"Students
may argue for a higher grade on a paper or a report giving, for example, one of
the following reasons:
My
mother was sick, and I had to stay home last week.
My
friend went to New York, and I had to drive her to the airport.
If
you give me a D on this paper, I will flunk out of school.
An
instructor may feel sympathetic to the student, but such matters cannot change
the grade. The grade is based on the quality of the paper, not on
extenuating circumstances."
"The
law courts have an equally difficult time separating the appeal from the issue.
Should the woman who murders her husband because he abuses their children
be treated the same as all other murderers? Is the act of murder then
different? Lawyers in arguing their cases make broad appeals to pity, sometimes
with justification."
(Horner, Winifred Bryan.
"Avoiding Fallacies." Rhetoric in the Classical
Tradition. New York: St. Martin's, 1988. 213-14.)
____________________________________________________________
In both of the quotes, Bryan
illustrates the use/misuse of what rhetoricians call an "Appeal to
Pity." Too often, appeals to pity are utilized even in Biblical
discussions for the sake of "winning the argument." If we win
the opponent's pity, or that of the audience, does that alter truth?
The phrase, "I'm
offended" is a rhetorical device most often employed to silence the
opposition without offering any logical or valid argumentation. It is an appeal to pity (rhetorical fallacy) and has no
bearing on the truthfulness (or the falseness) of the opposition's argument.
Often, the phrase "I'm offended" is followed up by some
argument such as "because you weren't nice to me" or "you
disrespected me." These are purely subjective arguments based on
appeals to pity, and are also a mixture of the fallacies known as ad hominem and red herring.
Too often, modern people
(including Christians) mistake being offended in secular terms [1. to irritate,
annoy, or anger; cause resentful displeasure in; 2. to affect (the sense,
taste, etc.) disagreeably; 4. to hurt or cause pain to - dictionary.com] with the Biblical use of "offended" [5.
(in Biblical use) to cause to fall into sinful ways - dictionary.com]. Being angry over the content of the message and
even the delivery of it is not the same as being caused to fall
into sinful ways. Unfortunately,
the term "I'm offended" too often causes well-intended Christians to
retreat and to either sugar-coat the message or to weaken it in order that the
person is no longer "offended." Is this a Biblical principle?
Does the Bible allow someone to claim that they are "offended" in
order to stop the message from being presented, or to even alter the method by
which it is being presented?
In this article, we
will consider a few examples in which the phrase “I’m offended,” or at least
the sentiment contained therein, is utilized.
In each example, think about whether or not an individual (or even
individuals) altered the message or the method of conveying the message by
being “offended.”
First, in Acts 7, Stephen addresses a group of fellow Jews, reminds them of
the history of God concerning the Israelite people, and how often they rebelled
against Him. Would they have been "offended" by Stephen's
message? If not at that point, then they certainly were when Stephen says,
"You stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears! You always resist
the Holy Spirit; as your fathers did, so do you. Which of the prophets
did your fathers not persecute? And THEY
KILLED THOSE WHO FORETOLD THE COMING OF THE JUST ONE, OF WHOM YOU NOW HAVE
BECOME THE BETRAYERS AND MURDERERS, who have received the law by the
direction of angels and have not kept it" (Acts 7:51-53).
Essentially, Stephen is calling to light the rebellion of the present age
of the Jews and laying the crucifixion of Christ at their feet (reference
Matthew 27:25). That is understandably hard for the audience to hear;
would you be happy about being called both rebellious and a murderer? In this
instance, the audience chose to utilize a physical version of "I'm
offended." Acts 7:54 states that the audience was "cut to the
heart" and that they "gnashed at him with their teeth."
Gnashing with one's teeth is an obvious sign of extreme hatred, in this
instance because of the truth found in the message of Stephen. Then, Acts
7:57-58 says that they "cried out with a loud voice, stopped their ears,
and ran at him with one accord; and cast him out of the city and stoned
him."
Note that in Acts 7, Stephen
does not sugar-coat the message, nor does he try to soften the truth using
empty rhetoric. He does not tell the audience that they have "great
intentions" and that "perhaps they didn't know what they were
doing" when they called for the death of Christ. Was Stephen abusive
in his wording? Could he have used "softer" tones and words
containing more "tact"? God obviously approved of both the message
and the methods used by Stephen, which is evidenced in Acts 7:55 where we are
told that Stephen was full of the Holy Spirit, saw the glory of God, and saw
Jesus standing at the right hand of God. Additionally, why do we so often
assume that Stephen was murdered
because of the method or word choice he chose (Acts 7:51-53) rather than the
message? The text says that the audience was angered when they heard “these things,”
which is a reference to the whole message and not just the so-called
“offensive” section.
Second, consider the term “cut
to the heart.” This phrase is used in
Acts 7:54 where Stephen’s audience hears his message. In this instance, it resulted in Stephen’s
death, but in another passage it led to repentance. When Peter addressed an audience of Jews in
Acts 2, the result was that they were “cut to the heart” the same as the
audience in Acts 7. However, at least three
thousand in this audience asked what they could do to be saved rather than
becoming angry and murdering the messenger.
Was the message of Peter softer than Stephen’s? Were his words tactfully
chosen so as not to “offend”? Actually, Peter’s message is essentially the
same. In Acts 2:36, Peter says, “Therefore
let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God has made this Jesus, WHOM YOU CRUCIFIED, both Lord and
Christ.” If that seems mild, consider
also Acts 2:23 where Peter says, “Him, being delivered by the determined
purpose and foreknowledge of God, YOU
HAVE TAKEN BY LAWLESS HANDS, HAVE CRUCIFIED, AND PUT TO DEATH…” This isn’t a generalized “we have all put
Christ to death.” Peter is reminding his
audience that they had personally and physically called for the death of Christ
(reference again Matthew 27:25).
If the message in Acts 7 is the
same as is delivered in Acts 2, why were the outcomes so different? The
accusations are the same, yet many obeyed in Acts 2 while those in Acts 7
rebelled further.
Third, in John 6, Jesus teaches
over 5,000 Jews, including the twelve. Throughout this passage, Jesus
actually does not utilize the tones inherent in rebuke for the most part.
Two exceptions would be John 6:26 where He rebukes the audience for
seeking Him for physical food rather than the words of truth and John 6:61
where He asks the audience if His message offends them. Does Jesus alter
His message or the method by which He is conveying the message when the
audience is so obviously "offended"? What we are told in the context
is that from "that time many of His disciples went back and walked with
Him no more" (John 6:66). However, Jesus does not stop His challenge
when the majority of the 5,000 departed; instead, He turns to the twelve and
says in John 6:67, "Do you also want to go away?" Would it “offend”
you today if someone dared question your allegiance to Christ?
Now, some may argue that the
message of Christ and His challenges in John 6 would only have had a negative
impact on those who were in some way hard of heart, but would not have had
"hurt" anyone seeking the truth. However, does the text bear
this out? What about the example of the disciple who answers Jesus' challenge
in John 6:67? Peter answers the challenge of Jesus by saying in John 6:68-69,
"Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. Also
we have come to believe and know that You are the Christ, the Son of the living
God." Was the message somehow easier for Peter than for the majority
of the 5,000? Note that Jesus does not ask the twelve if the message offends
them, only if they would "also want to go away?" One could easily conclude
that the message of Jesus equally "offended" the twelve, but that
they did not allow their sentiments to overshadow the truth.
Like Jesus, Stephen, and Peter,
modern Christians need to express the truth of the Gospel and not allow
personal sentiments or even threats cause us to retreat. While even many modern Christians claim that
it isn’t the message that “offends,” but rather the method of conveying the
message, the Scriptures simply do not support this argument. Being angry over the delivery of the message
is not the same as being
caused to fall into sinful ways (refer back to the definitions of “offended”). If that were so, then the example of Stephen
in Acts 7 would constitute his causing the audience to "fall into sinful
ways" by murdering him because of his word choice or message. Is
this a viable option? If so, God also contributed to causing the audience to
fall into sinful ways because He showed His obvious approval of Stephen and his
method of conveying the message.
Christians today need to cease
retreating when the phrase “I’m offended” (or similar phraseology) is used to
stop discussion. While we are not to be
abusive in our word choice, being plain and even blunt is exactly the method we
should utilize. We should not insult an
individual’s intelligence (Matthew 5:22), but we do need to challenge people to
be faithful and even question their faithfulness at times. Questioning an individual’s faithfulness is a
principle well established in the Scriptures; the prophets, judges, Apostles,
evangelists, and even Christ often did this.
Being chastised by God is never pleasant; who ever enjoyed being
disciplined by their parents as it was happening? However, Hebrews 12:5-11
instructs us that while it may not be “joyful for the present” (it may “offend”
us), it is done because God loves us and because we are His children. Dare we tell the Lord that we are “offended”
by His chastisement?
