This post is for fellow Christians. Grab a coffee and settle in for a lengthy article.

Our country is currently undergoing a wide conversation about free speech. It has been bubbling away for a while but has forcefully come to the surface because of the tragic events of March 15th, and the ongoing saga of Israel Folau in Australia.

From a faith perspective, much of the discussion has focused on the freedom to share a religious perspective and to offend others. From many in our wider faith family, the case is made that others will be offended by some of the things we believe, but we should be able to freely share those things no matter what impact it has. I hear this defense of free speech regularly. I get it, and to a degree I sympathise with it. I largely understand where it’s coming from.

I firmly believe that people of faith should act as defenders of free speech. We should defend free speech as a way to lift up and give voice to the marginalised, oppressed, and those whom wider society kicks to the curb. Moreso, we should use our privilege to raise our voices for them.

In defending free speech, for ourselves I do not believe we can assume that how we engage should be a free-for-all as if we’re entitled to offend, or because we think society has a need for us to say whatever we want, whenever we want because it’s the ‘truth’ that we believe they need to hear.

Hear me, I believe in and would advocate for basic human rights as set forth in the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, including the freedom of opinion and expression. Where this relates to the expression of religious thought and belief, that means particularly articles 2, 18, 19. As we acknowledge the innate rights of freedom of religion and the freedom of opinion and expression, we must see them within the framework of Article 1 and Article 29:2.

Article 1 states ‘…and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.’ Rights to freedom of religion and expression assume that framework of goodwill. With rights comes responsibility. That responsibility to act and speak requires wisdom and not just blurting out anything and everything because we assume it might need to be said. The words of Ecclesiastes offer wisdom when it states ‘There is… a time to be silent, and a time to speak…’ We should constantly be weighing up the balance between the two.

Basic arguments about free speech aside, as Christians we also need to examine how we engage. For those of us who take the Bible seriously, it’s not as simple as ‘it’s the truth, so it needs to be said even if it’s offensive.’ That’s not the biblical model shown to us in the work of the early Christians.

The first spread of the Christian faith and its message happened in cultures where human rights as we understand them were an unknown concept. Freedom of opinion and expression were not a consideration within a framework of such rights. Modern human rights are a product of a culture steeped in Judeo-Christian concepts of the world – all people created in the image of God and therefore endowed with dignity and freedom. Our post-Christian culture is swimming in that idea but has detached it from God. Yet in cultures where these ideas were foreign, the Gospel flourished… and not because the early Christians took an approach that was offensive towards anyone and everyone from differing worldviews who upset their own moral sensibilities…. quite the opposite.

I often hear people mentioning how tough Jesus could be with some around him as a reason we should be able to offend others, but context is important. Take a look at who Jesus was tough with – it was people who professed the worldview, history, and tradition that he was a part of. When he threatened people with Gehenna (a literal place outside of Jerusalem that became the imagery used to convey the abode of wickedness due to the history attached to it), it was to those people who shared the same foundational worldview that he had. To those he encountered outside of his Jewish framework – ‘Gentiles’ – he seemed mostly very patient.

One of the best places we get an example of how the Gospel was shared in different environments though, is in the book of Acts as the good news of the risen Christ spread from Jerusalem to the other parts of the Roman empire. Examining how the early believers approached this, particularly Paul, is revealing and somewhat instructive.

Among the various talks recorded in Acts I see three great evangelistic sermons. I wish to focus on the third. Looking at their context is important.

1. Peter at Pentecost (Acts 2). His context is Jerusalem. Jews had made a pilgrimage there from all over the known world (listed in Acts 2:9-11) for Shavuot – the Feast of Weeks… a harvest celebration. His opening is “Fellow Jews and all of you who live in Jerusalem…” It’s clear he was talking to his own people. They were people with a shared story, a shared history, a shared worldview and value system. For that reason he was able to be very explicit with them. He was convicting them on a message they had all brought into.
2. Stephen’s speech before his execution (Acts 7). The context for Stephen is a trial before the Sanhedrin. He had been brought before them on trumped up charges – stirred up by opposition to him that had arisen in a particular synagogue (Acts 6:8-15). Stephen’s speech began with “Brothers and fathers, listen to me! The God of glory appeared to our father Abraham…” As with Peter, Stephen is talking to his own people – fellow Jews.

I believe the third great evangelistic sermon of Acts is Paul in Athens (Acts 17).

Before we read about Paul’s engagement in Athens, an examination of Luke’s record of the spread of the Christian faith around various cities reveals a clear pattern (see my Appendix at the end of this post).

Throughout Acts, those involved in the early spread of the Christian faith focused their attention on those who shared their foundational worldview. In almost every city their attention was focused on the Jews and Gentiles who gathered in the synagogues where they would engage in worship, scripture reading, discussion, and debate. It was not out of place for the new believers to make their case in the synagogue of the cities they went into.

In the few instances in Acts when they were interacting with Gentiles with vastly different worldviews from their own, they spoke with permission and where appropriate, without condemning the lives and actions of those they were speaking to.

This brings us back to Paul’s time in Athens (Acts 17:16-34). Paul was distressed at the many idols he saw around the city, so as with other cities he went to the synagogue to reason with his fellow Jews and God-fearing Greeks. In this instance he also went into the marketplace and reasoned with those who would gather there. But this was not out of place. We’re told that discussing new ideas was what the Athenians loved to do (v21).

The Epicurean and Stoic philosphers were debating him and took him to the Areopagus (an aristocratic council of ancient Athens) where they wanted to hear the new teaching he was presenting.

Athens would have been a city where many things would have been happening that would have seriously offended Paul’s morality and religious understanding, but as he stood before the Areopagus speaking to people with worldviews vastly different from his own, he didn’t condemn any of it. Rather, he used one of their idols, the words of a Cretan philosopher, and the words of a Cicilian Stoic philospher to build his case. He never quoted his own Jewish scriptures. The case he built was basic – a case for the Creator God. He made the case respectfully.

To close he alluded to Jesus but did not name him. Some mocked him because of his mentioned of the Resurrection, but some were intrigued and followed.

Throughout Acts, and most clearly in Athens, Paul fit and demonstrated the difference between how the early Christians approached those who largely shared their worldview and those who didn’t. When speaking with fellow Jews he and others were explicit and sometimes confrontational. With those who were not on board with all of that, he was respectful, spoke in spaces where it was appropriate to, and in each instance where he shared, he was either invited, had permission to do so, or was interacting in a space where what he was saying could be expected.

In Acts there never seemed to be any presumption from Paul or others that when they were among ‘Gentiles’ they could or should just throw stuff into the public domain that the culture  would find offensive, in the hope that it would convict some to convert.

It mirrors the approach of Daniel in Babylon. Daniel, in exile in a foreign land that was offensive on so many levels, never compromised who he was, but he was always respectful towards those around him, seeking their good. He spoke when he was invited and given permission, and he shared freely when he was asked to. He spoke from the context of relationship, while all the time seeking the good of those he served – those who were very different from him.

Ideas of free speech never played a part in Acts or in Daniel. I believe in defending free speech, but not so that I can have the right to offend others in my desire to share the Christian faith; crow-barring Jesus into every conceivable place and conversation at every opportunity at any cost. Offense will be present where free speech is exercised in a way that confronts those who push others to the margins, but we should never defend it so that we can be offensive in our expression of faith. That doesn’t seem biblical to me.

Both Daniel and the early Christians never offered the sense that they wanted to defend their ability to be offensive to Gentiles who held very different beliefs. They made their case when they could, but with the sensibilities I have outlined.

When I look around I see much Christian engagement that seems to be predicated on an approach closer to Peter at Pentecost and even Stephen before the Sanhedrin – trying to be explicit and somewhat confrontational, when our context is more like Athens… but with a big difference even from that city, since Athens was still dominated by worldviews that were theistic.

What would it look like for us to truly grasp the pluralism of our context and take on the humility of Daniel who lived the words of Jeremiah 29:7, seeking the good of the city he found himself in? What would it mean for us to learn from Paul’s approach in Athens and the respect he showed to Gentiles who thought very differently from him?

When publicly sharing words from the scriptures, lets think about the context – who they were written to and meant for. Let’s think about how the original readers and hearers would have understood them. Not all scripture is appropriate for all ears. To simply say ‘It’s the Bible so I should be able to share it’ misses all the nuance outlaid here. Defending free speech so we can do that at will, is misguided. Let’s be more careful than that.

This approach is what leads me to believe that how some things are discussed within the Church and outside of it are, and should be, vastly different. As we ‘seek the good of the city’ there will always be issues that are right and appropriate for us to challenge the State and the wider culture on, but we need to carefully weight what those are. We should have a different expectation around belief, understanding, and behaviour within the Church than outside of it. I do not expect people who have not chosen to submit their lives to Christ to live as if they have.

—————————————–

Appendix: Step by Step Through Acts

In my post I mentioned a clear pattern. To see it, it’s worth looking at the context of each place the early followers visited before and after Paul’s visit to Athens.

Prior to the execution of Stephen everything took place in Jerusalem among their fellow Jews. In the beginning of Acts 8 they are then scattered throughout the rest of Judea and Samaria. It was still territory that largely shared the same worldview. The people of Samaria were a different people but their religion was not entirely unfamiliar as it had a mix of early Judaism woven deeply into it. What’s important to recognise is that the early believers were not talking to people with a completely different way of seeing the world.

Acts 9 is the conversion of Saul (who became known as Paul) and the geographical territory is pushed a little further out to Damascus. Following his conversion it was in the synagogues of Damascus that he preached – so it was still a conversation with fellow Jews. Many reacted angrily against the message of the new sect, but the early Jesus followers were not out of place in where they were choosing to speak and how they were speaking. It was expected that such things could be debated in synagogues, and they saw their message about the risen Christ as being most relevant to the Jewish people of their time.

One of the next big events is Peter’s encounter with the work of the Holy Spirit in the house of Cornelius in Acts 10. Whilst Corenlius is a Gentile, he and his household had an experience of God that Peter had been challenged to embrace outside of his own cultural expectations. It’s that experience that Peter speaks into, and then explains in Acts 11.

In Acts 11 we get to Antioch where the term ‘Christian’ was first applied to those who followed Jesus (v26). It’s also the first mention of the focus of the presentation of the message shifting to non-Jews (Gentiles) with some telling the Greeks about the good news of Jesus. There’s no detail on how it was done.

Acts 12 is Herod’s arrest of Peter and others who belonged to the Church, their escape, Herod’s death, and the return of Barnabas and Saul from Antioch. They had gone there to support what was happening. They then head into other cities in Acts 13 and it is again Jews that they largely engage with. There is a solid speech Paul gave in Pisidian Antioch to both Jews and ‘Gentiles who worship God’ and yet again it is in a synagogue. In the account of Acts 13 the Gentiles responded well while Jewish leaders stirred up trouble.

In Acts 14 they were in Iconium. As was the pattern they went to a synagogue and spoke to Jews and Greeks. There were problems, so they fled to Lystra and Derb. In Lystra they healed a man and the people assumed they were gods. Again, some trouble was stirred up and they left for Derbe where they preached the Gospel and a number of people converted.

The latter part of Acts 14 has them going through a number of cities but no details are given on how they shared the Gospel.

Acts 15 is the famous Council at Jerusalem where the apostles and elders met to consider what was required of the Gentile believers ie were they to be expected to follow the Jewish laws. Paul’s work at the end of Acts 15 and into the beginning of Acts 16 sees him in different cities serving the already established churches. Acts 15:11-15 is the conversion of Lydia. It states ‘She was a worshipper of God.’ So again, not someone with a completely different worldview.

The rest of Acts 16 sees Paul healing a troubled woman and that causing an uproar, so he and Silas were arrested, beaten, and thrown in prison. A miraculous event occurred that opened the way for them to escape, but they chose not to. The jailer was about to kill himself because he thought they had escaped, but they had not and so he falls at their feet and asks how he could be ‘saved.’ From that experience he and his whole family converted. In the end the local magistrates set Paul and Silas free and asked them to leave.

In Thessalonica in Acts 17 Paul headed along to the synagogue. There was trouble, and the next city was Berea where the synagogue was the chosen place again. While they were met with disagreement and violence as they spoke among the Jewish communities, it’s again important to recognise that they were speaking to people who shared the same basic beliefs and they did so in a space where speeches, debates, and sharing ideas was to be expected.

See my post for a discussion about Paul’s visit to Athens.

Acts 18 sees Paul in Corinth staying with a Jewish man and his family. There he spent time in the synagogue trying to persuade the Jews and Greeks who would gather there on the Sabbath. Again he faced trouble with that community.

In Ephesus he went to the synagogue. The mention of Apollos in Acts 18 sees him debating with the Jews as well.

In Acts 19 we get details of Paul’s time in Ephesus. There he worked to strengthen the church and spoke in the synagogue regularly. When it was clear they were not going to change, he took other followers of Jesus and went to the lecture hall of Tyrannus. It was clearly a place where making the sort of case he was wouldn’t have been out of place. The biblical record shows many Jews and Greeks converting, and then an uproar because the new thinking was undermining the business related to the temple of Artemis.

Acts 20 is Paul’s movements through various cities to support the Church.

Acts 21 is Paul’s voyage to Jerusalem, his discussion with the elders there, and his eventual arrest. As he was about to be killed by an agry mob of local Jewish people, he was saved by a Roman commander turning up and and arresting him. Interestingly, before he was taken away he asked the commander for permission to speak and it was granted, so he addressed the crowd (Acts 22). It’s important to note that he asked for permission (Acts 21:37). Again, the people he is talking to are largely Jewish – his own people.

Acts 23-24 is related to Paul’s trials. Mostly it’s about dealing with the the Jewish leaders and various Romans. Felix, who oversaw the trial, was familiar with the beliefs of the followers of Jesus, and his wife Drusilla, was Jewish. After some detail the trial eventually passes to Agrippa who gives permission for Paul to speak (Acts 26:1). Paul speaks to Agrippa very respectfully.

It all continues over the following chapters as Paul is delivered to Rome to make his case as he had appealed to Caesar. After going through a shipwreck he came ashore in Malta where he healed people. They were people who held different worldviews from his own.

Upon arriving in Rome Paul spoke to the Jewish leaders in the city (Acts 28:17). Because they had no direct information, they invited him to share his views with them. That’s how Acts ends.