Can You Stand for Truth Without Being Offensive?
We can expect to be hated and persecuted by virtue of following Jesus. In the meantime, do your best to be a winsome ambassador for Jesus. Try to be as inoffensive as you can when addressing controversial topics. But when people are offended by your biblical values, don’t be surprised. That’s part of what it means to be a follower of Christ.
I often speak on controversial subjects: abortion, homosexuality, Islam, transgenderism, bioethics. These aren’t topics that are casually brought up over Christmas dinner and calmly discussed with out-of-town family. That’s why believers often ask me how they can stand for truth on controversial topics without being offensive. Here are three quick things I tell them.
First, I’m grateful for their concern to avoid being crass and offensive. I see too many believers who don’t care at all—or at least appear to not care. They use the truth like a club to beat people over the head. Grace? What grace? That’s for Christ to extend to non-believers, they say.
But believers should do whatever they can to communicate the truth in a winsome and gracious way. Scripture identifies them as ambassadors for Christ (2 Cor. 5:20). That means they represent Jesus with their life. How they come across to other people will be a reflection upon the good name of Jesus. Believers, therefore, should strive to speak in a warm, friendly, and kind manner. That’s especially necessary when they’re addressing a controversial topic.
Second, they need to manage their expectations. It’s unreasonable to expect people who hold a non-biblical worldview will find all our positions unoffensive as long as we communicate in a certain way.
You Might also like
-
Margherita Datini—The Wisdom and Faith of an Ordinary Medieval Woman
Margherita couldn’t have imagined that, 447 years after her death, her letters would be discovered and studied. And she couldn’t have imagined that, about 150 years after that, readers could sympathize with her challenges and draw from her wisdom.
Church history books are beginning to devote more space to women. Treatments of Medieval Christian women, however, is usually limited to a few queens and nuns – those who could express themselves at a time when most women’s voices were dismissed.
Recently, scholars have turned their attention to the correspondence, discovered in 1870 behind a staircase, of an Italian merchant and his wife – a collection comprising over 150,000 letters and 500 account books.
To historians, this is a rich documentation of how both trade and daily lives were conducted in fourteenth-century Italy. The wife’s letters in particular (over 250) afford the unique opportunity to hear the voice of an ordinary Medieval businesswoman and wife. To Christians, they represent an interesting account on how she met her daily challenges with faith.
Becoming a Merchant’s Wife
Margherita was born in 1360 to the noble Bandini family, who had moved from Florence to Avignon, France, following political exile (both Margherita’s father and her mother’s family had been accused of plotting against the republic). By that time, the papacy had also moved to Avignon, bringing further prosperity to the city.
In 1376, at age 16, Margherita was given in marriage to Francesco Datini, a wealthy merchant from Prato, Italy, who was 25 year her senior. Taking advantage of the papal move, Francesco was thriving in the new papal seat by selling luxury goods and art to cardinals and other clerics who lived there.
The age difference between Margherita and Francesco was not uncommon. In reality, Francesco had been so absorbed by his business that he would have gladly avoided marriage altogether. He had lovers, and had even fathered a son in 1374.
But it was his Prato neighbor Niccolozzo Binducchi, a father figure after Francesco’s parents died of the plague, who insisted that he should marry. A marriage, Niccolozzo expected, would produce legitimate children who could take over Francesco’s business and benefit from his work. As happy as Niccolozzo and his wife Piera had been about the birth of Francesco’s son, “having a legitimate son will bring you more honor before God and the world,”[1] Niccolozzo reminded him. Sadly, Margherita proved to be unable to conceive – a source of great sorrow for the couple.
In 1383, Francesco and Margherita moved back to Prato, where he traded in clothes, weapons, iron and salt, extending his business to other Italian and even Spanish cities and dealing in international commerce. In later years, he dabbled in the banking and insurance business. In reality, charging interest was still forbidden by canon law, but Francesco eased his conscience by saying he would leave his money to the poor when he died.
Francesco’s work caused him to travel for long periods of time, but he stayed in touch with his wife to receive news from home and reports about his business. He also sent her seemingly incessant instructions and reminders, to the point of becoming annoying.
From 1384 till his death in 1410, they corresponded about every two or three days. At first, Margherita, who had only learned to read (mostly her prayer books, typically written with the Gothic alphabet) had to dictate her letters. In her late thirties, she surprised Francesco by learning to read and write in the current “commercial” alphabet. This new ability allowed her to write whenever needed (without having to look for a scribe) and to be more honest in her letters.
Daily Challenges
As most women at that time, Margherita suffered from her husband’s repeated absences, which left her alone with her servants. Apparently, after marriage Francesco continued to be as work-driven as he had always been, so much that Niccolozzo had to exhort him, “You are rich enough, thanks be to God. Don’t want it all, don’t want it all, don’t want it all.”[2]
She was also distressed by Francesco’s extramarital affairs, which he carried on as usual. The birth of her husband’s second son with a sixteen-year-old servant troubled Margherita so deeply that she became seriously ill. Francesco found a husband for the girl, but the baby died after a few months.
Francesco was not irreligious. He often worried about his sins, interpreted contrarieties as God’s punishment, and kept promising to become “a new Francesco.” He never mentioned any sin in particular, and adultery and infidelity might have been low in his concerns, since they were not considered as serious in men as they were in women – something most wives had learned to accept.
While accepting the traditional position of submission to her husband, Margherita felt free to advise (and even reprove) him when it came to religion and morals. This was included, at that time, in the wife’s duties toward her husband, and was encouraged by preachers.
And Margherita had many pearls of wisdom to share – most likely, pearls she had gathered as she juggled the many responsibilities Francesco had placed on her shoulders, and as she persevered in spite of her loneliness, infertility, and chronic illness (which caused her debilitating pain with each menstruation).
Read More
Related Posts: -
A Response to Terry Johnson’s Review of SJC Case 2021-13, Dudt vs Northwest Georgia Presbytery
The SJC was considering two questions in this case. The first was whether the session at Midway erred in convicting Phil Dudt of the charges brought against him, and the second was whether the Northwest Georgia Presbytery erred in upholding that conviction. The SJC answered yes to both questions, and that ruling is the subject of pastor Johnson’s disappointment.
As a member of Midway Presbyterian Church who recognizes and appreciates its importance to both my region of the country and the denomination to which I have fled as an SBC refugee, I have made it a point to closely follow the various controversies that exist within my own church, though I am not personally a party to the disputes. I was dismayed to read pastor Terry Johnson’s article criticizing the SJC’s ruling which overturned the conviction of RE Phil Dudt, finding his critique both poorly reasoned and generally unhelpful in that it serves to obfuscate the matter rather than clarify it.
Pastor Johnson complains that the SJC does not understand the context surrounding the case, but he provides very little for his readers as he does not even explain what Dudt was tried and convicted for. It is necessary for anyone interested in the matter to read the summary of the facts here.
On July 8, 2020, the session called a congregational meeting for the purpose of electing three assistant pastors as associate pastors to take place on July 19, 2020. Phil Dudt sent an email to the congregation in which he asked the congregation to support a substitute motion to postpone the meeting until January, 2021. The full text of his email can be read in the summary of the facts. He gave several reasons for this motion, one of which was the fact that Midway had only recently been involved in another controversy regarding the handling of officer nominations in which the SJC ruled against the session. His motion to postpone the meeting failed, and the congregation subsequently voted to install the three candidates as associate pastors.
The session at Midway then brought charges against RE Dudt, alleging that his email was a violation of the 5th and 6th ordination vows, as well as the ninth commandment. Dudt was convicted of the charges, appealed that conviction to the Northwest Georgia Presbytery, and then to the SJC.
The SJC was considering two questions in this case. The first was whether the session at Midway erred in convicting Phil Dudt of the charges brought against him, and the second was whether the Northwest Georgia Presbytery erred in upholding that conviction. The SJC answered yes to both questions, and that ruling is the subject of pastor Johnson’s disappointment.
Johnson’s first stated reason for his disappointment was that the SJC does not recognize the larger context within which the complaint was made. He speaks of a contentious minority that has been engaged in a prolonged battle against the will of the majority. The complaint being considered by the SJC was an appeal filed directly by Phil Dudt himself, not by any third-party members of the church. The context for the complaint is the actions of Phil Dudt and the trial that ensued, not the actions of other people within the church that took place before or after. There does exist a portion of the congregation which is vehemently opposed to the session at Midway in general and pastor David Hall in particular, but Phil Dudt has never publicly identified with them. Many of these members are anonymous in their opposition and therefore would be impossible to identify with in the first place. His only association with them is the fact that he is an officer of the church (which is a connection to this faction shared by all members of the session, not just Dudt) and the fact that they agreed with his arguments for postponing a congregational meeting called for the purpose of voting on a motion to install three associate pastors.
The second point made by Johnson in his critique of the SJC decision is the one I find most disappointing by far. The SJC agreed that there was no evidence in the ROC to support the charges that were brought against Dudt. Specifically, what the session failed to show was that Dudt’s actions constituted an offense according to BCO 29-1. This led to the sustainment of specifications of error 4, 5, 6, 14, and 24. Johnson argues that this constitutes an argument from silence and that the proper course of action by the SJC would have been to investigate further because, “the benefit of the doubt, or shall we say, the presumption of innocence, should be given to the majority in the local lower courts.”
This is extremely flawed logic. Pointing out that the prosecution failed to substantiate the charges is not an argument from silence. An argument from silence is when the absence of evidence for one proposition is taken as evidence for the truth of a contrary proposition, particularly in the field of historical analysis. The question being decided by the SJC was not whether Phil Dudt was innocent or guilty but rather whether or not the session erred in finding him guilty. The accused party has the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. The point is not that the lack of evidence of his guilt proves his innocence but rather that the failure to provide evidence of guilt renders a conviction unjustified.
More importantly, Johnson’s reasoning here shifts the burden of proof from the accuser to the accused. The burden of proof when bringing charges against any member of the church, let alone an elder, is on the one bringing the charges (BCO 29-1), not on the one being accused. This was addressed in specification of error 31, which was sustained in the SJC ruling. If no evidence to sustain the charges is provided, the proper course of action is for the court to render a verdict of “not guilty,” not to delay judgment until evidence can be found. The question being decided by the SJC was whether or not the conviction of Dudt by the court was warranted. To “presume innocence” on the part of the majority of the court on that question is to presume guilt on the part of Phil Dudt. Pastor Johnson’s logic essentially amounts to saying that the SJC should have upheld the rulings of the lower courts because they were the rulings of the lower courts. That is obvious question-begging and would defeat the entire purpose of the appeals process.
Johnson’s third point, that technical errors of process should not be given undue weight in light of the larger context is wholly irrelevant to the question at hand. He made no effort to explain how exactly the SJC gave undue weight to technical errors of process, and the facts do not support the claim. The SJC did not overrule Phil Dudt’s conviction on the basis of procedural errors but rather on the basis that the charges upon which he was convicted were unfounded and unproven. Furthermore, a number of the specifications of error listed by Johnson as technical errors of process are not in fact mere technicalities but rather are errors which fundamentally undermine the character of justice, particularly errors 25, 30, and 31.
Pastor Johnson’s fourth point, which he calls the heart of the issue, is another exercise in circular reasoning. He asserts that Phil Dudt “does not have the right to send private communication without the knowledge of the session, especially one which contradicts, and in the contradiction denigrates the session.” We can all agree that he does not have the right to denigrate the session, but the whole point here is that he did not denigrate the session. Phil Dudt only denigrated the session if you consider the act of arguing in favor of a substitute motion to be denigrating in itself. Such a position would be absurd. Dudt expressing disagreement with a decision of the session to call a congregational meeting to elect three associate pastors no more denigrates the session than pastor Johnson expressing disagreement with an SJC ruling denigrates the SJC. Dudt’s reasoning for delaying the meeting in no way denigrated the session. He did not even voice opposition to the session’s proposal to install the three associate pastors. All he argued for was to postpone the meeting until the following January. Johnson’s characterization of Dudt’s actions presuppose his guilt, and then he uses that presupposed guilt as a basis to criticize the SJC’s ruling overturning the conviction.
Pastor Johnson goes on to point out how the SJC decision has injured the ministry of a veteran, faithful, and devout minister. I assume he is referring to pastor David Hall. This is true, and I largely share the concern. Johnson explains that Hall, “has sustained constant, false, and destructive attacks from an organized and determined minority. At the foundation of their bitter opposition was an orderly process whereby the session voted to nominate assistant ministers to serve as associate ministers, and the congregation voted to concur with the recommendation to call the assistant ministers as associates. The minority did not like the decisions or the processes, though both were in order. They simply refused to submit to the majority.”
First, it is worth noting that Johnson’s assertion that both the decision and processes were in order is not a matter of unanimous agreement. The question of the orderliness of the process became the subject of another controversy when thirteen ordained members of Midway signed a 40-5 credible report alleging various BCO violations stemming from that meeting. That report was viewed as legitimate enough for the Review of Presbytery Records Committee to unanimously recommend that it be referred to the SJC for adjudication. That recommendation was ultimately rejected by the General Assembly by a 54% – 46% vote. Whichever side one might take on the questions surrounding that meeting, I do not think it is properly charitable to assume that these issues were raised out of nothing more than a stubborn refusal to submit to the will of the majority. It strikes me as unlikely that so many people—including many who were not themselves involved—would see legitimacy in the objections if those objections could not have been raised in good faith.
More importantly, even if you agree that the actions taken by the minority after the congregational meeting is a stubborn refusal to submit to a legitimate decision of the majority, that has nothing to do with the case of Phil Dudt. The actions for which he was tried and convicted occurred before the meeting, not after. He was not one of the signers of the 40-5 report. At no point did he indicate any unwillingness to submit to the results of that congregational meeting, and has taken no action to undermine it.
While I share pastor Johnson’s overarching concerns about the fact that many members of Midway have made use of this SJC ruling to launch all sorts of attacks on David Hall, it does not follow that the SJC made the wrong ruling in the case. Consideration should be given to the fact that Phil Dudt is also a veteran, faithful, and devout minister, and that his conviction did injury to his ministry as a ruling elder. To uphold a wrong conviction which injured one minister for the sake of protecting another from criticism would have been blatant partiality on the part of our denomination’s highest court, and I am thankful that did not happen.
As I see it, the true heart of the issue here is whether or not Phil Dudt deserved to be convicted of the charges that were brought against him on the basis of his email to the congregation. How an email advocating the postponement of a congregational meeting which contained no false statements, no accusations or assignment of ill motives, and no opposition to the proposed action itself constitutes violence to the unity, peace, or purity of the church, lack of subjection to the brethren in the Lord, or a violation of the ninth commandment is beyond any reasonable comprehension. That is why the SJC unanimously overturned the conviction, and I do not believe they erred in their judgment in doing so.
Jonathan McElrath is member of Midway Presbyterian Church in Powder Springs, Ga.
Related Posts: -
Assisted Suicide is Spiralling Out of Control in Canada
Plenty of the same people who were outraged that the United States Supreme Court would overturn precedent on seminal abortion decisions, seemingly had no problem with the overturning of precedent in this Canadian case. This is because implicit in the view of rights and judicial review that many progressives hold, is that it is perfectly acceptable to overturn precedent in the name of expanding or establishing some newly discovered right — but once this is done, the debate is settled and there can be no reasonable dissent or change of heart. History, it seems, only marches in one direction.
An important part of the Carter decision, where the court determined that relevant social facts had changed, was essentially a blithe dismissal of exactly what has come to pass in Canada less than a decade after the decision. The court rejected the concern that once assisted suicide was allowed in some rare cases, there would be a “slippery slope” from helping terminally ill people end their lives, to a system in which vulnerable people like the disabled were caught in a euthanizing net.
Evidence presented in the case by a medical expert from Belgium that this might be possible, was dismissed by the court because “the permissive regime in Belgium is the product of a very different medico-legal culture.” Unlike those barbaric Belgians, enlightened Canada could avoid sliding down this slippery slope in which safeguards are easily gotten around. They would avoid the creeping expansion of eligibility by setting up a “carefully regulated scheme” that would keep its application narrow and exceptional.
Yet just seven years after the decision, the exact scenario dismissed by the court has come to pass. Who could have seen this coming? Well, all sorts of people, and not just religious voices. Disabilities advocates in Canada have been sounding the alarm on the path Canada was headed down since 2015, seemingly ignored by the courts and government.
Read More