“Who’s on your Mt. Rushmore?”
This is one of my favorite questions to ask my students. When it comes to fashion, politics, theology, or potentially volatile social issues, who most informs your thinking? Specifically, give me four names of people who have your ear.
The Mt. Rushmore idea is based on Michael Michalko’s idea of a Board of Directors. In his book on creativity, Thinkertoys, he explains that the Board of Directors “is a fantasy board of powerhouse business leaders and innovators who will assist you in overcoming your business challenges. Imagine having at your disposal the experience, wisdom, and know-how of Thomas Edison, Douglas MacArthur, Lee Iacocca, Henry Ford, Donald Trump, or whomever you admire most, living or dead.”[1] Fascinating idea, isn’t it? Having access to anyone you can think of who might inform your thinking? Once identified, we diligently research them to uncover their big ideas and how they relate to our specific issue.
When asked to do a second edition of Authentic Communication: Christian Speech Engaging Culture (IVP Academic), this question prompted my co-author, Todd Lewis, and me to ask: Who is on our Mt. Rushmore when it comes to engaging others in a civil tone? Who offers an example of communication that stands in contrast to the vitriol of today’s argument culture? We identify three from the past and one modern Christian communicator who stand in opposition to our dog-eat-dog communication climate. In part one, we’ll consider two towering voices from the New Testament.
Jesus
In perhaps Jesus’ most famous discourse—what is commonly referred to as the Sermon on the Mount—he shocks his listeners. “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for an eye, and tooth for a tooth’” (Matt. 5:38). Indeed, Jewish people had grown up hearing this law found in Exodus 21, Leviticus 24, and Deuteronomy 19. The law was intended for Israel’s judges to serve as a guiding principle for judicial proportionality (an eye for an eye, not a life for an eye). The main purpose was “to introduce this element of justice and of righteousness into a chaotic condition and to take from man the tendency to take the law into his own hands and to do anything he likes.”[2] However, the people of Jesus’ day did the opposite. They took the rule out of the courts and applied it to the settling of personal vendettas. The normal discourse of the day had turned into the idea that if you did some type of injustice to me, I had the right to do it back to you. It was a bumper-sticker mentality to interpersonal disputes: “I don’t get mad, I get even!”
Jesus shocks his audience by saying, “But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to the other also” (5:39). Jesus is most likely describing a sharp slap to the face rather than a forceful blow. “If a right-handed person strikes someone’s right cheek, presumably it is a slap by the back of the hand, probably considered more insulting than a slap by the open palm.”[3] What Jesus was advocating was painfully clear to his audience—if you are insulted, give up your perceived right to counter with an insult.
This principle, though not limited to Christian persecution, is particularly important when the insult is incurred due to a stand for righteousness (Matt 5:10-12). Jesus adds three other illustrations. First, if a follower of Christ is sued for his tunic, they should willingly include their outer cloak as well. This inclusion is particularly noteworthy since this outer cloak “was recognized by Jewish law to be an inalienable possession (Ex 22:26f.).”[4] Second, if a person—most likely a Roman soldier—forces you to carry his possessions for a mile, cheerfully bear the burden for two miles. Lastly, the follower of Christ should be willing to lend their money to those who need it as an expression of self-sacrifice. D. A. Carson sums up the central point of Jesus’ difficult teaching by suggesting that “it would completely miss the point to interpret 5:41, for example, to mean that the follower of Christ will be prepared to go two miles, but not one inch further! Personal sacrifice displaces personal retaliation.”[5]
Paul
Paul writes to believers in Rome, “Bless those who persecute you; bless and curse not” (Rom 12:14). Paul would have many opportunities to practice this abnormal way of communicating with adversaries. In his letters, Paul acknowledges that there are “many who oppose me” (1 Cor. 16:9) and even singles out individuals such as Alexander the metal worker who did him “great harm” (2 Tim. 4:14). Yet, Paul reiterates that followers of Christ should not “repay anyone evil for evil (Rom 12:17; see also: 1 Thess 5:15; 1 Cor 4:12, 13) and should, so far as it depends on them, “live at peace with everyone” (Rom 12:18). Paul is not saying that evil cannot be defeated; he simply and forcefully argues that believers can “overcome evil with good” (Rom 12:21). In what practical sense does blessing those who persecute you overcome or counteract the evil they are inflicting?
Paul responds that believers, by not repaying evil for evil, leave room for God to act (Rom. 12:19). In other words, we should respond as Christ did. While insults were being hurled at him, Jesus did “not retaliate” but rather entrusted himself to God (1 Pet. 2:23). Paul continues: “On the contrary: ‘If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals upon his head” (Rom 12:20).
What Paul is advocating is wildly counterintuitive. When your adversary is hungry and thirsty, they are also vulnerable and weak and can be exploited. Paul argues that this momentary vulnerability should be ignored and that food and drink should be graciously offered instead. Notice, Paul is not merely advocating that a believer refrain from doing evil; rather, the believer does good by providing food and water.
In doing so, the believer “will heap burning coals” on the head of his or her enemy, perhaps resulting in remorse. Paul is quoting Proverbs 25:21-22 and may be alluding to an Egyptian ritual in “which a man testified publicly to his penitence by carrying a pan of burning charcoal on his head.”[6] Regardless of the cultural origin of Paul’s metaphor, most commentators agree that the burning coals “symbolize the burning pangs of shame and contrition resulting from the unexpected kindness received.”[7]
No doubt Jesus and Paul offer widely counter-intuitive advice for engaging today’s polarized and volatile times. But our Mt. Rushmore is only partially complete. In part two, we’ll consider the Apostle Peter’s approach to counter an insult and current-day apologist John Lennox’s winsome approach to debating some of the most noted—and often hostile—atheists of the day.
[1] Michael Michalko, Thinker Toys: A Handbook of Creative-thinking, 2nd ed. (Ten Speed Press, 2006), 178.
[2] D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Studies in the Sermon on the Mount Vol 1 (Eerdmans Publishing, 1991), p. 272.
[3] D. A. Carson, Matthew in Frank E. Gaebelein (Ed.), The Expositor’s Bible Commentary (Zondervan, 1984), 156.
[4] D. A. Carson, The Sermon on the Mount: An Evangelical Exposition of Matthew 5-7 (Baker Books, 1978), 51.
[5] Carson, The Sermon on the Mount.
[6] F.F. Bruce, Romans in Leon Morris (Ed.), Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, vol. 8 (Eerdmans, 1990), 218.
[7] William Hendriksen, Romans: Chapters 1-16 (Baker Book House, 1981), 423.
