Week 3, Day 5
Today’s Reading: Acts 5-6
Some thoughts from yesterday’s reading…
As I read through Peter’s second gospel sermon (at least as it is recorded for us following the establishing of the church), I thought of how Peter may have been treated, even by Christians, if he were preaching to us today. If we take a look at what Peter has to say in Acts chapter 3, we have to admit that he was being neither soft, nor particularly concerned about whether he “offended” those who were listening to him. He spoke the truth very bluntly, without pulling any punches. When he got done, the people listening could not have missed his point! He told them that they had denied the son of God, and that they had delivered Him up to be crucified. He told them that they had asked for a murderer to be released to them so that an innocent man could be killed. He told them that they were acting in ignorance. He told them that they had to repent if they had any hope of redemption to God. He called them sinners.
How would most people react to Peter’s sermon today? Judging from what I have seen and experienced, I think most people would become angry with Peter. They wouldn’t become angry like those who heard Stephen later on, or even those who became angry in chapter 4, who arrested Peter and John. Rather, people today (especially many Christians) would become angry because of the “way Peter said what he said.” That is, they would claim that they agreed with all that he said, but then complain that he didn’t say it in a “very Christ-like manner.”
The sad truth is that far too many people have become “watered down” Christians. They are unable to take the plain teaching that was the marquee of the New Testament era preacher, and which was the nature of preachers of the gospel in by-gone eras, even in this country. In many places, the preacher is restrained from identifying any kind of error because it might “offend” someone. They are not permitted to address denominational concepts because a visitor might not like to hear that. They are not allowed to address false teaching because someone might be offended. They are not allowed to address immorality because someone might have their toes stepped on. And so many preachers adapt to preaching a watered down gospel, which leads to even more watered down Christians!
I think that we need to learn the lesson of this plain teaching in Acts 3. First, for those who teach, we need to learn to do so plainly. We need not hold back the truth for fear of offending someone. We don’t need to try and be mean, but we also should not hold back becasue someone will invariably accuse us of being mean when we speak the truth. Secondly, for those who hear, one should not be so “watered down” in their Christianity as to be offended by the truth. The idea that we agree with what is said, but complain about how it is said is a diversionary tactic that harms the reputation of the one teaching the truth, and reflects that we are too easily offended. Often (if I may make a more personal application here) when I find myself thinking that someone has been “mean” in their presentation, it is because they have stepped on my toes. I act like it is OK to tell me I am wrong, until I am told that I am wrong! That should never be the case.
The gospel message was taught clearly, and plainly in the first century, and it achieved its purpose. A person was given the opportunity to accept the message and change their life, or reject the message and remain in sin. Taught plainly, it will accomplish the same thing today. We should not “water down” the message, else we will end up not really giving people the fair opportunity they deserve to accept or reject God’s message. So, let’s speak plainly, and not be easily offended just because we don’t like the way we are told something!
Popularity: unranked [?]