-Foolish for Christ?

In any event, I didn’t see much of it, only the tail end of the comments to the chair from the floor. When I tuned in a Christian woman was at the microphone. She looked like a housewife or a mom making her appeal before the board.

The first comments I heard caught my attention. She was speaking of the First Amendment (apparently someone had raised the church/state separation concern in the prior discussion, as if morality is purely a religious issue and ethical considerations have no place in the public square). Her comment was simple, direct, accurate I believe, and profound. The First Amendment to the Constitution was not a limitation on the private citizen in any capacity, religious or otherwise. It didn’t restrict the church’s involvement in the state, if in fact that is what was happening here (though I don’t think it was). Rather, the first amendment restricted the state from involvement in the church. The amendment was there to protect the church from the state, not the state from the church.

“Well put,” I thought. “So far, so good.” This woman had caught my attention and, I suspected, would get the attention of a lot of others in that room if she developed this thinking a little further. It was a very compelling point. Though hecklers were trying to disrupt her, the gentleman presiding over the meeting effectively held them at bay so she could make her case.

Unfortunately, what I heard next embarrassed me as a Christian and stunned me as a thinking person. This well-meaning Christian woman abandoned her fruitful tack and did something that was sadly predictable and thoroughly misguided…

…She paused for a moment saying, “I don’t know if I can do this,” then began, in a nervous, shaky but determined voice, to sing a hymn.

Of course, the response from the audience was predictable. The hecklers resumed with abandon, and the chairperson was beside himself. He wanted to be fair with this woman and give her an opportunity to make her case, yet he hadn’t expected this turn of events, which was clearly out of line. The time at the mike was for the advocacy of truth, not the adoration of God. He gently requested that she surrender the floor, though he acknowledged and respected her personal sentiment on the issue. She immediately started a second round of the hymn and finished it before she finally yielded.

Frankly, I was deeply embarrassed. This woman’s display was flawed for a number of reasons. First, she made this condom-in-schools concern a sectarian religious issue instead of a public moral, ethical and health issue, the exact thing she should have been trying to avoid. Instead of limiting her remarks to the reasonable concerns the community has by virtue of the common ground each member of the community shares, she began throwing religious rocks at people’s heads.

Second, she was inappropriately disobedient to the secular authority she implicitly submitted herself to when she walked up to that microphone. The Apostle Peter writes in his first epistle, [2:13] “Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether to a king as the one in authority, [14] or to governors as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do right. [15] For such is the will of God that by doing right you may silence the ignorance of foolish men.” By singing this hymn in that context she betrayed her trust, violated the will of God, and instead of silencing the ignorance of her detractors, as she could have done–and was on her way to doing, it seemed to me–she rather stimulated their antipathy, their aversion.

And that’s the third problem. Her action accomplished nothing good and much bad. And for those who are tempted to think she honored God and not men, and that’s the most important thing, my point is that, in fact, she didn’t honor God; she disobeyed Him. That’s why I cited Peter’s counsel on this issue. The result? The “gentiles” were blaspheming God’s name as a result of her actions.

Fourth, she missed a tremendous opportunity to do just the opposite, and that’s what makes this so tragic. She forfeit an excellent chance to make an intelligent case for her ethical position. Paul instructed the Colossians in chapter 4, [5] “Conduct yourselves with wisdom toward outsiders, making the most of the opportunity. [6] Let your speech always be with grace, seasoned, as it were, with salt, so that you may know how you should respond to each person.” Now I admit, I came in at the end of her comments, and she may have said some very fine and compelling things before I tuned in. If so, she should have left it at that instead of tearing down what she had so carefully built up.

Finally, she added unnecessary offense to the Gospel. I’m sure there were people watching who thought, “So this is what Christians are like–inconsiderate, disrespectful, silly, and shallow; in short, off the deep end.”

I’m sure this Christian woman had no interest in making a display of herself, and I admit it took a lot of courage to do what she did. She probably thought the risk was worth it to make a bold stand for her faith. I don’t question her sincerity–no doubt she “felt led” by the Lord to do this–I question her judgment. I’m sure her friends consider her a saint and a martyr; I consider her foolish, and whatever reprobation she received, she brought on herself.

When you are thrust into a position of speaking the truth and catching heat for it, so be it, but you don’t go looking for insult. In fact, I contend that the text makes it clear that we go out of our way to be persuasive and non-offensive when speaking the truth.

You know me well enough that my censure here is not out of timidity or unwillingness to be bold, straightforward and forthright about the truth of the gospel. I stand with this woman as a brother to her in Christ, regardless of her ill-advised actions. However, I want you to understand the obligation we have not only to communicate God’s message, but also to do it by the means, methods and manner God prescribes.

When dealing with non-Christians our responsibility is two-fold. The Gospel alone is offensive enough. We should not add more offense to it, as was done here. Neither should we take any of the inherent offense from it, as is frequently done elsewhere.

Probably fearful of erring on the latter extreme, this Christian sister erred seriously on the former extreme, with the same unfortunate results: the gospel was miscommunicated and, therefore, misunderstood. I suspect most non-believers walked away shaking their heads more convinced than ever that they never wanted to be associated with these people, rather than hanging their heads because their unbelief was effectively challenged.

The persecution this sister received was not the kind of thing Jesus was talking about in Matthew 5, the scripture which made me think of her in the first place. She was not being maligned “for the sake of righteousness.” The non-believers were not “casting insults” and persecuting her, and saying “all kinds of evil against [her] falsely, on account of [Jesus].” Her light was not shining before men in such a way that they could see her good works, and glorify her Father who is in heaven. Instead she was guilty of being well-intentioned and foolish, a dangerous combination.

Could God use what she did? Of course. I believe God could still produce the fruit of conviction even in that unfortunate display of ignorant piety (and I mean ignorant, not malicious), but if He did, it was in spite of the effort and not because of it.

Please, please, don’t follow this example.

At least that’s the way I see it.