Blessed Are the Unoffended

How can Christians communicate what we believe without being denigrating or inflammatory?

Mark Galli | 11/18/2010 | ChristianityToday

The question above is the topic I was asked to address at the Global Faith Forum, held at NorthWood Church in Keller, Texas, last week. It was
not a little ironic that the author of Jesus Mean and
Wild, not to mention this often controversial column, should be asked to
address the topic. But I accepted before the conference organizers could change
their mind, because I thought maybe I could stir things up!

Seriously, the following is my attempt explore this, yes, serious question, especially in the context of Christians' relationship to Muslims and
Jews, a relationship too often characterized by insults and anger, not to
mention death and destruction in many parts of the world.

* * *

Those of us who are Christians, whenever we ponder how to act or speak, naturally wonder, "What would Jesus do?" In this case, how did the Prince
of Peace communicate with those with whom he had deep differences? How did the
one who described himself as "gentle and lowly of heart" speak to his
co-religionists in an Abrahamic faith when they found themselves divided over
fundamental issues? Maybe Jesus can give us guidance in these days when Muslims
and Christians often look at each other in terror and fear.

Naturally, one's mind immediately travels to passages like Matthew 23, where Jesus, speaking to co-religionists, said, "Woe to you, scribes and
Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut the kingdom of heaven in people's faces. For
you neither enter yourselves nor allow those who would enter to go in"
(ESV).

And this: "Woe to you, blind guides," which he later changed to "blind fools," then moved on to call them "hypocrites"—not once, not twice, but
four times!—before winding up with, "You serpents, you brood of vipers, how are
you to escape being sentenced to hell?"

Or take another passage that jumps to mind: Jesus' reaction when he thought his co-religionists were desecrating the temple, the supreme house of
worship in Judaism:

And he entered the temple and began to drive out those who sold and those who bought in the temple, and he overturned the tables of the
money-changers and the seats of those who sold pigeons. [John, in his Gospel,
notes that Jesus also made a whip and drove people from the temple area.] And he
would not allow anyone to carry anything through the temple. And he was teaching
them and saying to them, "Is it not written, 'My house shall be called a house
of prayer for all the nations'? But you have made it a den of
robbers."

The reaction he got is not surprising: "And the chief priests and the scribes heard it and were seeking a way to destroy him" (Mark 11:15-18).

This is not the Jesus we want to talk about. But unfortunately, we cannot NOT note these incidents if we want to think about how Christians should
share their faith with others.

But there are other examples from Jesus, no less disturbing to our hopes for peaceful co-existence, that are maybe even more disturbing, because
they show that Jesus seemed indifferent to many of our ideas about peacemaking.
Take another, lesser known, incident from Mark's gospel:

Again he entered the synagogue, and a man was there with a withered hand. And they watched Jesus, to see whether he would heal him on the
Sabbath, so that they might accuse him. And he said to the man with the withered
hand, "Come here." And he said to them, "Is it lawful on the Sabbath to do good
or to do harm, to save life or to kill?" But they were silent. And he looked
around at them with anger, grieved at their hardness of heart, and said to the
man, "Stretch out your hand." He stretched it out, and his hand was restored.
(Mark 3:1-5)

This is a most interesting moment in Jesus' ministry if we're looking for lessons in peacemaking. Jesus recognizes that these religious
leaders, the Pharisees, are playing "Gotcha," trying to catch him breaking the
Sabbath so they might have grounds to accuse him. And surely Jesus is aware of
the simplest way to diffuse this volatile situation: Just wait until the sun
sets, when the Sabbath is officially over, and then heal the man.

It isn't as if the man with the withered hand needed to be healed immediately. There was nothing life threatening about his condition. He'd been
living with his disability for decades. It's not going to kill him to wait
another few hours before getting healed. Just wait until sunset: The man gets
healed, the Pharisees are not provoked, and God gets the glory—a
win-win-win!

Even more interesting is this: the man with the withered hand has not even asked for healing. Maybe he's just come to the service for a little
peace and quiet at the end of a trying week. Maybe he doesn't like to draw
attention to himself or his handicap. Maybe he is mortified that Jesus is
singling him out for attention! That's all speculation, of course, but what's
clear is that he hasn't asked for healing. Jesus just points to him in the
congregation and says, "Come up here."

Jesus clearly is exploiting the moment to humiliate the Pharisees. He could have simply healed the man and moved the service on to the next hymn—or
better, the offering! The Pharisees are smart men; a simple demonstration of
Jesus' power would have been enough to make his point: that he is Lord of the
Sabbath. But no, Jesus not only sticks the knife into their pride, but turns it:
He asks them, in front of God and everybody, "Is it lawful on the Sabbath to do
good or to do harm, to save life or to kill?"

This is trick question, of course, intended to back the Pharisees into a corner—let's face it, to make them look like fools. Well, it works,
because, as Mark notes, "They were silent." They weren't about to say that the
Sabbath was designed by God to bring death. And they weren't going to say the
obvious—that God made it to bless life—because this would just play into Jesus'
hands.

Their obstinacy just makes Jesus angry, at which point, Mark notes, Jesus turns to the man and heals him. Is it any wonder that Mark
concludes this episode by noting, "The Pharisees went out and immediately held
counsel with the Herodians against him, how to destroy him" (Mark 3:6).

A simple reading of this story, and a few others, suggests that the gentle Lamb of God, the Prince of Peace, could have used a few lessons in
how to communicate without being denigrating or inflammatory!

* * *

The point is this: There were moments in Jesus' ministry when he denigrated—that is, according to the dictionary definition, "attacked the
reputation of another"—and inflamed—"excited to excessive or uncontrollable
actions or feelings." What we find in the Gospels is an uncomfortable reality:
There is something about Jesus that makes some people want to kill him.

This is a long way of saying something that needs to be said whenever we think about how to have peaceful relations with people of other
faiths: Those of us who follow Jesus, if we're faithful to him, are occasionally
going to find ourselves in the same troubled waters. This will come about not
because we want to denigrate and inflame, as if we get a kick out of making
people angry. It will come about simply because we are trying to be like Jesus,
doing what Jesus is calling us to do, and saying what he's calling us to say.
When we do that, sometimes, it's just going to make people as mad as hell.

We get no pleasure from this. We are saddened and grieved when it happens. But as followers of Jesus, we recognize that the ultimate goal is not
to cover over deep-seated feelings and beliefs, to pretend that there is always
a peaceful solution to every problem, to end our meetings with hugs and cheers.
No, the goal of all conversation is for people to meet Jesus Christ. And when
people meet Jesus Christ, there's no telling what will happen. Sometimes that
encounter ends in peace and reconciliation—thank God! But let's face it,
sometimes it ends with people stomping out of the room or plotting our
demise.

I cannot speak from the Muslim perspective, but I don't think I'd get much of an argument looking at it from that point of view. I know enough
about Muhammad to know that he infuriated people in his day from time to time.
As for Jews—well, they have the heritage of the prophets, who were not exactly
famous for their peacemaking skills! The point is that Muslims and Jews too, if
they are faithful to their traditions and honest with themselves and with us
Christians, will sometimes feel called to say things that will offend us.

There is a lot to be said about "how to talk about our faith without being inflammatory"—and I'll write more about that in the next edition
of this column. But before we arrive there, we are wise to note this other
reality. Sometimes we have no choice but to begin our peacemaking with some
troublemaking—speaking the truth to the point of risking offense. The first
relational issue in interreligious dialogue is not, "How do I talk so that I
don't offend others?" If we are going to talk with each other from our deepest
convictions, and speak frankly about how we see things, we're going to do that
from time to time. No, the really important question is, "How do I respond when
I have heard something offensive?"

* * *

Again, I cannot speak for Muslims or Jews on this point. But I do know that Christians have unique resources to grapple with this question. Jesus'
teaching about turning the other cheek and about forgiving seventy times seven
are just a beginning. We live in a time when such resources should be employed
with vigor.

Ours is the victim's age. There is no easier way to put someone on the defensive than to say, "You've hurt me," or, "You've offended me." The
sensitive, cosmopolitan modern peacemaker—especially the Christian who images
himself or herself as a loving person!—will feel a rush of guilt and wonder how
immediately to undo the damage. No doubt, we each say things that do indeed hurt
and offend, and for this we Christians, of all people, must be quick to
apologize and make amends. But similarly, as Christians, we are unwise to play
the victim card ourselves very often.

The reasons for this are many, but one large one is this: The New Testament spends relatively little ink instructing us on how to speak without
offending. Speak the truth in love, yes, but when Jesus and Peter and Paul
actually modeled that, it often led to hostility! All three had decidedly
unpeaceful relationships with their co-religionists. On the other hand, the New
Testament admonishes us time and again to forgive and to take no offense. And of
course, if there were no verses on this specific point, the image of Jesus on
the cross, silent and humiliated before his enemies, would be more than enough
to guide our response when we are even falsely accused.

This strikes me as a good balance. Yes, there are times when honesty requires us to tell another that we have indeed been hurt or offended.
You cannot have frank dialogue about honest differences without expressing that
on occasion. But it seems to me that the more excellent way—one that likely will
lead to fruitful dialogue and long term peaceful coexistence with people of
other faiths—is to not take offense in the first place.

Mark Galli is senior managing editor of Christianity Today

Comment by Jerry Roseleip on November 19, 2010 at 11:08am: It seems that many"Christians" are offended by true Christianity. By that I mean Christ's work on the cross for our salvation rather than being Christ like in our actions for our salvation. They are offended that they cannot do it by themselves by their own reason and strength with Jesus just showing the way.

Comment by James Robertson on November 24, 2010 at 9:57am: Is This Considered Treason?
By Kathy Barnette Tuesday, November 23, 2010 - CanadaFreePress

Anything American and anything Christ-centered seems to be “unconstitutional” these days. The litmus test that appears to be in use in determining if something is constitutional or not, is “if someone may become offended by another’s actions.” How flaky is that for a litmus test – when we can each vouch for our own emotions randomly ranging from high to low at any given moment.

Does the other side of this argument ever see that they are offending those who just so happen to love this country and those who believe in Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Savior? Honestly, do they ever consider anyone’s feelings beyond their own? Or, does what really matter to them is that their feelings are never imposed upon?

Comment by James Robertson on November 25, 2010 at 6:40am: Offense cannot be given, it can only be taken. - Anonymous

Comment by James Robertson on November 27, 2010 at 3:04pm: Not to be provoked is best; but if moved, never correct till the fume is spent; for every stroke our fury strikes is sure to hit ourselves at last.
- William Penn

Comment by James Robertson on November 30, 2010 at 5:25am: Luke 7:23 And blessed is the one who is not offended by me.”

Comment by James Robertson on November 30, 2010 at 10:19am: The Offense Test
By Daniel Greenfield Monday, October 25, 2010
The Offense Test is very simple. If another driver on the highway flashes me the middle finger, it is generally accepted that he is a jackass. If I try to kill him in response, it is generally accepted that I am unfit for civil society and should be locked up.

But the Offense Test is more than just a way to screen out homicidal maniacs, it also screens out groups that are incapable of reconciling themselves to free speech. And in Europe and America, from the days when Salman Rushdie had to live in hiding to the present day, when Molly Norris has had to abandon her career as a cartoonist and go into hiding—Islam has failed the Offense Test in the worst way possible.
Barbaric honor-shame codes of the tribal society

Living in a free society that is not rendered artificially homogeneous by speech codes and guardians of morality, means being willing to ignore offensive speech against your person and your beliefs. That means setting aside the barbaric honor-shame codes of the tribal society, with its value system in which every man is only worth as much or as little as the honor of his tribe and his family, for the ability to distinguish threats from insults.

Under the honor-shame code, an insult can be worse than a threat, because to deprive a man of honor, is worse than killing him. And that honor derives from his tribe, his family and he is perceived. Under honor-shame codes, when a man’s wife, daughter or other female relative disobey him, they shame and dishonor him, and he may mutilate or kill them to regain his honor. Similarly, if an outsider ridicules his god, the insult must be repaid with blood. To fail to do so is to live with shame in his own eyes and those of his compatriots.

Operating under the honor-shame code, in a free society where women are considered to have equal rights and free speech is more sacred, than sacred icons, the Muslim man is constantly on the verge of inflicting violence inside and outside the family. It takes only a straw to break the camel’s back, his daughter kissing a strange boy, a Fatwa about foreign troops in his country or a bad day at work. It’s not so much the nature of the actual offense that matters, only the religious and cultural “hair trigger” that Islam cultivates in its followers. And while the honor-shame code is not limited to Muslims, only the Muslim world has managed to turn the honor-shame trigger into a global tripwire, with cartoons in Denmark leading to killings in Pakistan.
Muslims may decry talk of plans for the Caliphate as a conspiracy theory or Islamophobia

Muslims may decry talk of plans for the Caliphate as a conspiracy theory or Islamophobia, but when they act collectively through the UN via the OIC and through violence and intimidation to restrict any speech that they dislike, then they are effectively attempting to impose the speech codes of their religious legal system on the entire world. And billions of Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, Jews and others, should not be expected to react well to the imposition of a system that leaves them as second class citizens, liable to be demonized as infidels, idolaters and the children of pigs and apes, without the right or freedom to respond.

Western apologists for Islam insist that tolerance lies in not offending Muslims, but that is not what tolerance is. Tolerance means that we tolerate the offensive, not that we have it cleared away from us by the censorship of the state or the violence or the mob. There is nothing wrong with being sensitive to other people’s feelings, when such sensitivity is mutually reciprocated, and when it is not dictated by fear of violence. But when sensitivity is motivated by a fear of violence, then it is no longer an act of empathy, but of cowardice. There is nobility in not stepping on the downtrodden, but none in cringing before an angry mob. To censor free speech in the face of anguish may be a kindness, but it is a crime in the face of bloodshed.

Yet the same liberals who insist that WW2 GI’s were fighting for the right to gay marriage, insist that we must censor anything that offends Muslims in order to protect US soldiers in Afghanistan. Yet, what if anything, are American soldiers fighting for if not to preserve such a basic freedom. What could we hope to gain by appeasing the Muslim world that would outweigh our Bill of Rights? Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer appears to disagree, reviving WWI era arguments about shouting fire in a crowded theater. But the question here is not one of censoring speech in the name of patriotism, but of avoiding violence by suppressing speech that might trigger the murderers to kill.
No free society can exist by allowing the murderers or would be murderers to set the terms of its free speech

Yet no free society can exist by allowing the murderers or would be murderers to set the terms of its free speech. To do so is to submit tyranny. If we allow that to happen, then we no longer have either a Constitution or even self-government, all our laws and practices would be subject to review by any Muslim cleric with a microphone and a grudge. That is the system that the vaunted European “tolerance” has ushered in, where 3 year olds in England are being monitored for racism, Jews are fleeing Europe at a rate unprecedented since the rise of the Nazis, and dogs are barred from buses. But despite the fearful shadow of this draconian tolerance, matters are no better. Once the murderers are allowed to determine what freedoms a society will have, the killing never stops. Not until all the freedoms do.

That is why the Offense Test is so crucial, because it screens out people and groups who think this way. It is possible to live without the Offense Test, but only as a homogenized society in which speech is tightly controlled, and every man is expected to be ready to kill for the slightest offense, and every woman must be escorted everywhere by her husband or father. But such a society will be not be a multicultural one, it will have one dominant religion, culture and gender—with all others reduced to second-class citizenship. Muslims have already set up such societies all across the globe, and they are welcome to live in them, at least until they choose to reform them into some semblance of civilization. But instead they propose to remake the First World along the same lines, and they have no shortage of Western apologists who are eager to help them achieve that goal.

Their argument of the apologists always comes down to blaming the victims of Islamic violence for the initial offense. Not only does this argument come down to the same position taken by the Grand Mufti of Australia, when he declared that rape victims were “uncovered meat” who were just asking for it, but even were it true that Muslim violence is only a response to some provocation or offense, then that alone demonstrates that Islam is incompatible with participation in civil society.

If Muslims cannot see a woman in a short skirt without trying to rape her, then they are unfit to be members of society in which women have the right to dress as they please. If Muslims cannot see a cartoon of their prophet, without trying to murder the artist who drew it, then they cannot be members of any society with free speech. And if Muslims cannot give their loyalty to the country that they live in, rather than to the angry clerics of Saudi Arabia or Pakistan, than they had best move back to where their hearts truly lie. Otherwise their new country will be forced to judge every foreign policy decision not based on its own interests, but on whether its citizens will be subject to terrorist attacks from its domestic Muslims.

For Muslims, the Offense Test will serve to determine, whether they can live outside the Muslim world. For now, they are failing the test, and failing it badly. Muslim immigration has not spread tolerance, but intolerance, not love but fear, and not knowledge, but ignorance. It is up to Muslims themselves to reverse that trend, by either passing the Offense Test and proving that they can tolerate being offended by the variety of views and images in a multicultural society, or disengaging from a non-Muslim world whose freedoms and perspectives they cannot learn to tolerate. The choice is simple enough, and the choice is theirs.

Comment by James Robertson on December 4, 2010 at 5:03pm: “What is freedom of expression? Without the freedom to offend, it ceases to exist” - Salman Rushdie

Comment by James Robertson on December 6, 2010 at 9:58am: Offended by the Offended
By Terry Paulson
12/6/2010 -Townhall.com

Five Live Oak High School students’ First Amendment rights were challenged this year when they were asked to leave school because they donned American flag T-shirts on Cinco de Mayo, an offense one official called “incendiary.” Other students could wear or wave the Mexican flag and any number of other potentially offensive messages, but wearing the American flag in America is just too “incendiary.” To their credit, the Morgan Hill Unified School District did not concur with the suspensions, but the “offended” still got their way.
Unfortunately, in America today, being offended works! It’s become an effective strategy for oppressing the freedom of those who disagree with the offended party. An Iowa Veterans Hospital is removing crosses and Christian symbols from its chapels because ”offended” atheist complainers have successfully intimidated hospital administrators with threats of a lawsuit.

On a more personal level, when a doctor informed a female patient that she was clinically obese and needed to lower her weight, she was offended. Instead of addressing her own weight issues, she attempted to get her doctor reprimanded.

Is this still America? “We the people” are supposed to be free to disagree, dislike you, and even offend you. Face the sad truth, in a free society, there will always be somebody out there who will be offended with anything, everything or at least something that you might say or do.

Don’t let name-calling get to you. Borrowing the words of the GEICO drill sergeant therapist, “Maybe we should chug on over to mambi pambi land and find some self confidence for you!” Grab some tissues instead of intimidating others into compromising our freedom of speech.

The French-born American historian, Jacques Barzun, said, “Political correctness does not legislate tolerance; it only organizes hatred.” Political correctness is the enemy of freedom of speech. What may have began as a crusade for civility has soured into arguments over what is “offensive” and, even worse, censorship. To label someone a bigot or a racist for a comment that offends minimizes true racism. If being offended is enough to squander our freedom of speech, I’m offended by those who are offended.

Too many have forgotten that handy childhood saying: “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never harm me.” Words may hurt and even offend, but they need not have lasting impact. Even with the most hateful of comments, we’re dealing with strong statements, not physical blows.

After all, anyone entering into political discourse should wear a flak jacket and helmet. As a columnist, I’ve been called a simplistic f…ing clown, a right liar, narrow minded, a cruel joke, a two-faced hypocrite, and my favorite—a jackass trying to look like horse. I’ve been asked, “What planet are you living on?” I’ve been told that since I’ve “had enough” of President Obama, I ought to leave the county, the state, and even the country! Such comments go with the territory.

The best response to hateful comments is not a counter attack but to keep expressing your opinions. It’s healthy to learn that you can survive verbal attacks for your views and sleep soundly at night.

When you don’t like what is said, choose to disagree and let their attack slide by or get beyond their name calling and consider changing your opinion. Choosing to be offended is not a constructive choice.

Thankfully, some are protesting “offended” demonstrators. After “offended” students from Michigan State’s Muslim Student’s Association protested the publishing of Danish cartoons portraying the Prophet Muhammad as a terrorist, professor Indrek Wichman protested the protest. He sent an e-mail to the association: “I am offended not by cartoons, but by more mundane things like beheadings of civilians, cowardly attacks on public buildings, suicide murders,…the imposition of Sharia law on non-Muslims….” In spite of an immediate uproar from the association and CAIR, the university has stood in support of Professor Wichman, saying the e-mail was private and, as a result, warranted no university condemnation.

So, instead of using the courts or the long arm of the government to ban, threaten, or otherwise punish those who refuse to agree with your views, try exposing the supposed “offending” comments. Treat what you consider “hate” speech with more speech, not legal maneuvering that limits one of our most treasured freedoms. Remember, people you try to silence may not get mad; they may get even and work to censor and control you! When it comes to taking offense, don’t do to others what you wouldn’t want done to you.