When asked to do a second edition of our book, Authentic Communication: Christian Speech Engaging Culture (IVP Academic), my co-author, Todd Lewis, and I thought of the people who have most influenced our thinking about Christian engagement in an oft-hostile world. Influenced by Michael Michalko’s book, Thinker Toys, we created our Mt. Rushmore of individuals who have influenced us starting with Jesus and Paul. In part 2, I look at the Apostle Peter and modern apologist John Lennox. What advice might they have for us as we engage ideas that often clash with our Christian perspective?
Peter
For Peter, persecution is a recurring theme in his first letter to Christians scattered abroad (1:6; 2:12, 19-20; 3:13-17; 4:12, 14; 5:8-10). How should these early followers of Christ respond to the increasing intensity of attacks against their faith?[1] Believers should not “repay evil with evil or insult with insult (3:9). Rather, they should respond with a “blessing” (3:9). In classical Greek, “blessing” (eulogein) merely meant “speaking well of” another person. New Testament scholar Norman Hillyer argues that Peter is greatly extending the Greek idea of blessing to include spiritual blessings such as praying for adversaries as Jesus had modeled and commanded (Matt. 5:44; Luke 6:28).[2] These spiritual blessings would entail praying for a person’s acute awareness of God’s love, common grace, impending judgment, offer of salvation, and the Spirit’s conviction. For Christians to accomplish what Peter is describing, they must turn from evil, do good, and pursue peace (3:11). He particularly states that a believer must “keep his tongue from evil and his lips from deceitful speech” (3:10).
No doubt Peter knew how difficult and counter-intuitive this response would be for many in the Christian community. It certainly was for him. When Jesus was betrayed by Judas and approached by a detachment of soldiers carrying torches and weapons, it was Peter who drew a sword and wounded the servant of a high priest (Jn. 18:10). He is now arguing for a blessing for insult approach to those who would do evil.
John Lennox
Lennox, an Emeritus Professor of Mathematics at the University of Oxford and author of several academic and popular books on Christian apologetics, has become a well-known presence in debates against atheist giants like Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, and Peter Singer. In his recent autobiography, we get a behind-the-scenes look, starting with his first public debate to his much-anticipated exchange with the oft-demonized secular ethicist, Peter Singer.
After his first debate in Norway in 2003, Lennox engaged two secular scholars on the relevance of religion in a world of naturalistic science. He shares his biggest take-away. “This, my first debate, reinforced the importance of two things: thorough preparation and being friendly.”[3] What does he mean by adopting a friendly stance toward others? To Lennox, this means “making a genuine effort to befriend an opponent, even during the course of the debate itself. Aggression has no place in the arena of debate.” His words are as refreshing as they are surprising. Today, aggression seemingly has become synonymous with conviction, and in contrast, friendliness or gentleness is cast as accommodating, out-of-date, or even worse, a reconceptualized form of woke. Look no further than how the friendly tone adopted by the late Tim Keller has recently been called into question as not being effective in today’s increasingly harsh communication climate.[4]
His debate with controversial Princeton ethicist Peter Singer is particularly helpful. Those that bitterly oppose Singer point to his extreme views advocating for a parent’s right to kill an infant who has severe mental or physical challenges.[5] Heading into the debate, Lennox received some “appalling emails” from self-professed Christians incensed toward Singer’s views, suggesting he should “go for the jugular” and “attack, ridicule, denounce and condemn” him publicly.[6] A main reason Lennox makes our Mt. Rushmore of civility is that he ignores those calls for blood-letting. Rather, in his opening of the debate, he temporarily sets aside Singer’s most controversial views and focuses on an area of commonality—caring for those around us in need. “As a Christian, I find Peter Singer’s recent book, The Life You Can Save, a personal challenge to me to live consistently with the ethic of care for others as taught and embodied by Jesus Christ, an ethic that Peter not only approves of but also seeks to follow.”[7]
While the debate often became intense—especially when exploring the topic of infanticide and euthanasia—Lennox’s opening had a powerful impression on Singer after the debate. While shaking hands, Singer thanked him: “I have never before experienced such positive treatment by a Christian.”[8] Lennox’s winsome approach resulted in Singer inviting him to a private event where the conversation continued. After this debate, Lennox came to the conclusion that arguing for the Christian worldview is equal parts sound evidence and friendly personal interaction.
Motivation
There is no doubt that the advice given by the four figures on our Mt. Rushmore of civility will be difficult to enact in today’s argument culture. Where will we find the motivation to face vitriol with gentleness? The Apostle Peter offers some insight after advocating that we return an insult with a blessing, as already noted.
Peter offers three motivations to us seeking to apply the abnormal communication he is advocating. First, a person engaging in this type of communication will “see good days” (1 Pet. 3:10). While Peter does not guarantee that a believer will never experience persecution or pain, they will experience a qualitatively richer life full of God’s blessing and favor. Second, the “eyes of the Lord” will be on the righteous and “his ears attentive to their prayer” (1 Pet. 3:12). As a believer seeks to pursue peace and respond to harsh insults with a blessing, they can be assured that God is present and attentive in the moment. Third, the “face of the Lord is against those who do evil” (1 Pet. 3:12). Peter is telling his readers that God will, in his time and way, respond to those who do evil to his children trying to be modern peacemakers.
As you seek to speak “truth in love” in today’s toxic communication climate, who do you look to for advice? Who might construct your own Mt. Rushmore of winsome engagement?
[1] Guthrie argues for dating the first epistle of Peter just prior to Nero’s persecution of Christians around AD 64. If Guthrie is correct, then Peter is preparing Christians for one of the bloodiest times in the history of the early church. If these early Christians can respond to insults and persecution with a blessing, then certainly we can respond in a similar manner toward academics who rhetorically attack our faith. To read Guthrie’s dating argument, see: Donald Guthrie, New Testament Introduction (InterVarsity Press, 1970), 795-796.
[2] Norman Hillyer, 1 and 2 Peter, Jude in W. Ward Gasque (Ed.), New International Biblical Commentary (Hendrickson Publishers, 1994), p. 105.
[3] Lennox, John C. Lennox, 338.
[4] For one example, see: Relatable with Allie Beth Stuckey, “Kirkism vs. Kellerism: Why the ‘Third Way’ Fails (episode 1248, Oct. 1, 2025). While Stuckey starts with praise, she concludes Keller’s winsome approach will not work today.
[5] To read more about Singer’s complex and controversial views, see: https://firstthings.com/a-curious-encounter-with-a-philosopher-from-nowhere/
[6] John Lennox, John C. Lennox: A Spiritual & Intellectual Autobiography (SPCK Publishing, 2026), 337.
[7] Lennox, John C. Lennox.
[8] Lennox, John C. Lennox, 340.
