Many years ago I was teaching a Sunday school class comprised of tween-age children and I asked them the question: What does Jesus mean by “offense” in the Mark 9:42 passage? One of the youngsters immediately blurted out, “That’s when my team has the ball!” He actually wasn’t that far off the mark, because the word “offense” is used in sports to indicate the team that is attacking while the other side is necessarily on the defense. Hence, it was a simple step to tell these children that when they attack someone verbally they are offending them. I am not sure that they all understood exactly the nuances associated with the word “offend” in all life’s circumstances, but no matter — most adults have the same problem, i.e., realizing when they are actually offending someone!
The most offensive man who ever lived
The Lord Jesus Christ probably caused more offense than anyone who has ever lived. Clearly his teachings placed a huge stumbling block in the path of all who heard them. His teachings greatly offended the scribes and Pharisees, because he exposed their hypocrisies and challenged the pseudo-religiosity of their beliefs. The truth of God, as encompassed in the Bible, continues to offend even to this day and will no doubt keep on offending those who practice false religion. Anyone who has preached knows that it is a difficult task, at times, to present the word of God in a truly simple and straightforward manner, while at the same time not offending someone who believes, for example, in the devil or the trinity. Nevertheless, it behooves us to do the best we can to approach our outreach efforts in as positive and non-confrontational a manner as possible. Our Lord Jesus Christ never ever deliberately sought to cause offense. When Jesus was asked to pay the two-drachma Temple tax,1he could have easily and justly refused, for he was both king and high priest and consequently exempt from such levies. Yet Jesus avoided the confrontation and instructed Peter to go and fish out a double portion of the tax to cover both of them, “lest we should offend them” (Matt 17:27).
Nevertheless, the Pharisees were offended by his teaching:
“Then his disciples came and said to him, ‘Do you know that the Pharisees were offended when they heard this saying?’ ” (Matt 15:12, NKJV).
Why were they offended? He exposed their traditions as a mere hypocritical show of religion, while deep down in the depths of their character they were desperate sinners and refused to acknowledge the shortcomings of their behavior. Instead, they made a public show of religious ritual while at the same time they were:
- hating without cause (Matt 5:22),
- neglecting the poor (Luke 14:13),
- faking their fastings (Matt 6:16),
- forsaking the sick (Matt 21:14,15),
- denying the needs of their parents (Mark 7:11),
- showing no mercy in their judgments (Matt 23:23),
- treating their marriage vows as disposable (Matt 19:3-9), and
- desecrating the Temple of God (Matt 21:12), to cite but a few of their most grievous sins.
Our Lord Jesus Christ soundly and forthrightly condemned such despicable behavior in the strongest language. He called them hypocrites on numerous occasions and also compared them to vipers and serpents. None of these appellations were likely to whitewash the message that he intended for their ears, namely, that they desperately needed to repent of their ways.
Should Jesus have been more tactful in what he said? Would he have received a more favorable response if he had shown shrewd diplomacy in delivering his message? Doubtful! Jesus wasn’t running for public office; he was already appointed successor to the throne of David by his heavenly Father. The powerful miracles he performed and the righteousness of his teachings should have been sufficient for the scribes and Pharisees to have given him due respect as their Messiah.
I have heard some say that, since Jesus was forthright in his speech when preaching the gospel message, we should emulate that approach ourselves. In the early history of our community a form of provocative debate was often the style used in public preaching and for confronting issues within the brotherhood. The problem with debating is that it generally fails on two counts. First, if you prevail and win the debate you usually end up embarrassing your opponents and they will then resist your arguments all the more while vehemently seeking to prove their own point. Alternatively, if you lose the debate you will humiliate yourself, which will only serve to further fortify the belief of the one you are trying to convince. We need to fully realize that we are not the Lord Jesus Christ, since we are certainly devoid of any possible claims to heavenly authority. Hence, it doesn’t behoove us to use intemperate language when preaching the Truth, nor when dealing with internal offense within our ecclesial family. Instead we need to remember our relationship to those with whom we are dealing is best epitomized in the teaching of our Lord:
“For he that is least among you all, the same shall be great” (Luke 9:48).
What is the best way to preach?
The question then arises: What is the best way to approach preaching work so that we don’t cause offense, irrespective of whether our discussions are to a public assembly or just in private with an acquaintance? The apostle Paul gives us a strong clue as to how we ought to behave when he told the Corinthians:
“To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some” (1Co 9:22, NKJV).
We need to empathize with those we want to win over, whether it be a brother or sister offended, or a person we wish to interest in the gospel message. Not an easy task, but one well worth our time and effort. Instead of telling people what we don’t believe, we need to take a positive approach to preaching the gospel. Instead of telling people they are wrong, or that we disagree with them, how much better would be our response if we told them: “Here is another point of view you might wish to consider.”
To a large extent Christadelphians today have adopted this approach in external preaching where the Bible seminar program, in its various modifications, has had some very reasonable success in both witnessing and converting serious Bible students. Far better than the public lectures I sometimes heard as a youth with such confrontational titles as: “Do you believe in the Devil?” or “The trinity is not a Bible doctrine.” These are actual titles that I have seen some ecclesias use, and I hope that I haven’t offended anyone by repeating them, for I am sure they were used with perfectly good intention. However, the fact remains that the public rarely, if ever, responds to such titles because they inherently put the potentially interested party on the defensive and it either scares them away, or they feel they already know the answer and have no need to attend. Individual lectures on subjects of general public interest have in my experience been more successful. (In this regard, I would be glad to supply some specific titles to anyone emailing me.)
Offense in the ecclesia
Now I want to turn to difficulties that may arise within the ecclesia that can cause offense. Our Lord Jesus Christ had to deal with offense on many occasions, and we can be guided by his teachings to handle difficult situations. Ironically, Jesus’ heritage and occupation were an offense to the elders of Israel:
“ ‘Is this not the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James, Joses, Judas, and Simon? And are not his sisters here with us?’ So they were offended at him” (Mark 6:3, NKJV).
They were incensed that a humble carpenter was trying to tell them how to live. The elders of Israel knew his family and were aware they came from lowly circumstances; hence they found it difficult to believe that our Lord Jesus Christ was worthy of respect. Do we get offended for the same wrong reasons?
The ecclesia is not a social club where membership is restricted to a certain economic and social class, or worse yet governed by those of preferred ethnic or racial origin. Brothers and sisters come from all social and economic backgrounds and bring with them various cultural heritages. It is quite possible that the members of any ecclesia would never be associated with one another in any single worldly organization drawing together people on some compatible social, cultural, or economic basis.
Assuredly, the only common glue that holds an ecclesia together is the bond of the Truth. Therefore it is not uncommon for there to be generational, cultural, or social status offenses caused by personality differences inherent in the backgrounds of brothers or sisters. Younger men may prefer to come to meeting without ties, and younger women may prefer to wear a pants suit instead of a dress — just to cite a few examples I have witnessed around the Christadelphian world.
Economic circumstances can certainly make it far easier for some to wear Sunday best, while others may only be able to afford a pair of jeans. One can certainly make a good argument for coming to meeting with the best appearance we might be able to afford, for example, in a manner we would dress for a job interview. However, we need also to be careful not to apply our economic status as an absolute standard upon others, for our Lord looks not at the outward appearance, but judges the heart:
“My brethren, do not hold the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with partiality. For if there should come into your assembly a man with gold rings, in fine apparel, and there should also come in a poor man in filthy clothes, and you pay attention to the one wearing the fine clothes and say to him, ‘You sit here in a good place,’ and say to the poor man, ‘You stand there,’ or, ‘Sit here at my footstool,’ have you not shown partiality among yourselves, and become judges with evil thoughts?” (James 2:1-4, NKJV).
We should not be offended by another’s dress unless it is plainly obvious that it has been done maliciously or provocatively. A brother or sister coming directly from a blue-collar job to attend Bible class or meeting, even though dressed in work garments, should be commended. On the other hand, coming to meeting on your day off in jeans, because you were too lazy to have your good pants or dress cleaned and pressed doesn’t merit any praise! The same can be said for decorum: a sister may show up in a perfectly good pants suit and find that some are offended while another shows up in a skirt that leaves nothing to the imagination and technically meets some (un)written code of wearing a dress to meeting. Who has actually met a standard that should not cause offense? The bottom line is that we need to be tolerant and not offended by another’s dress as long as it does not blatantly breach reasonable standards of modesty and cleanliness.
“Eating meat” and “observing holy days”
No discussion on causes and cures for real or perceived “offenses” would be complete without considering the exhortations the apostle Paul gave to the Roman and Corinthian ecclesias (Rom 14; 1Co 8). The key issues concerned the nature of the food that one could eat and what days to celebrate as holy.
Clearly some in the Roman Ecclesia believed we should all become vegetarians: “For one believes he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats only vegetables” (Rom 14:2, NKJV).
This belief was no doubt derived from a strong revulsion to killing any living thing. This is still a strong belief in certain religions in the world, notably among many Hindus (but not all). There can be no valid objection to practicing vegetarianism; it may indeed be even better for your health if a judicious balanced diet is selected. The problem comes about when those committed to such behavior insist all in the ecclesia must do likewise, and then become offended when others do not follow suit. In Corinth the subject revolved around food being eaten that was dedicated to idols:
“As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world…” (1Co 8:4).
It was common practice for Gentile butchers to have their produce blessed, in effect, by the local pagan deities. A similar circumstance could be envisaged today if we eat pizza at a church festival where the food is blessed by the local cleric who does so in the name of the trinity!
Meanwhile in Rome some were offended over which holy days to observe:
“One person esteems one day above another; another esteems every day alike…” (Rom 14:5).
While the text does not say so explicitly, it is probably safe to assume Paul was not talking about observing pagan holidays, which had associated with them various sorts of debauchery. Rather the argument must have revolved around whether or not to observe the holy days that had been traditionally observed under the Law of Moses, e.g., the Sabbath, Passover, Yom Kippur, etc. Obviously, the Judaizers in the congregation had longstanding tradition on their side and may have been very offended at Gentile converts who saw no merit in continuing to observe these holy days.
The discourses of Paul in treating these two causes of offense, namely, in what foods to eat and what holiday celebrations were required, have been the subject of much discussion over the years. There is sometimes the tendency to broaden the lessons taught in the exhortations to the Romans and Corinthians to cover a whole host of perceived instances of offense. We will try to avoid this snare by focusing solely on the general principles that the apostle Paul was trying to teach brethren and sisters through the ages. I will outline them as follows:
- The one who is offended is a weak brother or sister: “But he who is weak eats only vegetables” (Rom 14:2, NKJV). And “…their conscience being weak is defiled” (1Co 8:7).
- The strong brother or sister is not to press the righteousness of his or her cause, lest it destroy the weak. Addressing the strong brother Paul asks, “But why do you judge your brother? Or why do you show contempt for your brother?” (Rom 14:10, NKJV). And “Beware lest somehow this liberty of yours become a stumbling block to those who are weak” (1Co 8:9).
While it is unlikely that we would get offended over someone being a vegetarian, or even someone deciding to celebrate a Jewish holiday, the general principles still apply to a myriad of possible things that can cause offense between brethren and sisters. It is also certain that sometimes we will be the strong party and other times the weak, since we all have different sensitivities depending on the issue! Whenever I am faced by a situation where I feel offended I try to remember the teachings of our Lord Jesus Christ:
“But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you” (Matt 5:44, NKJV).
If we take this approach to whatever has been said or done to us, we can never be the offended weak brother or sister. Conversely, when we are dealing with brethren and sisters, it helps to be aware that not all have the same “thick skin” that we may have. This may be especially true of those younger in the Truth, ones newly baptized, or members brought in through public preaching who come from non-Christadelphian backgrounds. In these situations we are dealing with lambs in our flock and it behooves us to nurture the little ones, bearing in mind that our Lord said:
“It would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were thrown into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones” (Luke 17:2, NKJV).
The apostle Paul describes the type of character we should have, in dealing with each other, in words far superior to any I could possibly write:
“Now we exhort you, brethren, warn those who are unruly, comfort the fainthearted, uphold the weak, be patient with all. See that no one renders evil for evil to anyone, but always pursue what is good both for yourselves and for all” (1Th 5:14,15, NKJV).
The Origin of the Organic World – Part One