Criticism is something we face each and every day, often from those we may well love and respect. Yet the sting of personal attack can remain long after the sound of the words has ceased. Whether attacks are gentle rebukes from well meaning loved ones or vengeful denunciations from sworn enemies we need to know how to respond.
Acts 24:1-27
September 21, 2003
Responding to Criticism
Criticism is not always easy to take, but often we find joy in giving it. Take for example actual excerpts from the British Royal Navy and Marines officer reports:
His men would follow him anywhere, but only out of curiosity.
He has carried out each and every one of his duties to his entire satisfaction.
He would be out of his depth in a puddle.
This young lady has delusions of adequacy.
Since my last report he has reached rock bottom; he has now started to dig.
She sets low personal standards and then consistently fails to meet them.
He has the wisdom of youth, and the energy of old age.
This man is depriving a village somewhere of an idiot.
Criticism is something we face each and every day, often from those we may well love and respect. Yet the sting of personal attack can remain long after the sound of the words has ceased. Whether attacks are gentle rebukes from well meaning loved ones or vengeful denunciations from sworn enemies we need to know how to respond. We have adages which may help deflect some of the pain:
Don't mind criticism. If it is untrue--disregard it; if it is unfair--don't let it irritate you; if it is ignorant--smile; if it is justified--learn from it.
Maxims may minimize some pain, yet they are only witty when life is easy. But tough times demand more than a cliché. "Grin and bear it" helps only so much when we feel the arrows pierce our skin.
Yet there are many times when criticism becomes an attack, when a disagreement becomes a denunciation, a rebuke a reproach. When you find yourself in another’s crosshairs, the scope fixed on your life, when the bullets being fired are meant to harm - how should we respond? What should our response be when, after we’ve examined ourselves, we know that the criticism is unjust?
Our passage this morning is one of Paul’s defenses before the civil magistrate Felix. In Acts 24 we hear of the prosecution’s case against Paul and then Paul’s rebuttal. In this chapter we see a powerful model of what criticism may look like and how we should respond. READ
We last left Paul as he was secreted out of Jerusalem under the cover of darkness. Days before riots broke out in the Temple precincts as some Jews from Ephesus in Asia Minor spread rumors that Paul had profaned the holy place by bringing in a Gentile into the temple precincts. As the crowd sought his death, he was rescued by the Roman guards. As repeated attempts by the Roman Tribune to ascertain the problem failed and repeated attempts to have Paul snuffed out, it became clear that another authority must weigh in on this case. So Paul is taken to Caeserea, some sixty miles to the northwest. There the governor, Felix, will hear the case and make his decision. From this episode we learn that ...
CRITICISM WILL COME
As we’ve worked our way through Acts we are well acquainted with Paul’s critics. But in our passage Luke records a more formal hearing which allows us some added insight into what was said. While the leaders of Israel gather before the governor, they have a spokesman, their lawyer, do the talking.
They buttered up those that listen 2-4
Critics want you to change, but may also seek to sway opinion against you. To do so takes flattery. It happened here as Tertullus begins. To see his blarney for what it really is, we need to know something about this ruler and how well it coheres with what was said to him by the prosecutor.
Felix was the consummate political animal, with the instincts to match. Born a slave, he was emancipated by the Emperor Claudius due to his brother’s connections with Caesar’s family. His ascendancy to the procuratorial office, something unheard of by a former slave, bears evidence to his avarice and skill.
Yet when Tertullus opens with the praise that through him they enjoyed much peace, one can hear the shovel going to work. But peace (pax romana) was a point of Roman pride. Felix's tenure was marked by constant strife, from the old-style terrorist, messianic impostors and false prophets, or the new threat, sicarii, assassins with their daggers terror. Historians describe the brutal measures he took to deal with these groups. But his measures did not ingratiate him to those he ruled as the Jews turned more against him and stirred up more unrest.
The Roman historian Tacitus said of Felix that he "practiced every kind of cruelty and lust, wielding the power of king with all the instincts of a slave" (Histories 5.9).
What is more, Tertullus praises him for his reforms – which contemporary historians point out were few and far between. His rule was draconian and few accepted him with gratitude.
But Tertullus knew what his audience wanted to hear. The Romans often praised their leaders with having foresight to benevolently rule. Felix’s administrative ineptitude was bound to catch up with him sooner or later, and he was finally removed from office for his total mismanagement of a dispute between the Jews and Gentiles of Caesarea. (24:27).
For this reason it is imperative that when someone comes to you with a criticism of another, listen carefully to how they speak to you. If you are praised and another is scorned, you may be next. Their words may be nothing more than flattery to gain a hearing. Winston Churchill was once asked:
Doesn't it thrill you to know that every time you make a speech, the hall is packed to overflowing?
"It's quite flattering," replied Sir Winston. "But whenever I feel that way, I remember that if instead of making a political speech I was being hanged, the crowd would be twice as big."
They use inflammatory language 5
As Tertullus launches into his attack, he mentions three ways in which Paul is guilty. His attack may well be similar to ways in which people speak falsely of you.
Political attack: Troublemaker – stirring up riots among Jews all over the world
Paul is a subversive, a plague, a boil on the backside of the empire. This was the major charge before a Roman leader, for while Rome was known for its tolerance of a variety of religions and philosophies of life, they would crush any sedition. One who stirs up riots is the worst kind of terrorist, for they disturb the famed Roman peace. .
We know from what Paul wrote in Romans 13 that he never advocated sedition against the powers that be. They are servants of God, in place by God’s power as agents of wrath to bring punishment to those who do wrong and to protect those who do what is right.
It is not uncommon for this charge to be leveled still today. When we speak against immorality in society, the objectionable practices tolerated by so many, others twist our convictions into an intolerance which borders on political subversion.
Religious Attack: Ringleader of the Nazarene sect
Here the attack bears a disparaging title, a prejudicial label. You recall Nathaniel’s retort when he was told that Jesus of Nazareth was the messiah: “Can anything good come out of Nazareth.” As Tertullus equates Christianity with Nazareth, he seeks to marginalize it by claiming it is not only subversive but ignorant.
This area of Palestine was a hotbed of radical zealots whose political goals were best expressed by the edge of a sword. Felix dealt constantly with these types, so the language puts their faith in terms of ignorant rebellion.
The shower of insult at Christians in recent years is typified by the Washington Post's sneer that they are "poor, uneducated and easily led." Such pronouncements resonate with a large segment of the population: according to a study published in Public Opinion Quarterly in 1999, a remarkable 37 percent of highly educated white Americans hold "intensely antagonistic feelings" toward evangelicals. With sweeping accusations, a whole segment of the population is set off to the side, their contributions unwanted. Such is the nature of a religious attack.
Criminal Attack: desecrate the temple
Roman law allowed the Jews to execute those who desecrate the temple. Thus Felix would be obligated to turn Paul over the Sanhedrin. Yet this charge was based faulty testimony by those not present in the courtroom. This charge could not easily be proved or disproved. It was surely a case of throwing mud and hoping some of it would stick.
CRITICISM MUST BE RESPONDED TO WITH
Fairness not flattery v10
Paul begins his appeal with likewise propriety, but without the effusive adoration. He states what is true and fair - you have been judge of this nation for many years.
Reflecting what Peter says in 1 Peter 2:17 that "we are to honor the King", Paul shows in his address. Even if we disagree with the policy of the government or behavior of individuals in high places, it is imperative that we always carry ourselves with quiet respectfulness.
Facts not fiction v11-21
We should deny false accusations when accused vv11-13
There is nothing inherently Christian in saying nothing
Don’t use that Jesus silent at his trial, using 1 Peter 3 as example. You aren’t the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world. There are times when silence may be the best response. But to set the record straight may be called for.
He does not deny that the crowds were stirred up, but just that he went there to do that.
He has no history of insurrection among the Jews in Jerusalem as he did not even dispute with any of them when in town. What is more, he was there only 12 days, not enough time to establish a rebellion.
We should clearly admit what we did vv14-21
He admits he is a follower of the Way
With this term he redefines the pejorative label, making a powerful statement about the relationship of Judaism and Christianity. It is not a sect of Judaism; it is the natural child of Judaism. As Christ is the way, the truth and the life, to follow Christ is to follow the faith of the fathers. Paul believed in the God of his completed Word, Old and New Testaments
He confesses faith in the revealed Word of God
Our authority for following Jesus as the Messiah is in the Scriptures and not in any merely subjective impressions or speculative teachings. Notice that Paul does not appeal to his own apostolic inspiration, but to the law and to the prophets.
He declares his hope of the resurrection of both the righteous and the wicked
Felix would know this and may conclude this as a theological and not a political issue. It is the Sadducees who were sectarian, for they denied the more universal faith of the resurrection.
Paul places the spotlight on the key issue – the resurrection. This belief was central to Jews and irrelevant to the Romans, thus his accusers have no case.
Paul's introduction of the resurrection issue is not only good defense strategy but also good evangelism. To speak of the final accounting before God and the eternal destiny that flows from it is to point out one of the certainties of human existence. Many may run from it, following alternate paths of reincarnation or annihilation. But all will have to face judgment. The resurrection of Jesus--proof of coming judgment, promise of eternal salvation--must be at the heart of all "good news" preaching
His conscience is clear before God and man
He made this argument before but it bears repeating. The basis on which his conscience is clear: the absolute standard of truth, the revealed Word of God. His certainty was not his subjective feelings, but flowing from what God said in his Word.
1500 years later another man stood condemned before the bar of justice. Martin Luther, when demanded he recant his writings clarifying the role of God as the one who justifies the guilty sinner said: My conscience has been taken captive by the Word of God, and to go against conscience or Scripture is neither right nor safe.
CRITICISM MUST BE UNDERSTOOD IN LIGHT OF ETERNITY 24:22-27
What Luke summarizes of Paul’s address to Felix in the coming weeks gives us a good glimpse of how we too can handle criticism. Three succinct words put criticism in perspective. Paul pulled no punches. Although his life lay in the hands of a fickle ruler, he spoke the necessary truth.
Righteousness
This term may be used in two ways, but here the primary meaning of ethical demands upon one’s life is at the forefront. As mentioned before, Felix was far from ethical. His ability to do right extended only as far as his desire to satisfy himself.
In v26 Luke tells us that he often spoke with Paul, but not out of a sense of learning and growth, but in the desire for a bribe. Paul was clear on the law of God as it applied to his audience. Having been criticized he could have tried the flattery of Tertullus, but instead he stood firm on what Scripture demanded.
Self-control
It is one thing to know what is right, but another to do what is right. Paul also pointed out the necessity for righteousness to be present not just when it is easy, but over the long haul.
It appears that Paul’s message, Paul’s response to those who would criticism him incorporated both the law and the gospel. He did not confine himself to the act of believing – a gospel sales pitch on saving faith – but expounded the content of the life of faith.
Paul’s ability to deal with these two topics given his audience is a great encouragement to us when we need to stand firm before unjust criticism.
In v24 Luke says both Felix and Drusilla would listen to Paul speak about faith in Christ.
Drusilla, Felix' third wife, was the daughter of Herod Agrippa. Felix was her second husband. He had persuaded her, with the help of a magician, to leave her first husband while she was still in her teens. Indeed, she wasn't quite 20 years old in Acts 24. Both Felix and Drusilla were known for their decadence. Tacitus said Felix indulged in "every kind of barbarity and lust. What they lacked, righteousness and self control, was evident.
While we live in an age in which people may agree that something is wrong, what these twin reminders of righteousness and self control point out that it is not just that something is wrong but someone is wrong. The good news is useless unless people grapple with the bad news.
Coming Judgment
Paul then drives home the implications of the lack of righteousness and self control – there will be an accounting of our lives before God.
This is fearsome, unless we have hope in the resurrection that Paul did, but remember these three are expressed in the context of explaining what faith in Jesus Christ is all about. It is only in the context of faith in Christ that we can face the judgment to come, for while we must be righteous and self controlled, we are not. It is only through faith in Christ that we can live here and now in a way that is righteous and self controlled.
Paul’s triad here, his three topics of conversation have been called the three tenses of salvation. The first, righteousness points not only to our lack, but that a just God provides righteousness in his Son, Jesus Christ. Justification is that act of God’s free grace whereby the guilty is set free because of the payment by another. Then comes the life of the Christ, the gracious gift of persevering in grace, of living a life of self control. That is the present tense. This is the core of what is involved in the Christian life today. The final phase deals with the future where clothed in the righteousness of Christ, empowered by his grace to live a holy life, we can face the final judgment.
It is no wonder that Felix was afraid, for without faith in Christ, trusting the work of another instead of one’s own, fear would result.
In his fear he sends Paul away, content to talk when it is convenient and comfortable. But while Paul is in custody, captive to the Roman and Jewish wishes, it is Paul who is free and Felix who is a slave to his own unbelief
There are those who will sneer at such a simple message of good news. Their criticism is that to trust in another’s righteousness is impossible and ineffective. If the resultant changed life is seen, they are quick to pronounce hypocrisy of some sin, real or imagined. What is more, the future judgment is either non-existent or unimportant as all will equally be acquitted regardless of faith in Christ.
Criticism then and now is little different. It is quite similar to when Robert Fulton first introduced his new invention the steamboat, plenty of critics crowded on the river bank. These critics yelled, "It’ll never start, it’ll never start." Fulton proved them wrong. After a lot of clanking and groaning, it started moving down the river. The critics were momentarily quiet. Then they rallied and hollered, "It’ll never stop, it’ll never stop!" Never strive to please the critics, because you never will.
