Y’know, now that I think of it, Jesus rarely singled out specific sinners unless He was provoked by more than just the knowledge that they were sinners. Although He certainly didn’t hold back or sugar coat things for them, He normally did speak out against their sins in the context of public speaking and speeches. Aside from the incident with turning over tables in the temple, He actually spoke in ways that, though not “politically correct,” could by no means be considered harassment even by “polite society” standards. He preached what He thought (well, being Jesus, what He knew
), and preached it in public, but I scarcely read in the Gospels where He harassed an individual; for instance, if someone tried to walk away from one of His public sermons, and it is not unreasonable to believe someone might have from time to time, nowhere do I see Him saying “Hey you!
You’re the sinner I’m talking to.”
It appears to me that Jesus preached passionately, and not “politically correctly”, but also in a very “Take it or leave it” manner that would only [directly] interfere in the lives of individuals who ultimately
wanted to listen, aside from the consequences of the next life of course. It seems Jesus spoke of, and condemned,
sin directly and frankly, but usually left the
sinner to realize for
himself that he was guilty. Instead of saying “Hey Joe, you’re fornicating, and that’s a sin,” in the Gospels Jesus seemed more the type to speak out publicly, within ear-shot of Joe, about several things being sinful, among which would be fornication–note that Joe has no reason during the whole thing to think he as an individual is being singled out, harassed, or humiliated. Instead, Joe would realize, due to simple and obvious deductive reasoning, that the designation of “sinner” would apply to him as well, with whatever consequences would come with it if he did not repent. Even with the woman at the well, to whom Jesus
does directly say the equivalent of “I know what you’ve done,” He doesn’t follow up with anything preachy, and seems instead to realize that–since she already has enough information to know Who He is and what He stands for–she knows He does not approve without having to be brow beaten. From there on, she is free to hear Him out on the details of His theology if she
wishes. In her case, her reaction indicates she does.
The closest Jesus comes to directly targeting sinners (as opposed to sin) was when speaking against the Pharisees. Even this wasn’t the equivalent, however, of relentlessly stalking stubborn sinners who nonetheless only wanted to go about their own business. The Pharisees were self-righteous, judgmental, and at times directly
provoked Jesus. They were quick to condemn sins they didn’t struggle with–such as fornication, etc–but not so quick to condemn sins they themselves struggled with, such as greed and heardheartedness. Because they were public figures, potentially leading so many people astray with their half-truths, the only proportionate response to them was to publically correct them; Jesus could afford to leave no doubt about their hypocrisy if He didn’t want the common people thinking things such as “Okay, adultery’s wrong, but greed’s alright, because the Pharisees never touch on it.” Besides that, even His preaching against the
Pharisees was usually condemning their
collective or
typical actions rather than singling out an individual Pharisee and hounding him until he either threw up his hands in defeat or told Jesus to leave him alone. He even had dinner with a Pharisee and there seems to be no indication that it was going unpleasantly; in fact this one-on-one interaction is a rare case where, even when the Pharisee showed
contempt for a fellow sinner, Jesus’ method of correcting him wasn’t particularly scathing, possibly because the Pharisee wasn’t proudly displaying that contempt outwardly.
All in all, it seems one-on-one conversation with Jesus might, for all we know, have been quite friendly, possibly even for a
stubborn sinner as long as that sinner knew where Jesus stood on the matter and wasn’t the one proudly bringing up the subject…and also so long as the sinner didn’t have the audacity to show disgust or harassment toward some other individual sinner while reveling in his own pride.
So even though Jesus was not at
all politically correct, it doesn’t necessarily follow that He was what I think we would ordinarily call rude. It appears that, even for Jesus, being uncompromising and bold did not necessarily mean being as “in your face” as sometimes He is perceived to have been, at least not so far as I can see.
Even Paul, as easily angered as he was, appears to condone harsh reactions to individual sinners only insofar as they simultaneously claimed to be Christian and made it appear that their sinful actions were
acceptable in the Faith. This is similar to Jesus’ treatment of the Pharisees, and is more concerned with proud “Christian” sinners misleading believers than with individuals who didn’t claim to be Christian at all or who, although Christian, didn’t profess or make it appear that their sins were compatible with their Faith. An example of those Paul condemned would be such people–Catholic or otherwise–as who not only disobey Church Teaching but teach or give the impression that this is perfectly compatible with
Catholicism. I would also think, as
non-Christians go, bogus attempts–as such attempts always are–to “debunk” Christianity would register as similar deception and warrant similar anger, due to possibly misleading sincere Christians into giving up faith. It seems to be
deception, which can make even honest Christians stray, that gets Paul’s blood most boiling, as it did to Jesus, as indeed it should do the same to us.
Blessings in Christ,
KindredSoul
I thought the Lutheran church was named for Martin Luther…hence the tracing back to the Protestant Movement. I’m sorry if this was in error.