/karen/

Disqus comments

Other comments

I cant help but take issue with this article.  It uses the fact that prominent, human figures in biblical history did something to justify that at times it may be valid for us to do it.

That same argument could be used to justify many sins.  Every prominent figure in the bible was also imperfect.  I dont feel that we can use these examples, examples of them ridiculing others, as justification, unless it is expressed that either, what they were doing was approved of by god, or that the actions were those of jesus.

We can use them to say that ridiculing others is a commonly used form of argument, and we should be alert and aware of it.

But as to the origional question, I don’t think we should even consider using these methords if the same effect can be achieved in another way.  Where it can’t, thats where I draw my grey line.

Matt,

I was pretty sure that Ben laid the groundwork for the words of the Apostles by explaining how Jesus used sarcasm. Are you suggesting that this was not God-sanctioned?

Furthermore, I find that sarcasm is most effectively used to ridicule arguments, not people, the problem comes when people jump to the conclusion that because someone has said something stupid, they must be stupid.

Sarcasm can quickly draw attention to oversights and faults in an argument, however, I do agree with Ben, that if sarcasm is being used just to be clever, or boost your ego, then, start again.

oops, just realised Matt was probably talking about the first article!

Sorry!

The strategy is unsettling to me too but Andrew Lansdowne takes great pains to say that it should not be done simply for the sake of it. I think that the fact that prominent OT figures (who were men of God who spoke his words) did it is thought-provoking in itself. The application to us, however, remains to be worked out in our own contexts.

Firstly, yes I was talking about the other article.  That said I still think my point holds for what ben said.  Yes, jesus did it.  Yes the apposols did it too.  Does that make them infallible?  Nope.  Thus we cant just assume there uses were correct. 

So often people assume that because they were good people the example of the appossals in the new testament is alway a perfect one, which I find worrysome.

At times the use of sarcasm is justified.  The fact that jesus used it proves that.  But at times it is definatly not, I think we can all agree on that one.

Consequently I feel each use must be carefully evaluated.  Not just assumed right and used as an example as the first article did. 

In some of the particular cases, I agree with him, that the use was justified, or what God would have wanted, but I find the establishment of a principle of use without examination of the context in order to establish a point extremly dangerous.

Additionally, just because people are liable to jump to conclusions, to feel insulted when we do use it, does that not give us a duty of care to not do so unless absolutly necessary, unless the benefits outweigh the chance of mis-interpretation. 

I guess what im saying is, If theres a less infglamatory way of saying it, we should do so.

Only toe the line when we absolutly have to, the rest of the time, step back from the line and find another path.

I agree with you, Matt, that if there is a less inflammatory way of saying it that will not degrade another person then we should take that line and I also agree that we should evaluate each situation as it comes (especially those of us who are particularly poisoned-tongued), however I think that the passages are pointing out that there is a place for sarcasm and ridicule—especially when the gospel is at stake (the major issue in Galatians).

You wrote,

Yes, jesus did it. Yes the apposols did it too. Does that make them infallible? Nope. Thus we cant just assume there uses were correct.

This almost borders on heresy with respect to Jesus—are you saying Jesus wasn’t infallible? We know that Jesus was sinless and therefore he did not sin in how he treated the Pharisees or, indeed, how he even treated the money changers and merchants in the temple.

The apostles, on the other hand, were not sinless. I could disregard their conduct except for the fact that in many places Paul says “imitate me&#8221—“as I imitate Christ”. You may want to pick and choose with Paul about what you do and do not follow. But Paul is Christ’s apostle and comes with full apostolic authority (2 Corinthians is all about that); if he says, “Imitate me,” he is not saying, “Just the good bits”; he is saying everything. I don’t think that Paul would have wanted us to follow his example in sin so therefore his conduct must have been blameless.

I think that’s what it boils down to: is using sarcasm and ridicule sinful? I think for certain situations, particularly involving the gospel, it is not. That is not to say that I won’t think twice before launching into some extended tirade. That is not to say that I won’t think of the other person before I open my mouth. I will seek to treat them in love. But I will seek to defend the gospel of Christ and not just let godless men and women trample all over it.

Sorry, Ive been unclear in what I was trying to say.  What I meant was Yes, jesus did it.  Yes the diciples did it too (imitating jesus perhaps).  Does that make them (the disciples) infallible.

As to the rest of your point it need more thought at a time when my head does noot feel like its exploding.. I’ll post more later.

Ok, let me try to respond to the rest of what you said. 

I agree that the use of sarcasm/ridicule is not necessarily a sin.  But it can be.  I think we are agreed on that point.  Obviously when Jesus used it it wasn’t a sin. 

I agree that paul was fallible.  I agree with your final point (although I put it as a weapon of last resort)

What I don’t agree with is that attitude I read behind your comments on Paul.  You seem to be saying that since paul has told us to imitate him as he imitates christ, we don’t have the option to not imitate his actions.  Even if they’re wrong.

In the same paragraph, you say.

I don’t think that Paul would have wanted us to follow his example in sin so therefore his conduct must have been blameless.

and

The apostles, on the other hand, were not sinless.

I can’t mesh these two.  Either Pauls example is perfect, which to my mind is completly unbiblical.

All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God Romans 3:23

If not, then Paul is fallible, he can make mistakes.  And if that is the case, the we can’t just blindly trust what he does as always being godly, or as always being an example we can follow.

I agree that paul would never want others to imitate his sin, but that dosen’t logically lead to him being sinless. 

All that said, I havent looked at the specific examples of the use of sarcasm/ridicule by paul, but I wouldn’t be surprised if they are completly fine.  I’m not arguing this point because I think the conlcusion is wrong, but only because I think the logic that reached it leave a gaping hole.

Matt, I never said that Paul was sinless. Sinless and blameless are two different things. In the epistles we are always told to strive for blamelessness however that does not mean that, in being blameless, we become automatically sinless. I know that seems rather illogical but the Bible seems to be saying this (otherwise I’m reading it wrong).

I think we both agree that Paul was human and susceptible to sin. However, I would argue that the Bible presents us with Paul’s example as being a blameless example post-conversion (obviously his persecution of Christians before he met Jesus on the Damascus road was sinful). Paul probably did sin as a Christian but I don’t think we have a record of it in the Bible. You may correct me if you like, however I think this point is quite important because we should not underestimate Paul’s example to as a model to follow. Paul follows Christ and, as he imitates Christ, so we are to imitate him. There are stacks of passages on this very point, e.g. 1 Cor 4:16; 1 Cor 11:1; Phil 3:17; 1 Thess 1:6; 2 Thess 3:7-9; 2 Tim 1:13. I think it is a very serious thing to reject Paul’s example and just pick and choose which parts of his ministry you want to follow; Paul’s authority comes from Christ and, even though he was human and sinful and all of that, he lays the groundwork for us in how we are to behave. To reject him is tantamount to rejecting Christ (see the argument in 2 Corinthians for this).

I am not saying that this should necessarily lead to “blindly trusting” Paul but it should not lead to an attitude of complete and total suspicion.

I still find this whole thing incredibly frightening.  Ive been struggling to work out what my issue with it is… Why it is that I find it so worrysome.  I think I’ve finally put my finger on it.

It smacks of idoletry.

Let me back up for a second.  The point I have been trying to make is not that we can “Pick and choose” what we follow of pauls example.  It is simply that we need to evaluate it all in the light of GODS example, and his teachings.

The second we say that pauls example is one we can follow and strive to imitate, and seperate that from gods teachings, is the point where he becomes an idol for us.  Something we put on the same level as god.

Yes, I can’t point to an example in the new testament where paul sins, but I think romans 7 makes it reasonably clear that he believes he does. 

Yes, Paul does provide us a good example to follow.  But then, thats a responsibility we all have.  (See the beginnings of the sermon on the mount for example)  What does paul have that we as christians dont have?  What about him makes him a better example of how to live than we are.

Yes, we should strive to do what he does.. that is, to Live like jesus. 

Im not rejecting his example, I think he provides an amazing one.  Im not advocating picking and chosing what I like from what he said.  The “chosing” has to be done in a godly way.  In light of jesus’s teachings.  Im not rejecting him.  Im rejecting his being used as a perfect example.

Matt, I really think idolatry is taking it a bit far—you’ve kind of jumped the gun there. Following someone’s example is not worshipping them. And the reason why Paul is so special because he is one of Christ’s apostles (which he reiterates over and over again in the introductions to all his epistles). And once again I have to point out that I did not say that Paul was “perfect” I said “blameless”.

In addition, depending on what angle you take, Romans 7 may not be referring to the life of a Christian but to the Jewish non-believer. Peter O’Brien takes your line but Bill Salier doesn’t. I’m with Bill on this one.

Ok.. Perhaps that was a bit of an extreme way to put it.  But I still feel based on what I think your saying, that the reverence you give pauls example is unhealthy.

That said, can you please define exactly what you mean by…

Blameless (You said earlier… in being blameless, we become automatically sinless.   This still dosent make sence to me.  Were not sinless the bible is quite clear on the fact that were sinfull beings.)

Also I wouldent be surprised if were actually agreeing, but with a slight tinge of difference, and projecting the other persons point far beyond where it is.. If were splitting hairs while making it look like were mountains apart.

Anyway, if you dont get this till you get back, perhaps better to continue this by email… this post is getting kinda far down the blog now 8-)

Matt

Ok.. Perhaps that was a bit of an extreme way to put it. But I still feel based on what I think your saying, that the reverence you give pauls example is unhealthy.

That is your opinion then however I do not think it is “unhealthy”. I am not giving way to idolatry; I am just giving Paul the respect that he is due as the Lord’s apostle to the Gentiles. I think perhaps you are swinging towards one side far too much than you should in reaction to what I’m saying. You’re coming across as sounding like you don’t respect Paul at all.

Blameless (You said earlier… in being blameless, we become automatically sinless.  This still dosent make sence to me. Were not sinless the bible is quite clear on the fact that were sinfull beings.)

Uh, no, I didn’t; you misread that sentence.