Gentleness and Respect

Paul wrote 2 Timothy from prison in Rome, near the end of his life, to a younger colleague leading the church at Ephesus in a time of false teaching. He names two of the teachers, Hymenaeus and Philetus, 'who have deviated from the truth. They say that the resurrection has already occurred, and they undermine the faith of some' (2:17-18). This was not a minor disagreement. It touched the centre of the gospel, the same resurrection Paul had preached at Athens, and it was spreading 'like gangrene' (2:17). If ever there was a situation that called for fierce argument, this was it.

And yet the anchor says: 'And a servant of the Lord must not be quarrelsome, but must be kind to everyone, able to teach, and forbearing.' The verb behind quarrelsome is the one used for fighting, and the sentence before it explains why it is forbidden: 'reject foolish and ignorant speculation, for you know that it breeds quarreling' (2:23). Paul does not tell Timothy to stop teaching the truth or to stop correcting error. Earlier in the chapter he tells him to handle the word of truth accurately (2:15). He tells him that the manner of doing it matters as much as the matter. Timothy is to be kind to everyone, which includes his opponents. He is to be able to teach, which means he must know what he is talking about. And he is to be forbearing, anexikakos, a rare word meaning one who bears wrong without resentment.

Then comes the instruction about opponents: 'He must gently reprove those who oppose him, in the hope that God may grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth' (2:25). Three things in that sentence change how an apologist thinks. First, there is correction. Gentleness does not mean pretending that error is truth. Second, the correction has a hope, and the hope is not that the apologist will win but that God may grant repentance. Repentance is God's gift. You cannot argue anyone into it, and if you think you can you will press harder and harder as the conversation fails. Third, the goal is a knowledge of the truth. The point of the conversation is that the other person comes to know what is true, not that you are seen to be right.

The next verse explains why gentleness is the only reasonable response. 'Then they will come to their senses and escape the snare of the devil, who has taken them captive to his will' (2:26). Paul describes the opponent as a prisoner. The real enemy is the one who has taken him captive, and the person in front of you is the one you are trying to free. That changes the whole tone. You do not shout at a prisoner for being in prison. You do not humiliate a hostage. Paul had been an opponent himself, 'a blasphemer, a persecutor, and a violent man', as he says in 1 Timothy 1:13, and God had shown him mercy. An apologist who remembers what he was rescued from will find gentleness easier.

Peter attaches the same quality to the anchor of the first lesson in this module: 'But respond with gentleness and respect' (1 Peter 3:15). The Greek word for gentleness, prautes, and its adjective praus, are the words Jesus uses of himself: 'learn from Me, for I am gentle and humble in heart' (Matthew 11:29). In ordinary Greek the adjective could describe a tame or calm animal, and Xenophon uses it of horses that stay steady, strong but under control. (The popular claim that it was the technical term for a broken war horse goes beyond the evidence.) Gentleness in this sense is not timidity, vagueness or a refusal to say that anything is false. It is strength that has been brought under control and refuses to crush. The Jesus who called himself gentle also drove the traders out of the temple.

The second word, translated respect, is phobos, which usually means fear. Elsewhere in 1 Peter it most often refers to the fear of God, as in 'conduct yourselves in reverent fear during your stay as foreigners' (1:17), and some commentators read 3:15 the same way: answer with gentleness towards people and reverence towards God. Others read it as respect for the person asking. Both readings are possible, and both are needed. You answer as someone who is standing before God, who will judge your words; and you answer as someone who is speaking to a person made in God's image, who deserves to be taken seriously. If you treat a questioner with contempt, you have failed both tests at once.

But scripture does not teach that sharpness is always wrong, and an honest lesson must say so. Jesus pronounced woe after woe on the scribes and Pharisees: 'Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the kingdom of heaven in men's faces' (Matthew 23:13). Paul told Titus that the false teachers in Crete must be rebuked 'sternly, so that they will be sound in the faith' (Titus 1:13). He opposed Peter to his face at Antioch (Galatians 2:11). Elijah mocked the prophets of Baal on Mount Carmel (1 Kings 18:27). And Jude tells the church 'to contend earnestly for the faith entrusted once for all to the saints' (Jude 1:3), with a verb that comes from the athletic contest.

Christians have drawn different conclusions from these passages. Some, standing in a long tradition of polemic that runs from Athanasius through Luther, argue that when wolves are scattering the flock, a shepherd who speaks only in gentle tones has failed in his duty, and that the sharpness of Jesus and Paul is a model as well as the gentleness. They point out that a pastor who cannot say clearly that a teacher is false, when that teacher is taking money from widows or telling the sick that their faith is too weak, is not being gentle but negligent. Others argue that the sharp passages are exceptions that prove the rule: that they are almost all directed at religious leaders misleading others, not at outsiders or seekers, that Jesus and the apostles had an authority and a knowledge of hearts that ordinary believers do not, and that the church's record of harsh polemic, from the persecution of heretics to the anti-Jewish writings that later fed cruelty, should make every Christian slow to claim the right to sharpness. Both positions take scripture seriously, and both are held by faithful pastors.

What the texts themselves do is make distinctions. Jude says, 'have mercy on those who doubt; save others by snatching them from the fire; and to still others show mercy tempered with fear' (Jude 1:22-23). Notice that there are different kinds of people, and different responses. A sincere questioner, a doubter, an opponent and a false teacher who is harming others are not the same, and they should not be answered in the same way. Almost everyone an ordinary apologist will meet is one of the first three. For them the rule of 2 Timothy 2 is clear, and it is gentleness.

'My beloved brothers, understand this: Everyone should be quick to listen, slow to speak, and slow to anger' (James 1:19). Proverbs says that answering a matter before you have heard it is folly and disgrace (18:13), and adds, 'The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him' (18:17). Listening is not a technique for winning; it is the first act of respect. You cannot answer a question you have not understood, and most people asking hard questions about faith have rarely been listened to by a Christian.

Jesus asked questions constantly. He asked his disciples, 'Who do people say I am?' (Mark 8:27), and then, 'But what about you?' and 'Who do you say I am?' (8:29). When an expert in the law tested him with a question about eternal life, he answered with two of his own: 'What is written in the Law?' and 'How do you read it?' (Luke 10:26). Questions show that you care what the other person thinks. They help him find out what he actually believes, which he may never have put into words. And they often uncover the real question behind the stated one. 'The intentions of a man's heart are deep waters, but a man of understanding draws them out' (Proverbs 20:5).

That real question matters more than any argument. A woman who asks how a good God can allow suffering may be asking a philosophical question; or she may have buried a child last year. A young man who says the Bible is full of contradictions may have read a list online; or he may have been hurt by a pastor and be looking for a reason to leave. A Muslim colleague who asks how God can have a son may be raising a theological objection; or he may be testing whether you will respect his faith before he risks telling you anything about his doubts. If you answer the stated question perfectly and miss the real one, you have answered nobody. Ask before you answer: what makes you ask? The Pastoral Ministry and Care track deals with the hurt behind such questions; this track deals with the argument. A good apologist learns to notice when the first is more urgent than the second.

There is a discipline worth practising here, and it comes, as it happens, from an atheist philosopher. Daniel Dennett, in his book Intuition Pumps and Other Tools for Thinking (2013), passed on a set of rules he attributed to the mathematician and game theorist Anatol Rapoport. Before you criticise someone's position, first restate it so clearly and fairly that the other person wishes he had put it that way himself. Then list the points on which you agree. Then mention anything you have learned from him. Only after that may you say a word of criticism. This is exactly the standard this whole track sets: state every objection in a form its best proponents would accept before answering it. If you cannot restate your friend's objection to his satisfaction, you are not yet ready to answer it.

Listening also means being honest about what you do not know. 'I don't know, but I will find out and come back to you' is one of the most persuasive things a Christian can say, provided he does come back. It shows that you take the question seriously, that you do not think the faith depends on your having every answer ready, and that you are willing to learn. A believer who pretends to know what he does not will be found out, and then the other person will wonder what else he was pretending about.

It is possible to be right and to do great harm. 'If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a ringing gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have absolute faith so as to move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing' (1 Corinthians 13:1-2). And Paul says elsewhere, 'Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up' (1 Corinthians 8:1). Apologetics deals in knowledge, and it carries the danger of pride more than most ministries. A person who learns the arguments in this track will soon be able to defeat most people he meets in a debate. The question is what he will do with that power.

The most common failure is to win. You produce the decisive argument, your friend has no answer, and you feel the satisfaction of victory. But he has been humiliated, perhaps in front of others, and people who are humiliated rarely change their minds. They remember the humiliation and forget the argument. 'A gentle answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger' (Proverbs 15:1). 'Speaking rashly is like a piercing sword, but the tongue of the wise brings healing' (Proverbs 12:18). The aim is not to leave the other person without a reply but to leave him with something true he can think about after you have gone. Often it is wiser to stop before you have made every point, so that he can reach the last one himself.

A second failure is to answer a person as if he were a type. Once you have learned what atheists say, or what Muslims say, it is tempting to hear the first sentence of a question and answer the standard version of it. But the person in front of you is not a standard version. He may hold his views for reasons the books do not mention, or hold a form of them the books do not describe. Paul spoke differently in the synagogue and in the marketplace, at Lystra and at Athens, because the people were different. Listen long enough to find out who this person is.

A third failure is to forget that you are not the only argument. Peter told his readers to keep 'a clear conscience, so that those who slander you may be put to shame by your good behavior in Christ' (1 Peter 3:16). The way a believer treats his family, does his work and handles money is part of his apologetic, and so is the life of his church. 'Conduct yourselves with such honor among the Gentiles that, though they slander you as evildoers, they may see your good deeds and glorify God' (1 Peter 2:12). An unanswerable argument from a man who cheats his customers will persuade nobody. A modest argument from a woman whose neighbours have watched her care for the sick for twenty years may be enough.

And there is a time to stop. Proverbs gives two instructions side by side: 'Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you yourself will be like him. Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he become wise in his own eyes' (Proverbs 26:4-5). Some conversations should be had and some should not, and wisdom is knowing which is which. Paul reasoned in the synagogue at Ephesus for three months, but 'when some of them stubbornly refused to believe and publicly maligned the Way, Paul took his disciples and left the synagogue to conduct daily discussions in the lecture hall of Tyrannus' (Acts 19:9). He did not stop talking about Christ; he stopped talking with those who only wanted to mock, and moved to where people wanted to listen. A believer who keeps an argument going with someone who only wants to humiliate him is not being faithful but foolish.

Most apologetics happens in ordinary conversation, and the best of it often takes years. Ask questions. Let silences last. Do not try to cover everything at once; one honest answer to one real question is worth more than a lecture. Offer to read something together, a Gospel, a chapter of a book, and to talk about it afterwards. Pray for the person when you are alone. And be careful with people for whom becoming a Christian would be dangerous. In many places a Muslim who leaves Islam, a child of a traditional priest who rejects the ancestral shrine, or a wife whose husband is hostile to the faith may face rejection, violence or worse. Never press such a person to make a public decision, never share what he has told you, and never expose him to danger to satisfy your wish for a result. The Missions track's lesson The Persecuted Church deals with this at length, and it is required reading before you counsel anyone in that position.

Online, everything changes. A conversation that would be private across a table becomes a performance in front of thousands. People say things to a screen that they would never say to a face. Arguments that would end with a handshake become pile-ons, and a single sharp sentence can be copied, shared and quoted against you, and against Christ, for years. The rules of 2 Timothy 2 apply with greater force, not less. 'Reject foolish and ignorant speculation, for you know that it breeds quarreling' (2:23). 'Let no unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building up the one in need and bringing grace to those who listen' (Ephesians 4:29), and online there are always many who listen. Before you post, ask who will read it besides the person you are answering, and whether they will learn more about Christ from your tone or from your argument. Never post anything about a real person that you would not say with them in the room. Remember that the person behind the screen is a person, and that the onlookers who never write anything are often the ones who are really thinking.

In the pulpit, apologetics takes another form. The congregation includes believers who have heard objections at work, at school, at university or online, and who are quietly wondering whether there are answers. Young people especially are hearing the strongest attacks on the faith, often for the first time, from people who know how to make them persuasive. A preacher who never mentions the objections leaves them to meet those attacks alone. A preacher who mentions them only to mock them teaches his people to mock, and when they meet the real objection at full strength they will think they were lied to. So name the objection fairly, as its holders would state it. Show what the text says in answer. Admit what is hard. And preach the gospel, because the best answer to many objections is a clearer sight of Christ. The Homiletics track's lesson Knowing Who Is Listening helps here.

In all three settings, one rule holds: speak to others about Christ in the way you would want someone to speak to you about something you were not yet sure of. 'Do not repay evil with evil or insult with insult, but with blessing' (1 Peter 3:9). You are not the judge of the person in front of you, and you are not his saviour. You are a witness, who has been asked to give an account of a hope, and who hopes that God will grant what you cannot.

This lesson closes the first module, so this week's work gathers up the pages you have written. Open your defence notebook. You should have: your paragraph on the hope that is in you and your list of questions, with three marked; your five first sentences on one of those questions; your page on why you believe; and your map of altars with an eight-line outline. Read them through.

First, have one listening conversation. Find someone who holds a view different from yours about God or the Christian faith and who is willing to talk; it may be a friend, a colleague or a relative. Choose someone for whom the conversation is safe. Ask what he believes and why, and ask what he thinks Christians get wrong. Do not argue. Your only task is to restate his view at the end so well that he agrees you have understood it. Afterwards, write down, without his name, what you learned that you did not know before, and whether the real question behind his view was the same as the stated one.

Second, take the eight-line outline you wrote last week and read it aloud as if to that person. Mark every sentence that is true but would sound harsh, proud or dismissive, and rewrite it. Mark every place where you assumed what he thinks instead of asking. Then add a first line that is a question, not an answer.

Third, at the end of your notebook pages for this module, write a short checklist you will use for every answer you prepare in the rest of the track. It should include at least these: Have I stated the objection in a form its best defender would accept? Have I listened for the real question behind it? Have I said what my answer shows and what it does not? Have I ended with Christ? Would I say this in this way if the person were in the room? Your capstone in module 5 will be judged against this list, so make it your own.