“If one believes that the truth holds them, then there is clearly the possibility that the believer will try to compel nonbelievers to accept the believer’s truth.”

Leaving aside that coerced conversion is an oxymoron (“He convinced against his will is of the same opinion still”), your statement dismisses the truth that has convicted and converted the believer as “the believer’s truth”. Was it only subjectively true for Jesus and not true objectively regardless of anyone’s opinion or Personal “truth” that He was and is “the Way and the Truth and the Life”?

In previous conversations we had over the course of many months at the Thinking Christian blog, you spoke about what you considered the illegitimate use of language in acts of power. Please consider your impatient (imperious?) request in your first line here in that same context. Am I to address your concerns on your timetable? Yesterday was Father’s Day. I have responsibilities on my desk today. Most of all, there is a sequence to this topic that makes sense to me, and I choose to follow it.

When Christians attempted forced conversions of other peoples they were wrong. Parental teaching is another matter altogether, for (briefly stated) it is impossible for a parent not to teach a child some view about ultimate spiritual reality. My brother raised his children “in all of the traditions,” as he put it; in the process he taught his kids that no religion was trustworthy or true. That’s coercive parental instruction as much as any other.

There is much more to be said about that, but you are trying to take me far afield, and I am going to follow no further in that direction. I generally respond to comments that are part of the conversations I start with my blog articles, but this matter of coerced conversions is part of some other conversation.

Except for this: “If one believes that the truth holds them, then there is clearly the possibility that the believer will try to compel nonbelievers to accept the believer’s truth.” If you read carefully what I wrote here, you’ll see hints of a Christian response to that question, in the stance of humility that comes with being granted the truth through grace. But I will have more to say about it in a future blog post.

Tom says: “Jaocb, you asked about “coerced conversions.” Short answer: it’s wrong for one person to coerce another to a spiritual decision. (I doubt any genuine spiritual decisions happen under coercion anyway.)”

Christians, like Muslims, have a history of coerced conversions. For instance, the Crusades is one obvious example. Also, some missionaries during the colonial period (e.g. the “scramble for Africa”) offers additional examples. In more contemporary terms, there are examples of certain groups (e.g. my Southern Baptist neighbors) coercing their children to convert (e.g. compelling their children to attend church and worship). All of these examples also get back to the first question that I asked: What are the consequences for those that do not heed your message? If one believes that the truth holds them, then there is clearly the possibility that the believer will try to compel nonbelievers to accept the believer’s truth. I mean, afterall, when one believes that one is right without doubt, then it becomes easy to justify any number of means to get the desired end result: conversion.

I can’t speak for fundamentalists, but for myself I would say that the text means what it says, provided that we interpret it in the full context of the culture of the day, and in light of the full context of Scripture. It does not, however, mean what you seem to think it means, taken out of context as you have done.

After all, Jeremy, this is what you have said on this blog:

Harold Camping wasn’t the first person who thought the world was going to end in his time: I did.

(http://firstthings.com/blogs/evangel/2011/05/campings-crime-turning-judgment-day-into-entertainment-piece/#comment-18462, #5 and #8)

It’s out of context and distorted. That’s what happens to Scripture, too. Some people seem to think they don’t need to understand the full context to grasp what it’s actually affirming, but that’s so obviously wrong, it ought not require any further argument.

Jaocb, you asked about “coerced conversions.” Short answer: it’s wrong for one person to coerce another to a spiritual decision. (I doubt any genuine spiritual decisions happen under coercion anyway.)

You ask,

Is it less arrogant to say?: I don’t think that I’ve picked a truth. No! The truth has picked me and I know it without doubt. It seems that your position is no less arrogant — perhaps even more arrogant to the ears of the very people you are trying to bring to God. How do you respond to those that continue to find your claims arrogant? How can you translate that sense of certainty in a way that does not come across as arrogant?

I’ll be covering that in part three.

You also ask,

What if someone says to this: So what? All I see here is two different *perspectives* on truth: one perspective claims truth is objective and universal and one perspective claims truth is situational and pluralistic. Why should I buy the claim that truth is objective and universal? Or, if it is not a matter buying a claim, explain why. Why has the objective truth not impressed itself on my senses so far in life? And if the truth that holds you is objective and universal, then your proselytizing words mean very little. Conversion is God imposing his objective self on my senses.

What if someone says that? That’s certainly their right. But they would be wrong, as I will also cover in part three. There is objective truth.

Many ports of the Bible present such a horrific and vile view that not even a fundamentalist Christian can take them seriously. A fundamentalist Christian just claims the text is trying to say something else than it really says. Consider the verse about a rapist marrying his victim. Or stoning a disobedient child or killing a witch. Or every non-believer being tortured forever. Or not to eat shellfish.

For those who have heard the Gospel, understood the Gospel, and who reject Christ nonetheless as their Lord and Savior, then a proper Christian response is to know that God is glorified in salvation through His Judgment.

Also, you say:

“Do you see what needs translating there? Let me paraphrase it once again, from a perspective common among non-Christians: “I’ve picked a truth that fits me. You’ve picked a truth that fits you. And now you think you have some high-and-mighty right to impose your truth on me. What an arrogant jerk you are!”

Is it less arrogant to say?: I don’t think that I’ve picked a truth. No! The truth has picked me and I know it without doubt. It seems that your position is no less arrogant — perhaps even more arrogant to the ears of the very people you are trying to bring to God. How do you respond to those that continue to find your claims arrogant? How can you translate that sense of certainty in a way that does not come across as arrogant?

Your risk here is not imposing a claimed “private truth” but imposing a claimed “objective truth.” Just because you claim that the truth is objective and you know that objective truth does not alleviate the sense that you are putting the same wine in different bottles.

Finally, you say:
“Part of our message of translation is this. We need to speak this gently yet with full firmness of the truth: “If you think my position toward truth is arrogant, consider yours and mine in comparison. You think you can shape truth to fit yourself. I don’t. I can only hope to let myself be shaped by the truth. And which of these is more humble: claiming to have your own piece of the truth? Or submitting to the Truth that is far bigger than yourself?” For the true arrogance is that of the person who thinks he can shape his own truth. Real Truth is not so amenable to every person’s personal preferences.”

What if someone says to this: So what? All I see here is two different *perspectives* on truth: one perspective claims truth is objective and universal and one perspective claims truth is situational and pluralistic. Why should I buy the claim that truth is objective and universal? Or, if it is not a matter buying a claim, explain why. Why has the objective truth not impressed itself on my senses so far in life? And if the truth that holds you is objective and universal, then your proselytizing words mean very little. Conversion is God imposing his objective self on my senses.

A: “Re: your ? – If I conveyed that truth accurately, no.”

I agree with you, Milton. You should not bear blame and criticism for having conveyed the truth accurately.

Is there a lesson there for us fallible communicators?

Suppose you, Milton, followed the same pattern, the same trajectory in communication as the Lord did with the “stiff-necked” people of Israel with someone you know, someone who rejects an objective truth of some high import.

Should you bear blame and criticism for *how* you conveyed a truth that was ultimately rejected?

P.S. I have no dispute with you, Milton. Please know that. Your contributions to this thread are immensely appreciated.

OK, how would you describe the passages I referred to? And what do think was the LORD’s intent in having the prophets deliver those messages? It would be nice if you did not avoid answering the question this time. No right or wrong answer here, just your take on the passages.

“Perhaps one could call it “speaking the truth in tough-love”!”

Is a “sarcastic taunt” an example of speaking ” truth-in-tough-love”?

If so, if the Receivers or Recipients of messages that are conveyed in a manner of “tough love” reject the message because they don’t like the “tough love” packaging, is it fair game for folks to criticize and savage the “tough-love” truth-teller for not telling the truth-in-love?

Is a “sarcastic taunt” an example of speaking the truth-in-tough-love?

If so, if the Receivers or Recipients of messages conveyed in the manner of “tough love” reject the message because they don’t like the “tough love” manner, is it fair game for folks to criticize and savage the “tough-love” truth-teller?