We offer our answer or defense with “gentleness and respect” — toward authority figures, because this is the only kind of people specified by the context. What this gentleness entails is not left to guesswork or contemporary culture, but it is also indicated by the context. This is also universally ignored and even contradicted by teachers of apologetics. The context refers to the authority of human institutions (2:13), and the threat goes as far as the kind of punishment that governors and even the emperor can impose (v. 13-14). When we make a broader observation of the cultural context, we notice that religious controversies were often addressed by violent suppression, including false accusations, beatings, and even murder. It is only against this textual and cultural context, and even more specifically when addressing human institutions with the authority to punish, that Peter teaches Christians to respond with “gentleness” — an approach that stands as a contrast against violence. Of course, this violence includes verbal threats of violence, which Christians also ought to avoid. The verse does not refer to speaking with soft words and an effeminate tone, and it does not contradict the fierce and demeaning language Jesus often applied to his opponents, the kind of language also used by the prophets and the apostles.

Have you seen this verse presented this way, especially in the context of teaching apologetics? It is the obvious and undeniable teaching of the verse. It is not difficult. You just need to read it. Many people are obsessed with apologetics, and consider themselves experts, but they throw this verse around like Peter is not even there. The apostle is ostracized from the discussion, and his concerns are disregarded, not mentioned. Why? It is because these people are not good at apologetics, and not even good at reading. The devotees of apologetics end up robbing everybody by perverting the verse for their narrow purpose. Their whole thing amounts to this: “Go make some good arguments, but be nice when you talk to people.” But the verse does not say this. It is so far from what the verse means and what the rest of Scripture exemplifies that this interpretation amounts to a rejection of the verse. Peter was teaching God-like quality of Christian ethics, not the shallow tenderness of Confucian ethics. Much teaching on Christian character is really Confucianism in Christian vocabulary.

Now do you see what Peter was really saying? And do you see how it has been reduced to something so cheap in comparison? Behold! This is the measure of your renown heroes in apologetics! Peter introduced a counter-cultural approach to confronting religious disagreement in the face of authorities in a world where violence was the norm. Christian teachers today address a world in which this verse has already succeeded. Christians now answer with less force and vividness than the Bible permits them. They behave with a sinfully extreme level of gentleness and respect, to a point that amounts to permissiveness toward depravity and unbelief. There are indeed Christians in some parts of the world suffering the kind of persecution that Peter had in mind, but they are left without proper instruction because verses like 1 Peter 3:15 have been hijacked by church members sitting in first-class enjoying their premium apologetics!