[SERay]

Mary Jo Sharp, from Confident Christianity, formerly “Two Chix Apologetics,” has kindly emailed a rebuttal in outline of my comments. I did not write a great deal about my thoughts on the matter, therefore much was left to open speculation. Some of her comments edge toward departure from the subject at hand while other are marked by presumptions about my position. However, she does exhort from the Scripture as we all should, and is a very kind soul.

My abbreviated highlights would be, Christ never taught by word or action that we were to correct others about their spiritual system of faith or choices of morality. He taught the truth and warned people not to continue in sin, but he did not confront them as deluded if they chose to continue on their path. The idea that we must declare truth through brazen confrontation is an intellectual premise arrived at by personal philosophies much as the Emergent Church trend is contrived. A convincing overtone of spiritual authority and wisdom, although lacking the full embodiment thereof. Christ’s ministry was to preach the Kingdom is at hand, entreating souls to repent, as to be restored to the Father. His personal objective was the cross as the final sacrifice. He was not involved in the political or religious agendas of mankind, this would have been a grave distraction from his call. As imitators of Christ, we are to empty ourselves in humility as to be filled with His Spirit. This same Spirit is the light of life, or love that attracts those in darkness to the light. Intellectual debate may have some value. However, our tools are not to be carnal (human methods and ideologies), but spiritual for the pulling down of strongholds.

While I am not liberal in theology, I am not ignorant of human nature. Paul cannot honestly be considered the pristine example of pure spiritual discernment, as one can discover when we learn about his fallout with Barnabas over John-Mark and equally his abrupt remark to the High Priest. These were unfiltered emotional outbursts he later repented of. Paul had a critical, insensitive personality that gave itself to being argumentative. And in such, one cannot always esteem all his bounding vigor outlined in Acts as God's best counsel. Any Christian can have the Spirit but be at the same time in error. This is the dualistic nature of our temporal condition that Paul extensively laments about in Romans 7:15. We are called to emulate Christ, not other people, even Paul. Although he was an immense example, Christ is always preeminent. A historical study of Paul’s missionary journeys in context of the culture and history illuminates much about what is documented in Acts. Whereas at face value, the literal interpretation of scripture by a reader is sometimes misleading. Similar to trying to explain the Indian culture based on someone's brief notes about its weather. Without a good comprehension of the overarching dynamics, there is no bonefide authority in the teaching, only a parrotting of what was read.

Finally, Christ was justified in his Holy indignation against the religious leaders claiming to represent Yahweh in truth. Without prejudice, the house must be set in order, and since the representatives for God the Father were corrupting the truth with defiled hearts, Christ was just to condemn with severity. However, did Christ exert vigilance against those religious systems that were not in any way in alignment with of the kingdom of light? The cult of Isis and Osiris were abounding as were the Eleusinian and Orphic mystery religions. No, we have no evidence of such pursuits. Christians do not reveal God’s glory by appealing against error, but rather by letting our lights shine among men as a beacon in darkness. As a bonfire attracts wandering travelers on a dark night, so does the untethered love of Christ emanating from us attract empty souls. A spat of words or orchestrated techniques does nothing to satisfy the souls inner yearning. In my 34 years as a Christian, I have won far more for Christ by love than by staging an entrenched position. Tenacious resiliency should instead be directed to mercy, longsuffering and forgiveness. Confrontation and debate only hardens the heart in opposition against any message presented. Additionally, the exhibition of knowledge for the sake of an unyeilding position is flirting dangeriously with the avacarious root of pride.

The following is Mary Jo’s defense for Acts 17 Apologetics:

I appreciate your concern to hold Christians accountable for their actions and intent. We should admonish one another in Christ to build each other up and mature in our knowledge of the Lord. I am concerned, however, for some of the philosophy you have credited to the Lord Jesus Christ and the Spirit of God, and for the inattention to the actions of the apostle Paul. I will put some things down here, but I will not have much time for follow-ups, and for that I am sorry.

First, the Spirit immediately testifying to you about our actions: When it comes to the subjective experience of individual's interaction with God, we must have an objective test to verify the experience; otherwise, anything goes. That objective test is the comparison to the Scriptures. What we did at the festival does not violate the principles and actions found in the Scriptures. So now why would you say here that the Spirit of God testified against us? The same Spirit lives in you and lives in us. If you say the Spirit is testifying against us when we have not violated Scriptural teachings, he is essentially testifying against himself (because we have the same Spirit in us). That is a theological problem. You cannot simply imply that the Spirit of God is guiding you and not us. You are going to have to show us how we have violated the teachings of Jesus and the apostles in a comprehensive way (ie. the apostles never acted like our video after receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit). Perhaps, you have a different way of handling false doctrines of man. But that does not explicitly mean we are incorrect. Either way, false doctrines must be handled according to 2 Corinthians 10:5 and Colossians 2:8.

We are not to debate with those who can't hear, but move on to harvest those who will: Christ did preach his message to all; not just those who would hear, as you have stated. Jesus also frequently engaged in dialog with the Sadducees and Pharisees. Plus, a whole chapter of Matthew is devoted to Christ's address of those who would not hear (Matthew 23).

Paul and Silas were jailed, beaten, and run out of town for their preaching. Paul boldly and aggressively questions King Agrippa's beliefs in Acts 26. "Do you belief the prophets? I know you do." Considering that Paul was addressing a king, this is quite an aggressive statement.

If the problem is really just debate (which we were not doing in the video…we were engaging in dialog), then in accordance with 2 Corinthians 10:5, how is it that Christians are to destroy false doctrines of man if they are not willing to engage in debate and dialog with those who will not hear? The people who you are reaching may not be the ones engaged in debate, but it may be the listeners or viewers of the debate who are reached (Matthew 22:23-33).

It isn't about who is right or who is wrong, that is the judicial precepts of the earthy...also mere intellectual assent: This is a huge problem. First, there must be someone who is right and someone who is wrong, otherwise, why adhere to anything at all? Also, on that point, you believe you are correct in your approach and are attempting to tell us we are wrong. So even you believe in the importance of who is right and who is wrong. Second, it appears as though you believe we are focused on intellectual assent, perhaps implying an ignorance of the work of the Spirit on our behalf. This judgment is most likely a result of not comprehensively investigating our ministry efforts, articles, testimonies, and etc. However, if you are implying the intellect has nothing to do with people coming to Christ that is a false doctrine in of itself. When Paul reasoned in the synagogue in Athens, a number of people came to belief that day (Acts 17:34). Also, the use of the mind is included in Jesus' response to the greatest commandment: Matthew 22:37 "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind."

Mere intellectual assent is not sufficient to alter the nature of fallen man. None of us have implied this statement.

Such become error unto themselves when they confront and stimulate toward prejudice and even hate. This is a fairly hostile statement towards your brothers and sister in Christ who have given their lives to defending the truth of God. False doctrines enslave men. We are attempting to set men free from those doctrines which Jesus says, ""Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the kingdom of heaven in men's faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to." Matthew 23: 13-14

Jesus also admonishes the false teachers, "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as you are." Matthew 23:15 Jesus strongly and harshly opposes false religion (he also says, "You brood of vipers! You snakes") I believe Jesus loved those 'brood of vipers' as much as he loved everyone else. So why would he be so harsh in his address?

Christ would have no part of what Acts 17 Apologetics propagates. Acts 17 propagates the instruction about and exposure of false doctrines. You are mistaken. Read Matthew 23. Islam enslaves God's creation. This is not to be taken lightly. I do not see how you can say Christ would not deal harshly with this religion. Christ is the perfectly righteous God of the universe as well as the perfectly loving sacrifice for all mankind.

We are not to be militant for the doctrines of theology or the principles of Christianity as the ultimate truth, but rather militant for the SOULS that will perish without Christ. "Militant" suggests that we were war-like in our dealings with the people at the festival. No, we were not. We also did not even stir up as much trouble as Paul and Silas.

We are strictly to be militant for their souls: What if I militantly pursue a soul, but for a false God, according to false doctrines? Without doctrine or theology, we have no understanding of Christ and/or of God that is not subject to the waves of our emotions or the deception of our own desires. Perhaps I have misunderstood this statement, but the prophet Hosea says that God’s people come to ruin for a lack of the knowledge of God. Hosea 4:6 and 4:14.

I would agree with you and further say that we are all embattled in spiritual warfare for the souls of men. But I do not want to forget that it is a battle. (Ephesians 6:12) There are too many apathetic soldiers in the army of God.

It is pride that reckons we must persuade our opponents to bow to our Savior's teachings, as the ultimate truth. This is an assumption that cannot be made by the video alone. What we did was to ask them to support the teachings of their pamphlet and we were bold in doing so. But even at that, something else bothers me about this statement. Are you saying pride is the direct cause of a person's attempt to persuade their opponents of our Savior's teaching? (I'm purposefully leaving out the "bow" part, which seems hyperbolic.) This is completely against the actions and words of the apostle Paul in Acts, chapters 17-26. Paul aggressively and argumentatively attempts to convince people of the truth of the Savior. Also, his presence in a town was often coupled with a city riot, a beating, an attempt to murder him, or being run out of town. This was the reaction of those who heard the apostle Paul. Although, sometimes, many did believe his message.

Acts 17:2 - "As his custom was, Paul went into the synagogue, and on three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from the Scriptures, explaining and proving that the Christ had to suffer and rise from the dead." Because of Paul's reasoning and proving Christ's suffering and resurrection, the city rioted.

Acts 18:6 - Paul did not simply "shake the dust off his sandals" and move on every time (as you have said Jesus told us to do). Paul's wording here is much harsher: "But when the Jews opposed Paul and became abusive, he shook out his clothes in protest and said to them, "Your blood be on your own heads! I am clear of my responsibility. From now on I will go to the Gentiles." Is Paul going against Jesus' teachings?

Acts 19:8 - Paul entered the synagogue and spoke boldly there for three months, arguing persuasively about the kingdom of God." Due to their obstinacy and maligning of The Way, he left them after three months of arguing. Notice that Paul did argue and for three months.

Acts 19: 23-41 - Paul and his traveling companions so disturbed Ephesus that the town nearly rioted over them.

Acts 21:30-36 - Paul's presence in Jerusalem caused a great uproar that Luke reports the "whole city was aroused" and they attempted to kill him.

Acts 22 - Paul gives a defense of his beliefs and the crowd again reacts violently.

Acts 23:3 - "Then Paul said to him, "God will strike you, you whitewashed wall! You sit there to judge me according to the law, yet you yourself violate the law by commanding that I be struck!" Then he apologized, not for his harshness, but for speaking ill of the high priest, because the high priest was the ruler of the people. After Paul carried on in his statement, there was an uproar amongst the Sanhedrin.

Acts 24:5 - "We have found this man to be a troublemaker, stirring up riots among the Jews all over the world."

Acts 26 - Paul's presentation and questioning of King Agrippa II, even though his forwardness with the king could have cost him his life on the spot.

I find all over Acts (and also Paul's letters) a bold and confrontational man who despised false doctrine and argued to the point of creating riots in the city. So I have a couple of questions: Am I interpreting the Scriptures incorrectly? Or are these reports of Paul false (therefore the New Testament would be unreliable)? Is Paul opposing Jesus' teachings? Or are we to follow only part of Paul's message and actions: the part that does not imitate his boldness? Also, what do we do with Jesus' message in Matthew 23 when he harshly addresses false teachers?

WWJD: I do not believe for a moment that you or I could ever live up to God Incarnate's actions on earth. That is an unfortunate misconception of the well-intentioned WWJD movement that creates heavy burdens man cannot bear. We are like the man in James 1 who looks in the mirror and then walks away forgetting the truth of what he saw and creating a better, more righteous image of himself. I cannot do what Jesus did: I am fully human. I can, through the power of Christ in me, continue to become more and more conformed to his image. I can assess my actions and motives, comparing them to Scripture, and intend to become more like Christ through the process.

I request a comprehensive approach to the New Testament and to the ministry in question when assessing a ministry's actions, such as Acts 17. We have not done anything contrary to the actions of the apostles or the teachings of Christ.

Thank you for your time and consideration on this matter. I will thank God for you and your ministry as you continue to build up and encourage the body of Christ. Eph. 4

Grace and peace to you,
Mary Jo Sharp