Was Paul being politically incorrect?

[bfdd6988]

Titus 1:12-13

Was he engaging in hyperbole or giving justification for stereotyping?

 

[BryanW92]

Paul lived in a time of extreme hardship. Stupid luxuries like political correctness can only be found in cultures of little to no real hardship. In earlier times, people had more important things to worry about than trying to find ways to cry about being offended.

All historical documents, including the bible, need to be read in the context of the times when they occurred and not in our time of over-sensitivity and overabundance.

 

[RDKirk]

Paul was quoting Epimenides (which he also did in Acts 17), and this quote is called the "Epimenides Paradox" (although it's easily solved).

This "old saying" was even by Paul's time what we'd call a "meme" today. In this case, it had a bit more relevance for Titus because the saying was specifically about the long-known refusal of Cretans to accept the idea of an immortal God.

 

[Christownsme]

The writings of Paul were inspired by the Holy Spirit. The purpose and context of Paul's writings are to point to Jesus and to the Gospel that can save. Political correctness is not a very important thing in contrast to the matter at hand - saving souls. Even though I would hesitate to call somebody being "offended" this way a suffering, I suppose it could be. God allows suffering. Is God politically incorrect? He is not a respecter of persons but He gave His Son's life up for us. Now what is more important to discuss?

 

[NewEnglandGirl]

Paul was quoting a line from a poem by Epimenides who lived in Crete 600 years earlier. Epimenides was a poet and philosopher. Some Cretans were known for lying and had a bad reputation. Paul used the quote to point out how Titus's ministry and leadership were needed.

 

[com7fy8]

He was there; he should have known. Titus was going to be there; he was told what to do.

But did Paul mean all people in Crete? I can see there could have been exceptions. Also, what about the Christians; were they always liars and lazy bellies? What I consider is that when a person trusts in Christ, one leaves behind one's identity of being of a certain land or ethnic group. So, the Christians in Christ who had been Cretans would not be included in the statement.

Like this, we have defected to Jesus, from our nations and national identities; we are one family in Jesus. We are His "holy nation" (1 Peter 2:9) ruled by our Father's peace in our hearts >

"And let the peace of God rule in your hearts, to which also you were called in one body; and be thankful." (Colossians 3:15)

So, can see that Paul did not consider any Christians in Crete to have their identity with that place. So, they would not have been included.

 

[RDKirk]

He was there; he should have known. Titus was going to be there; he was told what to do.

But did Paul mean all people in Crete? I can see there could have been exceptions. Also, what about the Christians; were they always liars and lazy bellies? What I consider is that when a person trusts in Christ, one leaves behind one's identity of being of a certain land or ethnic group. So, the Christians in Christ who had been Cretans would not be included in the statement.

Like this, we have defected to Jesus, from our nations and national identities; we are one family in Jesus. We are His "holy nation" (1 Peter 2:9) ruled by our Father's peace in our hearts >

"And let the peace of God rule in your hearts, to which also you were called in one body; and be thankful." (Colossians 3:15)

So, can see that Paul did not consider any Christians in Crete to have their identity with that place. So, they would not have been included.

Once again, Paul was repeating an old saying, a meme, that did have some applicability to the particular challenge that Titus faced in Crete. As reminded by the old saying of Epimenides, the Cretans were, in effect, atheists...which was fairly rare in that time. Most people were moving from a belief in the immortal Graeco-Roman pantheon to the eternal God of Abraham. With Crete, it was a move from atheism (then: "Skepticism") to the eternal God of Abraham. That's a different challenge.

 

[Look Up]

Titus 1:12-13

Was he engaging in hyperbole or giving justification for stereotyping?

The general negative reputation of Cretans in Titus 1 is witnessed not only by Paul and by his more ancient Cretan source as already noted above, but also in similar terms (per George Knight, p. 299) by Cicero and Polybius in antiquity--that and the fact that the Cretans by transliteration lent their bad name to a verb ("cretanize," if you will, but in Greek) meaning "to lie" (also LSJ). And these are but extant examples.

Logically, none of the above implies that the OP dichotomy here between "hyperbole" and "justification for stereotyping" is a fair one for Paul's letter to Titus. There is no apriori reason why a negative generalization is untrue; each charge stands or falls on its own grounds. Nor are modern generalizations subject to inspiration the way the Scriptures are, so negative generalizations outside the Scripture may be challenged (or challenged apart from Scripture), and according to experience seem usually grounded in hypocrisy, injustice, or loathing for the stereotyped party--indeed almost as by way of definition of the word "stereotype," though one may distinguish between a stereotype and a negative generalization at least in that the latter, unlike the former, has yet to be judged as true/fair or not.

Nor does Paul's acceptance of one negative generalization (not of all negative generalizations) end in rationalization for mistreatment or in cavalier dismissal (or in justification for stereotyping); the "sharp" rebuke (v. 13) is intended for the good of the Cretan converts in pastoral terms ("that they may be sound in the faith") and in contents would stand in accord with the ethical demands required of all disciples of Jesus in all churches--truth telling, moral uprightness, and industry (by way of contrast, Tit. 1:12-13). Nor would Paul claim that Cretans alone are sinful, but the whole human race (e.g., Rom. 1-3).

P.S. The matter is complicated contextually in Titus and elsewhere in the pastoral epistles by the Jewish opposition Paul was then encountering, though the above may be adequate for present narrow purposes.

 

[Look Up]

P.P.S Moral relativism (there is no moral truth for everyone), egalitarianism (here: all cultures are equally moral), and a higher education bent more toward picking apart ideas (like generalizations) than putting them together seem to conspire together at least in the US (though I suspect more generally in the West) to looking askance at Paul's negative generalizations of Cretans in Titus 1. Alternately from Paul's perspective it would seem (to put the shoe on the other foot as well as one can under the circumstances), a reluctance to view the general spiritual condition of Cretans in terms he does would seem to say more negatively about the US (or more generally in the West) than about himself.

I can hardly resist reciting the delicious saying, attributed rightly or wrongly to Mark Twain, that, "All generalizations are false, including this one."

 

[joshuanazar]

Paul quoted this poet saying that the Cretians are "always liars and slow bellies". Paul while being inspired of God says that this was a true saying, so I can only conclude that at that time the Cretians were liars and lazy.

We are are Christians and we point people to the truth and even when we do this in the most loving manner, we will offend people who do not want to hear the truth. Jesus offended people to where they wanted him dead. So no. He was politically correct, neither was Jesus and neither am I. We are not called to be politically correct, but to be lights shining in the darkness. To be ambassadors of Christ. To show love.

 

[Look Up]

P.P.P.S In an instructional letter of Paul to Titus intended that Titus "might put what remained in order" among the churches of Crete (1:5), it is also worth comparing the verses under consideration on this thread (1:12-13) with 3:2, "to speak evil of no one, to avoid quarreling, to be gentle, to show perfect courtesy ... ."

To modern readers, contradiction in attitude and practice toward the Cretans may seem apparent between 1:12-13 and 3:2 (e.g., sharp rebuke and gentleness). Yet Paul's letters show a deep and careful thinker; various possible ways of reconciling the two sets of verses in the same epistle come to mind. And the comparison ought to make readers wary of too easy and simple a classification of Paul's negative generalization of Cretans or of his pastoral instructions regarding the spiritual oversight of Cretan Christians.

Yet such considerations scarcely seem justification for the conclusion that Paul's negative generalization of Cretans was necessarily intended as mere hyperbole--Paul's affirmation that the negative generalization "is true" is sincere and direct. And pastoral approaches on Crete would likely require verbal and attitudinal variation depending on individual parishioner while sharp rebuke need not be inconsistent with kindness.

 

[bfdd6988]

Yet such considerations scarcely seem justification for the conclusion that Paul's negative generalization of Cretans was necessarily intended as mere hyperbole--Paul's affirmation that the negative generalization "is true" is sincere and direct. And pastoral approaches on Crete would likely require verbal and attitudinal variation depending on individual parishioner while sharp rebuke need not be inconsistent with kindness.

The "exception" necessitates the "rule"?

 

[joshuanazar]

P.P.P.S In an instructional letter of Paul to Titus intended that Titus "might put what remained in order" among the churches of Crete (1:5), it is also worth comparing the verses under consideration on this thread (1:12-13) with 3:2, "to speak evil of no one, to avoid quarreling, to be gentle, to show perfect courtesy ... ."

To modern readers, contradiction in attitude and practice toward the Cretans may seem apparent between 1:12-13 and 3:2 (e.g., sharp rebuke and gentleness). Yet Paul's letters show a deep and careful thinker; various possible ways of reconciling the two sets of verses in the same epistle come to mind. And the comparison ought to make readers wary of too easy and simple a classification of Paul's negative generalization of Cretans or of his pastoral instructions regarding the spiritual oversight of Cretan Christians.

Yet such considerations scarcely seem justification for the conclusion that Paul's negative generalization of Cretans was necessarily intended as mere hyperbole--Paul's affirmation that the negative generalization "is true" is sincere and direct. And pastoral approaches on Crete would likely require verbal and attitudinal variation depending on individual parishioner while sharp rebuke need not be inconsistent with kindness.

I'm sorry could you explain further? I don't seem to understand what you are trying to say.

 

[Look Up]

I'm sorry could you explain further? I don't seem to understand what you are trying to say.

joshuanazar: Could you be more specific? How would you compare Tit. 1:12-13 and 3:2, for example?

 

[Look Up]

The "exception" necessitates the "rule"?

bfdd6988: Sorry, which rule, which exception, and did you mean "proves" rather than "necessitates" or what did you intend? If Paul was using hyperbole in Tit. 1:12-13, one wonders on what basis his accompanying exhortations and rebuke would be. P.S. The forum software changes have put me a little behind on this thread.