DaveH wrote:
IF you knew that denigrating the Koran would cause some
Muslims to riot and kill other innocent bystanders, would
you continue using obnoxious techniques to preach to the
Muslims? I think that is the question facing many journalists
this week, and I thought it would be interesting to pose it on
TT to a SP.
In regards to the Muslims responding to that article in Newsweek by rioting
and killing: this response on their part reveals their barbaric and ungodly
nature. Do we keep handling them with kid gloves? How much accomodation
becomes facilitating their evil nature?
Let me give you a little insight into the mind of this street preacher (me).
I realize that preaching and teaching the unadulterated truth would cause
people to riot and kill innocent people. Therefore, I temper what I say to
try and give only what they can handle. At the same time, I have a calling
to stretch people toward hearing that truth. Therefore, sometimes people do
lash out, and I do not temper my message only because of that. Sometimes it
is their lashing out that later causes the to realize the error of their
ways. So the answer to you question is that temperance in delivery of truth
is always practiced by me, but negative responses alone are not the deciding
factor on whether or not to push an issue.
I can give you one example concerning Muslims. If I were to teach that
Mohammed is a false prophet, Muslims get VERY upset. Most of the time, I am
not that blunt with them because I know they can't handle it. I will deal
with other issues first. But sometimes I think it needs to be said, and so
I may push this issue. There is some calculation about delivery concerning
whether or not the offense of their indoctrination will be offset by their
ability to hear what I am trying to communicate. Sometimes establishing
some kind of dialogue helps temper an adverse reaction to blunt truth later.
Here is another example concerning homosexuality. I believe that
homosexuality is a capital offense and deserves the death penalty. The
problem is that bringing this point out right up front might hinder any
further teaching because the homosexual advocates find this idea so foreign
that they will not hear anything else that would be said. I remember one
young man at the University of Central Florida who was doing graduate work
in Anthropology. We had talked for hours one-on-one in between some of my
preaching. He enjoyed my science background and perspectives, and seemed to
develop an interest in exploring the Bible more because of our common ground
in academics. He admitted to being completely ignorant of the Bible and I
provoked him not to ignore this important book as he pursues his studies.
However, someone told him that I believed homosexuals should be executed,
and he asked me about that, being rather upset. I explained my affirmative
answer to him, but he simply could not handle that one bit of belief that I
had. It disgusted him and he seemed upset with himself for having enjoyed
our earlier conversations. He no longer wanted anything to do with me. I
will still share this truth of Torah, that homosexuals should be executed,
but I also calculate when and how to share such things to minimize the
offense that others might have. The problem is that if I completely shut up
because people can't handle it, then society will grow worse and worse. We
cannot be silent.
We have to live with the fact that teaching truth and preaching Christ will
offend the wicked. There is no way around it. We will be persecuted and
innocent people will get hurt. Our solace comes in understanding that God
will judge the wicked for these evil deeds. We will be commended by God for
standing up for the truth despite the adverse reactions.
Peace be with you.
David Miller.
