Sticks and Stones


This post is written by Michael Kimpan, our Associate Director at The Marin Foundation.

Sometimes people say the darndest things.

Often, the public rhetoric infused into the tension filled spaces of conversations surrounding the intersection of faith and sexuality is more hurtful than helpful. Individuals and organizations on both ‘sides’ of the so-called culture war have repeatedly allowed public, dangerous, damaging and even idiotic statements to be uttered and written in order to demonize their opponents in their attempts to convince or convert others to their preferred perspective.

Some do this more than others.

And more often than I care to admit, I find myself biting my own tongue and talking myself off the proverbial ledge of hostile engagement and name-calling. Sometimes I have to stop myself from shooting out a scathing 140 character assassination by banning myself from Twitter.

I do my best to be an ambassador of reconciliation. A peacemaker. A bridge builder.

Name calling doesn’t often help that process along.

Yet there’s a particular passage in the gospels that gnaws at me – one that seems to provide for, in certain circumstances, a well-deserved tongue lashing.

In chapter 23 of Matthew’s gospel, Jesus – the peacemaker and radically inclusive Rabbi – verbally man-handles his religious and cultural opponents, the Pharisees. The self-proclaimed Son of God calls the teachers of the Law hypocrites and blind guides; fools; self-indulging serpents; a brood of vipers; accuses them of being dead inside and other less-than-friendly epithets. These words were more than just a modern day equivalent to ‘your momma‘ jokes.

Jesus called them some nasty names.

This passage is problematic to me as a bridge builder.

I genuinely desire to avoid being unnecessarily offensive, or speaking out of any place other than a sincere desire for reconciliation. I want to make a conscious effort to err on the side of grace, even (especially?) when someone with whom I disagree says something… idiotic.

Even as I seek to challenge and oppose the currently accepted polarizing mediums of engagement – the status quo of a system which engages in the economics of exploitation and is steeped in the politics of oppression – I desire to do so without robbing the inherent dignity and worth of even the proponents of that system.

But perhaps sometimes, some folks are bound to be offended.

‘I always tell our community that we should attract the people Jesus attracted and frustrate the people Jesus frustrated. It’s certainly never our goal to frustrate, but it is worth noting that the people who were constantly agitated were the self-righteous, religious elite, the rich and the powerful.

‘But the people who were fascinated by him, by his love and grace, were folks who were already wounded and ostracized – folks who didn’t have much to lose, who already knew full well that they were broken and needed a Savior.’
–Shane Claiborne

It seems to me, as I spend time reading and re-reading the gospels, that Jesus was not at all offensive to the disenfranchised, to the oppressed, to the despised and rejected. Jesus was not all that offensive to the marginalized. In fact, he was attractive to them.

But he really did get under the skin of the teachers of the Law.
And they got under his.

Jesus got these religious leaders so worked up that they begged the Roman authorities to kill him just to shut him up. He was too inclusive, too loved by the common people. Too full of love and grace. Too accepting of those the insiders had deemed as Other.

He didn’t respect the religious rites and rituals quite enough. He rocked the boat just a little too much.

Then he went so far as to claim that this was what God the Father sent him to do.

‘Crucify! Crucify him! Let his blood be on us and our children!’

They were offended all right.

And these religious leaders got Jesus so worked up that he spewed out some pretty nasty insults – and did so publicly, without provocation. They weren’t inclusive enough, laying heavy and impossible burdens on the people while positioning themselves with powers and privilege.

They traveled around attempting to convert Others to their way of thinking and believing. They neglected justice, mercy and faithfulness and instead focused on secondary things.

When Jesus says, ‘Your father is the devil‘ and starts tossing tables around during a temper tantrum in the Temple, it’s safe to say he was offended, too.

This makes me think || if we’re serious about following Jesus – of remembering, celebrating and mimicking his life, of following his example in humble obedience to God – perhaps it’s not such a bad thing to be considered offensive to the religious elite.

And just maybe – occasionally and purposefully – calling them names is appropriate, even necessary…even Christ-like?

I wonder.

Is there a time that becoming intolerant of intolerance is acceptable and godly? Is there a place for righteous anger to be expressed in harsh words toward religious leaders?

Is it possible that confronting injustice, oppression, exploitation and the ideologies that fuel them is not only appropriate, but even necessary? What are the criteria? Who gets to decide?

Or is name-calling only permissible and beneficial when one fully knows both the heart and intent of the individual they are speaking out against? Are we ever able to make such a claim in our own imperfect state? Do our own imperfections disqualify us from the opportunity to call out the imperfections of others?  Is Jesus the exception rather than the rule in this particular instance?

Is it inappropriate to defend our own posture and position, but appropriate to defend those whose voice goes unheard? How can we do so in love and humility? Are there times it’s better to keep our mouths shut, even when we think we’re right?

What do you think?

Connect with Michael through his thought provoking blog, hit him up on Facebook, or follow him on Twitter.

About Andrew Marin

Andrew Marin is President and Founder of The Marin Foundation (www.themarinfoundation.org). He is author of the award winning book Love Is an Orientation (2009), its interactive DVD curriculum (2011), and recently an academic ebook titled Our Last Option: How a New Approach to Civility can Save the Public Square (2013). Andrew is a regular contributor to a variety of media outlets and frequently lectures at universities around the world. Since 2010 Andrew has been asked by the United Nations to advise their various agencies on issues of bridging opposing worldviews, civic engagement, and theological aspects of reconciliation. For twelve years he lived in the LGBT Boystown neighborhood of Chicago, and is currently based St. Andrews, Scotland, where he is teaching and researching at the University of St. Andrews earning his PhD in Constructive Theology with a focus on the Theology of Culture. Andrew's research centers on the cultural, political, and religious dynamics of reconciliation. Andrew is married to Brenda, and you can find him elsewhere on Twitter (@Andrew_Marin), Facebook (AndrewMarin01), and Instagram (@andrewmarin1).

  • Jen Crowder Noricks

    The Scriptures tell us several times that Jesus knew what was in the hearts of his listeners (John 2:24-25, Luke 9:47, Matthew 12:25). When the holy spirit lives in us, he can reveal such things to us as well. I would never resort to the types of strong language that Jesus used unless I was certain that he was directing me to do so. Those types of words can have meaningful impact when used under the guidance of the holy spirit, but can have disastrous results when used merely to give vent to our own frustrations.

  • AbnDoc

    Jesus never let a chance pass to show God’s love to sinners. He felt righteous anger toward people who were living “a form of godliness but denying the power”. He felt those who perverted the scriptures for their own ends were worse than those who never read them. Even in the judgement, people will claim to have done God’s will but he will tell them he never knew him.

    Another thing he never failed to do though is to point out sin and call it for what it is and emphasis that sin always leads to death and separation from God. We can’t mistake intolerance for sin as being intolerance for the sinner.

    God is always opposed to sin but his heart is open to those who will turn from sin and follow his holy ways but they must turn. They can’t continue in sin and expect God to welcome them with open arms.

  • D. L. Webster

    I just encountered this question with Stephen in Acts 7:51-53. One thing I came up with is that it doesn’t seem that Stephen is saying these things out of personal offense. He’s not doing this just because he is mad and wants to make his voice heard (or his side’s voice heard). The impression is that he is being guided by the Holy Spirit. Acts 6 says he was full of faith and of the Holy Spirit, and
    full of God’s grace and power. It sounds to me like it takes some spiritual maturity to be able to discern at what point it might be right to make these kind of statements.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X