of God. And then he used this last point to drive across his message, that "the kingdom of God has come to you." He used the opportunity to reaffirm his mission and to preach the gospel. "Now if I cast out demons by the power of God," he said in effect, "then the kingdom of God is here. God's rule has come. God's time has come. God's Son has come! What are you going to do about it? Will you continue to invent irrational criticisms and unjustified accusations, or will you repent of your sins, and rejoice that the kingdom has come to you, and enter in through faith and thanksgiving?"

His answer, therefore, consisted of an analysis of the accusation, neutralizing it in the process, a destructive attack against his opponents, forcing the burden back on to them through it, and a constructive statement of the truth about himself and his message, by which he reaffirms his mission and furthers his own agenda. The vindication of the faith would be far more faithful and effective if we would follow this approach. We must do more than to make a constructive statement. We must do more than to neutralize the objection. We must also pursue the heretics, and attack the unbelievers.

In Acts 2, the disciples were filled with the Holy Spirit, and as the Spirit enabled them, they spoke in languages that they had never learned, declaring the wonders of God. The Jews were bewildered, and some of them said that these Christians were drunk with wine. At this, Peter rose to speak.

He first weakened the accusation by noting that it was implausible (v. 15). Then he offered a constructive statement (v. 16-36). This included an alternate explanation of the occurrence, that it was a fulfillment of prophecy (v. 16-21). This then turned into a proclamation of the gospel, the person and work of Christ, which was supported by arguments from prophecy, history, and testimony.

Embedded within this constructive statement was an attack against the critics, the Jews. Peter said that they murdered Jesus with the help of the Romans. So they called the disciples drunks, but he called them murderers. They did not ask him this, but Peter brought it up. But unlike their accusation against the Christians, Peter's accusation against them was based on truth and not slander, not misunderstanding or misrepresentation. And those Jews who repented acknowledged this, and were cut to the heart.

So the same three elements that were present in Jesus' defense were also present in Peter's answer.

Then, in Acts 7, Stephen was brought before the Sanhedrin on charges that he spoke against the temple and the law. The high priest asked him if the charges were true, and so Stephen gave his answer, his defense. Read it. You will notice the same three elements in his reply.

We might call his answer a redemptive-historical analysis. He began with God's calling of Abraham, and then Isaac, then Jacob, after that, Joseph. But he gave the greatest attention to Moses. And it is in this section on Moses that he neutralized the accusation brought against him. Then he also mentioned Joshua, David, and Solomon.

The conclusion included a constructive statement about "the Righteous One" predicted by the prophets. This final section also included an attack against his accusers. Although his entire account illustrated the Jewish people's rebellion and hardness of heart, he made the theme explicit at the end: "You always resisted the Holy Spirit!" They claimed to honor the prophets, but they were the ones who persecuted them. They claimed to honor the law, but they disobeyed it. And he said that now they had even murdered Jesus Christ, their own Messiah. He was the accused, but he ended up making a stronger attack against his accusers than the one made they made against him. They accused him of sacrilege, but he charged them with generations of sacrilege and murder.

Paul's speech before the Areopagus in Acts 17 is often misrepresented. Some commentators claim that he flattered the Greeks and appealed to common beliefs to introduce the Christian faith to them. I have written an extensive exposition showing that Paul did the very opposite,  so I will not investigate the details with you here, but we will focus on the three elements of a Christian answer.

The whole speech, of course, was a constructive statement. It is similar in structure and content to a course in systematic theology, in which we begin from Scripture, to God, creation, providence, to man and sin, and then to Christ, redemption, and judgment. The popular assertion that Paul was not a systematic theologian is contradicted by explicit biblical accounts. Paul was not only a systematic theologian, but the content that he treated and the order in which he treated them were almost identical to many of our textbooks in systematic theology.

Although most systematic theologians did not derive their outlines from Paul, they ended up following approximately the same order, treating the same subjects. This is because systematic theology follows the logical order and observes the logical relationships of the doctrines that it considers, and therefore those who can think logically will arrive at approximately the same result. As with us, at times Paul presented his theology in a different arrangement, but the subjects treated remained the same, only that his purpose required him to arrange his material in another manner.

Although the speech was a kind of answer about the Christian faith, the situation was different, in that Paul was not confronted with the same kind of hostile accusations that we found in our other examples, and that the Greeks were curious about what he had to say. Nevertheless, we could still find the element of neutralizing an objection. That is, the Greeks suspected Paul of introducing "bad philosophy" to them, and his answer showed that his philosophy was a broad, coherent, and superior worldview, thus neutralizing their initial accusation.

And he attacked the Greeks even at the beginning of his speech. He took their altar to "An Unknown God" as an admission of their ignorance. So he undermined them from the start and claimed to speak from a superior position. Later into the speech he attacked their idolatry by noting that the divine being could not be represented by gold or silver or stone. They were the ones who practiced bad philosophy. He called them ignorant, and said that God now commands all people everywhere to repent.

Thus the Christian answer to the unbelievers includes three elements. First, we are to neutralize the objections. Second, we are to provide a constructive statement that explains our beliefs and that provides rational support for them. This is to reaffirm and reassert the Christian faith, and to further our own agenda, so that the objections would not remove our focus on our mission. Third, we are to fiercely attack the non-Christians – their beliefs, their intelligence, and their character. We are to expose everything that is wrong about them.

The prophets, the apostles, and the Lord Jesus all employed this method. A method of apologetics that does not attack the unbelievers is not only incomplete, but because it is incomplete, also irresponsible, and because it is irresponsible, it is also sinful. It is a sin to not attack the unbelievers with all our powers and resources. Some Christians would rather attack believers who follow this method than to attack the non-Christians. This is treason against the kingdom of heaven.

Scripture Distorted

An excerpt from Power Apologetics.

Apologetics, in our context, refers to the intellectual defense of the Christian faith. I say that it is intellectual to distinguish it from military conquest and retaliation, political manipulation and legislation, or other such methods of securing agreement or surrender from those who oppose us. Our method is intellectual, in that our defense consists of verbal assertions, explanations, and arguments. We use words to talk about the Christian faith, and to show that it is true.

As for saying that it is a "defense," later we will discuss the possible problems with this characterization. Before we do that, we should first confront a subtle but crippling error that pervades almost all teachings on the subject of apologetics. The error is subtle not because it is difficult to detect, but it manages to hide in plain sight because it has become so popular that it is now accepted as truth, and it is even upheld as a nonnegotiable ethical standard for believers.

I am referring to the idea that when we defend the faith, we must do so with "gentleness and respect" toward the non-Christians. Since these words are taken from the apostle Peter, of course I agree with his teaching, but only when his meaning is correctly understood. The problem is that most instructors on apologetics fail to perceive or acknowledge Peter's meaning, so that they fail to pass on his teaching to believers. And the harder they teach it, the more they steer God's people away from the biblical approach to the defense of the faith.

The phrase appears in Peter's first letter, written to encourage and instruct believers who are suffering severe persecution for their faith. Thus the phrase does not stand in a vacuum. It serves the purpose of the letter, so that its meaning is determined by the context in which it appears. By observing the overall intention of the letter as well as the surrounding passages, we are able to infer Peter's intended meaning.

When we return to the letter with this in mind, we see that the "gentleness and respect" indeed fit into a broader teaching that Peter conveys to his readers. His main concern is to instruct believers in what to think and how to behave when they face persecution from authority figures. He refers to the king and to governors, and then to masters, and after that to husbands. He nowhere refers to the defense of the faith when it comes to discussion between peers, or in scholarly debates, or in the general publications of the Christian faith, such as in books and sermons.

Therefore, 1 Peter 3:15 refers to an interrogation of Christians about their faith by authority figures that hold formally superior positions in society. Christians are to be "always be prepared to give an answer" when questioned by government officials, masters or employers, or husbands and parents, and so on. This does not mean that the verse is irrelevant to the defense of the faith before other kinds of people. But it does mean that if we are to release the verse from its original context in order to make a broader application, then we cannot do this to one part of the verse and not the other.

In other words, once we apply "always be prepared" to other situations, we also need to consider whether we still need to behave with "gentleness and respect," or a better way to say this is whether we need to behave with gentleness and respect in the same sense. This consideration is legitimate. To illustrate, Jesus did not speak to the Pharisees and to his disciples in the same way. And Paul did not defend the faith in the same way when he spoke to Agrippa as when he wrote to the Galatians. Likewise, it would be strange and unbiblical for a person to defend the faith in the same way when he speaks to a judge as when he speaks to his colleague or his infant son. The content of the faith remains the same, but the proper way to address people varies.

Peter indicates that he has different relationships and different categories of persons in mind when he writes, "Show proper respect to everyone: Love the brotherhood of believers, fear God, honor the king" (1 Peter 2:17). This does not mean that the way we behave in these relationships are mutually exclusive. The point is that in this letter, Peter makes these distinctions and provides specific instructions for specific situations. Love toward God is legitimate, and fear toward the king is also legitimate, although even here both words are used in different senses already, so that even to acknowledge this is to make the point once again.

When interrogated by a government official, the Christian is to exhibit a gentleness and respect in honor of the office held by the one who questions him. There are exceptions to this, as when Elijah said to Ahab, "You are the problem!" or when Jesus publicly referred to Herod as, "That fox." Paul later cursed the high priest to his face, although when he did this, he did not know that he was speaking to the high priest. When he found out, he indicated that he did not know, implying that he might not have said the same thing if he had known. But remarkably, there is no record that he retracted his curse. That there are exceptions even to this rule for addressing authority figures reinforces my contention that the universal application of the "gentleness and respect" admonition is erroneous. And it is often taught in a way that would have us soften our tones and our words at all times and to all persons in such a manner that reduces apologetics to a rather effeminate and repulsive demonstration.

Nevertheless, Peter teaches believers to exercise wisdom and discretion when confronted by authority figures about their faith. To apply this in the broadest manner possible without first noting the specific context is defective exegesis, and an insult to divine inspiration. This does not mean that the Christian is to be a respecter of person, fearing the wealthy and powerful but scorning the ordinary inquirers. The reason for this attitude toward authority figures is because, as Paul teaches, all authorities are from God. No one who wields authority obtains his position except by divine providence. God is the source of the very ideas of authority and submission.

When the Christian answers authority with gentleness and respect, he does so because he is aware that the source of all authority is God. You respect the position given to the person by providence, while despising his ignorance and wickedness as a non-Christian. This is the apostle's teaching. But even this teaching gives the Christian boldness before authorities. When Pilate said to Jesus, "Don't you know who I am? Don't you know that I have the power to judge you, or to set you free?" Jesus replied that Pilate could have no power except what was given him from above. So the usual attitude taught is based on a misinterpretation of 1 Peter 3:15 and related verses, and a shallow understanding of what Scripture teaches about faith, humility, and respect. Because the popular understanding is false and shallow, it is useless and even harmful. We should throw it out.

If we consider the verse in a broader context, that is, from the perspective of the New Testament or even the whole Bible, then the error of the popular interpretation becomes even more glaring. We begin with the assumption that if the verse is understood in a way that would condemn the prophets and the apostles, and even the Lord Jesus himself, then it cannot be the correct interpretation. Anyone who reads the Bible can see that the prophets, the apostles, and the Lord Jesus often spoke and behaved in ways that contradicted the popular understanding of 1 Peter 3:15. The Lord Jesus called people snakes, dogs, hypocrites, sons of hell and sons of the devil, and even performed physically violent acts such as turning over tables and using a whip to chase merchants out of the temple.

Those who affirm the popular version of Christian ethics would give no place for the Lord's behavior, but would readily condemn him. And in condemning the Lord, they condemn themselves. As a Christian, I fully endorse the Lord's action. I wish not and dare not disagree with him. But all those who affirm the popular interpretation of 1 Peter 3:15 have no right to endorse the Lord at the same time. They must consider him a hypocrite, in which case they blaspheme the Lord and reject the Scripture's testimony concerning him, so that they renounce Christianity and show themselves as unbelievers and reprobates.

Or, if they do not do this, they must regard him as an exception to 1 Peter 3:15. They must say that the verse is not derived from the example of Jesus, but that it applies only to Christians. Even this is insufficient, since the prophets and the apostles also contradicted the popular understanding of 1 Peter 3:15, so that they must also be considered exceptions. Some people indeed teach this. Greg Bahnsen excuses the prophets, the apostles, and the Lord Jesus from 1 Peter 3:15 in precisely this manner in one of his lectures, saying that they were exceptions. At least he realized that they did not adhere to his interpretation of the verse.

However, this attempt to make their false interpretation of 1 Peter 3:15 consistent with the rest of the Bible betrays the fact that they have not understood or acknowledged even the surrounding passages. Peter repeatedly refers to the Lord's example throughout the letter, and it is on this basis that he gives the instruction to give an answer for the faith with gentleness and respect. So the Lord cannot be an exception because 1 Peter 3:15 is based on his example in the first place. And since this is the case, then the prophets and the apostles cannot be considered exceptions, since all of God's people must follow the supreme example of Christ, as all of them are called to conform the image of God's Son. The popular interpretation of 1 Peter 3:15 is inconsistent with the immediate context of the verse, and it contradicts the rest of Scripture. Therefore, it must be false.

Since the prophets, the apostles, and the Lord Jesus could not be exceptions, this interpretation encourages both Christians and non-Christians to condemn them as hypocrites, since there is no way that anyone can twist the facts to make them fit the popular interpretation of 1 Peter 3:15. They violated the false interpretation with regularity and with no remorse. In fact, they appeared completely unaware of any moral regulation requiring them to show gentleness and respect in the sense meant by the popular interpretation. So, who are the true guardians of the faith? The prophets, the apostles, and the Lord Jesus, or those who tell you to be soft and polite when talking with unbelievers, and not to follow the numerous examples of the inspired preachers that demonstrated the exact opposite?

On the other hand, if we understand the verse to say that we must show respect when under interrogation by authority figures, then the problem disappears. And given the context in which the verse appears, this is the obvious and only possible meaning. As mentioned, even then, there are indeed apparent exceptions to even this principle, so that at times the prophets, the apostles, and the Lord Jesus appeared to show no respect at all to the authority figures. Unlike the false interpretation of 1 Peter 3:15, the legitimacy of these exceptions is not invented to preserve a semblance of consistency, but it is explicitly granted in Scripture, as when Peter indicated under interrogation that he ought to obey God rather than men. So these exceptions are not arbitrary, but clearly defined and explained. Moreover, these exceptions do not help the opposing view, that is, the popular interpretation, since the consideration of these exceptions occur after it has been established that 1 Peter 3:15 refers to showing respect to those in authority. The legitimate exceptions appear within a narrow context with clearly defined principles that explain when they should be done.

The truth is obvious. Those who insist on the basis of 1 Peter 3:15 that we must always perform apologetics with "gentleness and respect" – that is, with what they mean by gentleness and respect, which does not always conform to the biblical meaning – assert nothing more than their own opinion about the appropriate manner in which religious dialogues should be conducted. They are not really concerned about what Peter says and what he means. They just want to find words in the Bible that would support their own attitude on the matter, which amounts to, 1. You should do apologetics, and 2. You should be nice while doing it. This cheap distortion of Peter's teaching subverts the apostle's intention in encouraging and instructing believers who live under severe persecution. Those who promote this deception should be held accountable.

Preachers and Their Wages

An excerpt from Commentary on 1 & 2 Thessalonians.

1 Thessalonians 2:2-12
We had previously suffered and been insulted in Philippi, as you know, but with the help of our God we dared to tell you his gospel in spite of strong opposition. For the appeal we make does not spring from error or impure motives, nor are we trying to trick you. On the contrary, we speak as men approved by God to be entrusted with the gospel. We are not trying to please men but God, who tests our hearts. You know we never used flattery, nor did we put on a mask to cover up greed – God is our witness. We were not looking for praise from men, not from you or anyone else.

As apostles of Christ we could have been a burden to you, but we were gentle among you, like a mother caring for her little children. We loved you so much that we were delighted to share with you not only the gospel of God but our lives as well, because you had become so dear to us. Surely you remember, brothers, our toil and hardship; we worked night and day in order not to be a burden to anyone while we preached the gospel of God to you. You are witnesses, and so is God, of how holy, righteous and blameless we were among you who believed. For you know that we dealt with each of you as a father deals with his own children, encouraging, comforting and urging you to live lives worthy of God, who calls you into his kingdom and glory.

If Paul is indeed answering slander in this passage, then at least some (not necessarily all) of the statements would correspond to the accusations leveled against him. And we can infer that these accusations allege the opposite of the statements that he makes here. However, contrary to a common hermeneutical error, even if we assume that Paul is answering slander (an assumption that cannot be established), we have no right to assume that every item that he mentions is said in reply to a corresponding accusation made against him. Therefore, there is no way to know the exact content of the slander. And if he is not answering slander, then the passage is simply something that Paul wishes to say. All of this has no effect on the meaning of the passage.

The text highlights several characteristics of a genuine gospel ministry. Preaching the same message in place after place even in the face of persecution makes it more credible that the apostle has a sincere belief in the veracity and urgency of his doctrine, and that he speaks out of obedience to God and compassion for his hearers. He is not after comfort or popularity, since he does not flatter his audience, and almost everywhere he goes he has to suffer mistreatment and endure insults. He is not after some financial reward, since he worked to earn his own living. I will say more about this last point in a moment.

He makes a number of denials as well as several claims. His preaching, he says, does not spring from error, does not spring from impure motives, and does not spring from trickery. He is not trying to please men or seek the praise of men. He does not use flattery or put on a mask as if to cover up evil intentions. Perhaps these items correspond to accusations made against him, but we cannot be sure, and he could make these denials whether or not he is answering slander. On the contrary, he adds, he speaks as one approved by God to be entrusted with the gospel, so that both his character and his message have received the divine seal of authenticity. He makes these claims with the awareness that God "tests our hearts" and that he is "our witness." In addition, while he was with the Thessalonians, he treated them with the care of a mother and the comfort of a father.

Here is where consistent doctrine and lifestyle can pay off: Paul appeals to what the Thessalonians have learned about him from the time that he stayed with them. In order to answer slander or to reinforce his credibility, he only has to remind them of what they already know about him, and so he writes, "You know" (v. 5), "Surely you remember" (v. 9), "You are witnesses" (v. 10), and "For you know" (v. 11). This is a powerful method for defending one's integrity, but needless to say, it is effective only if one has displayed exemplary conduct before his audience. This observation impresses us with Paul's holiness and dedication, but it becomes even more beneficial if we will follow his pattern.

As for the matter of financial support, Paul writes that while he and his companions were preaching the gospel to the Thessalonians, they "worked night and day in order not to be a burden to anyone" (v. 9). It is essential to truth, justice, and the health of the church and its people to know what Paul is saying, what he has done, and his reason for doing it. Some have concluded that ministers of the gospel should never accept payment for their work as preachers, but should always earn their livelihood by laboring in something other than the work of the ministry. This position represents not only a misunderstanding and even a rejection of Scripture, but it is abusive, unjust, and wicked, and it will incur the Lord's punishment if not righted.

There is the matter of motive. Christians often complain that preachers only want to take their money. But not many preachers are wealthy, and with stingy and rebellious Christians like these, it is unlikely that many of them will become wealthy. Preachers enter into the ministry knowing this, and those who do not are probably not very intelligent. The fact is that most professing believers who complain about greedy preachers do so to hide their own covetousness. It is not that preachers only want to take their money, but that these so-called believers only want to keep their money. The issue of stingy believers is a much greater problem than greedy preachers.

Then, although 1 Thessalonians 2:6-9 includes all the information that we need to grasp the basics of Paul's view on the matter, he offers more details in 1 Corinthians 9:3-14:

This is my defense to those who sit in judgment on me. Don't we have the right to food and drink? Don't we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord's brothers and Cephas? Or is it only I and Barnabas who must work for a living?

Who serves as a soldier at his own expense? Who plants a vineyard and does not eat of its grapes? Who tends a flock and does not drink of the milk? Do I say this merely from a human point of view? Doesn't the Law say the same thing? For it is written in the Law of Moses: "Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain." Is it about oxen that God is concerned? Surely he says this for us, doesn't he? Yes, this was written for us, because when the plowman plows and the thresher threshes, they ought to do so in the hope of sharing in the harvest. If we have sown spiritual seed among you, is it too much if we reap a material harvest from you? If others have this right of support from you, shouldn't we have it all the more?

But we did not use this right. On the contrary, we put up with anything rather than hinder the gospel of Christ. Don't you know that those who work in the temple get their food from the temple, and those who serve at the altar share in what is offered on the altar? In the same way, the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should receive their living from the gospel.

Paul's thinking spills into verses 15-18, but there he is already proceeding to the next point in his argument, and so we will stop at verse 14. As we consider this topic, we will keep both the 1 Thessalonians and the 1 Corinthians passages in mind.

In both places, Paul insists that he has the right to obtain financial support from his hearers. He uses various expressions and analogies to describe this right. He says that he has the right "to be a burden" (1 Thessalonians 2:6, 9). The context is that he "worked night and day," so the burden refers to the financial support that the Thessalonians would have had to provide for Paul if he had not worked to provide for himself. He says that he has "the right to food and drink" (1 Corinthians 9:4). He mentions that Peter, the Lord's brothers, and the other apostles would take their wives along with them (v. 5). This is mentioned together with "the right to food and drink," implying that the provision must also extend to the companions of the apostles. Then, he asks the rhetorical question, "Or is it only I and Barnabas who must work for a living?" (v. 6). This implies that Paul and Barnabas have the same right as the other apostles, and that this right entails not having to "work for a living" – work that is something other than the work of the ministry.

He drives his point across in verses 7-14 with many analogies, one after another: "Who serves as a soldier at his own expense? Who plants a vineyard and does not eat of its grapes? Who tends a flock and does not drink of the milk?…Doesn't the Law say the same thing? For it is written in the Law of Moses: 'Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain.' …when the plowman plows and the thresher threshes, they ought to do so in the hope of sharing in the harvest….If we have sown spiritual seed among you, is it too much if we reap a material harvest from you?…Don't you know that those who work in the temple get their food from the temple, and those who serve at the altar share in what is offered on the altar?"

The principle common in all these analogies is that the worker should benefit from and should live on his work. So the soldier should receive payment for being a soldier – it would be an injustice to require him to serve as a soldier and at the same time to labor in something else to earn his livelihood. No, if he works as a solider, then that is where his livelihood should come from. The farmer eats of his own produce. The temple worker gets his food from the temple. How much more should one who sows "spiritual seed" receive a "material harvest" from those that he serves (v. 11)?

Both the analogies and the explicit statements insist that this right belongs to every preacher of the gospel, and not only to the apostles. The universal principle applies to he who serves as a solider, he who plants, he who tends a flock, the plowman, the thresher, and even an ox. And it is directly applied to those who sow "spiritual seed" (v. 11) and "those who preach the gospel" (v. 14). The principle applies to all workers, even animals, and no less to those who preach the gospel. He concludes, "In the same way, the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should receive their living from the gospel" (v. 14).

This is the Lord's ordinance, and places a moral obligation on every person. Therefore, those who hear the gospel are expected to render payments to the preachers, and those who preach the gospel are to exercise this right and accept their payments, to make their living by preaching the gospel. In fact, Paul himself accepted financial support from the Philippians (see Philippians 4:15-19). He refers to the transaction as a "matter of giving and receiving" (v. 15), and that which was received as "aid" (v. 16), "a gift" (v. 17), and by implication a "payment" (v. 18). And he says that the Philippians sent gifts to him "again and again" (v. 16).

Thus it is not true that Paul never accepted payment for his preaching and ministry work. But he did not demand payment from the Thessalonians and the Corinthians. So although he had the right, he did not exercise his right to demand payment for his spiritual labor in these instances. He says as much in 1 Corinthians 9:12 and 15: "We did not use this right…I have not used any of these rights." Again, the fact that he did not use his right means that he had it to use. He made himself an exception, and this means that in all other situations, preachers may exercise the right to receive payment for their work of preaching.

Why did Paul make himself an exception? Why did he not exercise his right? He explains, "We put up with anything rather than hinder the gospel of Christ" (v. 12). He would earn his own living while he preaches the gospel in situations where this would prevent or remove hindrances to the gospel. In these instances, he is approaching unbelievers with the gospel as a missionary, and he distinguishes himself in this manner from the itinerant charlatans who swindle people by their fanciful philosophies. Even then, notice that whereas the right of preachers to receive payment from their hearers remains a universal principle, his decision to not accept payment from unbelievers (for when he first preached to them, they were still unbelievers) stands as a personal policy that Scripture never made into a universal principle. That is, preachers might follow his example at times, but they are never required to do so, as there is no indication that even the other apostles gave up their rights in this manner.

As he defends his ministry in his second letter to the Corinthians (see 2 Corinthians 11:5-23), he again mentions the fact that he preached the gospel to them "free of charge" (v. 7). He brings this up to make a contrast between himself and the "false apostles" (v. 13) that were exploiting them, and that apparently have deceived some of the Corinthians, turning them against Paul and his teachings. As with the Thessalonians, he reminds them of what they ought to know already, that unlike those with dubious doctrines and motives, he preached to them as an ambassador of Christ, under authority and under command, and instead of exercising his right to receive payment from them, he earned his own living while he preached to them.

But it was not that Paul earned all of his income by himself, or that he never accepted financial support, since in this same passage he writes, "I robbed other churches by receiving support from them so as to serve you. And when I was with you and needed something, I was not a burden to anyone, for the brothers who came from Macedonia supplied what I needed. I have kept myself from being a burden to you in any way, and will continue to do so" (v. 8-9). So it was not that he always refused payment, but that he refused payment from them. Did Paul do that because they were special? Yes, as it turned out, they were especially fickle.

So why did Paul make himself an exception? Why did he not exercise his right? Because he was preaching to people who were either unfamiliar with the gospel, unstable in the faith, or not known to be established. Sometimes, as with the Philippians, Christian virtues quickly take root and bear fruit, and the believers soon become partners in the gospel (Philippians 1:5), so that they send aid again and again (Philippians 4:16). Sometimes, as with the Corinthians, they remain suspicious, disloyal, covetous, gullible, and always teetering on the edge of apostasy. This is when a preacher rejoices that he has not accepted anything from them.

For a preacher to exercise his right to accept payment implies nothing negative about the preacher, since it is a right. But for a preacher to not exercise his right to accept payment is, in fact, very unflattering to those who hear him. He probably regards the audience as unbelievers, as false believers, as immature believers, or no matter what they are, he perceives some deficiency in them or even hostility in them against the gospel, or he foresees some danger on the horizon that he could address from a superior position if he would refuse payment from the people at this time. He, in any case, does not consider the audience a group of genuine and mature Christians who are able and eager to become his partners in the gospel.

When a preacher accepts or even requests financial support from a group of people, he honors them by indicating that he trusts them as genuine and mature believers who are secure in the faith, and who would not stumble over this command of Christ in the matter of giving and receiving. Accordingly, those professing believers who complain about preachers who exercise their right in accepting payment for their service condemn themselves before the Lord. And those who even insist that all sincere preachers should earn their own living apart from preaching the gospel proclaim themselves to be unbelievers or immature believers who might stumble over the smallest sacrifice or act of obedience.

Concerning the matter of payment toward church elders, Paul writes, "The elders who direct the affairs of the church well are worthy of double honor, especially those whose work is preaching and teaching. For the Scripture says, 'Do not muzzle the ox while it is treading out the grain,' and 'The worker deserves his wages'" (1 Timothy 5:17-18). He does not say, "Do not pay the elders anything! They must work outside of the church to provide for themselves and their families."

That they are "worthy of double honor" refers to the nature and amount of their compensation, as indicated by the context. Verse 18 first mentions again the ox that grazes while it treads the field, that is, the principle that the worker should receive payment from the work that he does. Then, it makes the statement, "The worker deserves his wages," which echoes the Lord's own words (see Luke 10:7) – they are worthy of "double." In other words, Paul's instruction is to pay the church elders, and pay them well. Nevertheless, he refers to those who do well, and especially those whose work is preaching and teaching. Any board or church that disregards this principle operates in opposition against God's command. The Lord will judge.

The preacher's power to receive payment is called a "right" (1 Corinthians 9:12, 15), and the money rendered to him is called a "wage" (1 Timothy 5:18, Luke 10:7). This means that the payment toward the preacher is owed to him. And this in turn means that when believers provide proper financial compensation to a preacher, this is considered a salary, and not an act of charity or compassion. But if they fail to pay, they are rightly considered cheaters and robbers.

When you withhold money from a preacher, you are withholding money that belongs to him, that he has a right to receive. The Bible calls the money that his deserves his "wages" or salary. So those who fail to pay fall under the curse of James, who writes, "Look! The wages you failed to pay the workmen who mowed your fields are crying out against you. The cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord Almighty" (James 5:4).

The money that you withhold from preachers who proclaim the word of God to you, who teach you sound doctrine, who defend you against assaults and deceptions, and who pray for you, so that your faith would not fail, now testifies against you before the Lord. It will stand as a witness against you in the day of judgment, as evidence of your injustice and cruelty. God will hold you responsible for every lack that they endure. He will charge to your account every occasion that their wives worry about the future. He will punish you for every night that their children go to sleep hungry. And what about those who have to do without the ministry of preachers who lack the resources to reach them? Surely their blood is on your hands.

We reap what we sow. Elsewhere, Paul writes, "Anyone who receives instruction in the word must share all good things with his instructor. Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. The one who sows to please his sinful nature, from that nature will reap destruction; the one who sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life" (Galatians 6:6-8). To say this another way, our investments will produce the corresponding returns. The things that we put our time, effort, and money in, are the kinds of things that we will receive.

Consider a military illustration. Suppose a nation neglects to finance its military because it chooses to invest in other more interesting agendas. Its defense will not fall overnight, but it will begin to weaken, corrode, and become outdated. It will be unable to recruit, train, and maintain its troops, or to research and invest in new technologies. In fact, it will become increasingly difficult to keep up a continual supply of the basic equipment that every unit requires. And thus the nation becomes vulnerable to threats.

Likewise, a poorly financed police force becomes ineffective in recruiting, training, and maintaining its officers, or to supply them with the latest equipment and technologies. As a result, crimes increase and citizens are endangered. On the other hand, if the state or nation invests in its police force, its officers become well-trained and well-equipped, contributing to the general welfare and ordered operation of the society.

We are familiar with the effects of investments in many other fields: medicine, education, computer science, architecture, music, environmental preservation, and so on. Indeed, the same argument can be made concerning every area of human life and culture. People acknowledge the problems that can occur when we underpay doctors, teachers, soldiers, and police officers, but they consider God so irrelevant to society that they think nothing of underpaying or even not paying the preachers of the gospel.

We reap what we sow. If you have refused to sow to the spirit but have sown instead to the indulgence of the flesh – that is, if you have invested in the pleasures of your flesh instead of the things of God – then, you will reap a whirlwind of sin and carnality, violence and destruction, unbelief and defiance. Christians often complain that they live in a country characterized by such things, but the fact is that many of them have contributed to the current condition by investing in the things of the flesh, spurning the things of God and withholding funds from his ministers. What if we invest everything we have in preachers and theologians who are faithful to communicate the Christian faith with clarity and courage? The church will be strengthened, God's name will be honored, and the nation as a whole will become prosperous. In the face of an ever worsening crisis, even Christians are accustomed to take away their support from the things of God and to invest in unspiritual solutions. But this only adds to the harvest of destruction.

So the question to Christians is, are you willing to, often without sacrificing any comfort at all, part with some of your surplus so that you will exhibit at least a pretense of respect for God and for those whom he has called and sent to preach for the salvation of your very souls? Invest your time, effort, and money in spiritual things – in preachers, churches, and ministries that publish sound doctrine and enforce church discipline – and you will reap a harvest of righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit.

Finally, a word to the preachers. The biblical principle and standard is that "those who preach the gospel should receive their living from the gospel" (1 Corinthians 9:14). We must preach it to the people because this is what God commands, even if they might regard such a message as self-serving when coming from us. We must not be embarrassed by it, but as with other biblical doctrines, we must preach it with boldness and shamelessness, so that those who desire to obey the truth will know and comply, and to remove any excuse from those who disobey out of ignorance and rebellion, so that they may be judged. We can tell them that they should invest in ministers – in us! – but we cannot force them, and they will not comply unless the Holy Spirit regenerates them and stimulates them to joyful obedience.

Love does not always insist on rights. Even if we suffer because of the people's callousness, we must still perform the work that God has called us to do, looking to him for our deliverance and sustenance, instead of to those whom we call brothers and sisters. So the question to preachers is, are you willing, if necessary, to sacrifice personal comfort and security to minister to an often covetous, selfish, ungrateful, unbelieving, demanding, and critical people?